1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <tomh@thinlink.com>) id 1Z5hru-0005h7-L7
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:01:06 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-pd0-f174.google.com ([209.85.192.174])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z5hrr-0007NZ-KO
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:01:06 +0000
Received: by pdjn11 with SMTP id n11so75357732pdj.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=w+DWrcCfoY76r4PEJi1035yOwob7Gu7JIridxT6Gaio=;
b=MunTNS4hg61Anc4PGix1OaPzH+zPikVt9SQf9IJquAlIF1gR8ubqqR7j8843+X/B+y
SF9YAU201C8rZFwDLbTuoNo52LFTk/Z2n2RN4glJFeYeSC83MmzlDQ0ISActahWdXj48
rV8DUgqp4XMrkS9fnKKnLQbMuMGBoGBgMIVrUTo68nm1I81NPameZOzcioxCWA7OaykH
O2ZIq0+dVoH9c+RV4Fjt5FceuoG7FZYYYyBLwC6P8sqpzihsPeTAykq3SuwJoahvpIU/
gP0NAsM4ZDKV7hpF3XeKUyCCpVzjNkG4lFRA/6xLPRkObiPx37ED3ANqW4Z9aR1mi0ZY
ih5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm92nB4FWDMofKa8O1DjMQEOxmzUH5NJI7KNir3pMIXiBZAjty/eC08esEGKrnh6sJQ7p4A
X-Received: by 10.68.87.35 with SMTP id u3mr25029378pbz.127.1434664857839;
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.100.1.239] ([204.58.254.99])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qa1sm9087370pab.0.2015.06.18.15.00.55
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55833F87.3090408@thinlink.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:00:39 -0700
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBi5fYHGLv4wtWbWE7jov8CX=q9UX=vhxDVepG6JfX30+g@mail.gmail.com>
<557DBDCC.5040106@student.ethz.ch>
In-Reply-To: <557DBDCC.5040106@student.ethz.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.6 RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB RBL: SORBS: sender is an abusable web server
[204.58.254.99 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
X-Headers-End: 1Z5hrr-0007NZ-KO
Cc: 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: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:01:06 -0000
On 06/12/2015 06:51 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
>> However, it does very clearly show the effects of
>> larger blocks on centralization pressure of the system.
On 6/14/2015 10:45 AM, Jonas Nick wrote:
> This means that your scenario is not the result of a cartel but the result of a long-term network partition.
>
Pieter, to Jonas' point, in your scenario the big miners are all part of
the majority partition, so "centralization pressure" (pressure to merge
with a big miner) cannot be separated from "pressure to be connected to
the majority partition".
I ran your simulation with a large (20%) miner in a 20% minority
partition, and 16 small (5%) miners in a majority 80% partition, well
connected. The starting point was your recent update, which had a more
realistic "slow link" speed of 100 Mbit/s (making all of the effects
smaller).
To summarize the results across both your run and mine:
** Making small blocks when others are making big ones -> BAD
** As above, and fees are enormous -> VERY BAD
** Being separated by a slow link from majority hash power -> BAD
** Being a small miner with blocksize=20MB -> *NOT BAD*
Configuration:
* Miner group 0: 20.000000% hashrate, blocksize 20000000.000000
* Miner group 1: 80.000000% hashrate, blocksize 1000000.000000
* Expected average block size: 4800000.000000
* Average fee per block: 0.250000
* Fee per byte: 0.0000000521
Result:
* Miner group 0: 20.404704% income (factor 1.020235 with hashrate)
* Miner group 1: 79.595296% income (factor 0.994941 with hashrate)
Configuration:
* Miner group 0: 20.000000% hashrate, blocksize 20000000.000000
* Miner group 1: 80.000000% hashrate, blocksize 20000000.000000
* Expected average block size: 20000000.000000
* Average fee per block: 0.250000
* Fee per byte: 0.0000000125
Result:
* Miner group 0: 19.864232% income (factor 0.993212 with hashrate)
* Miner group 1: 80.135768% income (factor 1.001697 with hashrate)
Configuration:
* Miner group 0: 20.000000% hashrate, blocksize 20000000.000000
* Miner group 1: 80.000000% hashrate, blocksize 1000000.000000
* Expected average block size: 4800000.000000
* Average fee per block: 25.000000
* Fee per byte: 0.0000052083
Result:
* Miner group 0: 51.316895% income (factor 2.565845 with hashrate)
* Miner group 1: 48.683105% income (factor 0.608539 with hashrate)
Configuration:
* Miner group 0: 20.000000% hashrate, blocksize 20000000.000000
* Miner group 1: 80.000000% hashrate, blocksize 20000000.000000
* Expected average block size: 20000000.000000
* Average fee per block: 25.000000
* Fee per byte: 0.0000012500
Result:
* Miner group 0: 19.865943% income (factor 0.993297 with hashrate)
* Miner group 1: 80.134057% income (factor 1.001676 with hashrate)
|
