Not interested. Westerners cannot comprehend the complete lack of what we would call "ethics" or "guilt" in China, where defrauding someone is a win. Joining a forum and three days later trying to bilk people for $25000, par for the course. Well articulated here: I lived in Asia for two years and traveled extensively throughout the region. I speak a fair amount of Mandarin (Chinese), and I've interacted with lots and lots of people from China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. ...
In China, there is no sense of responsibility to customers. The overriding philosophy is to screw the customer, even on the very first order, knowing that the customer will never buy from you again! In China, the idea is to CHEAT people rather than make them happy. You see this all the way to the top of the government which is, of course, a police state communist regime where laws are enforced at gunpoint against a completely disarmed and helpless population that has no rights. China is a culture of corruption, deception and exploitation. http://en.rocketnews24.com/2013/02/25/fake-walnuts-filled-with-rocks-sold-in-china/http://petapixel.com/2011/05/20/one-third-of-the-sandisk-memory-cards-on-earth-are-counterfeit/https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cpi/documents/commentary-reports/peter-humphrey-chinas-booming-fraud-industry.pdf |
|
|
|
One interesting observation about this graph is about two months after "Satoshi disappears". At that point a new, and from the looks of it, very efficient miner starts working, with a very similar (identical?) "slope" as with Satoshi miner. Lots of those coins are spent.
That would be knightmb, who made mad coin with thousands of dollars of Amazon compute cloud. deblurred July 24, 2010 screenshot for you:  |
|
|
|
This is not true. While some security is established by the amount of time required to get a confirmation, an attacker with a given hashrate will have a much higher probability of double spending a 1-confirmation transaction in a 10 minute block-time chain than a 10-confirmation transaction in a 1 minute block-time chain. Meni Rosenfeld showed this mathematically: https://bitcoil.co.il/Doublespend.pdfTL;DR: "The probability of success depends on the number of blocks, and not on the time constant T0." These statistics are in a network latency-free statistics environment. Multiscale Monte Carlo simulations would need to be performed to find where propagation times on fast-confirmation (or huge block size) networks detectably increase the number of blocks required for the same resistance against blockchain reorganization. |
|
|
|
Press always gets something wrong about Bitcoin. This will be Deepceleron razor #19. "The anonymous creator put 21M of them in the ground, but with each new batch of coins that's unearthed, the program's code automatically makes it harder to solve the next problem, thus timing out the supply." It doesn't become harder, the reward is less. The "new batch" would be the halving of rewards every 210,000 blocks - every four years. Mining becomes more difficult, but to adapt to miner hashrate, not to affect ultimate currency supply. How do you obtain Bitcoins according to the video? "The most popular way is from the Japanese site mtgox, which acts as an exchange. You can set up a connection to your bank account, convert real dollars into bitcoins, and store your coins in a digital wallet." "real" dollars? Mtgox is not a wallet. |
|
|
|
I think it would be hilarious if a majority of the miners (and I suppose the community would have to agree) decided to set a date where coins still unspent from blocks prior to say 30,000 would become unspendable. Then we could answer the question of satoshi's intentions once and for all.
That won't happen. That would mean Satoshi only need spend some coins to fork the blockchain. Which you still may find hilarious. |
|
|
|
deepceleron's theory of a 'auto-mininer' run by Satoshi that existed just to give the network a consistent block interval and which intentionally lost all it's coins seems logical given the total lack of spending on those coins. But why wouldn't such a detail not have been made public long ago? Why would such a miner use different addresses rather then not a clearly void address for which no private key could exist, it's trivial to do this and Satoshi would have know how. If deepceleron's theory is correct it also implies that Satoshi didn't make the slightest effort to inform the community he was destroying a large chunk of the theoretical potential 21M coins? Did he want people to believe those Million or so coins were liquid and could be sold?
