Rampion
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1120


November 25, 2013, 11:47:58 AM 

They are referring to 12higDjoCCNXSA95xZMWUdPvXNmkAduhWv: total received coin matches exactly to the numbers in the paper.. Wasn't that address already linked to "one of the AHA guys" (I won't be more specific for privacy purposes) who admitted to have had cashed out a big amount in 2011?








FORTUNEJACK.COM  [  9 BTC WELCOME PACK FOR 1ST 5 DEPOSITS FREE 1,000 mBTC daily for LuckyJack winners  [   ] 



Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.



gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2366


November 25, 2013, 01:00:55 PM 

Wasn't that address already linked to "one of the AHA guys" (I won't be more specific for privacy purposes) who admitted to have had cashed out a big amount in 2011?
Yes.

Bitcoin will not be compromised



Rampion
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1120


November 25, 2013, 01:09:50 PM 

Wasn't that address already linked to "one of the AHA guys" (I won't be more specific for privacy purposes) who admitted to have had cashed out a big amount in 2011?
Yes. And here we have another reminder that Bitcoin is not anonymous at all unless some very specific procedures are followed.




jgarzik


November 25, 2013, 08:28:22 PM 


Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own. Visit bloq.com / metronome.io Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj



jdbtracker


November 25, 2013, 11:54:02 PM 

Damn straight: In the immortal words of Timothy Leary,"Think for yourself, Question authority." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5i73SnLEg

If you think my efforts are worth something; I'll keep on keeping on. I don't believe in IQ, only in Determination.



Sergio_Demian_Lerner


November 26, 2013, 02:41:26 PM 

(Also posted on reddit) From the "paper": "The Bitcoin community believes [9] that the vast majority of the early mining operations were carried out by Satoshi Nakamoto, and that during this early period he accumulated about one million bitcoins (..) by mining most of the first 20,000 blocks. " [9] Lerner S. D.: The Well Deserved Fortune of Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin creator, Visionary and Genius, Bitslog, 17 april 2013, http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/thewelldeservedfortuneofsatoshinakamoto/This is totally misleading! From my a post just a few days after that: http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/satoshisfortuneamoreaccuratefigure/"Another interesting fact is that the pattern starts just after the genesis block, in block 1. ...It seems that block 12 is the first mined by another user." So two hours after the true Bitcoin genesis block was released, there were other people mining. And other early miners during 2009 accumulated more than 300K bitcoins. Also the older generation txs received by that address (block heights 357 and 509) does not seem to be part of the Satoshi mining pattern (this I will recheck today) So the conclusion of the paper is completely flawed. Sergio D. Lerner.





Sammey
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 38
abusus non tollit usum.


November 30, 2013, 03:29:49 PM 

I must admit most of the words in your blog post was beyond me at this point. The notion that Satoshi could've left us a message for us to see in the future gives me a thrill for some reason.
Sammey /post




bill.joy
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14


December 02, 2013, 09:48:07 AM 

I think it's simple. Satoshi was using a standard PC plus a custom FPGA (just doing SHA256), so the nonce incremented not very fast. He knew his rig was too fast, he needed to reduce his chance of finding a block, so that other miners could also mine bitcoins. So he left some holes in the LSB of his nonce to reduce his chance of finding blocks.
In summary, Satoshi was clever enough that he mined enough coins without being noticed that he had a powerful rig.




rarkenin


December 02, 2013, 11:37:04 AM 

That's not necessarily the way it works. No matter which nonce you try, in the end you're goingto have a similar mining success at the same speed.
Imagine buying lottery tickets, and the tickets only having one number to match. Let's say you start buying a ticket each second. No matter how you select these tickets you're going to have the same chance, whether 1, 2,3,4,5..., 2,4,6,8,... 1,2,3,5,8,13,... assuming the same speed.
No number is inherently "more random" or "better".




