Bitcoin Forum
October 23, 2020, 06:04:24 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Chain Archaeology - Answers from the early blockchain  (Read 8765 times)
Taras
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1042


Please do not PM me loan requests!


View Profile WWW
March 21, 2014, 11:42:31 PM
Last edit: March 23, 2014, 12:14:33 AM by Taras
 #41


Here's a fullrender of the first thousand blocks. Cheesy
It's time to begin identifying our new miners from 660 to 1000.
Looking at this graph makes me proud. The discovery, it beckons...

Edit 3/22 15:48. I'm going to start using my local time, because it's a pain to convert.
I'm going to take a break from the higher blocks and start looking back on the foundation.
Below would be blocks 0 to 25 plotted not by height, but by timestamp:

It seems that both satoshi and the first early adopter (who picked up block 12) have stopped mining shortly after Jan/09/2009 04:33:09.
Bitcoin was essentially dead for 24 hours, until satoshi put his rig back on (and in doing so, reset his extraNonce and begin the next iteration) and found block 15 on Jan/10/09 04:45:46. (He then found block 16, an impressive 12 seconds later (a record at the time.))

I'm not certain why satoshi mined block 0 on the 3rd, and then waited for the 9th to release the client.
There's probably a good reason, but we'll see. Maybe.

Edit 15:59. Here's all the action that took place on January 9:

I'll be honest, I thought we'd see a constant slope. I'm no expert, but I can officially conclude I have no idea what extraNonce is even for, or how it behaves. Just that we can see some significantly applicable patterns.

Edit 16:14. From the data I've got so far, January 10 is cut in half. Bitcoin "died" again at around 7 AM, to be revieved at 3:30 PM, 8 hours later.
Here's the first half:

The two blocks on the bottom right *might* have been satoshi's. I'll get some more data, and see if we can link them to Mr. Nakamoto.

Edit 16:19. Here's the revival of the bitcoin network, up to the end of the iteration.

Those two blocks on the bottom left are not the same as the ones on the bottom right of the previous chart.
Those four have always confused me. Satoshi mined at least two of them... Which ones, I don't know.

Edit 18:34. Whoever mined 955 has an extremely impressive amount of coins.

Edit 18:49. There are so many addresses that instead of choosing a pseudonym from characters in it, I'll just call this miner Narwhal. Get it? It's a whale? Well, if you have a better idea, let me know.

Edit 18:53. Whoever mined 956 was more likely than not PUR3.

Edit 18:57. PUR3 is Druid?

Edit 18:59. If PUR3 is Druid, then he had more than one miner in the triple-digit blocks.

Edit 19:03. 964, Narwhal.

Edit 19:11. 979, Narwhal.

Edit 19:13. 994, Narwhal.

Edit 19:14. 996, Narwhal.
1603433064
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603433064

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603433064
Reply with quote  #2

1603433064
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
gwern
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 47
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2014, 05:44:28 PM
 #42

Quote
It seems that both satoshi and the first early adopter (who picked up block 12) have stopped mining shortly after Jan/09/2009 04:33:09 [3PM EST]. Bitcoin was essentially dead for 24 hours, until satoshi put his rig back on (and in doing so, reset his extraNonce and begin the next iteration) and found block 15 on Jan/10/09 04:45:46 [3PM EST]. (He then found block 16, an impressive 12 seconds later (a record at the time.))
I'm not certain why satoshi mined block 0 on the 3rd, and then waited for the 9th to release the client. There's probably a good reason, but we'll see. Maybe.

...Edit 16:14. From the data I've got so far, January 10 is cut in half. Bitcoin "died" again at around 7 AM [6AM EST], to be revived at 3:30 PM [2PM EST], 8 hours later.

Odd timings. Why would Satoshi drop out at 3PM and not restart for an entire day, then next drop out at 6AM and revive at 2PM? If 3PM was in his local time at night and something caused his computer to stop (a bug, perhaps, or network problem; has happened to me many times with overnight runs of something), then what caused a stop halfway around the clock at 7AM, which would likely be during the day?
Taras
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1042


Please do not PM me loan requests!


