Please run a full node

[franky1]

That would mean that the orphan rate is 600%.  

yes the orphan rate would be higher if all pools didnt stop..(because there is competition its more effiecient to stop and move to next block if competitor wins)
im not saying that pools now should do such a thing of continuing on the mainnet.. as that would make the current competition of 20 pools on one network less efficient. as i said try some testnet tests using usb asics.


im saying based on a network of 1 pool... to get some maths of average REAL blocktime if there was no competition(single pool network) then a pool would not give up(stale shares) would not solve but not bother propagating(stale blocks) would not lose the race(orphan) because there would be no competition. so al their background failed attempts become valid...

which would reveal they make more blocks in X time.. which would counter the 1dimensional overview of the 20pool competing network of only seeing and doing bad math on only the accepted blockchain blocks

anyway.. lets bring this back on topic
time for me to have a beer

[jonald_fyookball]

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks

[franky1]

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks

now your COUNTING orphans FACEPALM
look at the TIMES.

atleast look past the 1 dimension overview of counting blocks
if you really wanna derail a topic. run some scenarios. think about the stales, invalids, orphans, etc that happen inbetween that you never see and think about the TIMES of that block subtracted by the TIMES of the previous block that the block contains(its parent)

again your not thinking about the 20 pools that LOSE when one pool wins..
think about the attempt pools make that LOSE

orphans are just one example dont do the foolish count blocks per hour
or count blocks made by pool between when the last time pool X made a block and the same pool made a block..
because your not thinking about all the other block attempts inbetween

use the TIME of the block it has as its previous hash against the time of that block

look at the TIMES
doing block counting is just 1-dimensional. especially if you cannot see all of the block attempts to make a fair count

[jonald_fyookball]

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks

now your COUNTING orphans FACEPALM
look at the TIMES.

atleast look past the 1 dimension overview of counting blocks
if you really wanna derail a topic. run some scenarios. think about the the stales, invalids, orphans, etc that happen inbetween that you never see

again your not thinking about the 20 pools that LOSE when one pool wins..
think about the attempt pools make that LOSE

orphans are just one example dont do the foolish count blocks per hour
or count blocks made by pool between when the last time pool X made a block and the same pool made a block.. use the TIME of the block it has as its previous hash against the time of that block

look at the TIMES
doing block counting is just 1-dimensional. especially if you cannot see all of the block attempts

You still seem to be under the impression that a block attempt gets you closer to a solution.

[franky1]

You still seem to be under the impression that a block attempt gets you closer to a solution.

you still think you can get an accurate block time by only counting what you can see.
dinofelis thinks he can get an accurate time by not looking at the TIME from previous block. but just counting how many blocks a brand makes an hour

both of you are not thinking that pools are working on OTHER blocks inbetween which messes up your simple block counting.

run some scenarios. get passed the 1-dimensional view

its been 2 days and you are still counting blocks.................. ignoring what pools do inbetween and ignoring the times per block
i need another beer

[jonald_fyookball]

You still seem to be under the impression that a block attempt gets you closer to a solution.

you still think you can get an accurate block time by only counting what you can see.
dinofelis thinks he can get an accurate time by not looking at the TIME from previous block. but just counting how many blocks a brand makes an hour

both of you are not thinking that pools are working on OTHER blocks inbetween which messes up your simple block counting.

run some scenarios. get passed the 1-dimensional view

You have a misunderstanding about mining, my friend.  The time from the previous block IS irrelevant.   You believe trying more nonces will make the next try more likely to succeed, when in reality each chance is completely separate. 

When you have 4 people telling you (dinofelis, myself, jbreher, _ck ) that you are incorrect...you might want to consider the possibility that you might be.
 

[franky1]

You still seem to be under the impression that a block attempt gets you closer to a solution.

you still think you can get an accurate block time by only counting what you can see.
dinofelis thinks he can get an accurate time by not looking at the TIME from previous block. but just counting how many blocks a brand makes an hour

both of you are not thinking that pools are working on OTHER blocks inbetween which messes up your simple block counting.

run some scenarios. get passed the 1-dimensional view

You believe trying more nonces  

facepalm
im on about time between current block and last block
im on about time a pool is working on other blocks WIN OR LOSE!!!.

