Bitcoin Forum
November 20, 2017, 03:15:12 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 123628 times)
Sergio_Demian_Lerner
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 539


View Profile WWW
April 15, 2013, 01:33:51 PM
 #121

The relation between 6 minutes and 6 days is 11 bits.
The relation between 32 zero bits and 43 zeros bits is 11 bits.

So blocks 1-10 match EXACTLY the same hashing power as the genesis block.

The genesis block has a 4 ExtraNonce value, approximately equal to the blocks 1-10 ExtraNonce deltas.

So THE SAME mining computers that mined the genesis block probably mined blocks 1-10.

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.

The whole mystery of ExtraNonces mismatches is solved.

Obviously the 16 threads/core configuration is not the only possible one, there may have been more PCs, each one slower. I'm sure that in the ExtraNonce fields there is enough statistical information to tell how many. Too many (>50) is not very probable, since they ought to be connected and started mining in a short time interval (2 minutes or so).
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511147712
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511147712

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511147712
Reply with quote  #2

1511147712
Report to moderator
1511147712
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511147712

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511147712
Reply with quote  #2

1511147712
Report to moderator
deepceleron
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile WWW
April 15, 2013, 04:20:09 PM
 #122

The relation between 6 minutes and 6 days is 11 bits.
The relation between 32 zero bits and 43 zeros bits is 11 bits.
So blocks 1-10 match EXACTLY the same hashing power as the genesis block.
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.

This is nonsense. It takes no extra time to randomly find a <0000000ffff hash that is equivalent to difficulty 1, 2, or 2000. Anything may come out of the hasher as the first hash you get. There is no "six days of hashing", that is just a stupid idea.

The genesis block has a 4 ExtraNonce value, approximately equal to the blocks 1-10 ExtraNonce deltas.
So THE SAME mining computers that mined the genesis block probably mined blocks 1-10.
The whole mystery of ExtraNonces mismatches is solved.

This is nonsense, as I described before, this likely means only that 2^32 * (ExtraNonce - previousExtraNonce ) + nonce hashes were performed after genesis mining start before a block solution was created. Any computer that starts Bitcoin 0.1.0 mining increments its nonce+extranonce in the same deterministic way absent any network block or transaction messages. There is no connection between the genesis creator and the rest of the blockchain.


Obviously the 16 threads/core configuration is not the only possible one, there may have been more PCs, each one slower. I'm sure that in the ExtraNonce fields there is enough statistical information to tell how many. Too many (>50) is not very probable, since they ought to be connected and started mining in a short time interval (2 minutes or so).

Lets look at how many Bitcoin clients there actually were then:

When Hal posted his crash debug log (cleverly pointed out by non-noob member Point at Infinity) containing the same first 49 blocks as we have now, it showed no timewarping or forking was done. Block 49's Timestamp is 2009-01-10 18:56:42; the email list message time is 2009-01-10 19:13. Block finding rate is similar before and after this point.

What it also shows is the number of Bitcoin clients listening in IRC for peers. Each Bitcoin has it's own 14 character "u" nick in the #bitcoin channel in 0.1.0 (you'll still find these in that channel from time to time). Who was in that channel? Three people were in the channel: Hal, another Bitcoin 0.1.0, and a listener.

List of nicks in #bitcoin channel:
IRC :lem.freenode.net 353 uCeSAaG6R9Qidrs @ #bitcoin :uCeSAaG6R9Qidrs x93428606 @u4rfwoe8g3w5Tai
IRC :lem.freenode.net 366 uCeSAaG6R9Qidrs #bitcoin :End of /NAMES list.

More info about those users?:
(format RPL_WHOREPLY "<channel> <user> <host> <server> <nick> ( "H" / "G" > ["*"] [ ( "@" / "+" ) ] :<hopcount> <real name>")

First nick to join channel (had channel ops): Bitcoin 0.1.0 user u4rfwoe8g3w5Tai
lem.freenode.net 352 uCeSAaG6R9Qidrs #bitcoin n=u4rfwoe8 h-68-164-57-219.lsanca54.dynamic.covad.net irc.freenode.net u4rfwoe8g3w5Tai H@ :0  u4rfwoe8g3w5Tai

Second nick to join channel: x93428606 (not bitcoin, connecting by Tor)
lem.freenode.net 352 uCeSAaG6R9Qidrs #bitcoin i=x9342860 gateway/tor/x-bacc5813d7825a9a irc.freenode.net x93428606 H :0  x93428606

Third nick to join channel: Hal's Bitcoin, uCeSAaG6R9Qidrs
lem.freenode.net 352 uCeSAaG6R9Qidrs #bitcoin n=uCeSAaG6 226-132.adsl2.netlojix.net irc.freenode.net uCeSAaG6R9Qidrs H :0  uCeSAaG6R9Qidrs

There is no evidence either way that bitcoin #1 was satoshi. To receive the first bitcoin transaction, Satoshi would not even need to run Bitcoin, just giving an address would be sufficient.