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2014, 08:42:15 PM
Last edit: April 03, 2014, 09:55:46 PM by Taras
 #43

Quote
It seems that both satoshi and the first early adopter (who picked up block 12) have stopped mining shortly after Jan/09/2009 04:33:09 [3PM EST]. Bitcoin was essentially dead for 24 hours, until satoshi put his rig back on (and in doing so, reset his extraNonce and begin the next iteration) and found block 15 on Jan/10/09 04:45:46 [3PM EST]. (He then found block 16, an impressive 12 seconds later (a record at the time.))
I'm not certain why satoshi mined block 0 on the 3rd, and then waited for the 9th to release the client. There's probably a good reason, but we'll see. Maybe.

...Edit 16:14. From the data I've got so far, January 10 is cut in half. Bitcoin "died" again at around 7 AM [6AM EST], to be revived at 3:30 PM [2PM EST], 8 hours later.

Odd timings. Why would Satoshi drop out at 3PM and not restart for an entire day, then next drop out at 6AM and revive at 2PM? If 3PM was in his local time at night and something caused his computer to stop (a bug, perhaps, or network problem; has happened to me many times with overnight runs of something), then what caused a stop halfway around the clock at 7AM, which would likely be during the day?
It's possible satoshi was only running one computer at the time, and turned it off while he slept? Since we don't really know if he lives in Japan, we can't assume what day and night for satoshi is yet. Maybe if we can get more data.
Taras
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1042


Please do not PM me loan requests!


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2014, 08:43:56 PM
Last edit: April 06, 2014, 04:24:58 AM by Taras
 #44

A bitcoiner sent me a very very interesting article today.

Screenshot of Hal's first transactions included.

Bgo is Hal.
Hal mined block 235, which he was previously unknown to have found.

Edit 15:47. I checked all other transactions visible in the screenshot; they coincide perfectly with what I've concluded previously. Feeling really good about myself right now.

Edit 16:32. Here's a list of spent blocks we've linked so far:

0009 Satoshi
0078 Hal
0235 Hal
0268 Vaga*
0309 Druid
0320 Druid
0329 Druid
0357 Druid
0360 Bbz*
0361 Hal
0372 Hal
0394 Druid
0407 Druid
0413 Hal
0417 Vaga*
0419 Hal
0431 Vaga*
0433 Druid
0439 Druid
0442 Vaga*
0450 Vaga*
0461 Druid
0463 PUR3*
0465 Druid
0473 Druid
0490 Hal
0493 Druid
0501 Zzz*
0506 Zzz*
0509 Druid
0512 PUR3*
0521 Druid
0528 Hal
0541 Druid
0562 Druid
0563 PUR3*
0567 Hal
0575 PUR3*
0591 Druid
0596 Cxak*
0598 PUR3*
0607 Druid
0614 PUR3*
0624 Druid
0651 Hal
0658 PUR3*
0666 Druid
0685 Hal
0687 PUR3*
0699 PUR3*
0702 PUR3*
0707 Hal
0720 Hal
0726 PUR3*
0728 Hal
0730 Druid
0739 Cxak*
0748 Zqcym*
0757 Druid
0767 Druid
0772 Cxak*
0773 Druid
0777 Hal
0786 Druid
0803 Hal
0809 Druid
0813 PUR3*
0814 Druid
0819 Hal
0821 Esewdm*
0824 Druid
0828 Druid
0842 Hal
0850 Kwgdyop*
0869 Hal
0885 Zqcym*
0905 PUR3*
0913 PUR3*
0923 Kwgdyop*
0927 Esewdm*
0935 Druid
0940 Druid
0945 Druid
0949 Druid
0955 Narwhal*
0956 PUR3*
0958 Hal
0959 Druid
0964 Narwhal*
0966 Hal
0979 Narwhal*
0984 Kwgdyop*
0986 Esewdm*
0992 Druid
0994 Narwhal*
0996 Narwhal*
0998 Kwgdyop*
0999 Druid
*
pseudonyms invented by me

Edit April 5 23:09. I'll now propose a system of nomenclature for early mining patterns that remain unspent.
Rather than getting a pseudonym based on characters in the address, they will be represented by USM followed by the block number where their pattern was first seen. So, the first person other than satoshi to use bitcoin would be USM-12. (No, not Hal)

Edit 23:15. That stands for Unspent Miner.