for instance
470000 A 10:00
469999 B 10:00
469998 C 10:00
469997 D 10:00
469996 C 10:00
469995 D 10:00
469994 A 10:00
469993 B 10:00

you/dino are counting from 469994 A to 470000 A = 60:00 = WRONG
what your not seeing is that 470000 was made 10:00 after 469999 B, meaning 10 not 60

also
470000 A 10:00
469999 B 10:00    A:10:01
469998 C 10:00    A:10:03
469997 D 10:00    A:10:01
469996 C 10:00    A:10:06
469995 D 10:00    A:10:02
469994 A 10:00
469993 B 10:00    A:10:07

(dont take the 1-7 seconds literally)

when 469999 was being made... A was also doing a fresh race of 469999 but didnt win.. this doesnt mean it didnt take A 10:01..
when 469998 was being made... A was also doing a fresh race of 469998 but didnt win.. this doesnt mean it didnt take A 10:03..
when 469997 was being made... A was also doing a fresh race of 469997 but didnt win.. this doesnt mean it didnt take A 10:01..
when 469996 was being made... A was also doing a fresh race of 469996 but didnt win.. this doesnt mean it didnt take A 10:06..
when 469995 was being made... A was also doing a fresh race of 469995 but didnt win.. this doesnt mean it didnt take A 10:05..
when 469993 was being made... A was also doing a fresh race of 469993 but didnt win.. this doesnt mean it didnt take A 10:07..

if you could see all the attempts in between of each blockheight you would see that its not spending an hour working on 1 block!!!

because if there was no competition.. A would not give up as soon as a competitor broadcast. because there would not be a competitor to stop them!!

meaning without competitors to stop them at stale share, or stale block or orphaned stages you would then see
470000 A 10:00
469999 A 10:01
469998 A 10:03
469997 A 10:01
469996 A 10:06
469995 A 10:02
469994 A 10:00
469993 A 10:07

(again dont take the 1-7 seconds literally)

[jonald_fyookball]

its not a race, its a lottery.  Guys, I tried.   

[franky1]

its not a race, its a lottery.  Guys, I tried.    

your taking things too one dimensionally literally.
ok lets try this.. be warned there is a test

470000 A 10:00
469999 B 10:00
469998 C 10:00
469997 D 10:00
469996 C 10:00
469995 D 10:00
469994 A 10:00
469993 B 10:00

1. what height is A working on while C was solving 469998 (imagining current height was 469997 and 469998-4700000 have not yet been solved)
[] 469998      [] 469996      [] 470000    [] 469995

2. imagine A did win 469998 instead of C, how long would you think it took using approx (meaning give or take a little variance.. not literal/exact)
[] 10 mins     [] 60mins      [] 30 mins     [] 40 mins  

please think beyond 1 dimension of counting blocks

[jonald_fyookball]

its not a race, its a lottery.  Guys, I tried.    

your taking things too one dimensionally literally.
ok lets try this.. be warned there is a test

470000 A 10:00
469999 B 10:00
469998 C 10:00
469997 D 10:00
469996 C 10:00
469995 D 10:00
469994 A 10:00
469993 B 10:00

1. what height is A working on while C was solving 469998 (imagining current height was 469997 and 469998-4700000 have not yet been solved)
[] 469998      [] 469996      [] 470000    [] 469995

While C was solving 469998, A is also working on the same block.  All miners are working on that block (unless there was some kind of latency and they didn't get 469997)

2. imagine A did win 469998 instead of C, how long would you think it took using approx (meaning give or take a little variance.. not literal/exact)
[] 10 mins     [] 60mins      [] 30 mins     [] 40 mins  

please think beyond 1 dimension of counting blocks

10 minutes.

[dinofelis]

its not a race, its a lottery.  Guys, I tried.    

This is what tricked me in trying many times too. And yes, they warned me and I didn't want to believe I couldn't get him to see this simple fact.  franky1 is not a total ignoramus concerning crypto, so it is beyond comprehension that he has a misunderstanding on which he is locked in so hard that nobody can get him out of there.... but there's no hope I'm afraid.  

But I'm starting to see part of franky1's confusion.  Yes, of course, all miners work on average about 10 minutes on EACH BLOCK.  When they win a block, they were only working on it for about 10 minutes.   It seems that "all the rest was wasted".  Probably franky1's confusion comes from the fact that "if there hadn't been that bastard of a competitor, I could have continued working on the block instead of having to give up on it and start all over again with a fresh one". So if, each time I WIN, I only needed about 10 minutes on average, I would only need 10 minutes on those that I had to give up because a bastard of a competitor forced me.

I think that is the core of his reasoning.

But this is wrong, because, exactly, it is not a race, but a lottery, like jonald tried to explain.

