📅 Original date posted:2015-12-28
📝 Original message:>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Far more concerning is network propagation effects between large and
> small miners. For that class of issues, if you are in an environemnt
> where selfish mining is possible - a fairly flat, easily DoS/sybil
> attacked network topology - the profitability difference between small
> and large miners even *without* attacks going on is a hugely worrying
> problem. OTOH, if you're blocksize is small enough that propagation time
> is negligable to profitability, then selfish mining attacks with <30%
> hashing power aren't much of a concern - they'll be naturally defeated
> by anti-DoS/anti-sybil measures.
>
Let's agree that one factor in mining profitability is bandwidth/network
reliability/stability. Why focus on that vs electricity contracts or
vertically integrated chip manufacturers? Surely, sufficient network
bandwidth is a more broadly available commodity than <$0.02/kwh
electricity, for example. I'm not sure that your stranded hydroelectric
miner is any more desirable than thousands of dorm room miners with access
to 10gbit university connections and free electricity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151228/abe958d6/attachment.html>;
Ivan Brightly [ARCHIVE] /
npub1hn…4p3n4
2023-06-07 17:46:58
in reply to nevent1q…xuy9
Author Public Key
npub1hn9vjtvdlnllrltesscgtnplu0ev2sreey03kjh3k07zmvd9zgus24p3n4Published at
2023-06-07 17:46:58Event JSON
{
"id": "c9c5aec0c3dd5f30ad36427982941f8807324309b49fcd78a586f0288f6b36f0",
"pubkey": "bccac92d8dfcfff1fd79843085cc3fe3f2c54079c91f1b4af1b3fc2db1a51239",
"created_at": 1686160018,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"29b7621364af8f1f611558ed33ab90fd2b7daff5f620fc02b9ca3019fe1123e5",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5a4c6b024dc04d60cf62f66be0e68ba3782b33d5395e9198052bb50c02015d52",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"770f3fd479b3e113c9cf0d166adcfd7b39ea263165398c3e6d92922ed09d63e8"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-28\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Far more concerning is network propagation effects between large and\n\u003e small miners. For that class of issues, if you are in an environemnt\n\u003e where selfish mining is possible - a fairly flat, easily DoS/sybil\n\u003e attacked network topology - the profitability difference between small\n\u003e and large miners even *without* attacks going on is a hugely worrying\n\u003e problem. OTOH, if you're blocksize is small enough that propagation time\n\u003e is negligable to profitability, then selfish mining attacks with \u003c30%\n\u003e hashing power aren't much of a concern - they'll be naturally defeated\n\u003e by anti-DoS/anti-sybil measures.\n\u003e\n\nLet's agree that one factor in mining profitability is bandwidth/network\nreliability/stability. Why focus on that vs electricity contracts or\nvertically integrated chip manufacturers? Surely, sufficient network\nbandwidth is a more broadly available commodity than \u003c$0.02/kwh\nelectricity, for example. I'm not sure that your stranded hydroelectric\nminer is any more desirable than thousands of dorm room miners with access\nto 10gbit university connections and free electricity.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151228/abe958d6/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "ecb92cd518c04e647e142ec8c3561b7b377729430df20796a17e0ddd86b570825942c856f03531262ae6ff07108ae9828b72e37945ab5fd7dc3184a61565edc2"
}