It would be more secure to generate blocks with completely random pubkeys (which is exactly what Bitcoin does when it generates). If all the coinbase public keys had reduced address space or something in common, that could make their funds an attack target of weaker strength than normal addresses. There is no 64 bit public key for which a private key cannot theoretically exist and still be a valid point on the appropriate elliptic curve, which is required for implementation of public key validation. If they were intended to be obviously discarded, they could claim a 1 base unit reward instead of 50 bitcoins, but this would likely just confuse people more - there wouldn't actually be 21M BTC and you would see other speculation and wild theories. |
|
|
|
The second half of the graph definitely doesn't look very convincing. Also, is it known for sure that any of the black dots are Satoshi's blocks?
I don't know that the graph supposed to be convincing by itself. It just shows data in the blockchain, and red dots are coinbase transactions that have been spent, black dots are unspent generates. Any interpretation besides "there is one continuously-running strange-code miner with all-unspent coins" is up to you. In fact it's probably best if most people keep their interpretations to themselves. |
|
|
|
The relation between 6 minutes and 6 days is 11 bits.
The relation between 32 zero bits and 43 zeros bits is 11 bits.
...People tend to explain PoW in the genesis block as "just luck".
...
I don't believe in luck. I can't believe in luck, since I have some cryptography background.
Then why are you not hysterically warning about the miner who mined http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000000001e8d6829a8a21adc5d38d0a473b144b6765798e61f98bd1d having enough hashpower to replace the entire history of Bitcoin in an hour? There has been 231828 blocks solved (without counting orphans) which is roughly equal to 2^18. So we can statistically expect a block with 18 more prefixed zeros than the expected difficultly. Block 125552 has only 12 more prefix zeros than the expected (67 vs 56) so statistically it has no meaning at all. You mean it's just luck? Okay, then. |
|
|
|
Why is the distribution so volatile? 1 in 100 blocks is a two sided z-score of 2.5. Assuming normal distribution, mean 600, -2.5z = 6sec implies a standard devation of ~240 seconds (4 minutes).
Block finding time is actually a binomial geometric distribution, since each hash attempt is a discrete Bernoulli trial, however, the probability is so low it can be viewed as continuous negative exponential distribution.An exponential distribution has a standard deviation equal to the expectancy value. This predicts a 10 minute standard deviation for Bitcoin. The density shows the high chance of short block times, with a very long tail:  What are the chances that a block will be found in less than 6.04 seconds: >>> (1-1/math.exp( 6.04/600.0))*100 1.0016167373020024 % Here's as relevant a book as you will find to the kind of probability statistics used in Bitcoin: http://vfu.bg/en/e-Learning/Math--Bertsekas_Tsitsiklis_Introduction_to_probability.pdf |
|
|
|
It should be black red if you could see it and the spents are colored correctly, it was spent in block 170. That is part of the first miner run count up from block 1-14. Nonconsecutive miner joins are at blocks 12, and apparent restarts at 15 and 18, though there is a good amount of start/restart/join/concurrent activity in the first few hundred blocks that can't be seen in the chart. |
|
|
|
Please take into account that X-Axis is not time, but block number. Here is the same data, but with the Time in the X-Axis.  Yes, that looks about the same due to the regularity of block finds, but it shows the satoshi miner lines as bending less than your previous graph when there is competition also finding blocks and advancing the block count. More transactions happening on the network will also steepen the lines - network activity increases everyone's extranonce counter faster. The mean block finding rate at difficulty 1 is one block every 4295032833.0 hashes (just a bit more than 2 32). By analyzing the code, the mean value of independent miner's extranonce increments should be 2.000015 (without transactions or someone else's block finds muddying the increment). That more extranonces are being "used up" by the "backbone miner", we know it does something different than everyone else's bitcoin. Another interesting thing (hard to do at that low resolution), draw an imaginary vertical line through the graph and see how many miner lines it crosses, there are quite a few at any given point. There's a few "birds" floating above the second half of the graph, somebody is using a different style of coinbase than difficulty + bignum ("ffff001d" + extranonce bytes + extranonce encoded) or you are parsing it wrong. |
|
|
|
