Seems like this will have little effect on exchange prices since no new bitcoins are being bought.
Well they're buying existing Bitcoin. The influence on the price is just about the same influence as any trading on a regular exchange has on the price, nothing more, nothing less. Of course the influence isn't as direct and immediate, but overall it's a closed system, actually. Any large discrepancy between the GBTC price and the market price of "raw" BTC will probably take months to a year to be equalized by arbitrage, since shares will have to be redeemed, or created and then held for a year. Isn't this so? Still, I'm pretty surprised as no one is selling to the 5000BTC wall @$350. It's quick money. Maybe related to taxation issues? |
|
|
|
aren't orphan block stored in the blkxxxx.dat file? with -printblocktree you should be able to print those in the debug log
printblocktree is no longer available in 0.10 I suppose unless my node was online when the orphan block was created, I won't have a copy of it as nodes will only forward the best chain |
|
|
|
I know block time affects security
You have answered your question. I think having 2MB Block/10 minutes is securer than 1MB Block/5 minutes because the latter would have higher orphan rate (i.e. wasted hashing power). The difference should be more obvious if miners will mine a block header before the block is completely validated. 5m shouldn't make a huge difference on orphans though. Even some coins with 1m blocks don't suffer from high orphan rates. And usually block time is seen as a security flaw when there is little hash power. BTC has so much that at this point, those who would be able to exploit it with a faster block could do it even with the slower one since they'd be the majority of the mining power. I just feel like we're tackling the wrong issue here. I think it also depends on the block size. I suppose most of those 1min blocks are empty. As the block size approaches the network bandwidth limit, the adverse effect of short block interval will be more obvious. |
|
|
|
Already did I'm talkin to then right now they just take forever to answer just figured id see what I could figure out in the mean time
That's the problem between you and localbitcoin. The bitcoin network has done exactly what you told it to do: send 9BTC to 1D89CWFGzDGNFvU8wbT2rnszZpJgmr26Ap. This topic is not belonging to this "Development & Technical Discussion" section, which is for "Technical discussion about Satoshi's Bitcoin client and the Bitcoin network in general. No third-party sites/clients, bug reports that do not require much discussion (use github), or support requests." |
|
|
|
My account is at 0 that's why I'm so confused
You should submit a ticket to localbitcoin. People here couldn't help much |
|
|
|
Yeah not trying to be difficult just want to shed some light on my situation it was going into my localbitcoins wallet
So just go to localbitcoins and see if you have 9 Bitcoin credited to your account. By "account" I don't mean any particular "bitcoin address". I mean the balance shown by localbitcoins |
|
|
|
you have to set out in advance what amount of work you're claiming;
Do you mean morphing the "bits" field in the header? Is it legal to use an lower-than-required "bits" in bitcoin header? and the link does nothing unless you hit it. If you try, but aren't successful, you've just wasted your effort. In other words with the same amount of hashing power on average you could make a false compact proof that replaces the chain, or you could replace the whole chain normally; they take the same expected amount of work exactly. But if you didn't have that much hashing power... only enough to, say, replace 6 months; then maybe you could get lucky and successfully create a compact proof for the whole chain but with, say, a 0.01% probability of success while the probability of success for just getting lucky directly mining the blocks would be 0.0000001% probability of success; just due the the reduced number of samples.
The chance of success is higher because of higher variance, right? The normal way follows gamma (Erlang) distribution while the compact proof follows exponential distribution? This sounds related to my earlier (bad) idea of "decreasing the variance of block interval w/o decreasing the mean of interval" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=572816.0 |
|
|
|
AFAIK there are 2 open databases of orphan blocks, https://www.biteasy.com/ and https://blockchain.info/ . However, they don't have data before 2014. Also, it seems blockchain.info reports more orphan blocks than biteasy.com but I haven't matched the results. I wonder if anyone is keeping a database of all orphan blocks. I know it is not easy to define "orphan blocks" because it is trivial to fork the chain when the difficulty was low. I'm particularly interested in those "buggy forks", e.g. the negative value output in 2010 and the v0.8 fork in 2013, and forks with double spending. (I thought there was also a fork related to P2SH in 2012 but I'm not sure. I learnt bitcoin after BIP16 was done) |
|
|
|
I know block time affects security
You have answered your question. I think having 2MB Block/10 minutes is securer than 1MB Block/5 minutes because the latter would have higher orphan rate (i.e. wasted hashing power). The difference should be more obvious if miners will mine a block header before the block is completely validated. |
|
|
|
37.5 vs 37.98 Will have a match soon |
|
|
|
it is 39136 times more difficult than then current target of 00000000000000001713dd000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 and is expected to have one in 19.4 weeks with current hashrate
39136 blocks is nearly 1 year of blocks. If you had that much hashing power, then you could replace the chain directly. The underlying problem is that if the hashing power is increasing exponentially, then all previous POW done is equal to 1 doubling time worth of the current hashing power. It is higher since the difficulty is quite stable in the past few months. |
|
|
|
Well, as soon as I post this I realize this may not be a good idea as SPV clients have to verify the PoW so they need all blockheaders anyway. However, is this idea useful in some other way?
Behold: http://blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf read appendix b "Efficient SPV proofs", in it we present a design that allows you to precisely the amount of work done (in the expectation) on a chain and compute exactly the same value as a user linearly reading the headers using only log communication. (The tradeoff is that because there are few samples the measurement has high variance; so an attacker authoring a false proof could get lucky, similar to how you might find a block on your CPU... so even though the expected work to forge a proof is exactly the same, the probability of success in at attack is higher than for an equivalent length reorg; though there are various ways to further harden it, most further decrease communications efficiency). Do you mean one can use a very low value hash to replace the whole blockchain? EDIT: I made a mistake So with the current chainwork=69fdb53bd3217bc08921f at block 354922, I can rewrite the whole blockchain if I'm lucky enough to get a hash below 0000000000000000000026a50fe1b18437....... ? (I get this number by taking 1/69fdb53bd3217bc08921f https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2F0x69fdb53bd3217bc08921f) it is 39136 times more difficult than then current target of 00000000000000001713dd000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 and is expected to have one in 19.438.8 weeks with current hashrate |
|
|
|
I don't think this is possible for the same reason a signature can't sign itself.. The coinbase transaction is used to compute the merkle hash, so therefore cannot contain the merkle hash without altering the hash you wished to include.
To be precise, I'm talking about merkle hash of the hash of all previous blocks |
|
|
|
You accuse me of divagating......................
I think you have spent too much time on this nonproductive thread. |
|
|
|
I have been called a liar, a scammer, an ignorant, a dishonest person, you have insulted me several times...
You look really respectful of others opinions and open minded around here....
I would like to discuss only technical facts and statistics. After all this is a subforum for "Technical discussions". So, please, stop it. I demand some respect. I wonder why all this hostility...
If you want some respect the best thing to do is to be honest. Have you ever tried to do the homework ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1045381.msg11268521#msg11268521) I gave you? If that's too trouble to collect the nonce here you are: 4158183488 (nonce of block 200000)
2860276919 (nonce of block 200001)
2252958492
619775756
3774121230
3636235506
3517855708
3242731889
240962551
2138681678
1898904060
2854313953
256488735
3529624388
2088744053
1058371964
2074059591
3090615686
859604587
514733020
3032482115
3326677299
2009843466
2309937512
3789741370
3082448470
3423290971
667706083
3079938352
34655536
1759366602
899695936
2628433707
507660531
3269002158
2870486318
1411929976
375422824
4001934220
4268389206
636717826
2937229565
2139816771
1039519852
3786229309
1365075112
1020876771
958912963
3452443159
1473171346 (nonce of block 200049) As soon as you do it you will see why your claims were ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Please, you, that claims to understand probability, teach us how many 9's you need to see to believe that there is a chance that there is something broken?
My second homework for you: read the Prosecutor's fallacy article on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy |
|
|
|
|
Well, as soon as I post this I realize this may not be a good idea as SPV clients have to verify the PoW so they need all blockheaders anyway. However, is this idea useful in some other way?
|
|
|
|
|
With the ever-growing blockchain, storing and verifying blockheader may become a problem for extra-light SPV clients. Would that be beneficial to include the merkleroot of blockheaders in coinbase (as a soft-fork)? Therefore, SPV clients will only need to store headers of relevant blocks.
|
|
|
|
总所周知，中本聪在设计比特币算法的时候，先期随机挖出来来了上百万个比特币，散落在比特币网络各处，这些比特币，大约有120万到180万枚左右，本站已经将中本聪散落的价值20亿元人民币，上百万比特币地址搜集起来，这些比特币，全部都是50个币一个地址，为挖矿所得，钱包地址没加密
请问整个区块链里哪一个地址是加密的？ 估計他的意思是Satoshi所用的地址是沒經HASH160處理的ECDSA Public Key, 又稱P2PK. 早期Bitcoin交易都是用這種P2PK地址, 現在幾乎都改用HASH160格式(又稱P2PKH), 即我們常見的1字開始的地址. 理論上, P2PKH比P2PK安全一點點, 但這"一點點"在今天並沒什麼意義. |
|
|
|
实际测试，E3-1230每天算力为6.7亿左右，速度计算如下：1个线程一秒钟为980个，980*8*60*60*24=6.773亿。
每天6億很了不起嗎? Bitcoin 的 256bit 私鑰一共有 10^77 個 (也就是1以後77個0), 每天10億個就是嘗試 5*10^75天才有一半機會踫到一個指定的地址. 宇宙估計至今"只有"130億年, 即5*10^12天, 你要嘗試比宇宙壽命長10^63倍的時間才有一半機會成功. 結論: 騙子, 木馬 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