bill.joy
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14


December 02, 2013, 01:20:40 PM 

That's not necessarily the way it works. No matter which nonce you try, in the end you're goingto have a similar mining success at the same speed.
Imagine buying lottery tickets, and the tickets only having one number to match. Let's say you start buying a ticket each second. No matter how you select these tickets you're going to have the same chance, whether 1, 2,3,4,5..., 2,4,6,8,... 1,2,3,5,8,13,... assuming the same speed.
No number is inherently "more random" or "better".
nonce in this case is different from lottery in that it can increment to cover the entire range (from 0 until overflow) so it's 100% sure to be able to find a match. It's like you buy every possible number in lottery. Say if the answer is distributed equally within 0 ~ 255, if you intentionally restrict your coverage within 0 ~ 58, then in (25558)/255 = 77% of the time you can never find the answer.




gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2366


December 02, 2013, 05:05:13 PM 

nonce in this case is different from lottery in that it can increment to cover the entire range (from 0 until overflow) so it's 100% sure to be able to find a match. It's like you buy every possible number in lottery. Say if the answer is distributed equally within 0 ~ 255, if you intentionally restrict your coverage within 0 ~ 58, then in (25558)/255 = 77% of the time you can never find the answer.
No. That is completely wrong and confused. You are not 100% sure to find a match. Unless the hash function is broken, every attempt is unrelated— there could be 5 matches in a row, or a whole nonce range which doesn't match. When it fails, it just increments the extranonce or timestamp and carries on. At the current difficulty the probability of any value being a match is around one in seven hundred million. Puncturing the nonce space does not reduce your probability of success in the slightest.

Bitcoin will not be compromised



riX


December 03, 2013, 09:42:31 PM 

nonce in this case is different from lottery in that it can increment to cover the entire range (from 0 until overflow) so it's 100% sure to be able to find a match. It's like you buy every possible number in lottery. Say if the answer is distributed equally within 0 ~ 255, if you intentionally restrict your coverage within 0 ~ 58, then in (25558)/255 = 77% of the time you can never find the answer.
No. That is completely wrong and confused. You are not 100% sure to find a match. Unless the hash function is broken, every attempt is unrelated— there could be 5 matches in a row, or a whole nonce range which doesn't match. When it fails, it just increments the extranonce or timestamp and carries on. At the current difficulty the probability of any value being a match is around one in seven hundred million. Puncturing the nonce space does not reduce your probability of success in the slightest. Unless you also hash for the nonces in between but discard the results.. which is of course stupid.




NewLiberty
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Gresham's Lawyer


December 03, 2013, 11:24:59 PM 

nonce in this case is different from lottery in that it can increment to cover the entire range (from 0 until overflow) so it's 100% sure to be able to find a match. It's like you buy every possible number in lottery. Say if the answer is distributed equally within 0 ~ 255, if you intentionally restrict your coverage within 0 ~ 58, then in (25558)/255 = 77% of the time you can never find the answer.
No. That is completely wrong and confused. You are not 100% sure to find a match. Unless the hash function is broken, every attempt is unrelated— there could be 5 matches in a row, or a whole nonce range which doesn't match. When it fails, it just increments the extranonce or timestamp and carries on. At the current difficulty the probability of any value being a match is around one in seven hundred million. Puncturing the nonce space does not reduce your probability of success in the slightest. Unless you also hash for the nonces in between but discard the results.. which is of course stupid. Under the assumption that profit is the motive

FREE MONEY^{1} Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QRBulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" ^{1}Free of Government



riX


December 04, 2013, 02:41:33 PM 

nonce in this case is different from lottery in that it can increment to cover the entire range (from 0 until overflow) so it's 100% sure to be able to find a match. It's like you buy every possible number in lottery. Say if the answer is distributed equally within 0 ~ 255, if you intentionally restrict your coverage within 0 ~ 58, then in (25558)/255 = 77% of the time you can never find the answer.
No. That is completely wrong and confused. You are not 100% sure to find a match. Unless the hash function is broken, every attempt is unrelated— there could be 5 matches in a row, or a whole nonce range which doesn't match. When it fails, it just increments the extranonce or timestamp and carries on. At the current difficulty the probability of any value being a match is around one in seven hundred million. Puncturing the nonce space does not reduce your probability of success in the slightest. Unless you also hash for the nonces in between but discard the results.. which is of course stupid. Under the assumption that profit is the motive No, under the assumption that there is no benefit at all, including profit, of calculating hashes you will not publish. Unless he was testing the randomness of the algorithm, but I doubt it. OffT: Why don't we just ask this guy? http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.45.1255&rep=rep1&type=pdf




maaku


December 04, 2013, 06:44:43 PM 

Because Naoshi Sakamoto is not even a remotely related name to Satoshi Nakamoto, and if you spoke Japanese you would know that. Please don't give this poor guy the nightmare of public scrutiny.

