Are we talking stales as in Stale Shares, which implies a pool, or are we talking stales in the general sense of PoW submitted too late, which I think in case of "blocks" is usually called orphans ?

Hm, so, to put it in terms a guy who draws pictures for a living  has easier time with, I will get block propagation issues in the form of my freshly mined blocks   falling too much behind and ending up outside the 10 second window, thus getting rejected by network ?  

I guess that could be easily tested by having one of the multi-gigahash dudes trying to mine through TOR and mining for 10 mins, then through I2P's cancerous outproxy and mine for 10 mins, then directly and again 10 mins. We could compare the number of blocks accepted by the net and see if TOR or I2P result in notable loss.


Ah, sorry then. I sort of assumed you were referring to my post about validations when you said I'm overly optimistic (primarily because you quoted it )

Yes, downloading all them blocks through tor won't be pretty, but it's not like this isn't a problem Bitcoin will inevitably face    (so we might as well try out various solutions on Geist which will face it earlier). For one, unless you intend to mine or feel like being a Coin Historian, there is little practical need for getting the entire goddamned huge chain (there is a "lean" client for Bitcoin already and I think that there might be ways to make it even somewhat leaner)


I am, like right now.

I am from Belarus.

TOR is not nice but hey, you see my response right ? So mission accomplished *bush pic*
 

It's entirely possible that I am overly optimistic, but I believe it would be most wonderful if one was to provide a somewhat  more elaborate explanation as to why so and which values would be reasonable to consider secure (a somewhat more elaborate argument is especially welcome in cases where certainty is claimed)

P.S.:
Geist isn't yet  popular enough for some tor dude to try to do a POSR against a Geist transaction even assuming such opportunity exists   so that would be a particularly poor way to determine transaction safety

P.P.S.:
As a matter of fact, the Geist miner on my ghettobox is connected through TOR, and it is from there that I have sent some geists to folks. To the best of my knowledge, not a single unit went AWOL (though as I said above, that hardly demonstrates anything except "this particular transaction worked out, lol" )

Well, I wouldn't give 100 geist per 1 SC tbh.

But the 1-to-1 offer stands [and will remain so up to Solidcoin 2.0 launch + 7 days] 

Maybe I should buy all the solidcoins from all the Solidcoin users at 1 Geist per 1 Solidcoin ?

It seems to me you are operating under the assumption that bitcoin is " money".

With all due respect to your experience with both software and accounting, that seems like a strange view, as bitcoin has as much  in common with any typically known form of money as a wifi-sniffing UAV has with a seagull (flying noisy things )

I think I don't "get" the question. The daemon will, of course, display transactions starting from 0 and up

If what you are asking is "does Geist's security differ from Bitcoin's in terms of validation count required to consider a transaction set in the motherlovin' stone", then actually that is an interesting question to investigate, but I see no reason why math that holds for 10 min blocks won't hold for 15 sec blocks (yes, blocks are "easier" - but the time window in which you have to feed them to the victim is very much narrower, and due to the NTP thing and the narrowed down accept window, the ability to get coy with block time data is    limited too, so it should even out)

So far, I see no reason to consider a confirmation in Geist any different in terms of reliability from a confirmation in any network.

Thus, 1 is neat, 2 is secure, 3 is verily secure, everything above 3 even more secure to the point of paranoia at 6 and "you should probably buy something on Silk Road" at above 6

What I am more interested is how a narrowed-down time window affects the Finney attack (the famous one with just one confirm).
In an idealized setting, it probably should not affect it, because smaller attack time window is evened out by a "simpler" block, but methinks in a practical way it should be different because the border of Finney's attack time window is now much, much  closer to the moment where a "real life" merchant is likely to start delivering digital goods (IRL downloadable goods aren't delivered "instantly" as well)

56*60= 3360 minutes
3360 minutes * 60 = 201600 seconds

201600 seconds / 13191 blocks = 15,2 seconds per block.

We're on schedule, lol

Why would any sane person start an online gamblish affair in USA ? What next, register a newspaper in Belarus ?

You mean as in "count at which listtransactions displays transaction", or some shenanigan that will remind the user that accepting 0/unconfirmed is a Really Bad Idea?


Also, plastic transactions can not that far from 15 sec boundary, depending on arcane intricacies of a given country's banking system operation and current state of affairs in a given bank's automation (During my visit to Germany I once had to wait in line for whole extra 5 minutes because a guy's credit card was extra-thoughtful)

P.S.:
online plastic is way above 15 seconds if we're not talking about a system when you "pre-bind" a credit card long before actually transacting (ala paypal) and include the hassle of entering all them numberses, CC-somethings and address into relevant field (which we probably should)

Nobody knows.


Namecoin would be as close to being dead as a cryptocoin can be (that doesn't mean "really dead" though)

I will as soon as I get the (slightly) pool optimized version   compile


September 13, 2011, 12:38:49 PM

Also, there was a guy who claimed that at least  as far as network latency is concerned, 2s blocks should be sustainable (and had some calc as proof, though being a graphic designer with a side dish of smuggler, I can't attest to the validity of mathemagic he had there), though I think that it's a mite overkill. 15s/block is actually plenty fast (I've had paypal transfers that linger for a full minute, but that's probably due to all fraud checks)

As I already said, I am greatly interested in how geist behaves with pools (and trying to cobble together a pool-friendlier version) and am looking forward to the official deployment of the pool (and the insights that its successes and failures will hopefully bring)

Unless I misunderstand you, that seems to hold true for every "cryptocoin". Their value tends to correlate with mining competitiveness (though is not, of course, directly related to it, otherwise BTC would have been, much, much more expensive than even its "bubble peak" price) and the more people want to mine in a pooled setup, the less they receive per block (but the more users a pool gets, the more blocks it has, unless it hits some scalability wall in the way pooling is implemented in a given pool for a given coin, and by far this, and not block propagation or potential for godlike blockchain size, is what most concerns me about Geist's design)

At this point I can only vaguely infer that you are trolling, but the meaning of the above phrase escapes me completely.


CIA is not "feds", get your US-centric jargon straight.
Sorry, didn't get the reference.

Hm, I'll see what can be done.


Resync of system time won't do anything because if NTP=1, then Geist abandons system time and does its best to stick to NTP values.

Geist's NTP neither messes with, nor cares for, your Windows system time.

What I suspect is that there are  5-7 dudes who don't care about updates (Connections ? check. Miner running ? check. Are there accepted blocks? CHECK!)  who never bothered with the ntp thingamabobble (or just don't know about it) and just blast away, and given that currently there are exactly 22 folks mining Geist (which makes the diff of 112 more impressive) the probability of ending in the preferential company of "those people" isn't that low.

Geist needs a way to start nagging and begging for updates when updates come...food for thought...

Did that yesterday (and checked, and re-checked now yet again)

Everything has proper config.

Basically, there are two explanations
1) you get connected to an ntp server that is full of HATE (which would be strange, given that Geist only yanks  them once an hour, which is verily nice of it)
2) there are a bunch of miners who ignore NTP (don't visit the forum too often) and just blast away, and you happen to occasionally get connected preferentially to them.

Which sort of gives me an idea for yet another thing for the todo list...

I wanted to offer buying solidcoins for geistgeld 1-to-1, but then recalled that solidcoin 2.0 is supposed to have, well, to put it mildly, mathemagical taxes on miners...

 

I guess we run into implementation vs. user psychology issues at this point.

I've expended time and electricity to find a block.

I did.

Now, I know that when I did so, there were coins that went to me and coin(s) that went someplace else. The existence of those "someplace else" coins (just as the ones that I can now spend) is casually, from user perspective, linked to the creation of the block and the resources I spent creating it.
SO Y DID U TAKE MY COINSES AWAY ?

Whether those "coinses" were ever "mine" in the accounting or programming sense is at this point a foregone conclusion.

Also, a good question would be "how many extra tx / extra blocks does the Superfund make the system deal with".  A Superfund that only "wastes" one block to come into existence is "better" than one that wastes a hundred or a thousand.

Um, I always thought businesses pursue game-theoretic rationality, not human "vindication" and "fairness", in their "idealized" modus operandi.

But I guess that's a matter of opinion.


We should choose a course of action that minimizes damage and maximizes benefits, IMHO.


 Not nice.

But sometimes, life gives you lemons