diff options
| author | Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> | 2015-05-31 09:05:30 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-05-31 07:05:43 +0000 |
| commit | 590c0770b048fe3d73db356bf8b7d58456ca9c98 (patch) | |
| tree | f4e1b1bf8cd7a912a35b6e9c42f7c72093b794d2 | |
| parent | 8a7f5a7515e10c54cac1dfa9badc5cb91c04aab0 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-590c0770b048fe3d73db356bf8b7d58456ca9c98.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-590c0770b048fe3d73db356bf8b7d58456ca9c98.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements
| -rw-r--r-- | 15/250c9a72be837f37b86c7522931d5d9ad4d1a1 | 143 |
1 files changed, 143 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/15/250c9a72be837f37b86c7522931d5d9ad4d1a1 b/15/250c9a72be837f37b86c7522931d5d9ad4d1a1 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..436ec1d5c --- /dev/null +++ b/15/250c9a72be837f37b86c7522931d5d9ad4d1a1 @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1YyxJX-0008T2-Su + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Sun, 31 May 2015 07:05:43 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org + designates 62.13.148.107 as permitted sender) + client-ip=62.13.148.107; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; + helo=outmail148107.authsmtp.com; +Received: from outmail148107.authsmtp.com ([62.13.148.107]) + by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + id 1YyxJW-0007md-HQ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Sun, 31 May 2015 07:05:43 +0000 +Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) + by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t4V75Xhe040444; + Sun, 31 May 2015 08:05:33 +0100 (BST) +Received: from muck ([80.123.251.178]) (authenticated bits=128) + by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t4V75U2s087709 + (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); + Sun, 31 May 2015 08:05:32 +0100 (BST) +Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 09:05:30 +0200 +From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> +To: Chun Wang <1240902@gmail.com> +Message-ID: <20150531070530.GD12966@muck> +References: <554BE0E1.5030001@bluematt.me> + <CAFzgq-xByQ1E_33_m3UpXQFUkGc78HKnA=7XXMshANDuTkNsvA@mail.gmail.com> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; + protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cHMo6Wbp1wrKhbfi" +Content-Disposition: inline +In-Reply-To: <CAFzgq-xByQ1E_33_m3UpXQFUkGc78HKnA=7XXMshANDuTkNsvA@mail.gmail.com> +X-Server-Quench: 6da45c4e-0763-11e5-b396-002590a15da7 +X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: + http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse +X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR + aAdMdQMUFVQNAgsB AmMbW1xeUFh7WmE7 YwpPbAdefEhLXhtr + V0BWR1pVCwQmRRhn ARt7UFpyfwJBeHc+ ZERgWXYVWhArcUMu + RhtJFWoAZnphaTUa TRJbfgVJcANIexZF O1F6ACIKLwdSbGoL + NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDNDo7 TBNKJjQ9EAUkQS4p + IhU9JxYmEV8MM18/ NFYnRUlw +X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 +X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) +X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 80.123.251.178/587 +X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own + anti-virus system. +X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for + sender-domain + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record +X-Headers-End: 1YyxJW-0007md-HQ +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase Requirements +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 07:05:43 -0000 + + +--cHMo6Wbp1wrKhbfi +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +Content-Disposition: inline +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 07:42:16AM +0800, Chun Wang wrote: +> Hello. I am from F2Pool. We are currently mining the biggest blocks on +> the network. So far top 100 biggest bitcoin blocks are all from us. We +> do support bigger blocks and sooner rather than later. But we cannot +> handle 20 MB blocks right now. I know most blocks would not be 20 MB +> over night. But only if a small fraction of blocks more than 10 MB, it +> could dramatically increase of our orphan rate, result of higher fee +> to miners. Bad miners could attack us and the network with artificial +> big blocks. As yhou know, other Chinese pools, AntPool, BW, they +> produces ASIC chips and mining mostly with their own machines. They do +> not care about a few percent of orphan increase as much as we do. They +> would continue their zero fee policy. We would be the biggest loser. +> As the exchanges had taught us, zero fee is not health to the network. +> Also we have to redevelop our block broadcast logic. Server bandwidth +> is a lot more expensive in China. And the Internet is slow. Currently +> China has more than 50% of mining power, if block size increases, I +> bet European and American pools could suffer more than us. We think +> the max block size should be increased, but must be increased +> smoothly, 2 MB first, and then after one or two years 4 MB, then 8 MB, +> and so on. Thanks. + +Great to hear from you! + +Yeah, I'm pretty surprised myself that Gavin never accepted the +compromises offered by others in this space for a slow growth solution, +rather than starting with over an order of magnitude blocksize increase. +This is particularly surprising when his own calculations - after +correcting an artithmetic error - came up with 8MB blocks rather than +20MB. + +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. For instance, assuming that connections between +miners are direct is a very optimistic assumption that depends on a +permissive, unregulated, environment where miners co-operate with each +other - obviously that's easily subject to change! Better block +broadcasting logic helps this in the "co-operation" case, but there's +not much it can do in the worst-case. + + +Unrelated: feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions +re: the BIP66 upgrade; I hear you guys were planning on upgrading your +mining nodes soon. + +--=20 +'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org +00000000000000000db932d1cbd04a29d8e55989eda3f096d3ab8e8d95eb28e9 + +--cHMo6Wbp1wrKhbfi +Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" +Content-Description: Digital signature + +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- + +iQGrBAEBCACVBQJVarK3XhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw +MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwOGU2ODQwZDUzOWZjMzQwOTgzZTdhMWNlMDBlMTQ2Yjk3 +ZjA5MGIwZWYzNzAxNTMvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 +ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQwIXyHOf0udxTjwf9EYcYDd9ERsa3S8lhB6X5mGVM +u5OQ0DjKRpM51M2ITiwwzwkXhEDcbn1YpPJlg5Z9/xdRmrueZQsYsDXxuBoLtVqV +Wv+9O/WbW7/4It8rNiF4S1sHDfYSQwNeEozI9vgLw9WT7E3gNWxOp921jiqpey5a +dqVRnOT72wL+rmvubcDTmmQ6lUPt99DIsimAc2k9bfZhP7O7bmg/uJx4+Fqiksex +2Tenru0K1dhic/zXufLPIyquoIWbVOcyk20XAi0SbQqouByGEroRaEG9oU3lD6Ho +Puoa/Cd9YMoAX5VSenYZYN2X2D3xJOSPb2AVbmLexE2MrFbmsorEIQQ7hiYqHw== +=vDwH +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- + +--cHMo6Wbp1wrKhbfi-- + + |