Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements

From: Gavin Andresen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 08:51:04 -0400

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Peter Todd <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Yeah, I'm pretty surprised myself that Gavin never accepted the
> compromises offered by others in this space for a slow growth solution
>

What compromise? I haven't seen a specific proposal that could be turned
into a pull request.

> Something important to note in Gavin Andresen's analysises of this issue
> is that he's using quite optimistic scenarios for how nodes are
> connected to each other.

NO I AM NOT.

I simulated a variety of connectivities; see the .cfg files at
  https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin_miningsim

The results I give in the "are bigger blocks better" blog post are for
WORST CASE connectivity (one dominant big miner, multiple little miners,
big miner connects to only 30% of little miners, but all the little miners
connected directly to each other).

> For instance, assuming that connections between
> miners are direct is a very optimistic assumption

Again, I did not simulate all miners directly connected to each other.

I will note that miners are VERY HIGHLY connected today. It is in their
best interest to be highly connected to each other.

> that depends on a
> permissive, unregulated, environment where miners co-operate with each
> other - obviously that's easily subject to change!

Really? How is that easily subject to change? If it is easily subject to
change, do bigger blocks have any effect? Why are 1MB blocks not subject to
change?

I talk about "what if your government bans Bitcoin entirely" here:
   http://gavinandresen.ninja/big-blocks-and-tor

... and the issues are essentially the same, independent of block size.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen