Bitcoin Forum
November 20, 2017, 03:15:36 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Satoshi's Fortune lower bound is 100M USD(DEBATE GOING ON, DO NOT TWEET!)  (Read 123630 times)
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338



View Profile
April 15, 2013, 02:53:28 AM
 #101

SHA256 processes 512 bits, not bytes, per block. A double-SHA256 is 1024 bits. So:
111 MiB/sec * 8 (bits/bytes) / 1024 ~= 870 khash/sec.
Indeed. And I've said this about a zillion times on IRC whenever someone asks about using commercial crypto accelerators for mining. ... But in all those times I'm talking about megabits not megabytes. Doh. It's easy to make doofus mistakes when they agree with the values you expect. Still doesn't get within a factor of factor of four of the numbers I was disputing, and it's still a measurement on unrelated software.  Thank you for the correction.

Bitcoin will not be compromised
1511147736
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511147736

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511147736
Reply with quote  #2

1511147736
Report to moderator
1511147736
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511147736

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511147736
Reply with quote  #2

1511147736
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Etlase2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


View Profile
April 15, 2013, 03:02:02 AM
 #102

Quote
— all we really know for sure was that there were at least two blocks created between 03/Jan/2009 and 11/Jan/2009.
That's all we know for sure? We don't know that the next blocks were all minutes apart and there was hashing power at the very dawn of the network to maintain something close to 50BTC/10min? And your argument for completely ignoring this is "the timestamps may not be accurate"?
Ignoring??? I'm drawing what I'm saying precisely from there.  The dates in my post are from the headline in the genesis block and from the public announcement.  We don't actually know which blocks were when, because god knows how things were moved around and restructured while testing or in preparation for release.

You are drawing what you're saying from the time differential between blocks 0, a block that comes with the software, and block 1, the first block to presumably be mined either in anticipation of immediate release, or just after release. From block 1 on, there is hashing power to maintain a near 50btc/10min, yet you continue to argue about the haziest of hazy possibilities other than occam's razor. And more technical gobbledygook "moved around and restructured while testing or in preparation". Maybe people's brain will fall asleep while reading that and assume that you're making sense.


PS - the announcement and the first blocks mined "in the wild" were on the 9th, not the 11th of January. But of course that ever devious satoshi cooked up a plan to make it look like he had enough hashing power for a difficulty of 1 on his own, and then to hide his tracks and make people not realize this, he manipulated the timestamps to make it look exactly like he had what he was trying to hide. BRILLIANT!

Quote
Still doesn't get within a factor of factor of four of the numbers I was disputing, and it's still a measurement on unrelated software.

It sure does bring the total hashing power of the network well within one person or a small group for the first 30k+ blocks, though.

gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338



View Profile
April 15, 2013, 03:24:17 AM
 #103

You are drawing what you're saying from the time differential between blocks 0, a block that comes with the software, and block 1, the first block to presumably be mined either in anticipation of immediate release, or just after release. From block 1 on, there is hashing power to maintain a near 50btc/10min,
I'm ignoring the timestamps in the blockchain, as I said.

Quote
PS - the announcement and the first blocks mined "in the wild" were on the 9th,
You might want to update the wiki.

Quote
But of course that ever devious satoshi cooked up a plan to make it look like he had enough hashing power for a difficulty of 1 on his own, and then to hide his tracks and make people not realize this, he manipulated the timestamps to make it look exactly like he had what he was trying to hide. BRILLIANT!
I dunno who you're arguing with there, cause that all sounds just as nuts as Sergio's claim that he had some multiple of the hashpower required for diff 1 and but mystically the network stayed at diff 1 because??? If anything that crazy argument suggests, perhaps, that Satoshi didn't mine full time. (not that I believe it— but it's the logical conclusion of the argument that he had more hashpower than was observed in the network)

Quote
It sure does bring the total hashing power of the network well within one person or a small group for the first 30k+ blocks, though.
Sure, even if it was 100 machines worth that would have been true regardless— even if it took a sold 100 machines to get there.. And?

Bitcoin will not be compromised
Etlase2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


View Profile
April 15, 2013, 03:47:21 AM
 #104

I'm ignoring the timestamps in the blockchain, as I said.

No, you're making up reasons for why they are not reliable because they do not facilitate your argument.

Quote
I dunno who you're arguing with there,

I have a tendency to be facetious in the face of excessively poor arguments.

Quote
Sergio's claim that he had some multiple of the hashpower required for diff 1 and but mystically the network stayed at diff 1 because???

That was not Sergio's claim, his claim was that Satoshi mined the majority of the bitcoins from blocks 1 to 36k. He did make a big mistake in misunderstanding the difficulty though. It does not, however, discredit some of the other arguments made that I've been making since 2011.

Quote
Sure, even if it was 100 machines worth that would have been true regardless— even if it took a sold 100 machines to get there.. And?

And you've spent a lot of time arguing that CPUs were so unbelievably slow "back in the day", even using anecdotal arguments that are likely unprovable to lend weight to your claims.

But we know this propaganda works well, don't we?

your awful post

4 posts later

Dude, you just dont get it.. look at the times.. blocks where slow back then.. I think I read somewhere that it took satashi a couple of days to get the first block!!!

gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338



View Profile
April 15, 2013, 03:56:43 AM
 #105

Gmaxwell and DeathAndTaxes have many BTC. They are here from long ago.
[...]
So I understand why Gmaxwell and DeathAndTaxes and now zemario responded so emotionally to this thread.
I can't speak for DeathAndTaxes, but it's not true for me.

In fact, I don't currently own a single coin that was created prior to the date you registered on the forum (June 16, 2011) what little I'd mined before then and hadn't lost I've long since sold.

In general I'm unimpressed by your ad hominem, but I suppose I must reply to it before it gets repeated as fact in some future thread. I responded here because your posts don't make sense and because they don't fit the history as I and many others experienced it. Not because I don't want people to think Satoshi made a pretty penny— I sure hope he did: Bitcoin is a beautiful invention.

Quote
But since I have not a single BTC, nor any other virtual coin, I have nothing to loose, nor anything to win.
Everything I do here, I do it because I like to. Not because of money, not to become rich.
You certainly don't shy away from promoting your name or your company, or shy from making sweeping claims that might get you press... Even in this thread— I don't see a quest for knowledge. You didn't ask a question, you didn't seek people's experiences. You made a bunch of easily falsifiable assumptions (which you didn't bother to try to falsify) in order to justify a headline grabbing assertion.  I could speculate about your motivations, but I don't need to— your conclusions here are incorrect no matter what motivated you to draw them.

Bitcoin will not be compromised
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338



View Profile
April 15, 2013, 04:00:22 AM
 #106

No, you're making up reasons for why they are not reliable because they do not facilitate your argument.
I am? Can you cite one of those reasons?  As far as I can tell I simply asserted it— it's obvious enough. We can't tell if the timestamps are reliable or not. That's part of the purpose of having the headline in the genesis block.  For all any of us know someone forked and replaced the first 50 blocks, or any of a zillion other things. Who knows. You've totally missed the point, but I can't figure out why. We don't know who created blocks past the first one or two. I suggested ignoring them because it gets us squarely in the realm of what we know for sure... But don't— if you like. if it suits your particular obsessions.  There weren't any conclusions being drawn from it.

Quote
And you've spent a lot of time arguing that CPUs were so unbelievably slow "back in the day", even using anecdotal arguments that are likely unprovable to lend weight to your claims.
And they were, compared to current software on current hardware Sergio spent a lot of time here arguing about numbers like 7.5MH/s on a single desktop. It's _laughable_.

Bitcoin will not be compromised
Etlase2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


View Profile
April 15, 2013, 04:48:56 AM
 #107

We can't tell if the timestamps are reliable or not.

Over what range would you feel comfortable assessing the hashing power of the network? 100 blocks? 1,000? From blocks 1-1,000, there was a duration of 10 days, 3 hours, 40 minutes, and 18 seconds. 14,620 minutes. That's 14.62 minutes per block, or an equivalent of 4-5Mh/s.

You know what, forget it. Sergio derailed this thread from the start with the sensationalist headline and a poorly spoken OP. The pseudonymity of bitcoin allows you guys to counter virtually everything in regards to how much limited cryptocurrency is in the hands of a very small group of people and encourage everyone to rush headlong into this wonderful new system.

Quote
And they were, compared to current software on current hardware Sergio spent a lot of time here arguing about numbers like 7.5MH/s on a single desktop. It's _laughable_.

Again with the sleight of words. He did not ever argue 7.5Mh/s on a single desktop. It is not unfathomable for the person or group that is satoshi to have multiple and likely high-end machines. Plus it would make sense to have several locations operating for better network boostrapping. This is common sense. If bitcoin was mined at a rate of approximately 4 contemporary PCs, occam's razor would suggest that satoshi was running it mostly by himself, unless you want to argue that the creator may just well have abandoned mining.

The distinction here is you are trying encourage the thinking of perhaps 40-50 PCs mining, oh so decentralized, when the reality was more likely 4-5 PCs. Hard to prove though! Especially with your 47kh/s anecdote.

mrb
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


View Profile WWW
April 15, 2013, 05:06:55 AM
 #108

And they were, compared to current software on current hardware Sergio spent a lot of time here arguing about numbers like 7.5MH/s on a single desktop. It's _laughable_.

Time to end this debate with cold hard facts.

I just benchmarked bitcoin 0.3.24 (where the CPU mining code is identical to bitcoin 0.1.0, as both are based on crypto++), and a measly entry-level 2-core 2.5 GHz Athlon X2 4850 (released in March 2008) can reach 2.40 Mhash/s.

Therefore a 4-core 2.4 GHz Phenom X4 9750 (released in March 2008, about $200, way less than many other much more expensive desktop processors which went up to $1000) can do almost 5.0 Mhash/s (it scales linearly with the number of cores).

Finally, the overall hashrate of the network throughout 2009 was 5 Mhash/s, so it is not unreasonable that a single PC with a quad-core CPU such as the Phenom X4 9750 could have accounted for the majority of the network hashrate.
Etlase2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


View Profile
April 15, 2013, 05:20:44 AM
 #109

(where the CPU mining code is identical to bitcoin 0.1.0, as both are based on crypto++),

Do you have solid proof that this is the case? That nothing was tweaked to improve the speed of CPU generation? No one should be in the habit of taking someone's word for it.

mrb
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


View Profile WWW
April 15, 2013, 06:09:21 AM
 #110

Do you have solid proof that this is the case? That nothing was tweaked to improve the speed of CPU generation? No one should be in the habit of taking someone's word for it.

Yes. Bitcoin 0.1.0 does the double hash here:

Code: (bitcoin-0.1.0/main.cpp)
       loop
        {
            BlockSHA256(&tmp.block, nBlocks0, &tmp.hash1);
            BlockSHA256(&tmp.hash1, nBlocks1, &hash);
            if (hash <= hashTarget)

And BlockSHA256 converts to the correct endianness, and calls the crypto++ routine CryptoPP::SHA256::Transform.

As to Bitcoin 0.3.24 the double hash is:

Code: (bitcoin-0.3.24/main.cpp)
   for (;;)
    {
        // Crypto++ SHA-256
        // Hash pdata using pmidstate as the starting state into
        // preformatted buffer phash1, then hash phash1 into phash
        nNonce++;
        SHA256Transform(phash1, pdata, pmidstate);
        SHA256Transform(phash, phash1, pSHA256InitState);

        // Return the nonce if the hash has at least some zero bits,
        // caller will check if it has enough to reach the target
        if (((unsigned short*)phash)[14] == 0)
            return nNonce;

And SHA256Transform merely calls memcpy to init the state, and calls the same crypto++ routine: CryptoPP::SHA256::Transform. Because it is the same, I do not expect any significant performance difference between 0.1.0 and 0.3.24. I have a mirror of the 0.1.0 code if you want to try compiling it: http://www.zorinaq.com/pub/
AlphaWolf
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
April 15, 2013, 06:16:12 AM
 #111

gmaxwell, a respected and very highly knowledgeable member of the bitcoin community, just made the argument for Satoshi's initial hashing power being in the order of 14kh/s because of the length of time between blocks 0 and 1. As if he created the genesis block
I was actually taking Sergio's dopey argument and substituting in the data we actually had, I never said it was a good argument.  I also said _lower bound_, which you deceptively omitted in your repetition there.  I also gave a much higher number which was my measurement with contemporary hardware in software, which you've helpfully omitted.

Why does gmaxwell says such an erroneous fact about hashing rate in 2009 ? Maybe he had a Commodore 64 back in 2009.
See http://www.cryptopp.com/benchmarks.html. At the bottom of the page says it was last edited on 2009.
The CPU is a Intel Core 2 1.83 GHz. The performance is 3.4 MHash/sec (111 MiB/sec)
So who's making FUD ?
Because I actually tested the openssl code in the reference software on a PIII that I had been using at the time and got somewhere around ~47KH/s. I'd offer to run it again but I've since moved across the country and no longer have any old computers. But heck, you won't even try the actual software— you keep _miscalculating_ (SHA256 processes 512 bytes at a time, 111 MiB/sec ~= 113KH/s of SHA256^2) based on unrelated software (and even then, it doesn't sound too inconsistent with my figures)! What the heck!  Are you allergic to actually using a computer?
I'll ask again since it went ignored:

I'm with you that the OP is off on his assessment... but in what way was a P3 "contemporary" to any period of Bitcoin's history?  I have a stock 3.2 GHz P4 purchased from Dell in 2005.  Prescott core, so a "later" model P4.  It can do > 1000KH/s, and it was already obsolete by the time Bitcoin came around four years later.  Hell, the Core 2 Quad Q9550 came out in Q1 of 2008, and it easily gets well over 10 MH/s.  I'll grant you that the old client was poorly optimized, etc...  But P3's were long obsolete even by 2009 standards, so it's rather misleading to claim those results as "contemporary".

To expound upon that... the last PIII was made in 2003.  P4's started shipping in November 2000, and were beginning to be replaced by Pentium D's in 2005, of which the last was shipped in August 2008.  The "Core 2" family started shipping in 2006, and the first Core i7 shipped in November 2008.  So I ask again... in what way was your 4x obsolete PIII in any way "contemporary" to any period of Bitcoin's history?  "I used it" doesn't count.  I still use my 8 year old P4 as bitcoind node (which is how I could test its hashrate)... but I don't think anyone would argue it is "contemporary".
deepceleron
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile WWW
April 15, 2013, 06:31:36 AM
 #112

I do not expect any significant performance difference between 0.1.0 and 0.3.24. I have a mirror of the 0.1.0 code if you want to try compiling it: http://www.zorinaq.com/pub/
Please don't expect. Run bitcoin-0.1.0 on a private network. You don't need to compile it, run bitcoin.exe. You need two bitcoin machines with different IP addresses, and an IRC server that pretends to be freenode. See how much of your quad core it uses. See how long it takes to mine 10 blocks. It won't prove or debunk any argument, because the argument itself is ludicrous, but then you will know.

While we are posting code, net.cpp:

//// todo: start one thread per processor, use getenv("NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS")
void ThreadBitcoinMiner(void* parg)
{
    vfThreadRunning[3] = true;
    CheckForShutdown(3);
    try
    {
        bool fRet = BitcoinMiner();

Point at Infinity
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7



View Profile
April 15, 2013, 07:27:01 AM
 #113

I would also not assume that the timestamps on the pre-public blocks are accurate— all we really know for sure was that there were at least two blocks created between 03/Jan/2009 and 11/Jan/2009. Rounding that down to 7 days suggests a lower bound hashrate of 14 KH/s.  Even if Satoshi had more computing power he might have simply been borrowing it for testing.

