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
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <yifu@coinapex.com>) id 1Z5l9A-0002sq-CT
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 01:31:08 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of coinapex.com
designates 209.85.218.72 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.218.72; envelope-from=yifu@coinapex.com;
helo=mail-oi0-f72.google.com;
Received: from mail-oi0-f72.google.com ([209.85.218.72])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z5l98-0000M0-9N
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 01:31:08 +0000
Received: by oiyy130 with SMTP id y130so103656025oiy.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 18:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=0deLW/1rPCgSd8OjtLrUuBuCvVhHogZSO2LT2MmyCV0=;
b=gToIc/dTLVa3rlI7xGBds8PxpNck83SiGMXH97BrMfdWZ6Z8LTavEc1+PNZCeBbRgJ
0Lh+bZJP/REl/MdnXLwtqbwr6ZGFjFNrGaZ5P9yD0OlypwIF6I2BdkqIbrO/fJ5Ph/gc
KAnvcpc64ngaLB1Jl5L3URnQGV+oWJmNbrAt549bd3ZmXBrtaWFwpTdQPXvI7e1ab4Gf
weO2JQitQxF+kBYudFN5y5D+KBBwgJ0oP9ekfQ5i9I0Pxc8gOo1v4IKS7HOrSwR63GII
xXEfnNmnh8ma9tkOVhS8BAKl5t4NLVjWM52/i56nNaggMbg3/I8GfEvWNzbRBH8d0usl
G9rg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlrjYcUdB5HkbOcIg62VJnp1TrTSgsuWggI0F6tr8eGhbAiL29oVxVcKk6FevrGu7kAn2D6
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.72.4 with SMTP id v4mr8873374oia.82.1434677460811; Thu,
18 Jun 2015 18:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.115.83 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 18:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55833F87.3090408@thinlink.com>
References: <CAPg+sBi5fYHGLv4wtWbWE7jov8CX=q9UX=vhxDVepG6JfX30+g@mail.gmail.com>
<557DBDCC.5040106@student.ethz.ch> <55833F87.3090408@thinlink.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:31:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHcfU-WQAqz_tEUSho3TVBdaF8qW=uLZ+eVXb4eiGDDZy9w9ZA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yifu Guo <yifu@coinapex.com>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113db5a86b5d240518d4e002
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 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: 1Z5l98-0000M0-9N
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, 19 Jun 2015 01:31:08 -0000
--001a113db5a86b5d240518d4e002
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Nice insight Peter,
This further confirms the real problem, which doesn't have much to do with
blocksize but rather the connectivity of nodes in countries with
not-so-friendly internet policies and deceptive connectivity.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com> wrote:
> 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)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
--
*Yifu Guo*
*"Life is an everlasting self-improvement."*
--001a113db5a86b5d240518d4e002
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Nice insight Peter,<div><br></div><div>This further confir=
ms the real problem, which doesn't have much to do with blocksize but r=
ather the connectivity of nodes in countries with not-so-friendly internet =
policies and deceptive connectivity.</div><div><br></div></div><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:0=
0 PM, Tom Harding <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:tomh@thinlink.com=
" target=3D"_blank">tomh@thinlink.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid=
;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On 06/12/2015 06:51 PM, Pieter Wuille w=
rote:<br>
</span><span class=3D"">>> However, it does very clearly show the eff=
ects of<br>
>> larger blocks on centralization pressure of the system.<br>
<br>
</span><span class=3D"">On 6/14/2015 10:45 AM, Jonas Nick wrote:<br>
> This means that your scenario is not the result of a cartel but the re=
sult of a long-term network partition.<br>
><br>
<br>
</span>Pieter, to Jonas' point, in your scenario the big miners are all=
part of<br>
the majority partition, so "centralization pressure" (pressure to=
merge<br>
with a big miner) cannot be separated from "pressure to be connected t=
o<br>
the majority partition".<br>
<br>
I ran your simulation with a large (20%) miner in a 20% minority<br>
partition, and 16 small (5%) miners in a majority 80% partition, well<br>
connected.=C2=A0 The starting point was your recent update, which had a mor=
e<br>
realistic "slow link" speed of 100 Mbit/s (making all of the effe=
cts<br>
smaller).<br>
<br>
To summarize the results across both your run and mine:<br>
<br>
** Making small blocks when others are making big ones -> BAD<br>
** As above, and fees are enormous -> VERY BAD<br>
<br>
** Being separated by a slow link from majority hash power -> BAD<br>
<br>
** Being a small miner with blocksize=3D20MB -> *NOT BAD*<br>
<br>
<br>
Configuration:<br>
<span class=3D"">=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 0: 20.000000% hashrate, blocksi=
ze 20000000.000000<br>
</span><span class=3D"">=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 1: 80.000000% hashrate, =
blocksize 1000000.000000<br>
</span>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Expected average block size: 4800000.000000<br>
<span class=3D"">=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Average fee per block: 0.250000<br>
</span>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Fee per byte: 0.0000000521<br>
Result:<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 0: 20.404704% income (factor 1.020235 with hashr=
ate)<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 1: 79.595296% income (factor 0.994941 with hashr=
ate)<br>
<br>
Configuration:<br>
<span class=3D"">=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 0: 20.000000% hashrate, blocksi=
ze 20000000.000000<br>
</span><span class=3D"">=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 1: 80.000000% hashrate, =
blocksize 20000000.000000<br>
</span><span class=3D"">=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Expected average block size: 2000000=
0.000000<br>
</span><span class=3D"">=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Average fee per block: 0.250000<br>
</span>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Fee per byte: 0.0000000125<br>
Result:<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 0: 19.864232% income (factor 0.993212 with hashr=
ate)<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 1: 80.135768% income (factor 1.001697 with hashr=
ate)<br>
<br>
Configuration:<br>
<span class=3D"">=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 0: 20.000000% hashrate, blocksi=
ze 20000000.000000<br>
</span><span class=3D"">=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 1: 80.000000% hashrate, =
blocksize 1000000.000000<br>
</span>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Expected average block size: 4800000.000000<br>
<span class=3D"">=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Average fee per block: 25.000000<br>
</span>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Fee per byte: 0.0000052083<br>
Result:<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 0: 51.316895% income (factor 2.565845 with hashr=
ate)<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 1: 48.683105% income (factor 0.608539 with hashr=
ate)<br>
<br>
Configuration:<br>
<span class=3D"">=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 0: 20.000000% hashrate, blocksi=
ze 20000000.000000<br>
</span><span class=3D"">=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 1: 80.000000% hashrate, =
blocksize 20000000.000000<br>
</span><span class=3D"">=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Expected average block size: 2000000=
0.000000<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Average fee per block: 25.000000<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Fee per byte: 0.0000012500<br>
Result:<br>
</span>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 0: 19.865943% income (factor 0.993297 wit=
h hashrate)<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Miner group 1: 80.134057% income (factor 1.001676 with hashr=
ate)<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/=
listinfo/bitcoin-development</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>=
<div class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"font-size:sm=
all;color:rgb(136,136,136)"><font face=3D"garamond, serif" size=3D"4"><b>Yi=
fu Guo</b></font></span><div style=3D"font-size:small"><font face=3D"verdan=
a, sans-serif"><div style=3D"font-size:13px"><font size=3D"1" color=3D"#333=
333"><i>"Life is an everlasting self-improvement."</i></font></di=
v></font></div></div></div>
</div>
--001a113db5a86b5d240518d4e002--
|
