Ok, I give up. I like deepceleron response, at least itīs based on facts about the code rather than on people remembrances. But still, what people say contradicts the blockchain: The first release of Satoshi client v0.1 was on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:05:49 -0800 ( http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg10142.html) That was AFTER block 1 to 10 were mined. So, thatīs another evidence that he mined blocks 1-10 himself, which means he HAD the computer power or he was extremely lucky. (unless I made a mistake with converting time zones, but I donīt think so) |
|
|
|
|
Comment I posted in another thread:
I have evidence the same computer AND JUST ONE mined blocks 1-10
(edit: or a group of computers turned on exactly at the same time)
Just look at the extranonce field in the coinbase field of the coinbase transaction. (this field is hidden in the input script)
The counter is monotonically incrementing at a constant pace. This is like a "fingerprint" of the computer that was mining.
Also this can be used to find how many computers/threads where mining at some time (until they get powered-off). Each thread has another monotonically incrementing ExtraNonce variable.
So from that we can infer Satoshi PC Resources. Those resources allowed him to mine a block with 32 leading zeros every 6 minutes.
|
|
|
|
PS I never suggested Satoshi didn't mine block 1. Personally I think he probably did maybe even a significant fraction of the first 2016 as hashing power during that period of time was much lower then subsequent blocks.
I have strong evidence the same computer AND JUST ONE mined blocks 1-10(edit: or a group of computers turned on exactly at the same time) Just look at the extra nonce in the coinbase field of the coinbase transaction. The counter is monotonically incrementing at a constant pace. Also this can be used to find how many computers/threads where mining at some time (until they get powered-off). Each thread has another monotonically incrementing ExtraNonce variable. So from that we can infer Satoshi PC Resources. Those resources allowed him to mine a block with 32 leading zeros every 6 minutes. |
|
|
|
|
I'm curious.
Does anybody has an estimation?
Thank you very much,
Sergio.
|
|
|
|
I mean I showed you how your hashrate analysis was inaccurate and it took all of about 5 minutes ... 5 minutes of actually looking at the data not coming up with a bogus headline and then trying to shoehorn some facts to fit it.
I will read again at your post. Maybe I skipped a key part. Now I ask you: Can you tell me how many PCs were mining while block 1 as mined ? Do you have an estimation? |
|
|
|
The reality is you have absolutely no fact to back up your lower bound except a grand conspiracy theory. Stick with math your work there is much better. This is just sad.
Why you qualify with your emotions, such as "sad" something that has nothing to do with that ? I'm doing archaeology. I'm trying to collect facts, as accurate as possible, from people and the block chain. If I make mistakes, I correct them and keep going. And until now, I cannot solve the puzzle of how the first 100 blocks were mined. Some pieces are missing, and I'll keep searching! The best explanation I've been given by DeathAndTaxes and that is Satoshi did not mined block 1 (but he did mined block 0). (and that explanation has some very strong problems, such as why the PC performance, extrapolated from PoW the block 0 hash and the block 1 hash agree with such good precision, suggesting a link) So maybe Satoshi is now very poor, and he's singing songs with his guitar in the subway to pay the rent.  PS: I worship Satoshi, so I will never be against him! Satoshi deserves every penny for inventing Bitcoin. If he is rich, then great. If his is poor, then we might start a donation campaign to buy him cloths and meals... I openly offer him to stay in my house if he has no place to live... |
|
|
|
I believe that Satoshi foresaw this very issue, and so avoided mining at all until well after the public announcement (if ever). Blocks 1-100+ were, I suspect, not mined by Satoshi.
