I think that pretty much explains it.  Thanks Danny Hamilton!

There have to be other ways to prove one's femaleness, right?  What about a short essay on [insert your favorite gender-based stereotype here]?

Holy moly!  Stay safe, Micon!  I hope they don't do extradition or whatever from Antigua.

Sweet.  It's Quickseller's daily masterbation post.  Dude can't go a day without telling us what a good job he does. 

I'm sure I'm missing something, but isn't that equation based on continuous parameters?  Whereas the number of leading zeros is always discreet.  So what happens when, say 2 leading zeros at a given hashrate would lead to 8 min block times but 3 leading zeros would lead to 16 minutes.  You can't require 2.5 zeros.  Sorry for my dumbness.

I think the chances of that happening are nanoscopically low.  Those long block times early in the blockchain are explained by the lack of hashing power on the network at the time, right?   There is so much hashing power on the network now that it's hard to imagine such a thing happening.  If it did happen, what would happen then is that I guess everyone would have a freakout or something.  Perhaps we'd see a huge selloff of bitcoin, but then again, those selloff tranasctions would also be waiting for confirmations until that next block

I was talking about that.  I guess I was totally confused.  I was hanging around quite a bit last week during the week, I didn't notice that it was daily.  I can be pretty obtuse, though.  Anyway, thanks for the info, I'll jump into that 25 sometime in the next day or so.

Also, last week I had some fun success finding action in the micro stakes ring tables.  Looks like this site is really starting to take off!

Looks like I've missed a real festival of love from Scott.  I did a bit of rolling on PD last week but I didn't catch the party.  Oh well, next time it looks like. 

I think I understand your question as "how can they always target 10, since adding or removing a requirement for a zero moves the difficulty target exponentially".  I would also like to know the answer to this, but to clarify the quote from the whitepaper, the nonce they're incrementing is just a value added to the block hash in order to make the block hash to the right number of leading zeros.  They keep incrementing the nonce until they find a block hash the satisfies the difficulty requirments.  But the "nonce" is not the same thing as the leading zeros themselves.  I await an answer to your actual question from someone smarter than me

I've done "cross-compiling" where I was on an amd64 (for example) and was compiling for arm7, ie, different architectures.  Is what you're asking about still called "cross-compling"?  It seems like you're going to need all the windows libraries (dlls?), etc.

I started a very similar thread just a few days ago.  There are some really good infos and links in here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1036835.0

I was away most of the weekend this week.  Sad I couldn't join this tourney.  I'll definitely get into the next one.  Is it weekly on Sunday?

You fixed it   Casted my vote today.

It's well known at this point.  He actually admitted that acctseller is his alt in another thread just after this abuse.  Your characterization of what he's doing to me couldn't be more accurate.  I'm sure that Badbear is going to be cleaning it up in a few days though, don't worry.  I've been around here for too long and creating 0 problems for anyone.  Dude isn't going to be allowed to go on trolling smear crusades while on default trust.  There are issues with default trust for sure, but this kind of behavior is typically cleaned up pretty fast---the only issue here is that badbear is the one who has quickseller on default trust and he's out of town until 1 May.

Looks like he's gone the opposite way with me.  He's added more negative trust (trust spamming?).  His new one says that not only does he take a known scammer's word for it that I'm somehow a scammer, but because I called him out for his smear campaign, that also makes me untrustworthy.  He says "avoid interacting with me at all".  Hey, Quickseller, how is leaving three negative trust ratings on me (between you and your alt) equal to avoiding interaction?  Seems like immature trolling to me.

Or an address with all (or almost all) numbers would be also very cool.

How much should I have paid him off?  He was after me and and spent a day or two digging until he ended up using the word of a known scammer as "evidence" that I was a scammer.  Maybe I should still pay some kind of ransom (he hasn't removed his negative---and it's doubtful he will until badbear comes back and talks to him about it), how much should I offer him?

This is the kind of reply which is a kneejerk for you, it's what you say to anyone who disagrees with you or has been harmed by you.  You used to say it to me everytime I disagreed with you: "I think it's pretty clear you are an idiot who is just spamming his signature."  It's what you said to me when I accused you of attempting a smear campaign on me "I think it's pretty clear you are an idiot who deserves to be smeared".

This kind of reply is really not helpful here.  We are discussing ways to improve the trust system so that people down't have to cowtow to trust rangers like you and so that meta isn't constantly clogged up with Quickseller is giving me negative trust for no reason.  Please try to stay on topic here.

@salty, upthread you enthusiastically agreed with my suggestion to change the warning text to something less inflammatory and more descriptive.  I, however, don't have a very direct line of communication with Theymos.  Is this something that you can bring up with him? 

Thanks gmaxwell, this definintely answers my question concretely.  I can look up the poisson process in wikipedia or something to know more.


Thanks cryddit, your answer makes it really clear why the tail on th right is so much longer than the one on the left (you hit a wall on the left where the previous block happened and there's no such wall on the right).

Thanks to others as well, I'm going to read some wikipedia articles now and try to get a little smarter.  Cheers!

That's a hypothesis, I think it might be time to put it to the test.  If it really were the case, it wouldn't be that hard to reinstate the trust-rangers.