📅 Original date posted:2015-08-05
📝 Original message:On 8/5/2015 3:44 PM, Dave Hudson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I do suspect that if we were to model this more accurately we might be
> able to infer the "typical" propagation characteristics by measuring
> the deviation from the expected distribution.
The paper models propagation using a single time value that is a
function of block size. Modeling the propagation distribution (which is
totally separate from the poisson model of block production) would add a
lot of complexity and my guess is the outcome would be little changed.
>> On 5 Aug 2015, at 15:15, Peter R <peter_r at gmx.com> wrote:
>> Although a miner may not orphan his own block, by building on his own block he may now orphan two blocks in a row. At some point, his solution or solutions must be communicated to his peers.
Why complicate the analysis by assuming that a miner who finds two
blocks sequentially does not publish the first, or that other miners
would orphan miner's first block unless both were very quick? In
general you don't consider anything beyond 1 block in the future, which
seems fine.
>>> I suspect this may well change some of the conclusions as larger block makers will definitely be able to create larger blocks than their smaller counterparts.
>> It will be interesting to see. I suspect that the main result that "a healthy fee market exists" will still hold (assuming of course that a single miner with >50% of the hash power isn't acting maliciously). Whether miners with larger value of h/H have a profit advantage, I'm not sure (but that was outside the scope of the paper anyways).
Correcting for non-orphaning of one's own blocks could be as simple as
adding a factor (1 - h/H) to equation 4, which it appears would leave
hashpower as an independent variable in the results. But at worst, the
discussion can be considered to apply directly only to low-hashpower
miners right now.
Overall, the paper does not predict big changes to per/kb fees or spam
costs for the kinds of block sizes being discussed for the immediate
future (8MB). But it does conclude that these fees will rise, not fall,
with bigger blocks.
Also it is welcome that this paper actually mentions the bitcoin
exchange rate as a factor in relation to block size (it points out that
a spam attack is much more expensive in fiat terms today than it was
years ago).
Tom Harding [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ms…pmwjy
2023-06-07 17:32:50
in reply to nevent1q…f663
Author Public Key
npub1msef5qkfwz4t7qacwxz775wgdtlytph78g2g2z903x90874u263sypmwjyPublished at
2023-06-07 17:32:50Event JSON
{
"id": "0ec88e2c66dbb38f4dd1d9ece1533a5f197fb69db7fd178ad7f040c9ad116db8",
"pubkey": "dc329a02c970aabf03b87185ef51c86afe4586fe3a148508af898af3fabc56a3",
"created_at": 1686159170,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2da2e00d8e383de13f6ee6d9d66f9da48994b834188a0ae47ea0319febd85ff5",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"83b780855463778d1b050a6a532b0d8e224600e7a25e97d153805741d7d3b1e8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1e54a6de7941fa2778512f8b39026a806a830835f3e28d29701b37064e5ed5f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-05\n📝 Original message:On 8/5/2015 3:44 PM, Dave Hudson via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e I do suspect that if we were to model this more accurately we might be \n\u003e able to infer the \"typical\" propagation characteristics by measuring \n\u003e the deviation from the expected distribution. \n\nThe paper models propagation using a single time value that is a \nfunction of block size. Modeling the propagation distribution (which is \ntotally separate from the poisson model of block production) would add a \nlot of complexity and my guess is the outcome would be little changed.\n\n\n\u003e\u003e On 5 Aug 2015, at 15:15, Peter R \u003cpeter_r at gmx.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Although a miner may not orphan his own block, by building on his own block he may now orphan two blocks in a row. At some point, his solution or solutions must be communicated to his peers.\n\nWhy complicate the analysis by assuming that a miner who finds two \nblocks sequentially does not publish the first, or that other miners \nwould orphan miner's first block unless both were very quick? In \ngeneral you don't consider anything beyond 1 block in the future, which \nseems fine.\n\n\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I suspect this may well change some of the conclusions as larger block makers will definitely be able to create larger blocks than their smaller counterparts.\n\u003e\u003e It will be interesting to see. I suspect that the main result that \"a healthy fee market exists\" will still hold (assuming of course that a single miner with \u003e50% of the hash power isn't acting maliciously). Whether miners with larger value of h/H have a profit advantage, I'm not sure (but that was outside the scope of the paper anyways).\n\nCorrecting for non-orphaning of one's own blocks could be as simple as \nadding a factor (1 - h/H) to equation 4, which it appears would leave \nhashpower as an independent variable in the results. But at worst, the \ndiscussion can be considered to apply directly only to low-hashpower \nminers right now.\n\nOverall, the paper does not predict big changes to per/kb fees or spam \ncosts for the kinds of block sizes being discussed for the immediate \nfuture (8MB). But it does conclude that these fees will rise, not fall, \nwith bigger blocks.\n\nAlso it is welcome that this paper actually mentions the bitcoin \nexchange rate as a factor in relation to block size (it points out that \na spam attack is much more expensive in fiat terms today than it was \nyears ago).",
"sig": "c170c12252b73b68e3d76ad08149258814d0e714a852c52c220b1f73272093c0de0f1dce3b61f218eeb8eacc4421e3f58e524519ce24729ba90b5f4a531449b0"
}