A much more reasonable block size proposal, following historical growth rates in a "limiting nutrient" resource:https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6 …
-
-
1/
@NickSzabo4 Larger blocks means fewer nodes capable of robust bandwidth for block propagation -> less decentralized, easier to attack.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
4/
@NickSzabo4 Smaller blocks is protectionism for miners complaining about their bandwidth issues; larger blocks: mining natural selection. -
@drwasho@NickSzabo4 natural mining selection, and attacks masked as bandwidth delays. Once miners expect delays, you can game the system -
@digitsu@NickSzabo4 How exactly? What are the specific things an attacker can do to 'game the system'? -
@drwasho@NickSzabo4 plenty of info on this elsewhere, but common one is to mine blocks and withhold without broadcast -
3/
@digitsu@NickSzabo4 But!! To stop there would be to make a classical economic and chess error: only thinking 1 move ahead. -
@drwasho@NickSzabo4 When dealing with monetary policy, it is best to react to the market, instead of trying to lead it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
2/
@NickSzabo4 But it ignores the historical and some would say catastrophic influence of GPU, FPGA and ASICs on increasing the hash rate. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
3/
@NickSzabo4 These are more responsible for eliminating nodes from the network than the block size will ever be. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@NickSzabo4 Could you explain what you mean here (or link to something so I can learn more)? Appreciate it :-)Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.