|
Please PM me your email or wallet, and I'll check it.
|
|
|
|
|
да, переход с версии 9 на 11 помог.
|
|
|
|
Попал в какую-то паралельную ветку  Recent blocks [-812], Orphaned blocks [872] Не знаю как выбраться. |
|
|
|
|
Итого за 20 дней было найдено 10 блоков:
1 блок с вознаграждением 52 NXT,
3 блока с вознаграждением 1 NXT и
6 пустых.
|
|
|
|
|
Pool works for 20 days and we have found 10 blocks:
1 with 52 NXT reward,
3 with 1 NXT reward and
6 empty blocks.
|
|
|
|
Why the pool report page is blank? Or I need buy share to view that page?
I hope I can check pool result before join.
On report page you can see only blocks founded later than your have been registered. |
|
|
|
в чем суть Transparent Forging который будет активен с 47000 блока? немого вникнуть что-то
1-ая фаза с 40к: сила всех монет делится между активными; 2-ая фаза с 47к: монеты перемещённые в последний раз менее чем 1440 блоков назад, вычитаются из эффективного баланса (первая форма пенальти). По идее тогда надо getBalance переписать, что бы можно было быстро понять сколько монет форджит. |
|
|
|
|
As I say
Poisson process is about different time moments, not about probability in the current time moment.
|
|
|
|
Ok. Just answer the question "We have wallet with 2/3 of billion NXT and other person have wallet with 1/3 of the billion what probability that we find a block?"
Poisson process is about different time moments, not about probability in current time moment.
U'll find ~ 2001 blocks of 3000 ones. Can you prove it? Already proved upthread. This is not a proof. You prove that epsilon is small making assumption that epsilon is small. Some situation with ddos is also is non a prof. |
|
|
|
Ok. Just answer the question "We have wallet with 2/3 of billion NXT and other person have wallet with 1/3 of the billion what probability that we find a block?"
Poisson process is about different time moments, not about probability in current time moment.
U'll find ~ 2001 blocks of 3000 ones. Can you prove it? |
|
|
|
Imagine we have 5 people only. Each of them owns 200M. Total forging power is 200+200+200+200+200. Agree?
Why don't we imaging 3 people with each of them owns 333,333333M? I have already solve that task. And simple example to illustrate what we talking about: 1) We have wallet with 2/3 of billion NXT and other person have wallet with 1/3 of the billion 2) We have two wallets with 1/3 of billion NXT and other person have wallet with 1/3 of the billion 2) is obviously we have probabilty of succes 2/3 but in case 1) we have probabilty of succes 3/4  Here on horisontal axis value of opponent hit function and on vertical value of our hit function. Red space - we win. Blue space - opponent win. P.S You may notice that for our last example [4] is not correct. The reason that P is very big and our assumption that 1 > (t m * A * b 0) / N for each possible t m is not true. It's became true for P<1/2. I don't get why u rely on this graph. U don't take into account that base target will be adjusted. This is what I call "Poisson process". Every account can forge is block, this is a Poisson process. But there is also another Poisson process that determines changes of forging difficulty (a process of a higher level). U don't take it into account, that's why u get wrong numbers. Ok. Just answer the question "We have wallet with 2/3 of billion NXT and other person have wallet with 1/3 of the billion what probability that we find a block?" Poisson process is about different time moments, not about probability in current time moment. |
|
|
|
Imagine we have 5 people only. Each of them owns 200M. Total forging power is 200+200+200+200+200. Agree?
What do you mean when saying "Total forging power"? Each coin is like a mining rig. So we could use "forging power" to describe possibility to forge a block. But "forging power" of coin in different size wallet is different. How can sum them? |
|
|
|
Alice owns N, Bob owns N/2 + N/2 (==N).
Let's assess Bob's chance to hit target assuming that base target is such that Alice hits it within 1 minute (say, 0.2 probability):
Every of the accounts has 0.0005 chance to hit the target (0.2 * N/2 / N)
Chance that none of the accounts does it == (1 - 0.1) * (1 - 0.1) = 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.81
Chance that any of the accounts does it == 1 - 0.81 = 0.19
Thus the combined stake does have advantage which proves Dervish point of view. Let's calculate this advantage:
Alice / Bob = 0.2 / 0.19 = 1.0526
Thus Alice quotient of advantage = 1.0526 - 1 = 0.0526 = 5.26%
I marked incorrect assumption with red. Isn't the part highlighted in blue also incorrect? "My first account forges" and "my second account forges" are not independent events. In my post I study another events: Event A - time that wallet #1 need to generate block less that time other wallets except ours need to generate block. Event B - time that wallet #2 need to generate block less that time other wallets except ours need to generate block. And this events are not mutual exclusive. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
