I believe it was pointed out previously in the discussion of the Peter R paper, but I'll repeat it here so that its visible - this seems to ignore the effects of transaction validation caches and block compression protocols. Many large miners already have their own network to relay blocks around the globe with only a few bytes on the wire at block-time, and there is also the bitcoinrelaynetwork.org network, which does the same for smaller miners, albeit with slightly less efficiency. Also, transaction validation time upon receiving a block can be rather easily made negligible (ie the only validation time you should have is the DB modify-utxo-set time). Thus, the increased orphan risk for including a transaction can be reduced to a very, very tiny amount, making the optimal blocksize, essentially, including everything that you're confident is in the mempool of other reasonably large miners.
Matt On 08/29/15 16:43, Daniele Pinna via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I'd like to submit this paper to the dev-list which analyzes how miner > advantages scale with network and mempool properties in a scenario of > uncapped block sizes. The work proceeds, in a sense, from where Peter > R's work left off correcting a mistake and addressing the critiques made > by the community to his work. > > The main result of the work is a detailed analysis of mining advantages > (defined as the added profit per unit of hash) as a function of miner > hashrate. In it, I show how large block subsidies (or better, low > mempool fees-to-subsidy ratios) incentivize the pooling of large > hashrates due to the steady increasing of marginal profits as hashrates > grow. > > The paper also shows that part of the large advantage the large miners > have today is due to there being a barrier to entry into a > high-efficiency mining class which has access to expected profits an > order of magnitude larger than everyone else. As block subsidies > decrease, this high-efficiency class is expected to vanish leading to a > marginal profit structure which decreases as a function of hashrate. > > This work has vacuumed my entire life for the past two weeks leading me > to lag behind on a lot of work. I apologize for typos which I may not > have seen. I stand by for any comments the community may have and look > forward to reigniting consideration of a block size scaling proposal > (BIP101) which, due to the XT fork drama, I believe has been placed > hastily and undeservedly on the chopping block. > > https://www.scribd.com/doc/276849939/On-the-Nature-of-Miner-Advantages-in-Uncapped-Block-Size-Fee-Markets > > > Regards, > Daniele > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
