Summary

Patoshi is the name I gave to the prominent miner that in 2009-2010 mined about 1.1M bitcoins, and that some people associate with Satoshi Nakamoto. Last time I wrote about Patoshi was in April, 2019. At that time, I posted in order to clarify what we know, technically, about how Patoshi mined. Impossible was for me to foresee that one of the early coinbase being spent recently would cause such an impact in the crazy and uninformed market and the Patoshi pattern would be on the news. Nor I could foresee that a anonymous person would be signing 145 of the early coinbase keys to show a US court how Faketoshi committed fraud, and again everyone would go to check if those coinbases belonged to the Patoshi set.

These events triggered an impressive number of tweets, posts and videos about Satoshi. A new wave of Satoshi hunters appeared. But how many people actually pay attention to the technical details? Back in April I posted the following table showing the events where the timestamps of two consecutive blocks were reversed, and by how much time, in average, during the first years of Bitcoin mining:

Inversion of timestamps in consecutive blocks


You can see that the average timestamps deltas (when timestamps are inverted) largely differ between Patoshi and non-Patoshi blocks. I realized in 2019 this was far from normal, but I waited for somebody else to notice the oddity. In 2014, I published about the strange timestamp gaps. Well, it seems that few people reads my post until the end 🙂 Only one person (that preferred to remain anonymous) also detected the anomaly in Patoshi’s timestamps. Now enough time has passed, and still I don’t have a good explanation for the strange way Patoshi timestamped his blocks. Therefore in this post I will expand that research so that more people can think on this. I’ll also summarize possible (some maybe surprising) explanations. Let’s begin with an histogram of how timestamps differences (or “deltas”) are distributed between consecutive blocks in the first 50K blocks, when none of the blocks belong to the Patoshi pattern. In the X-axis we show buckets of 10 seconds each, so the labels on the X-axis show time in seconds divided by 10. In the Y-axis, we show the number of events counted for that slot.

Timestamp deltas between Non-Patoshi blocks in the first 50K blocks


Curved traced by the bar graph looks like an exponential distribution, as it should. There curve may not be a perfect exponential, as distributed timestamps are not fetched from an unique global clock, and also timestamps in nodes are not updated in a continued basis during mining, but only every few seconds. Nevertheless the graph looks as one would expect, and the average timestamp delta is 654 seconds.

It seems that most block timestamps generally start 312 (about 5 minutes) s seconds after the previous timestamp. Also it appears as if Patoshi refused to mine many blocks after 25 minutes (1500 seconds). This strange pattern is a new way to distinguish the Patoshi pattern from all other coinbase sets. We had three methods already (steep fast extranonce increment, reduced nonce LSB range, no timestamp reversals), and now we add a fourth (and in a next post I will show a fifth!). So why timestamp deltas are oddly distributed is a new unsolved mystery for our large collection. In my opinion, the existence of so many distinguishers is an indicator that Patoshi wanted his/her blocks to be identified.

If you look carefully at the timestamp delta distribution, there are a high number of timestamp deltas before 312 seconds that make for me even more difficult to explain the steep cliff shape. Luckily this one puzzle we can unravel with some information we already know. The reason of this “noise” is a segment in the Patoshi pattern that I named “Double Helix”, because it looks graphically as DNA. Here is a graph of this segment:

The double-helix interval in Patoshi pattern (blocks 1400-1916)


You can explore this pattern in SatoshiBlocks website. The double-helix pattern was probably caused by two instances of the Patoshi software/hardware running in parallel. We don’t know if this was a mistake made by Patoshi or it was intended for testing an improved mining setup. But the timestamps between blocks of the two Patoshi lines of the double-helix do not show the same delta distribution, as if internally, maybe due to physical proximity, there was no delay between blocks. Still it’s possible that Patoshi just turned off his mining equipment for about 5 minutes after mining a block. Is that plausible? How can we explain the differences in timestamp deltas?

• Patoshi turned off his mining equipment for about 5 minutes after mining a block. Maybe this was required in order to broadcast the block. Or maybe he was doing it to let other miners mine following blocks. The fact that Patoshi reduced his hashrate in several steps during the first year indicates that he may well be able to do it also at the block granularity. It’s even possible that the increased his hashrate if a block was delayed longer than 12 minutes, which could explain the strange timestamp delta distribution.
• Patoshi software avoided two blocks having the same timestamp. Therefore if a block was mined locally and immediately the mining of a following block began, then the following block timestamp would be artificially incremented a random number not less than 300 seconds.

