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 wrote:
> On 06/12/2015 06:5
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 netwo
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 p
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
ef
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
Sure, and you did indeed say that.
--
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-developme
I'm merely proving the existence of the effect.
On Jun 12, 2015 8:24 PM, "Mike Hearn" 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 simulation is
>
> 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!
-
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.
>
>
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 irreleva
10 matches
Mail list logo
