📅 Original date posted:2015-08-21
📝 Original message:On 8/20/2015 5:37 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:25:59PM -0700, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> I found that small miners were not at all disadvantaged by large
blocks. >> > > You used 20% as the size of the large miner, with all the
small miners > having good connectivity with each other. > > That is
*not* the scenario we're worried about. The math behind the > issue is
that the a miner needs to get their blocks to at least 33% of > hashing
power, but more than that is unnecessary and only helps their >
competition; you simulated 20%, which is under that threshold. Equally,
> why are you assuming the small miner group is well connected to each >
other? > > You probably didn't get any replies because your experiment
is obviously > wrong and misguided, and we're all busy. >
I gave the small miners collectively the same hashrate as the large
miners in the original test. I made them well-connected because
everyone was well-connected intra-partition in the original test.
I just varied one thing: the size of the miners. This is a principle of
experiment design, in science.
Next you'll probably claim that second-order and cross-term effects
dominate. Maybe you can find the time to prove it.
Tom Harding [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ms…pmwjy
2023-06-07 15:47:57
in reply to nevent1q…v7uq
Author Public Key
npub1msef5qkfwz4t7qacwxz775wgdtlytph78g2g2z903x90874u263sypmwjyPublished at
2023-06-07 15:47:57Event JSON
{
"id": "e34bcfd385a77f051c6eab12bf07bc8312c1ea8b4f9b0fbdbecf7038106673f8",
"pubkey": "dc329a02c970aabf03b87185ef51c86afe4586fe3a148508af898af3fabc56a3",
"created_at": 1686152877,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"04c055baa2674526726a622bd1bd37944209de47bcb89f54cba6db6abf55701c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"082011f1dcd4cdcdb28fdb3c212d71942ade2682fd865e0b307834fac853012f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-21\n📝 Original message:On 8/20/2015 5:37 PM, Peter Todd wrote:\n\u003e On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:25:59PM -0700, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote: \u003e\u003e I found that small miners were not at all disadvantaged by large\nblocks. \u003e\u003e \u003e \u003e You used 20% as the size of the large miner, with all the\nsmall miners \u003e having good connectivity with each other. \u003e \u003e That is\n*not* the scenario we're worried about. The math behind the \u003e issue is\nthat the a miner needs to get their blocks to at least 33% of \u003e hashing\npower, but more than that is unnecessary and only helps their \u003e\ncompetition; you simulated 20%, which is under that threshold. Equally,\n\u003e why are you assuming the small miner group is well connected to each \u003e\nother? \u003e \u003e You probably didn't get any replies because your experiment\nis obviously \u003e wrong and misguided, and we're all busy. \u003e\n\nI gave the small miners collectively the same hashrate as the large\nminers in the original test. I made them well-connected because\neveryone was well-connected intra-partition in the original test.\n\nI just varied one thing: the size of the miners. This is a principle of\nexperiment design, in science.\n\nNext you'll probably claim that second-order and cross-term effects\ndominate. Maybe you can find the time to prove it.",
"sig": "57eca543d20b6f91417c4c0f22f6096cb300eb8740bc9364fc8f6510b1aa123d80d0613fb027518a879c4c077213587c66c48c539f723a3b23af3d1829e74293"
}