Come-from-Beyond (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
|
|
August 19, 2013, 03:43:15 PM |
|
6 blocks were found withing half an hour... just to wait more than a whole hour to find the 7th one.
|
|
|
|
atomium
Donator
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 406
Merit: 252
Study the past, if you would divine the future.
|
|
August 19, 2013, 11:05:50 PM |
|
hmm...how come?
|
|
|
|
WinVery.com
|
|
August 20, 2013, 04:46:30 AM |
|
That looks like what flux would do.
|
|
|
|
Come-from-Beyond (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
|
|
September 21, 2013, 05:54:12 PM |
|
Another interesting screenshot:
|
|
|
|
Snail2
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000
|
|
September 22, 2013, 05:14:15 PM |
|
Looks good.
|
|
|
|
infobiactrader
Member
Offline
Activity: 116
Merit: 10
|
|
September 22, 2013, 09:10:35 PM |
|
This is actually one of the few annoyances I have with btc. It always seems that when I choose to send some coins is the time when blocks won't be found for at least another 20 minutes. Must just be my terrible luck.
|
|
|
|
Come-from-Beyond (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
|
|
September 22, 2013, 09:14:08 PM |
|
This is actually one of the few annoyances I have with btc. It always seems that when I choose to send some coins is the time when blocks won't be found for at least another 20 minutes. Must just be my terrible luck.
Ur luck is not so terrible . I recall 2 times when I had to wait an hour for a next block.
|
|
|
|
beeblebrox
Member
Offline
Activity: 117
Merit: 10
|
|
September 22, 2013, 09:46:34 PM |
|
It would have been very easy to significantly reduce the variation in block times when bitcoin was designed. All Satoshi had to do was require that multiple hashes were to be found by the miner per block. eg: if each miner had to find 50 hashes that met the difficulty target per block then the block periods would not have much variation.
|
|
|
|
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
Online
Activity: 4270
Merit: 8766
|
|
September 22, 2013, 09:52:20 PM |
|
It would have been very easy to significantly reduce the variation in block times when bitcoin was designed. All Satoshi had to do was require that multiple hashes were to be found by the miner per block. eg: if each miner had to find 50 hashes that met the difficulty target per block then the block periods would not have much variation.
I always find it gratifying to see all these armchair experts with their "very easy" "improvements" which would hose the security. We actually need the variation in order to have a decisive consensus. Even ignoring the bandwidth and dos vulnerability that would arise from cumulative work proofs, and the consolidation risks from turning mining into a race... the problem with incremental work POW is that it's not much of a lottery, which means that you'd constantly be losing hash power to orphaning as miners find solutions at very close to the same time. If this isn't obvious to you after it's pointed out, imagine if instead every miner found a block _exactly_ ten minutes after the last block: Exach miner would have their own chain, none longer than any others... the network split into a zillion separate universes.
|
|
|
|
beeblebrox
Member
Offline
Activity: 117
Merit: 10
|
|
September 22, 2013, 10:06:36 PM |
|
It would have been very easy to significantly reduce the variation in block times when bitcoin was designed. All Satoshi had to do was require that multiple hashes were to be found by the miner per block. eg: if each miner had to find 50 hashes that met the difficulty target per block then the block periods would not have much variation.
I always find it gratifying to see all these armchair experts with their "very easy" "improvements" which would hose the security. We actually need the variation in order to have a decisive consensus. Even ignoring the bandwidth and dos vulnerability that would arise from cumulative work proofs, and the consolidation risks from turning mining into a race... the problem with incremental work POW is that it's not much of a lottery, which means that you'd constantly be losing hash power to orphaning as miners find solutions at very close to the same time. If this isn't obvious to you after it's pointed out, imagine if instead every miner found a block _exactly_ ten minutes after the last block: Exach miner would have their own chain, none longer than any others... the network split into a zillion separate universes. actually I'm aware that you need a bit of variation so that the fastest miner doesn't dominate. This is the payoff involved- you need to balance the fastest miner consistently winning versus variation.
|
|
|
|
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
Online
Activity: 4270
Merit: 8766
|
|
September 22, 2013, 10:19:10 PM |
|
actually I'm aware that you need a bit of variation so that the fastest miner doesn't dominate. This is the payoff involved- you need to balance the fastest miner consistently winning versus variation.
Sure, and you can equally do that balance (making blocks happen below some time a greater portion of the time) just by lowering the time between blocks— without out the cumulative work advantage that creates an expected return increase for larger miners or increasing the proof size.
|
|
|
|
hashman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1264
Merit: 1008
|
|
September 23, 2013, 11:39:24 AM |
|
If this isn't obvious to you after it's pointed out, imagine if instead every miner found a block _exactly_ ten minutes after the last block: Exach miner would have their own chain, none longer than any others... the network split into a zillion separate universes.
Imagine further that radioactive decay were no longer stochastic but set to a timer... Thank god for dice!
|
|
|
|
saif313
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
September 23, 2013, 02:33:50 PM |
|
Looks good. very interesting screenshots
|
|
|
|
FreeMoney
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016
Strength in numbers
|
|
September 23, 2013, 04:50:01 PM |
|
I love speculating about bitcoin's far future.
When the block subsidy is gone or insignificant it won't be profitable to mine immediately after a block is found as there will be no waiting fees.
As fees pile up hashing power comes back online, the average is still 10 minutes, but the variance is reduced. Though average times during busiest hours (in the bitcoiniest parts of the world?) will be lower.
ASICs kind of muck this up as they probably can't do anything else profitably (different chain maybe?) and it may be worse to power them on and off every few minutes I don't know.
|
Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
|
|
|
Come-from-Beyond (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
|
|
September 30, 2013, 12:37:54 PM |
|
6 blocks in a row...
|
|
|
|
naphto
|
|
September 30, 2013, 01:06:13 PM |
|
50BTC is lucky, or has a lot of hash power?
|
|
|
|
hayek
|
|
September 30, 2013, 01:48:31 PM |
|
I don't think this is anything new. There is no guarantee of a 10 minute block time, just a good chance.
|
|
|
|
bitcoin44me
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 252
Merit: 100
MARKETPLACE FOR PAID ADVICE LIVE BROADCASTS
|
|
September 30, 2013, 01:49:42 PM |
|
I don't think this is anything new. There is no guarantee of a 10 minute block time, just a good chance.
Yes but 3 blocks in 1 min is like: WTF?
|
|
|
|
Come-from-Beyond (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
|
|
September 30, 2013, 02:16:47 PM |
|
I don't think this is anything new. There is no guarantee of a 10 minute block time, just a good chance.
Yes but 3 blocks in 1 min is like: WTF? I recall when I was playing SatoshiDice I got 10 winning 50% bets in a row...
|
|
|
|
Come-from-Beyond (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
|
|
December 30, 2013, 09:14:47 PM |
|
Interesting coincidence:
|
|
|
|
|