From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
To: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] If you had a single chance to double the transactions/second Bitcoin allows...
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 23:01:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBjRFTZxOOg8ZUhTVqbZDJusZ4xyooRh1LcvwbBDSLu1oA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKzdR-o7_A2N=-=3muXcs7ptnoO2d3wSBAMAziNGs7XjnceGBQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1461 bytes --]
On Aug 7, 2015 11:19 PM, "Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> b. Reduce the block rate to a half (average 5 minute blocks)
>
> Suppose this is a one time hard fork. There no drastic technical problems
with any of them: "SPV" mining and the relay network has shown that block
propagation is not an issue for such as small change. Mining centralization
won't radically change for a 2x adjustment.
I don't understand this. All problems that result from propagation delay
are literally doubled by doing so. Centralization pressure results from the
ratio between propagation time and interblock time. Efficient propagation
algorithms like the relay network make this presumably grow sublinear with
larger blocks, but changing the interblock time affects it exactly
proportionally.
All problems that result from propagation delay are literally doubled by
doing this. Doubling the block size has a smaller effect. You may argue
that these centralization effects are small, but reducing the interblock
time has a stronger effect on them than the block size.
Also, you seem to consider SPV mining a good thing? It requires trust
between miners that know eachother, and fundamentally breaks the security
assumption of SPV clients... and if the propagation/interblock ratio was
lower, SPV mining would have less effect. I'd say it is exactly a result of
the centralization pressure we're trying to avoid.
--
Pieter
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1684 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-10 21:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-07 21:18 Sergio Demian Lerner
2015-08-07 21:27 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-07 21:37 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2015-08-07 22:46 ` Natanael
2015-08-07 23:01 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-07 23:08 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2015-08-07 23:17 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-10 20:44 ` Michael Ruddy
2015-08-10 21:01 ` Pieter Wuille [this message]
2015-08-10 22:11 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2015-08-10 22:31 ` Pieter Wuille
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAPg+sBjRFTZxOOg8ZUhTVqbZDJusZ4xyooRh1LcvwbBDSLu1oA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=sergio.d.lerner@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox