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. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