Interesting, I was thinking of code to analyze this, who knew miners would pop out like this when graphed! I also am pulling my own stats out with bitcointools, but at a block a second, it takes a while. My stats add nonce, time, a spent status, and # of transactions to the table of extranonces, but I don't thing I will bother with writing my own analysis code. http://bitslog.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/all10-5.jpg (image is wacky so just a link) I see an interesting aspect, that the extranonce of the non-spending satoshi miner (if it is correct that red=spent and black=unspent) is increasing about four times as fast as others - it's steeper block finding slope indicates that it is significantly lower at block finding than it should be. Remember, computers are not competing against each other during this whole run, they are competing against the difficulty. I believe this is because this miner is using different code than the released Bitcoin. It may have a getwork-style mining, where multiple CPUs are mining through it, and part of this increases the nonce faster than the block finding rate of the released Bitcoin. The nonce may increase faster if Satoshi was discarding fast block finds to make the block rate more regular (which they are statistically - pull out and analyse one series of increasing extranonces). Something that we see at about 1/10th, and again at 5/8ths of the chart, that the slope changes (along with a daily block rate change), I think that there was some change made in its code or the number of miners configured, maybe Satoshi added something that made the miner inefficient for few weeks and fixed it, or tweaked code to discard any blocks faster than a "heartbeat". There is one scenario where I think this makes sense: Satoshi created a special "network-supporting" miner. This special always-on miner with it's own code base may have never created permanent keys or had a wallet - in that NOTHING appears spent from it's mining. Without an always-on miner for people to try out the currency and keep confirmations rolling (and another node for them to connect to), the money would just plain not work. This miner runs different code than the release others are running, evidenced by the identical slopes of everyone else. This may be the "x" IRC username connecting over Tor - it would listen for IP addresses to connect to but normal bitcoins couldn't get it's IP address from IRC. Another thing interesting is that you can see other black lines in the graph, other people mined for a while with release code and have never spent their generates. We know some people have early 50BTCs, but we can also surmise a few of these lines may be lost coins. What you see are different THREADS of the same PC. Possibly two or four threads were running concurrently.
Each thread has it own ExtraNonce, but all threads are started almost at the same time.
There is no evidence to support this. In fact this disagrees with your discovery that most mining was done by one rolling extranonce. It may have been Bitcoin #1 + xMiner, as referenced in my previous posting thread. Remember, Bitcoin 0.1.0 doesn't mine unless it has a node connected to it - it counts the nodes, and if the number is 0 or has changed to 0, mining is disabled. The Satoshi super miner might not have started until Satoshi's normal Bitcoin or another regular Bitcoin user was also connected. Satoshi may have a wallet with his own coins, but never will use the backbone miner's coins. New miner at #64 may be Hal getting Bitcoin working. |
|
|
|
Unlocked now bitches.
Nice one!  |
|
|
|
Yes I am aware of the typo on the holograms. Didn't see it until it was too late. Another batch of holograms is in production with this fixed (and other improvements).
Waaaat? You mean all coins purchased before now are the "rare 2011 casascius with typo" and sell for a much higher price at some point in the future? Nice!  Now he looks like a psychic. |
|
|
|
Where the block rate becomes an issue is when considering network latency. .... If it takes six seconds for a block to propagate to all other nodes, that would give an attacker an advantage to build further on his own blocks, or for pool-size miners to increase their income by creating orphans when they promote their own late blocks over the network's best block. For a real-life example of what happens when you take bitcoin and give an insane rate of block finding, look at the failcoin launch of i0coin, where ArtForz was the largest independent miner (except for pools, where just a few seconds of latency made them find 0 permanent coins): Confirmed Rewards 29669.89232442
*walks away whistling*
So the post-mortem: -Miners were instantly klined from IRC, and can't bootstrap to get other clients to connect to, -Difficulty 20000 worth of miners try to use a difficulty 1 network with about 1000 block finds every second -miner -> pool latency is major fail and still can't keep up with new blocks every few seconds. Conclusion The p2p network becomes completely useless. The miner with the most hashrate on their local i0coind makes the longest blockchain independently. When there are finally enough connections and a high enough difficulty that everybody can start to get blocks from each other's blockchain forks, the longest blockchain wins - the person who could independently get 600 blocks ahead of everybody else by block 3500, and wipe out everybody else's balance when it was announced. The few miners with the fastest local hashrate can keep on adding generate wins to their own blockchain. Because of continued network fail they can get two blocks or more ahead of everybody without hitting the network, and the slow network with dozens of blocks a second just keeps toasting everybody else's block finds that are a block too late in their block find announce. |
|
|
|
Yes, it would be a huge security risk as eventually it would be so easy to generate a block that someone could generate multiple blocks at one time with their phone and double spend money.