I'm an independent developer working on bitcoincore, making my living off community donations. If you like my work, please consider donating yourself: 13snZ4ZyCzaL7358SmgvHGC9AxskqumNxP



NewLiberty
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Gresham's Lawyer


December 04, 2013, 09:19:36 PM 

Because Naoshi Sakamoto is not even a remotely related name to Satoshi Nakamoto, and if you spoke Japanese you would know that. Please don't give this poor guy the nightmare of public scrutiny.
The names are not the same. Also, they are not the same person.

FREE MONEY^{1} Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QRBulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" ^{1}Free of Government



NewLiberty
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Gresham's Lawyer


December 04, 2013, 09:21:13 PM 

nonce in this case is different from lottery in that it can increment to cover the entire range (from 0 until overflow) so it's 100% sure to be able to find a match. It's like you buy every possible number in lottery. Say if the answer is distributed equally within 0 ~ 255, if you intentionally restrict your coverage within 0 ~ 58, then in (25558)/255 = 77% of the time you can never find the answer.
No. That is completely wrong and confused. You are not 100% sure to find a match. Unless the hash function is broken, every attempt is unrelated— there could be 5 matches in a row, or a whole nonce range which doesn't match. When it fails, it just increments the extranonce or timestamp and carries on. At the current difficulty the probability of any value being a match is around one in seven hundred million. Puncturing the nonce space does not reduce your probability of success in the slightest. Unless you also hash for the nonces in between but discard the results.. which is of course stupid. Under the assumption that profit is the motive No, under the assumption that there is no benefit at all, including profit, of calculating hashes you will not publish. Unless he was testing the randomness of the algorithm, but I doubt it. Yes, or testing something else. We are still in beta, yes? This is all just testing so far.

FREE MONEY^{1} Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QRBulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" ^{1}Free of Government



bill.joy
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14


December 05, 2013, 05:40:31 AM 

nonce in this case is different from lottery in that it can increment to cover the entire range (from 0 until overflow) so it's 100% sure to be able to find a match. It's like you buy every possible number in lottery. Say if the answer is distributed equally within 0 ~ 255, if you intentionally restrict your coverage within 0 ~ 58, then in (25558)/255 = 77% of the time you can never find the answer.
No. That is completely wrong and confused. You are not 100% sure to find a match. Unless the hash function is broken, every attempt is unrelated— there could be 5 matches in a row, or a whole nonce range which doesn't match. When it fails, it just increments the extranonce or timestamp and carries on. At the current difficulty the probability of any value being a match is around one in seven hundred million. Puncturing the nonce space does not reduce your probability of success in the slightest. Unless you also hash for the nonces in between but discard the results.. which is of course stupid. Under the assumption that profit is the motive No, under the assumption that there is no benefit at all, including profit, of calculating hashes you will not publish. Unless he was testing the randomness of the algorithm, but I doubt it. OffT: Why don't we just ask this guy? http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.45.1255&rep=rep1&type=pdfThe success of a currency relies heavily on attracting enough smart people to participate. The core competence is still people as a team, who have since worked together and have overcome all the difficulties and dangers along the way. Mining too many coins for oneself is short sighted and stupid. It encourages people to go the other way. That's probably why he didn't even spend the > 1Million bitcoins. The motivation has obviously been the success of bitcoin.




jdbtracker


December 05, 2013, 02:15:02 PM 

Whatever Satoshi did, you cannot deny that must have been a blazzing fast computer! Powerful computer denotes resources, resources denotes connections.... either that or they GPU mined just for fun!
I agree with the above quote... can't spend them, they have to show integrity... though I sure hope they plan something big for those Satoshi coins... Off topic but, wow just imagine how much good they could do if they unleashed that torrent to charities and organizations around the world: If everyone accepts BTC by then, it will change the world. 16 trillion global trade cap divided by amount of coins = 2 Trillion dollars of globe changing power.

If you think my efforts are worth something; I'll keep on keeping on. I don't believe in IQ, only in Determination.