There is statistically not a single difference between mining on the same block, or changing blocks.  Your probability of success doesn't change.  It is as if you  had to throw different dice.  You chances of throwing a number don't change because you use different dice.  In other words, the fact that a "bastard of a competitor" forced you to change the block doesn't alter anything to your chances of winning one.  But I can somehow understand how this can be counter-intuitive, because by far most tasks we know, are a cumulative effort towards a result.

Let us try once more (you see, I'm tricked again in trying !).

Let us say that the "block on which you are working" is the specific dice you throw.   If I give you 3 red dice, and you need to throw 3 times a 6, you will have to try several times.  I have 3 blue dice and I try too.  You have one chance out of 216 to get 3 times a six.  Now after you've thrown 50 times without success, I have also thrown 50 times, and hey, I have 3 six !  At this point, you have to leave your red dice, and you have to use my blue dice now, while I take grey dice.  And we continue playing.
Do you think that you were "close to having 3 six" with your 3 red dice, and because I was a bastard of a competitor, forcing you to abandon the red dice, you can start over again ?

At each "round" (each second, say), both of us throw our dice.  As each of us has 1 chance in 216 to have a triple six, there will be a triple six found every 108 seconds on average, do you agree ?  But you will only find a triple six, on average, every 216 seconds, and me too.  The fact that I am present, doesn't change your chances of winning the next time.
It is only in very rare circumstances, that both of us win at the same throw.  In that case, one of us gets orphaned.  But that only happens very rarely.  Most of the time, each time you win, I don't win, and vice versa.  And whether I win or not, doesn't change the rate at which you win.

[dinofelis]

its not a race, its a lottery.  Guys, I tried.    

your taking things too one dimensionally literally.
ok lets try this.. be warned there is a test

470000 A 10:00
469999 B 10:00
469998 C 10:00
469997 D 10:00
469996 C 10:00
469995 D 10:00
469994 A 10:00
469993 B 10:00

1. what height is A working on while C was solving 469998 (imagining current height was 469997 and 469998-4700000 have not yet been solved)
[] 469998      [] 469996      [] 470000    [] 469995

While C was solving 469998, A is also working on the same block. 

Be careful.  They are working on SIMILAR blocks, but each pool has made his own block, with its own picking of transactions from the mem pool, and with its own specific order of course.  They are working on top of the same consensus block, 469997, of course, because this one has been published.

[jonald_fyookball]

its not a race, its a lottery.  Guys, I tried.    

This is what tricked me in trying many times too. And yes, they warned me and I didn't want to believe I couldn't get him to see this simple fact.  franky1 is not a total ignoramus concerning crypto, so it is beyond comprehension that he has a misunderstanding on which he is locked in so hard that nobody can get him out of there.... but there's no hope I'm afraid.  

Think of it like this:  Imagine a ginormous fish tank, 1000 miles high , wide, and deep, filled with plastic balls.  Most of the balls are yellow, but a few select balls are red.  The tank is constantly churning and mixing the balls, so if you reach your hand down and pull one ball it, its completely random.  You can toss a ball back in after choosing one, and still have the same exact chance of choosing a red ball.  Let's same three miners: Alice, Bob, and Carol each can pull one ball a second , check if its red, and then toss it back before trying again, and lets say the ratio of yellow to red balls is 1:1800.  After 10 minutes, each of them has done 600 pulls, and together 1800.  There's no guarantee they will pull a red ball in 10 minutes but that's the average.  Sometimes Alice will find a red ball quickly after Bob finds one, sometimes no one will find one for an hour.  The key thing is that whenever they pull a ball, the chances are always almost exactly 1:1800, because the tank is so huge.  


The mistake is to think that after 30 minutes of pulling balls, Alice's next pull will be anything different than 1:1800 chance.

Now lets say Bob starts to get really quick on the draw and he starts pulling 2 balls a second, so that now instead of 1800 pulls in 10 minutes, the 3 miners can do 2400 pulls in 10 minutes.  After 2 weeks, the tank magically adjusts the difficultly and now there's only 1:2400 red balls to yellow balls.