Edit 23:23:

Here's the next 150 blocks.

Edit 23:24:

Satoshi omitted. See the lines? I sure do. I think I'll get to the end of this iteration before identifying them.
AncestralManor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 17, 2014, 11:51:10 AM
Last edit: April 17, 2014, 12:45:47 PM by AncestralManor
 #45

‏@marttimalmi posted  on his twitter feed a few months ago the following message:

"Found the first known bitcoin to USD transaction from my email backups. I sold 5,050 BTC for $5,02 on 2009-10-12. https:/[Suspicious link removed]/8XcBmzJljf "

I was confused by some aspects of this transaction.

I didn't think that BTC valuations were that high that early. The pizza story in 2010 gets all the press, but I have seen New Liberty Standard references for $1 = 1,309.03 BTC.

In any case, Martti appears to have begun mining in early April 2009 and continued into October just before he spent the 5050 BTC. Martti's earliest block number was a little over 10,000 - indicating that there was a lot of mining from January into April.

Yet, by mid October 2009, Martti's spend was only at block 24835.

The difficulty didn't change from 1 until the end of the year, Is that because both Satoshi and various early adopters stopped mining or am I missing something about the gating of the hashing rate?

Edit: This is the blockchain link https://blockchain.info/tx/7dff938918f07619abd38e4510890396b1cef4fbeca154fb7aafba8843295ea2
benjyz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 17, 2014, 12:02:21 PM
 #46

‏The difficulty didn't change from 1 until the end of the year, Is that because both Satoshi and various early adopters stopped mining or am I missing something about the gating of the hashing rate?

I would like to know the answer about this, too. The difficulty was 1.0 through 2009, see graph. the choice of date seems deliberate though, or it is a random coincidence.

Taras
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1042


Please do not PM me loan requests!


View Profile WWW
April 19, 2014, 12:02:54 AM
 #47

‏The difficulty didn't change from 1 until the end of the year, Is that because both Satoshi and various early adopters stopped mining or am I missing something about the gating of the hashing rate?

I would like to know the answer about this, too. The difficulty was 1.0 through 2009, see graph. the choice of date seems deliberate though, or it is a random coincidence.
Here are some interesting quotes to answer that question. Smiley

We had our first automatic adjustment of the proof-of-work difficulty on 30 Dec 2009.  
The minimum difficulty is 32 zero bits, so even if only one person was running a node, the difficulty doesn't get any easier than that.  For most of last year, we were hovering below the minimum.  On 30 Dec we broke above it and the algorithm adjusted to more difficulty.  It's been getting more difficult at each adjustment since then.
The adjustment on 04 Feb took it up from 1.34 times last year's difficulty to 1.82 times more difficult than last year.  That means you generate only 55% as many coins for the same amount of work.
The difficulty adjusts proportionally to the total effort across the network.  If the number of nodes doubles, the difficulty will also double, returning the total generated to the target rate.

Essentially it was (coincidentally) around one year after release that bitcoin's difficulty rose for the first time. Before then, blocks averaged at more than 10 minutes apart and the difficulty could not ever go below 1.00, even if the network does 1khash/s.
AncestralManor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 19, 2014, 04:32:31 AM
 #48

I must still be missing something about the patterns of bitcoin generation in that first year. Why would the rate of mining success fall to roughly half of the first three months rate during the next six months?

If we look at an example of 10-20 minute intervals required to generate a block (there are 1440 minutes in a day), then it seems possible that 72 to 144 blocks could be generated in a day.

Thus if we use 90 days as a rough calculation of the first three months, then somewhere between 6480 to 12960 blocks would be generated in that first three months.

We know from Martti's first block sample in April that the block interval of 10 minutes was pretty much on track for the first three months - yet also indicates that there was at least someone running all the time.

