📅 Original date posted:2015-08-21 📝 Original message:On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> For the 73th time or so this month on this list: >> >> The maximum block size consensus rule limits mining centralization >> (which is currently pretty bad). > > > Instead of posting all these messages with bald claims why don't you work on > a decentralization metric which you can point to? Please start with the centralization metrics we both agree are necessary instead of keeping insulting me publicly and privately. > (instead of trying to > claim people don't understand things which is clearly not the case, You are > just attacking people you don't agree with). I'm not inventing this, he recently said so himself publicly on this mailing list: "I don't believe that the maximum block size has much at all to do with mining centralization" lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009960.html It is therefore not surprising that non-developers and developers with less experience in Bitcoin than Gavin have similar misunderstandings. That claim seems in contradiction with his earlier analysis: gavinandresen.ninja/are-bigger-blocks-better-for-bigger-miners "I ran some simulations, and if blocks take 20 seconds to propagate, a network with a miner that has 30% of the hashing power will get 30.3% of the blocks." That's why I was surprised when he denied the relation between the consensus maximum size and mining centralization, but hey, people change their minds and that's completely fine. I change my mind about many things quite often myself. For example, I will change my mind about not touching the maximum blocksize consensus rule as soon as I see some data that convinces that the proposed sizes are not very risky.