Also there would be many more forks of the blockchain as multiple people would generate blocks at the same time and the network would have to figure out which is correct. This would result it lots of invalidated transactions. Business would have to wait even longer for the blockchain stabilize before accepting payment because they wouldn't be able to trust that a transaction is valid just because it's in a mined block.
Finally bitcoin would experience inflation at increasingly higher rates.
In short, it would be a disaster and completely kill bitcoin.
Nobody is making blocks with their phone. This alone should disqualify any response to this post, but as the rest is wrong too, I thought I'd diffuse people taking anything you posted as a fact. Double spends only happen (with non-malicious miners) when you trust 0 confirmations. If the blocks came faster there would be less reliance on 0 confirmation transactions for time-sensitive payments. A faster block rate would actually result in the chain becoming less reversible faster. http://we.lovebitco.in/bitcoin-paper/#ch11A 51% attack is only called that because someone will eventually be able to replace any amount of blockchain if they have a majority of hashrate. However, someone with a minority hashrate can also replace blocks if they are lucky. For example, if there is a bad actor with 40% of the hash rate, it would take 89 confirmations before there is a less that 0.1% probability that they could replace any given block (real miners [pools with 45%] don't attempt this attack, because there is a very high chance they fail and lose all mining income earned on their incompatible blockchain branch). This depends only on the number of blocks, not the block finding rate. As a thought experiment, if block finding rate were to approach infinity, the variance would be completely removed and the highest hasher would always win a block race instantly. Where the block rate becomes an issue is when considering network latency. It means a higher number of orphan blocks, but mainly impacting miners that find a block and transmit it before they get news that the network majority agrees another block was found first, resulting in a higher percentage of work wasted by miners. At average 6 blocks per hour, 1 in 100 blocks will be found currently in less than six seconds. Increase the block finding rate to average one a minute, and then you get 9.5 in 100 blocks that will be under six seconds. If it takes six seconds for a block to propagate to all other nodes, that would give an attacker an advantage to build further on his own blocks, or for pool-size miners to increase their income by creating orphans when they promote their own late blocks over the network's best block. By inflation, you mean deflation, and no, a faster block rate doesn't need faster coin creation or a change in the coin creation curve. Ripple is for example using something else than Proof of Work - they use consensus. That way they don't mine for their blocks and cannot be 51% attacked. Ripple is, for example, using something else than mining, where the creator gives himself all the credits in block 0. |
|
|
|
Alright thanks, it's working good now. Now I have a problem with lowering my memory clock because in CCC it doesn't go below 1050Mhz so even if I set it in MSI Afterburner to 525Mhz it doesn't lower it. Also could you write out how I could set the phatk worksize, thanks. I am at 270Mhs at the time of this post. Oh wait, is it -w 256 to put in the .bat? And nvm I got the clock to stay at 300Mhz, yay for quieter fans. You can edit the options through the menus in the program for GPU, this is what you'd get in the cgminer.conf: "intensity" : "5",
"vectors" : "2",
"worksize" : "256",
"kernel" : "phatk", |
|
|
|
My first published chart since the crash.
I have a chart if you really want to discount the bubble and project where we might be:  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
