<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Peter Todd <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pete@petertodd.org" target="_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Yeah, I'm pretty surprised myself that Gavin never accepted the<br>
compromises offered by others in this space for a slow growth solution<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What compromise? I haven't seen a specific proposal that could be turned into a pull request.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Something important to note in Gavin Andresen's analysises of this issue<br>
is that he's using quite optimistic scenarios for how nodes are<br>
connected to each other.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>NO I AM NOT.</div><div><br></div><div>I simulated a variety of connectivities; see the .cfg files at</div><div> <a href="https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin_miningsim">https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin_miningsim</a></div><div><br></div><div>The results I give in the "are bigger blocks better" blog post are for WORST CASE connectivity (one dominant big miner, multiple little miners, big miner connects to only 30% of little miners, but all the little miners connected directly to each other).</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> For instance, assuming that connections between<br>
miners are direct is a very optimistic assumption</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Again, I did not simulate all miners directly connected to each other.</div><div><br></div><div>I will note that miners are VERY HIGHLY connected today. It is in their best interest to be highly connected to each other.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> that depends on a<br>
permissive, unregulated, environment where miners co-operate with each<br>
other - obviously that's easily subject to change! </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Really? How is that easily subject to change? If it is easily subject to change, do bigger blocks have any effect? Why are 1MB blocks not subject to change?</div><div><br></div><div>I talk about "what if your government bans Bitcoin entirely" here:</div><div> <a href="http://gavinandresen.ninja/big-blocks-and-tor">http://gavinandresen.ninja/big-blocks-and-tor</a></div><div><br></div><div>... and the issues are essentially the same, independent of block size.</div><div><br></div></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div>
</div></div>