Well, at least you agree that facts regarding the PoW of the first 100 blocks have a story to tell. So, Satoshi announced Bitcoin, and waited without mining until people started mining... But that does not agree with the fact that the INTERVALS between the first 20 blocks are spaced in time quite good. So network hashing power was stable. People randomly starting and stopping mining would generate a completely different pattern of inter-block time intervals. |
|
|
|
Right. Good for you! But let's focus on the first 100 blocks. Or even the first 1000. In those blocks and their PoWs is hidden all the story of Bitcoin creation. We just have to decode it. Is strange nobody ever studied those blocks in depth. |
|
|
|
|
Isn't it strange that Hal Finney mined a block number 70 or so, only 20 hours after the first public mineable block ?
Blocks in the 70-80 range are the ones with lowest work in the whole block chain history.
So either:
1. Many people started mining right from the start: Satoshi is a group of people. Hal PC mining did not affect the overall hashing power by much.
2. Hal is lying.
3. I'm mistaken. How?
|
|
|
|
Its nice when bad arguments are so easily falsified.
LOL! Ja ja ja Tell me how come block 1 has 32 leading zero bits ? |
|
|
|
1. Satoshi mined almost alone from 1/3/2009 to 1/25/2010 (block 0 to block 36288). He did not. I mined during that time so did many other people I've talked to. As you're probably aware the original software mined _very_ slowly, and contemporary hardware was slow. Heck even a fairly current machine with state of the art software can just barely do enough hashrate for difficulty 1. (and god, before more handout requests come: Bitcoin was worthless then, the software was annoying windows-gui only I ran it in wine+vncserver, and I didn't keep my original wallet) Can we safely assume Satoshi mined blocks 1 and 2 ? Both blocks have 32 leading zeros, very similar to the following 32K blocks!!! So I can tell you with confidence that you mined very few blocks (e.g. 10 blocks) during that time and you're not millonaire, or you are part of the Satoshi group, period. I have some evidence, from a comment in Bitcoin 0.1 source code, that Satoshi miner took "a few seconds" to do 2^18 hashes. That "fact" contradicts the hypothesis that Satoshi PC mined block 1. That can ONLY MEAN that Satoshi (the person or the group) had 16 computers OR the comment in the source code is too old to be taken seriously... |
|
|
|
And what if Satoshi started passing out free BTC's to people? There was some dude doing that on redit a few days ago. Could be Satoshi (or the group known as Satoshi).
If you want to promote Bitcoin, you don't pass bitcoins by sending private keys, you encourage people to download the client application and send them using the transaction system! Also, if you send private keys, the receiver must re-send them to himself to be sure he owns them. |
|
|
|
Some flaws with the analysis.
1) Difficulty couldn't go below 1 & the "network" has no idea what the hashing power is. We can only guesstimate the hashing power based on the time between blocks. If you look at the period of time between blocks in the first year you will notice there is variance. Variance can either be natural variance from the mining process or changes in hashing power. It is simply a false statement to claim the hashrate was a constant 7 MH/s. There is no way to prove that is true and it arguably never was. The spreadsheet is merely a guesstimate at an aproximate hashrate based on the average time between blocks of the preceding period and is subject to error like any hashrate estimate (i.e the times between blocks was X and since the AVERAGE block requires 4.2 billion hashes the hashrate would need to be ~y to solve block at this rate ON AVERAGE).
But a single computer in 2009 could do 2^32 hashes in 10 minutes. So if we assume that Satoshi PC was all time powered on mining, then we MUST accept that almost all the coins were generated by him. Why would Satoshi turn off his PC if he foresaw the future? The average number of zeros in block hashes in that range is 33, not more. The average number of zeros in the first 30 blocks is 32.8. We must accept that during the first two hours he was mining alone! Therefore there was, at average, a single or maybe two PC mining (but rarely) until block 36288.So your argument is flawed Please try to refute this argument!
2) There is no evidence that Satoshi mined alone the entire time. Hal Finney reports mining early (in the first 100 or so blocks) and there are other reports of people mining on and off during the early mailing list days.
My prior argument says exactly that: IF he was continuously mining, then he was mining almost alone. When Satoshi announced Bitcoin on the cryptography....I mined block 70-something...
