Author: Gregory Maxwell 2015-08-30 04:57:36
Published on: 2015-08-30T04:57:36+00:00
In this email exchange, Peter R agrees that miners can change their level of centralization but argues that it does not affect the model or results presented in a paper. However, the other errors in the work make the takeaway of the paper not "a healthy transaction fee market exists without a block size limit" but rather "a decentralized bitcoin cannot exist." The author of the email argues that it is critically important to call out simplifications before someone mistakes theoretical work as useful motivation for policy in the non-simplified system. The author of the email also takes issue with an assumption made by the paper's author about how information is transmitted in advance and argues that this assumption is unreasonable and does not accurately reflect the situation today. The author points out that there are already widely deployed protocols that do not need to communicate anything but constant data when a block is found. Additionally, the paper's author demands debate over a meaningless point and ignores concerns about centralization considerations in the paper. The email author offers concrete descriptions and intuitive understandings of practical protocols that could accomplish the necessary requirements without creating centralization in chain or transaction selection. Finally, the email author argues that the network moving into such a configuration is plausible based on the fact that it already uses advanced information techniques in every widely used mining protocol and that the relay protocol was rapidly adopted.
Updated on: 2023-05-19T21:50:13.248747+00:00