.@Avivz78 @el33th4xor multiple factors, compact blocks asymptotically saves 50% bandwidth in blocksonly node https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1377345.0 …
-
-
Replying to @adam3us
.
@Avivz78@el33th4xor 88% bandwidth reduction https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1377345.0 … from blocksonly mode, compact-blocks saves around 6% in tx relay mode?1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @adam3us
2MB blocks were sufficiently secure in old P2P network of 2012 and mining centralization would hardly be affected.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Avivz78
blocksize vs centralization is a trade-off, it's not a threshold after which bad things happen. Deciding the value is politics
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Block size does have threshold after which extremely bad things can happen. But we don't know where that threshold is.
3 replies 16 retweets 30 likes -
Replying to @NickSzabo4 @Snyke
We have good ways of deriving bounds from data. Did some of that in Ghost paper.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Not when it comes to security vs. attacks from the underlying network (incl. centralized miner relay networks).
-
-
Replying to @NickSzabo4 @Snyke
Block size will not matter much for infrastructure attack on underlying network. https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.07524
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Avivz78 @NickSzabo4
funny I proof read that paper
These problems are orthogonal, they need to be addressed and analyzed independently.0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.