If however, the rate of block generation over the next six months is more like 20 minutes on average (ie half the rate of the first three months), what is that due to?

- there wasn't at least one node working all the time
- the size of the block changed the solution rate
- something else?

Do we have any other examples like Martti's six month long sample that are identifiable?
Taras
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1042


Please do not PM me loan requests!


View Profile WWW
April 25, 2014, 05:52:38 PM
 #49

I must still be missing something about the patterns of bitcoin generation in that first year. Why would the rate of mining success fall to roughly half of the first three months rate during the next six months?

If we look at an example of 10-20 minute intervals required to generate a block (there are 1440 minutes in a day), then it seems possible that 72 to 144 blocks could be generated in a day.

Thus if we use 90 days as a rough calculation of the first three months, then somewhere between 6480 to 12960 blocks would be generated in that first three months.

We know from Martti's first block sample in April that the block interval of 10 minutes was pretty much on track for the first three months - yet also indicates that there was at least someone running all the time.

If however, the rate of block generation over the next six months is more like 20 minutes on average (ie half the rate of the first three months), what is that due to?

- there wasn't at least one node working all the time
- the size of the block changed the solution rate
- something else?

Do we have any other examples like Martti's six month long sample that are identifiable?
The hashrate wasn't good enough for ten minutes a block at difficulty 1; And difficulty never goes lower than 1.
So, the difficulty won't change at all until the hashrate rises enough so that blocks are solved faster than every ten minutes.
Taras
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1042


Please do not PM me loan requests!


View Profile WWW
April 25, 2014, 06:54:37 PM
 #50


Now that time is a variable, we can see that these four blocks which confused me previously have a large delay in the middle.
For the two unspent blocks on the left to have survived, they must have been mined by the person who mined the two on the right as well, because nobody else would have them written down unless they both stopped simultaneously.
Considering the last two blocks follow the same eN-line as satoshi's confirmed one, we can finally confirm these four blocks were mined by satoshi.
AncestralManor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 27, 2014, 08:02:03 PM
 #51

I must still be missing something about the patterns of bitcoin generation in that first year. Why would the rate of mining success fall to roughly half of the first three months rate during the next six months?

If we look at an example of 10-20 minute intervals required to generate a block (there are 1440 minutes in a day), then it seems possible that 72 to 144 blocks could be generated in a day.

Thus if we use 90 days as a rough calculation of the first three months, then somewhere between 6480 to 12960 blocks would be generated in that first three months.

We know from Martti's first block sample in April that the block interval of 10 minutes was pretty much on track for the first three months - yet also indicates that there was at least someone running all the time.

If however, the rate of block generation over the next six months is more like 20 minutes on average (ie half the rate of the first three months), what is that due to?

- there wasn't at least one node working all the time
- the size of the block changed the solution rate
- something else?

Do we have any other examples like Martti's six month long sample that are identifiable?
The hashrate wasn't good enough for ten minutes a block at difficulty 1; And difficulty never goes lower than 1.
So, the difficulty won't change at all until the hashrate rises enough so that blocks are solved faster than every ten minutes.

So what you are suggesting is that whatever processors were used to hash in the first three months were more powerful by a factor of two than those used in the next six months - on average?

If the first three months produced 10,000+ blocks at 50 coins in each block, then that is half a million coins or approximately half of what has been attributed to Satoshi?

MarketNeutral
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 251


View Profile
April 27, 2014, 10:04:45 PM
 #52

Very interesting thread.

With a difficulty floor of 1, how likely is it that Satoshi or others had to use more CPU power, that is 'work harder' than they anticipated, to prevent block times being delayed too much? Was mining more experimental in 2009, such that long gaps between blocks were of little consequence, or was it vital to maintain a certain level of hashing power to keep the block times as consistent as possible? My impression is that mining was much more of a curiosity for computer geeks back then, but the early days of bitcoin are so murky, it's hard to tell. I didn't start mining until 2010, and by then, block times were important and bitcoin was slightly more than a curiosity.
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!