Buzhou
Member
 Offline
Activity: 199
Merit: 10
|
 |
June 26, 2018, 04:59:23 PM |
|
Yes, for Bitcoin which prides itself on having transparency through code you would expect at least a handful of people to have inspected the code and come forward if Daniel's claims about i0coin are true.
Not Impossible, worth a hedge, but is it true?
Maybe this guy is right! I just read some articles, it's a situation that we could believe in and also discredit! But look, I checked and there are blocks checked in the future and in the past! Who will explain this? Why does not anyone show up and refute it? If it continues like this, the theories of this face would become axioms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to achieve higher forum ranks, you need both activity points and merit points.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad2Vlad
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3052
Merit: 1530
www.ixcoin.net
|
|
June 26, 2018, 05:12:12 PM |
|
At 10 cents with no more coins being mined and only 21 million hard cap I don’t get what the debate is about.
Put $100 in it and forget it. I’ve been telling people that for 5+ years.
|
iXcoin - Welcome to the F U T U R E! |
|
|
|
realdantreccia
|
|
June 26, 2018, 05:35:36 PM |
|
At 10 cents with no more coins being mined and only 21 million hard cap I don’t get what the debate is about.
Put $100 in it and forget it. I’ve been telling people that for 5+ years.
E X A C T L Y. |
From the many one, from one, the source
|
|
|
KOABR
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 55
Merit: 8
|
|
June 26, 2018, 06:10:46 PM |
|
The network issues 12.5 BTC per block.All this nonsense is non sequitur hyperbole.Even Vlad's notorious friend would agree https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1011502936772546561.A deliberate sensationalist narrative created out of an insignificant event. The softfork on 528750 block was shitcoin 2x hybrid consensus.Another insignificant bump under the wheels of a freight train. The silence will be deafening once these two copypaste coins i0/IX retract back into tumbleweed town after its pathetic attempt to pump on the back of this urban myth. Just after this fork a character named "BitPico" start a massive ddos and (blocks overload?) to the bcash network... Lot of fud and talkings about Bitmain 51% hspower... I read someone asking how he (BitPico) have such ammount of (block tx?)... I admit to have not enought knowledge to have a clear plot of the situation but something is moving, something of this things are incredibly related with my personal past and last but not least, this is the kind of things that really open your eyes on how much is deep the real world and the stories that everyday humankind is able to make. That's I think sure worth a try ps: IXC and I0C seems to be often negative correlated, so it's easy swap and increase your stack |
|
|
|
|
Buzhou
Member
Offline
Activity: 199
Merit: 10
|
|
June 26, 2018, 06:47:01 PM |
|
Just after this fork a character named "BitPico" start a massive ddos and (blocks overload?) to the bcash network...
Lot of fud and talkings about Bitmain 51% hspower...
I read someone asking how he (BitPico) have such ammount of (block tx?)...
I admit to have not enought knowledge to have a clear plot of the situation
but something is moving, something of this things are incredibly related with my personal past and last but not least, this is the kind of things that really open your eyes on how much is deep the real world and the stories that everyday humankind is able to make.
That's I think sure worth a try
ps: IXC and I0C seems to be often negative correlated, so it's easy swap and increase your stack
I only have a few months of crypto, but I created the account here in the last few days just to look for something of value! Of course and increase my position in BTC! But tokens are illusions, there are real ones, but it's in the long run! So I thought the old coins would be a good solution! If I0C had no value, why didn't people dump it? The rich list shows numerous addresses with I0C stacked and stopped for years! The traffic here has suddenly increased, I just checked the last pages... Google trends points to a sudden increase in I0coin searches in the USA. |
|
|
|
|
|
realdantreccia
|
|
June 26, 2018, 06:58:09 PM |
|
The network issues 12.5 BTC per block.All this nonsense is non sequitur hyperbole.Even Vlad's notorious friend would agree https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1011502936772546561.A deliberate sensationalist narrative created out of an insignificant event. The softfork on 528750 block was shitcoin 2x hybrid consensus.Another insignificant bump under the wheels of a freight train. The silence will be deafening once these two copypaste coins i0/IX retract back into tumbleweed town after its pathetic attempt to pump on the back of this urban myth. Just after this fork a character named "BitPico" start a massive ddos and (blocks overload?) to the bcash network... Lot of fud and talkings about Bitmain 51% hspower... I read someone asking how he (BitPico) have such ammount of (block tx?)... I admit to have not enought knowledge to have a clear plot of the situation but something is moving, something of this things are incredibly related with my personal past and last but not least, this is the kind of things that really open your eyes on how much is deep the real world and the stories that everyday humankind is able to make. That's I think sure worth a try ps: IXC and I0C seems to be often negative correlated, so it's easy swap and increase your stack It definitely all seems to intertwine in one way or the other. The Huobi 10 Index HB10 launches July 1. Index coins deserve their credit in forming these types of possibilities for crypto. I0C will have its day. Soon. Has to be. NLX forks this month - expect Zerocoin protocol to make the news. |