Everybody read that Hal mined the block 70-something, which means that he mined very little, as most of the people in that time interval. 3) The early client "mined" automatically in the background when running. For Satoshi to have mined all the blocks for the first year that would mean nobody, not a single person ever downloaded the client which is simply false.
People downloaded the software, mined a few blocks, and dumped it. Almost everybody except for Satoshi. So again, IF he was mining continuously in that interval, then he has at least 500k BTC now, with independence if somebody else was mining or not. |
|
|
|
Seems that Bitcoin is a premine scam if true.
I would like to know if any of those premined blocks where touched in front of major crashes. How can I find an answer for this question?
Satoshi him/themselves mined the first block themselves which is the Genesis Block, it was never "pre-mined" or started off with Bitcoin in the system already. You have no clue what you're talking about friend I said "if true". Can you please answer my question if you have a clue? How can I find out whether a significant amounth of coins of the first blocks where touched in front of major crashes? That is the next thing I was planing to do. But Iīll do it on monday.... |
|
|
|
I've estimated a lower bound of current Satoshi's fortune. My estimation is that he owns more than 1M BTC, or 100M USD at current change. It is impressive, isn't it? That's a good reason to stay anonymous! I've used the data from the blockchain in bootstrap.dat, so my estimation does not take into account the last 6 months. I've assumed: 1. Satoshi mined almost alone from 1/3/2009 to 1/25/2010 (block 0 to block 36288). This assumption is based on the Total Network Strength (Mhash/s) that was constant at 7 Mhash/s for this period of time. (check in https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en&key=0AmcTCtjBoRWUdHVRMHpqWUJValI1RlZiaEtCT1RrQmc&hl=en&gid=0) If Satoshi mined alone the first 14 days, then he mined almost alone for the rest of the year. 2. I assume that boostrap.dat contains only the best chain (not orphan blocks) 3. I only take into account coinbase transactions. 4. I've assumed that if a coinbase output is spent, then none of the spent coins went back to Satoshi. 5. From the 1814400 BTC awarded, 1148800 BTC has never been spent (63%) 6. The BTC/USD exchange rate is 100 USB per BTC If someone wants to check my computations, is welcomed because I used a special block chain parser made by myself. Best regards, Sergio. |
|
|
|
|
I never browse this forum, and today, the first time I did, I'm very lucky I read your message that enlighten me and teaches me about life.
I admire your strength.
Thank you, and keep thinking and writing.
Sergio Demian Lerner.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry about the Off-topic: If someone out there wants to write/implement my proposal for an anonymity layer for Bitcoin, and has in depth knowledge of crypto and math, then I'd gladly co-author the paper on APPECoin...
|
|
|
|
The zerocoin paper doesn't indicate a trusted third party actually it indicates the exact opposite.
PAGE 3, first column: " With no trusted parties, the accumulator and its associated witnesses must be publicly computable and verifiable ( though we are willing to relax this requirement to include a single, trusted setup phase in which parameters
are generated). " PAGE 4, second column: "We note that the Setup routine may be executed by a trusted party" The point is that by choosing RSA as the crypto function, they require a TTP. Maybe it could be adapted to other crypto function, but it will change all the procedures, since they use the internal mathematical properties of RSA. |
|
|
|
The most important reason why this will never be used over Bitcoin is that it requires a TRUSTED THIRD PARTY to create the initial parameters. This TTP could, in theory, trace any coin in circulation. So how the Bitcoin community will choose this TTP ? Why not let the FDIC be this TTP? Oh, yes... this is not the Bitcoin philosophy PS: I designed a protocol that does not have this problem (but have another less important weakness) , but well, never published, so Matthew Green deserved much credit. I hope I can publish it soon... I will post more about Matt protocol shortly, when finish checking it... Sergio. |
|
|
|
|
Or he stopped and restarted mining just 5 minutes before he found the genesis block, so the extra nonce was reset...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