[franky1]

by the way im not an ignoramus about cryptography.
nor am i ignoramus about the odds of finding a block with 1 leading 0 vs odds of finding 18 leading 0's (im not being literal, im talking laymens)
nor am i ignoramus about for instance antpools 650peta hash a second and how many hashes over ~10minutes that equates too

p.s its not 1:1800

but until you realise that each pool works on EVERY BLOCK win or lose, theres no point talking about the the 3rd dimension

While C was solving 469998, A is also working on the same block.

wow.. finally seems now you admit the pools work on every block.

so now your seeing that it resets each height (thank god your now seeing that.. after 2 days)
now imagine if it didnt stop hashing 469998 even when C won.. it kept hashing 469998. you would see that it would have a solved 469998 in approx:

10 minutes.

i hope you see now that you realise its not working on say 470,000 based on the time from 469994.. but 469999 you can see things more two dimensionally..

can you atleast see how just VIEWING 2 blocks in a blockchain in a 1 hour period. DOES NOT mean it takes 30 minutes to solve a block

as for the new analogy of the lottery game

for 2 pages others were taking all the lottery tickets bought over 6 week of 6 games. and when winning only 2 lotteries. thinking it took all 6 weeks worth of tickets to win the 2 game .. but then double failed by saying it would still take 3 weeks to win..

rather than thinking that each week without anyone else buying tickets. then you could just yorself keep buying tickets until you win that weeks lottery. and it wont take 3-6x the amount of tickets

[dinofelis]

It IS hopeless.

[Viper1]

It IS hopeless.

lol. I had this really long reply to him typed up and just deleted it as I knew it would go no where. I was thinking maybe there was some unique thing that happens when you stick a bunch of miners in a pool that doesn't happen if they were all solo mining. So I was writing a simulation of 100k miners. But after seeing the true distribution (which, despite knowing better I still was thinking of it as a normal one), I shelved it as I had proved enough to myself that what he's saying just can't be true. For me the whole "average" thing is sort of misleading as it immediately puts a normal distribution in the back of your mind. But when you actually see it, things get pretty clear. At least it did for me.

[franky1]

anyway back on topic..

nodes DO have a crucial role to play..
anyone saying other wise just wants people to turn off their node..

[dinofelis]

It IS hopeless.

lol. I had this really long reply to him typed up and just deleted it as I knew it would go no where.

Funny, me too !    I edited my post with a long reply concerning the "lottery" stuff, when I wanted to submit, your post was there, I also realized the futility and didn't submit after all

[-ck]

It IS hopeless.

lol.

Lol.

Well, 95% of all blocks being mined into existence are mined using my software so if he can't believe me telling him he's wrong then I'm not sure how much higher an authority you can appeal to?

[dinofelis]

anyway back on topic..

nodes DO have a crucial role to play..
anyone saying other wise just wants people to turn off their node..

I would like to recall to you, that our long digression into how mining works, was needed to try to make you see that you had an erroneous argument in favour of full nodes, because a miner with 10% of the hash power has NO INCENTIVE to step back from remaining in agreement with the other miners, simply because he's then hard-forking all by himself, and will make a 10 times shorter chain.

Your erroneous understanding of mining made (probably still makes) you think that that betraying miner is going to mine all by himself a fork of just the same length as the chain of the rest of the miners, and hence "reap in all the rewards, orphaning the 90% chain" because full nodes agree with him, and not with the miner consortium.  

But this is not the case: our dissident miner will make just as many blocks on his own little fork, than he would have made on the consortium chain (*), with just as many rewards: so there's no incentive for him to leave the consortium, and make his little hard fork.  There *may be* such an incentive, if our dissident miner thinks that he will have the majority of the USERS on his side, and that the majority of the USERS will dump their coins on the long chain, and will fight for the coins on HIS fork.  But this is "hard forking power games", and has nothing to do with full node power.
The irony in this is that in order for his hardforking to work, users need to be ABLE TO TRANSACT on the chain they would dump and which, in our gedanken experiment, no node wants to accept !

==> "the dissident miner" story has hence no relevance to the "full node power" story.  It is a different power game that is described.

You are in a kind of bleak position to use an argument of authority, after having blatantly shown your total misunderstanding of elementary mining dynamics.  Of course, any logically built up argument is independent of its author, but there isn't any such in your post.

I do recognise UTILITY (but no POWER) to non-mining full nodes.  The elements of utility are:

1) to the owner: to be informed of the eventual deviation of the actually used protocol on the block chain, and the protocol requirement of his node (in other words, to acknowledge that the miners are using a different protocol than the one he would like with his node)

2) to the owner: anonymity of sending transactions (deniability of IP address).

3) helping a P2P network of data propagation, in case that direct internet links to miner nodes have problems (technical/political/....)

4) as a proxy, relieving the miner nodes from user traffic and helping them to make bigger profits because they can spend less on their network infrastructure towards users (uh )

Edit (*): caveat: at least, if in his hard fork, he didn't mess with the difficulty of course and kept the difficulty of the parent chain.