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 t...@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
Hi all,
it's a very useful approach to also model fees and you came up with an
interesting scenario.
Assuming that you meant that the groups are only connected with a single link,
I've recreated the scenario with Gavin's simulation and got similar results.
The group with the large hashrate does
Hello all,
I've created a simulator for Bitcoin mining which goes a bit further than
the one Gavin used for his blog post a while ago. The main difference is
support for links with different latency and bandwidth, because of the
clustered configuration described below. In addition, it supports
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
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 06:51:02PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
The configuration used in the code right now simulates two groups of miners
(one 80%=25%+25%+30%, one 20%=5%+5%+5%+5%), which are well-connected
internally, but are only connected to each other through a slow 2 Mbit/s
link.
Here
are only connected to each other through a slow 2 Mbit/s link.
That's very slow indeed. For comparison, plain old 3G connections routinely
cruise around 7-8 Mbit/sec.
So this simulation is assuming a speed dramatically worse than a mobile
phone can get!
If there is a benefit in producing larger more-fee blocks if they propagate
slowly, then there is also a benefit in including high-fee transactions
that are unlikely to propagate quickly through optimized relay protocols
(for example: very recent transactions, or out-of-band receoved ones). This
I'm merely proving the existence of the effect.
On Jun 12, 2015 8:24 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
are only connected to each other through a slow 2 Mbit/s link.
That's very slow indeed. For comparison, plain old 3G connections
routinely cruise around 7-8 Mbit/sec.
So this
Sure, and you did indeed say that.
--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 01:21:46PM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