I am done responding to this thread, since my previous analysis is not interpreted correctly and there is no hypothesis here. Satoshi is bitrich, you aren't.

Sergio_Demian_Lerner
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 539


View Profile WWW
April 15, 2013, 07:44:48 PM
 #123

This is nonsense. It takes no extra time to randomly find a <0000000ffff hash that is equivalent to difficulty 1, 2, or 2000. Anything may come out of the hasher as the first hash you get. There is no "six days of hashing", that is just a stupid idea.

I really can't understand your message. Either you cannot explain yourself or we speak different languages.

Can anybody explain in plain English deepceleron sentence?

Have you understood my message?

I'm not taking about the hash digest itself, just the work done to find it. Obviously the hash digest has not statistical information be can feasibly extracted.







AlphaWolf
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
April 15, 2013, 08:58:16 PM
 #124

3. Was satoshi mining through tor? That would have slowed down his generation rate.

The Bitcoin client would have a local copy of the blockchain, and the hashing is obviously done completely locally... How exactly would Tor affect his generation rate in any way at all?
Gordonium
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


View Profile WWW
April 15, 2013, 09:23:11 PM
 #125

Besides mining Satoshi might have bought new coins up to this moment. So there really is no upper boundary.  Shocked

            Š
           ŠŠŠ
          ŠŠŠŠŠ   _
         ŠŠŠ ŠŠŠ_Š―Š
        ŠŠŠ   ŠŠŠ   Š
   Š―――――――――――Š   Š―
  Š           Š   Š―
 ――ŠŠŠŠŠ―――ŠŠŠ   Š
ŠŠ
    ŠŠŠ Š   Š   Š ŠŠŠ
   ŠŠŠ   Š   Š Š   ŠŠŠ
  ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ   ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ
 ―
―――――――――Š   ŠŠ――――――
            Š___Š
  _Š
_ŠŠŠ

ŠŠŠŠ    _
ŠŠŠŠ  _ŠŠ

ŠŠŠŠ ŠŠŠŠ
ŠŠŠŠ ŠŠŠŠ

ŠŠŠŠ ŠŠŠŠ
ŠŠŠŠ ŠŠŠŠ

ŠŠŠŠ ŠŠŠŠ
ŠŠ―  ŠŠŠŠ

    ŠŠŠŠ
     ŠŠŠ―
     Š―
A  G A M I N G  R E V O L U T I O N  I S  O N  T H E  W A Y
|      FACEBOOK      |      SLACK      ――――      WHITEPAPER      ――――      TWITTER      |      TELEGRAM      |
  _Š
_ŠŠŠ

ŠŠŠŠ    _
ŠŠŠŠ  _ŠŠ

ŠŠŠŠ ŠŠŠŠ
ŠŠŠŠ ŠŠŠŠ

ŠŠŠŠ ŠŠŠŠ
ŠŠŠŠ ŠŠŠŠ

ŠŠŠŠ ŠŠŠŠ
ŠŠ―  ŠŠŠŠ

    ŠŠŠŠ
     ŠŠŠ―
     Š―
darkmule
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176



View Profile
April 15, 2013, 10:05:58 PM
 #126

How exactly would Tor affect his generation rate in any way at all?
Obviously tor wouldn't affect Satoshi's hashing rate, but it might affect the number of blocks that he successfully mined.

If Satoshi generated a block at the same time as someone else, I presume the delays caused by broadcasting blocks through tor would mean that the rest of the network would be likely to see the other person's block before Satoshi's block.

The effect is presumably small, but I don't see why it would be zero.

TOR latency is rarely more than a second or two.  Especially if you were one of the few miners in operation, the odds of a block coming in at the same time would be negligible.  The odds would be slightly increased by the low difficulty, but it may have never happened even once in the early days.
Dabs
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862



View Profile
April 17, 2013, 07:14:39 AM
 #127

What if he's gone? That's 1 million bitcoins that will never be spent. It will forever be in the blockchain. That also means no one can ever buy all the coins in existence.

Escrow Service (Services) - GPG ID: 32AD7565, OTC ID: Dabs
All messages concerning escrow or with bitcoin addresses are GPG signed. Please verify.
CompTIA A+, Microsoft Certified Professional, MCSA: Windows 10; Windows Server 2012, MCSE: Cloud Platform and Infrastructure; Productivity; Messaging
Sergio_Demian_Lerner
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 539


View Profile WWW
April 17, 2013, 07:17:36 AM
 #128

Please check the new thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178629.0 where I present new evidence (never shown before) to the discussion.
mc_lovin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


www.bitcointrading.com


View Profile WWW
April 17, 2013, 09:16:33 AM
 #129

I believe that Satoshi foresaw this very issue, and so avoided mining at all until well after the public announcement (if ever). Blocks 1-100+ were, I suspect, not mined by Satoshi.

