To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <CAED3CWgTOMFgaM6bBfU0Dn-R0NrdrhGAQo34wHEneYkTtB4Opg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEieSeSw04FYCCa-Df+V6BgJo1RHqPvJWt9t=c-JCC=dnhraWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDp0o5DBzuoyZ=SFvnBXTwPYFWhdOqUPkP_M_3koNMVP1g@mail.gmail.com>
	<55D5AA8E.7070403@bitcoins.info>
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Message-ID: <55D67017.9000106@thinlink.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:25:59 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55D5AA8E.7070403@bitcoins.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap
Precedence: list

On 8/20/2015 3:23 AM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> For the 73th time or so this month on this list:
>>
>> The maximum block size consensus rule limits mining centralization
>> (which is currently pretty bad).
>
> Instead of posting all these messages with bald claims why don't you 
> work on a decentralization metric which you can point to? (instead of 
> trying to claim people don't understand things which is clearly not 
> the case,  You are just attacking people you don't agree with).


Pieter built a nice simulation tool and posted some results.

I tweaked the parameters and ran the tool in a way that tested ONLY for 
hashrate centralization effects, and did not conflate these with network 
partitioning effects.

I found that small miners were not at all disadvantaged by large blocks.

The only person who commented on this result agreed with me.  He also 
complimented Pieter's insight (which is entirely appropriate since 
Pieter did the hard work of creating the tool).

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008820.html