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 <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1Z3SeP-0001bd-Kj
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:21:53 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.215.54 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.215.54; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-la0-f54.google.com; 
Received: from mail-la0-f54.google.com ([209.85.215.54])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Z3SeO-0001tX-PV
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:21:53 +0000
Received: by labko7 with SMTP id ko7so25097775lab.2
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.22.99 with SMTP id c3mr16502362laf.32.1434129706394;
	Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.90.75 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBi5fYHGLv4wtWbWE7jov8CX=q9UX=vhxDVepG6JfX30+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBi5fYHGLv4wtWbWE7jov8CX=q9UX=vhxDVepG6JfX30+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:21:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T1=+S+dAdwASECUCkrVaMFT0TcmL7MiwnCuCx0MkF6sWw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158b6c0b62aaf05185557ba
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Z3SeO-0001tX-PV
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Mining centralization pressure from
 non-uniform propagation speed
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: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:21:53 -0000

--089e0158b6c0b62aaf05185557ba
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Nice work, Pieter. You're right that my simulation assumed bandwidth for
'block' messages isn't the bottleneck.

But doesn't Matt's fast relay network (and the work I believe we're both
planning on doing in the near future to further optimize block propagation)
make both of our simulations irrelevant in the long-run?

Or, even simpler, why couldn't the little miners just run their
block-assembling-and-announcing code on the other high-bandwidth-side of
the bandwidth bottleneck?

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

--089e0158b6c0b62aaf05185557ba
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Nice work, Pieter. You&#39;re r=
ight that my simulation assumed bandwidth for &#39;block&#39; messages isn&=
#39;t the bottleneck.</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra">But doesn&#39;t Matt&#39;s fast relay network (and the wor=
k I believe we&#39;re both planning on doing in the near future to further =
optimize block propagation) make both of our simulations irrelevant in the =
long-run?</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div><br></div><div>Or, even simp=
ler, why couldn&#39;t the little miners just run their block-assembling-and=
-announcing code on the other high-bandwidth-side of the bandwidth bottlene=
ck?</div><div><br></div>-- <br><div>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div><div><br>=
</div>
</div></div>

--089e0158b6c0b62aaf05185557ba--