The debug.log posted by Hal on the sourceforge list on 10/Jan lists blocks up to 49. There's posts by two more people in January.
mrb
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


View Profile WWW
April 15, 2013, 07:33:21 AM
 #114

deepceleron: are you saying bitcoin 0.1.0 launched 1 miner thread per socket instead of 1 per core? If that is the case, for all we know, Satoshi may have been running, say, 4 instances of bitcoin on a quad-core machine. Or maybe he was running 4 Bitcoin VMs. These multiple instances must have been needed by him anyway, if only to test the network code.

The bottom line is that I showed a single $200 processor released in 2008 was able to account for 5 Mhash/s with the crypto++ code used back then. So if there were other users, either they were mining with extremely weak processors (10-year-old Pentium III), or they were not mining 24/7.
hobbes
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 122



View Profile
April 15, 2013, 08:02:30 AM
 #115

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=37333 Satoshi Nakamoto - 1,5 million Bitcoins - We need answers

Also this graph  http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-ever.png shows wild fluctuations of the hashrate in 2009. Seems unlikely it was only one person mining. From the steps it almost looks like you could see single computers going offline / online.

Etlase2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


View Profile
April 15, 2013, 08:11:44 AM
 #116

Also this graph  http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-ever.png shows wild fluctuations of the hashrate in 2009. Seems unlikely it was only one person mining. From the steps it almost looks like you could see single computers going offline / online.

I'm not sure how you conclude that it was unlikely that only one person was mining. There are two dips that look as if Satoshi's power was cut off due to the massive amount of electricity he used mining. Or perhaps he contemplated the failure of his plot for world domination and had two periods of despondency.

Before the teeth sink in--I am joking.

hobbes
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 122



View Profile
April 15, 2013, 08:15:24 AM
 #117

Also this graph  http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-ever.png shows wild fluctuations of the hashrate in 2009. Seems unlikely it was only one person mining. From the steps it almost looks like you could see single computers going offline / online.

I'm not sure how you conclude that it was unlikely that only one person was mining. There are two dips that look as if Satoshi's power was cut off due to the massive amount of electricity he used mining. Or perhaps he contemplated the failure of his plot for world domination and had two periods of despondency.

Before the teeth sink in--I am joking.
It is a logarithmic scale. I see at least five different hash rate levels. Maybe somebody can plot the 2009 hashrate estimate / block times as a linear diagram.

Etlase2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


View Profile
April 15, 2013, 08:32:03 AM
 #118

It is a logarithmic scale. I see at least five different hash rate levels. Maybe somebody can plot the 2009 hashrate estimate / block times as a linear diagram.

:shrug: The dips would require more investigation, but I see that about 90% of those coins were mined within a hashrate factor of 2-3. The first chunk appears to be mined at around 5-6Mh/s, then the rest is 2-3Mh/s, save the dips. Additionally, variance is a b*tch sometimes.

Sergio_Demian_Lerner
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 539


View Profile WWW
April 15, 2013, 11:38:25 AM
 #119

I've changed my mind. Well, a bit.

I try to skip "proofs" relating to comments, remembrances, e-mails, stories, private conversations, chats, etc.

I only speak the language of the block chain.

The ExtraNonces fields are incraesing too slowly to be one computer.

The deltas of the ExtraNonces fields in the first 10 blocks tell me that each block was approximately 4 ExtraNonces apart from the predecessor (ExtraNonce starts with one)  .

One possibility it that there were 16 independent threads running on 16 cores.

If the average block time is 8 minutes, a single thread would have required 8*16 = 128 minutes to do 32 zero bits. 32-5-7= 20 bits. --> 1 Mhashs/sec

So there were probably eight Intel CORE 2 duos, running two thread each.

All started at almost exactly at the same time (I would say no more than 16 minutes apart).


PS: Regarding my computations on Crypto++ performance, I was taking into account that the webpage says only one core was used, and Bitcoin could use two cores simultaneously. But obviously I was mistaken by a factor of 2X because of the double-hash thing.
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
April 15, 2013, 12:42:15 PM
 #120

I just looked at the first 20 blocks, none of them has the same generation address, is it always generate a new address for each found block?

And as I understand, in early days of bitcoin client, there is no pre-generated addresses in wallet, how the coin generation payment is done at that time?

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!