The artificial addition time to the timestamp seems to be a better overall explanation, because it could also explain why after 25 minutes it seems that Patoshi reduces the number of mined blocks. Because we’re living difficult times, and since science without joy is too boring, I give you some far-fetched and fun explanations of the timestamp delta phenomenon:

• Patoshi was mining from outer space, somewhere in our solar system. It took approximately 150 seconds for the radio signals to travel to his spaceship. To compensate for the delay, and avoid being detected, he/she/it used a real-time clock being 300 seconds ahead of time in earth. His timestamps were faked but that was not noticed on earth. That worked well when mining on top of a block he didn’t create. However, Patoshi didn’t realize that the round-trip time of transmission of his own blocks to and from earth would generate a gap in the timestamps, if not specifically compensated. That’s why we see the gap only between his own blocks.
• Although timestamp LSB (nor the byte with mask 0xff00) in Patoshi blocks have uniform distributions, somehow grinding the timestamp was used to obtain blocks that were more favorable to find solutions for.

+1 WOsMerit what does this mean?

It is foolish to compare me to this profile, but if you listed 10 people, I could say if I am on this list or not.


marcel

ScumBuster, Please refrain from posting in my topic.

You create FUD, and against the background of your messages people can perceive my arguments with disdain.

1. Hello LoyceV, Can I speak in this thread if the post will not include any FUD, but only arguments?
2. Сan you tell me how to add a feedback clipping? I can't add a screenshot so I'm looking for another option to post an example feedback.

I expected someone to share the analysis and not just words.

When, then, do you think an 80% correction will occur?

Are you saying that lovesmayfamilis is now exposing what he was banned for earlier? Link please

I would never say that, I just didn't have enough dollars when bitcoin was at the bottom.

I hope you are wrong dude, I pray to god that bitcoin goes back to 10 thousand and can buy more.

You are right, if BestChange signed the message using the Bitcoin address indicated on their website, I would be calm.

Marcel

Quoting for historical reference.

Please quote to see the image! Thanks!

Some users may not update their trust list for years.  The review you are linking to is not backed up by a link, and the tag should be changed to neutral. The first thing you need to do is write to him in a PM and then here, remember to tell him to revise his trust list.

Perhaps someone will delve into the proofs that you provided, but you did not mention that you have a red tag from LVLF and MoxnatyShmel. Since they at DT, everyone sees these feedback, and since LVLF and MoxnatyShmel now have a federated model against you, therefore it worries you so much. You Too, left LVLF an unjustified red tag in the form of retribution for his red tag, and it seems that all your reviews come down to insults.

Is the Best_Change account actually linked directly to the https://www.bestchange.com/ site? It seems to me that one of the campaign managers is hiding behind a screen and not a support service.

• And this thought prompted me to the next thought, which can be formulated as "Can I really trust this account as the Bestchange support account?"
• Despite the fact that the account has a lot of positive feedbacks, I see that most of them have nothing to do with assessing the quality of the Bestchange service.

Solution options
If this is a corporate BestChange account, then he must clear his trust list, leaving it by default. This account will soon become DT1 and in the event of any dispute, this account will be able to use a preventive response.

If this is not a corporate account, but an account created only in order to manage the signature campaign (manager's account) then I would like to know who is hiding behind the control screen. I want to know who people really trust and I will hope that this person added people to his list of trust not only because they participated in the signature campaign.

lovesmayfamilis will not answer in this conversation, since she has nothing to say in excuse.

But usually people do not check if the feedback is true, and if no one leaves him "Neutral feedback" then Ratimov will think that He got away with everything and will continue to leave false feedback. I'm sure you agree with me, besides Ratimov didn't even bother to edit the article.

The trust list has been created!

Are you serious? You are the "captain obvious", Since when is posting evidence of plagiarism considered shitpost and trolling?

But judging by the fact that Ratimov is in your circle of trust, you approve of his actions, including: Feedback attacks against users, mutual exclusion and systematic plagiarism

Please tell me what to do or in what topic I should write if I published a report on Ratimov and he left me an allegedly neutral negative review.

lovesmayfamilis, I am amazed at what a two-faced whore you are. In the exact same situation, you say something completely different, I can only explain this by the fact that bitcoinst apparently didn't fuck you to protect him.

Since you are so fond of quoting the rules, I will also quote something.