+1

gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338



View Profile
April 17, 2013, 12:47:52 PM
 #130

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?

It's worth pointing out for posterity that you've gone and edited your claims in this thread to back them off from their previously falsified forms. This is somewhat discourteous to the other participants here, because it makes it look like you didn't take the positions that they've argued with.  I'm glad to see more accurate claims being made, but I'm wondering when you're going to go revise them further to point out that you were completely wrong and that your extranonce data strongly supports the position that there were multiple people mining the whole time.

I'm not even particularly computer savvy compared to many guys, just stumbled across as a proposed replacement to torbank, so surely many others did the same to a bigger degree.

However I would be surprised if guys who were mining in 2009 not only continued mining, but had the foresight
Yup. Exactly. But that kind of view doesn't let you generate ALL CAPS headlines.

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

Activity: 539


View Profile WWW
April 17, 2013, 02:37:04 PM
 #131


It's worth pointing out for posterity that you've gone and edited your claims in this thread to back them off from their previously falsified forms. This is somewhat discourteous to the other participants here, because it makes it look like you didn't take the positions that they've argued with. 


Whenever I edit a published post, I add the word "Edit:" or I strike the words that must be removed.

Could you stop this fruitless competition ?
Sergio_Demian_Lerner
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 539


View Profile WWW
April 17, 2013, 03:02:30 PM
 #132

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.

 That's why I'm not hysterically warning you.
johnblaze
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252


View Profile
April 17, 2013, 05:13:58 PM
 #133

you people are retarded

you think he still owns his bitcoins?

he would've sold them all along on the way up, prob was out by the time they hit $30
deadweasel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile
April 17, 2013, 05:16:39 PM
 #134

you people are retarded

you think he still owns his bitcoins?

he would've sold them all along on the way up, prob was out by the time they hit $30


+1


also i don't care about anyone else's bitcoins.  nor could i prove ownership.  these satoshi speculation threads are asinine.

AlphaWolf
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
April 17, 2013, 05:22:39 PM
 #135

you people are retarded

you think he still owns his bitcoins?

he would've sold them all along on the way up, prob was out by the time they hit $30

This thread is retarded... but the fact that those coins have not been exchanged is a matter of public record... like *all* Bitcoin transactions.  They could be lost forever.. but they most certainly were not "sold".
deepceleron
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile WWW
April 17, 2013, 05:25:20 PM
 #136

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.

AlphaWolf
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
April 17, 2013, 05:48:22 PM
 #137

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.

 That's why I'm not hysterically warning you.

A: 231828 is short of 2^18 by 30,316.  Not really a "small" difference.
B: Why would you look at how many blocks have been solved "to date"?  At the time that block was solved, there were...  125,552 blocks solved.  That's a lot closer to 2^17.  (Short by 5,520).
C: What is this magical theorem that says "the log base 2 of the number of blocks found is the number of leading 0's that might be found exceeding the network difficulty in a double sha256 hash of an essentially random input"?  I don't think it exists.
maaku
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 905


View Profile
April 20, 2013, 09:42:19 PM
 #138

C: What is this magical theorem that says "the log base 2 of the number of blocks found is the number of leading 0's that might be found exceeding the network difficulty in a double sha256 hash of an essentially random input"?  I don't think it exists.

That's a result trivially derived from probability theory.

I'm an independent developer working on bitcoin-core, making my living off community donations.
If you like my work, please consider donating yourself: 13snZ4ZyCzaL7358SmgvHGC9AxskqumNxP
AlphaWolf
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
April 20, 2013, 11:22:44 PM
 #139

C: What is this magical theorem that says "the log base 2 of the number of blocks found is the number of leading 0's that might be found exceeding the network difficulty in a double sha256 hash of an essentially random input"?  I don't think it exists.

That's a result trivially derived from probability theory.

Also trivially derived from rectal extraction theory.  We'll need PoW to determine which was applied.
richard_dein
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 63


View Profile
April 20, 2013, 11:47:18 PM
 #140

Let's say you flip a coin 10 times.
You mark a cross on paper if the first 3 flips gives you heads; in this case, if up to the 7th flip you still get heads, you put a circle around the cross you just marked.
Now do this for several billion times, divide the number of circles by the number of crosses. It should be rather close to 1/16. That's the idea.
If you don't want to do this by hand, simulate this with the best PRNG you can find. It should be fairly quick.

If you still don't understand, go ask your math teacher. Or I can show you the ropes if you would pay me some BTC for the effort.

The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.
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!