<p>Because a key aspect to understand is that transferring a block over the network globally is not completely instant. The bigger the block is, the longer the block propagation statistically takes. </p>

<p>However if you are propagating the block to part of the network that is close, like transferring the block to yourself (which of course means that you won't need to transfer the block at all), the latency disappears. If you find a valid block, this means that you have a slight mining advantage to mine with the new block as the last valid block, while other parts of the network is still mining on the old block as the last valid block, during the time the new block you just mined is propagated to the rest of the network. The larger the new block you just mined, the longer time you have to mine on the new block while other parts of the network are still mining on the old block as the last valid block. </p>

<p>In an industry where even the slightest percentage wise of advantage leads to being able to outcompete your opponents, longer block propagation times should theoretically mean to higher concentration of big parties on the network.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-12T19:19:24.203Z
It's starting to look like an 8mb BCash block and backing from the world's largest mining pool/supplier will be quite lucrative for those involved.
Josh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-12T20:46:19.670Z
«slightest percentage wise of advantage leads to being able to outcompete your opponents, longer block propagation times should theoretically mean to higher concentration of big parties on the network.»

So, how much a this is applicable to the current situation? Which is already much centralized. Is block size one of the current factors that prevents more centralization? To rephrase and complete, is it now (or is there a chance in the future) significant compared to other factors affecting the complex mining ecosystem and it centralization?
tuxayo
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-13T06:38:09.897Z
On another note here is a graph of the current blockchain size in mb. It is already at 140gb. Imagine how sustainable it would be supporting a full node in the future if the block is 8mb now... https://blockchain.info/charts/blocks-size?timespan=all
Josh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-13T07:02:58.097Z
@Josh No, Graphene will solve this problem: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7b2pes/what_are_your_thoughts_on_graphene_discussed_at/
MCCCS
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-11-12T15:31:40.127Z
2017-11-12T16:18:30.490Z
2017-11-12T16:18:30.490Z
user44404
<p>I've read that one of the detriments to increasing bitcoins block size is that it will create a more centralised mining community. How is this so?</p>

<mining-pools><mining-theory>
Why does a bigger block size infer miner centralisation?
Josh
# Why does a bigger block size infer miner centralisation?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-11-12)

I've read that one of the detriments to increasing bitcoins block size is that it will create a more centralised mining community. How is this so?

**Tags:** mining-pools, mining-theory


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-11-12. Score: 6

Because a key aspect to understand is that transferring a block over the network globally is not completely instant. The bigger the block is, the longer the block propagation statistically takes.

However if you are propagating the block to part of the network that is close, like transferring the block to yourself (which of course means that you won't need to transfer the block at all), the latency disappears. If you find a valid block, this means that you have a slight mining advantage to mine with the new block as the last valid block, while other parts of the network is still mining on the old block as the last valid block, during the time the new block you just mined is propagated to the rest of the network. The larger the new block you just mined, the longer time you have to mine on the new block while other parts of the network are still mining on the old block as the last valid block.

In an industry where even the slightest percentage wise of advantage leads to being able to outcompete your opponents, longer block propagation times should theoretically mean to higher concentration of big parties on the network.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: It's starting to look like an 8mb BCash block and backing from the world's largest mining pool/supplier will be quite lucrative for those involved.  
> **username_2**: «slightest percentage wise of advantage leads to being able to outcompete your opponents, longer block propagation times should theoretically mean to higher concentration of big parties on the network.»  So, how much a this is applicable to the current situation? Which is already much centralized. Is block size one of the current factors that prevents more centralization? To rephrase and complete, is it now (or is there a chance in the future) significant compared to other factors affecting the complex mining ecosystem and it centralization?  
> **username_0**: On another note here is a graph of the current blockchain size in mb. It is already at 140gb. Imagine how sustainable it would be supporting a full node in the future if the block is 8mb now... https://blockchain.info/charts/blocks-size?timespan=all  
> **username_3**: @username_0 No, Graphene will solve this problem: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7b2pes/what_are_your_thoughts_on_graphene_discussed_at/  

---