From the many one, from one, the source
|
|
|
KOABR
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 55
Merit: 8
|
|
June 26, 2018, 07:29:33 PM |
|
The network issues 12.5 BTC per block.All this nonsense is non sequitur hyperbole.Even Vlad's notorious friend would agree https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1011502936772546561.A deliberate sensationalist narrative created out of an insignificant event. The softfork on 528750 block was shitcoin 2x hybrid consensus.Another insignificant bump under the wheels of a freight train. The silence will be deafening once these two copypaste coins i0/IX retract back into tumbleweed town after its pathetic attempt to pump on the back of this urban myth. Just after this fork a character named "BitPico" start a massive ddos and (blocks overload?) to the bcash network... Lot of fud and talkings about Bitmain 51% hspower... I read someone asking how he (BitPico) have such ammount of (block tx?)... I admit to have not enought knowledge to have a clear plot of the situation but something is moving, something of this things are incredibly related with my personal past and last but not least, this is the kind of things that really open your eyes on how much is deep the real world and the stories that everyday humankind is able to make. That's I think sure worth a try ps: IXC and I0C seems to be often negative correlated, so it's easy swap and increase your stack It definitely all seems to intertwine in one way or the other. The Huobi 10 Index HB10 launches July 1. Index coins deserve their credit in forming these types of possibilities for crypto. I0C will have its day. Soon. Has to be. NLX forks this month - expect Zerocoin protocol to make the news. hey Dan, really, is far for me the truely understand of how this things pops in real life just from shadow, but the Story is full of shadows, this is a World of possibilities as I believe this World is, so yes they can be index token of new products. Some days ago I read about riches investors want more coins, 21 milions is a number that psycologically doesn't fit well with human behaviours. People prefer milions of nothing instead of units of everything, moreover old rich people. But about Houbi...they have a BitcoinX listed (bcx)...return of fork block say IsBitcoinX()...idk if it means nothing but for 93 sat each  ps: yesterday I was reading a ML paper talking about reservoir computing and... Euler's identity was used to integrate something in input |
|
|
|
|
KOABR
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 55
Merit: 8
|
|
June 26, 2018, 07:49:58 PM |
|
I only have a few months of crypto, but I created the account here in the last few days just to look for something of value! Of course and increase my position in BTC! But tokens are illusions, there are real ones, but it's in the long run! So I thought the old coins would be a good solution! If I0C had no value, why didn't people dump it? The rich list shows numerous addresses with I0C stacked and stopped for years! The traffic here has suddenly increased, I just checked the last pages... Google trends points to a sudden increase in I0coin searches in the USA.
smart guys are all around us...we are not alone, today, news and rumors fly in real time. google trend and bitcoin forum post I believe shows only that adoption is rolling forward, from smart to dumb and finally from hunters... we are hunters |
|
|
|
|
CHIEF56
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 126
Merit: 2
|
|
June 26, 2018, 10:33:13 PM
Last edit: June 26, 2018, 11:40:49 PM by CHIEF56 |
|
If only I knew coding. Haha. https://bitcointicker.co/block/528898 - F2Pool - 0x3fffe000
https://bitcointicker.co/block/528908 - F2Pool - 0x2000e000 <~
https://bitcointicker.co/block/528916 - F2Pool - 0x3fffffff
https://bitcointicker.co/block/528932 - CKpool - 0x2000e000 <~
What's your take on the version? Which part of it? What do the values translate into exactly, you mean? I'd have to research more into them. What does it mean overall? The miners are signaling soft forks. I believe, once 97% ? of miners are in agreement, it happens. Correct me if I am wrong, but by F2Pool + and then CKpool setting the same bits, that equals more than 1% of the miners agree on 0x2000e000I should have read more earlier, but: Actually, the use and change we are seeing here is indicative of the fact that miners of those pools are solving blocks using version-rolling ASICBOOST . . . Either (1) overtly (2) covertly, or both. BIP661 reserved a range of values in the Version field for this purpose, or other functions: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/661/filesAnd just recent: https://bitcointicker.co/block/529235 - BTC.top Overt AsicBoost
Instead of changing the extra nonce, a miner using AsicBoost alters the 4-byte version field in the block header (top left of the image). This implies that chunk 2 remains unchanged for multiple hashing attempts and work is therefore saved. If this methodology is used, changes in the version bits are visible to everyone, which makes this AsicBoost methodology easily detectable.(more: https://blog.bitmex.com/an-overview-of-the-covert-asicboost-allegation-2/) Somewhere in the following links, explanations are found for the large number of empty blocks and skewed timestamps.. no more time for me to look at the moment: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.htmlhttps://blog.bitmex.com/graphical-illustration-of-a-bitcoin-block/https://blog.bitmex.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/AsicBoostWhitepaperrev5.pdfhttps://blog.bitmex.com/an-overview-of-the-covert-asicboost-allegation-2/https://blog.bitmex.com/empty-block-data-by-mining-pool/https://blog.bitmex.