{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1hn9vjtvdlnllrltesscgtnplu0ev2sreey03kjh3k07zmvd9zgus24p3n4","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1hn9vjtvdlnllrltesscgtnplu0ev2sreey03kjh3k07zmvd9zgus24p3n4","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-12-28\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Far more concerning is network propagation effects between large and\n\u003e small miners. For that class of issues, if you are in an environemnt\n\u003e where selfish mining is possible - a fairly flat, easily DoS/sybil\n\u003e attacked network topology - the profitability difference between small\n\u003e and large miners even *without* attacks going on is a hugely worrying\n\u003e problem. OTOH, if you're blocksize is small enough that propagation time\n\u003e is negligable to profitability, then selfish mining attacks with \u003c30%\n\u003e hashing power aren't much of a concern - they'll be naturally defeated\n\u003e by anti-DoS/anti-sybil measures.\n\u003e\n\nLet's agree that one factor in mining profitability is bandwidth/network\nreliability/stability. Why focus on that vs electricity contracts or\nvertically integrated chip manufacturers? Surely, sufficient network\nbandwidth is a more broadly available commodity than \u003c$0.02/kwh\nelectricity, for example. I'm not sure that your stranded hydroelectric\nminer is any more desirable than thousands of dorm room miners with access\nto 10gbit university connections and free electricity.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151228/abe958d6/attachment.html\u003e"}