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/AsicBoostWhitepaperrev5.pdf(sorry to keep going off-topic on I0coin) But, my theory is this: Someone is doing testing or has deployed, or is in the process of deploying, a large amount of ASIC using covert asic BOOST. Reasons being: 1. Sudden large increase of hash power and diff on Bitcoin and Merged-mined BTC coins 2. Empty/small size blocks - Empty blocks being added to BTC's chain - Small block sizes Mining empty blocks and small blocks are clues that covert asic boost is in use. Covert asic boost "Miners must look for one collision of 4 bytes, which is 32 bits — so this collision is one of 232 hashing attempts. We take the square root this due to the birthday paradox to arrive at a n approximate expected total of 65,536 attempts. Each attempt may require changing the extra nonce to generate a new Merkle root hash. However, due to the structure of the Merkle tree, this would require even more additional hashing. If we change the extra nonce, a new is hash is required for each row of the Merkle tree. For a large Bitcoin block with perhaps 10 or more rows, this is a lot of extra work and is an inefficient process. The following methodologies may make this process more efficient: Option 1 is to produce empty or smaller blocks. This simply reduces the size of the Merkle tree and therefore requires fewer hashing operations to generate a different Merkle root hash. The extra nonce can therefore vary in the normal way to produce more Merkle root hashes." - A few other options to make the process more efficient. Each option, however, can have an undesirable effect on your operations if not done correctly, which brings me to: 3. Skewed transaction time stamps. - We are seeing a large # of blocks containing (received) time stamps that are way out out whack. I can think of many reasons this would happen: - Huge hash increase on local network overloading systems (self inflicted DDoS). Think of a computer processor and system like a highway. Sudden increase of massive amounts of data clogs things up. Quite simply, if there are any constraints placed upon the call to/from the clock register, there will be time corruption. - Buggy or flawed/low quality chip design - Sudden temperature changes - Environmental issues causing frequency changes - Power supplies that are not clean/stable - Packet storms and overloaded network resulting in timing update issues If current UNIX time is 1530041671 (06/26/2018 @ 7:34pm utc), and system issues result in time being updated or read as say, 1030041671 (one bit off), we see transaction received time set to 12/04/2002 @ 10:41pm UTC China is supposed putting an end to crypto miners in China. Complete BS obviously.. Seems like they are ramping things up instead. |
|
|
|
|
|
realdantreccia
|
|
June 26, 2018, 11:46:28 PM |
|
(sorry to keep going off-topic on I0coin)
But, my theory is this:
Someone is doing testing or has deployed, or is in the process of deploying, a large amount of ASIC using covert asic BOOST. Reasons being:
1. Sudden large increase of hash power and diff on Bitcoin and Merged-mined BTC coins
2. Empty/small size blocks
- Empty blocks being added to BTC's chain
- Small block sizes
Mining empty blocks and small blocks are clues that covert asic boost is in use. Covert asic boost
"Miners must look for one collision of 4 bytes, which is 32 bits — so this collision is one of 232 hashing attempts. We take the square root this due to the birthday paradox to arrive at a n approximate expected total of 65,536 attempts.
Each attempt may require changing the extra nonce to generate a new Merkle root hash. However, due to the structure of the Merkle tree, this would require even more additional hashing. If we change the extra nonce, a new is hash is required for each row of the Merkle tree. For a large Bitcoin block with perhaps 10 or more rows, this is a lot of extra work and is an inefficient process.
The following methodologies may make this process more efficient:
Option 1 is to produce empty or smaller blocks. This simply reduces the size of the Merkle tree and therefore requires fewer hashing operations to generate a different Merkle root hash. The extra nonce can therefore vary in the normal way to produce more Merkle root hashes."
- A few other options to make the process more efficient.
Each option, however, can have an undesirable effect on your operations if not done correctly, which brings me to:
3. Skewed transaction time stamps.
- We are seeing a large # of blocks containing (received) time stamps that are way out out whack. I can think of many reasons this would happen:
- Huge hash increase on local network overloading systems (self inflicted DDoS). Think of a computer processor and system like a highway. Sudden increase of massive amounts of data clogs
things up. Quite simply, if there are any constraints placed upon the call to/from the clock register, there will be time corruption.
- Buggy or flawed/low quality chip design
- Sudden temperature changes
- Environmental issues causing frequency changes
- Power supplies that are not clean/stable
- Packet storms and overloaded network resulting in timing update issues
If current UNIX time is 1530041671 (06/26/2018 @ 7:34pm utc), and system issues result in time being updated or read as say, 1030041671 (one bit off), we see transaction received time set to 12/04/2002 @ 10:41pm UTC
China is supposed putting an end to crypto miners in China. Complete BS obviously.. Seems like they are ramping things up instead.
That is some great analysis and really helps me picture some of what is happening here. Let me ask you though - with all of your facts on mining and such not being my wheelhouse - who can factually prove that Bitcoin (BTC) is directly minting its own new coins? By producing a block reward from mining BTC directly? What I mean that is it is obvious both I0C and DVC are minting their own coins via their own block reward. We can see that in the raw block data. With BTC we do not see any proof of that, in fact if you have read my Medium posts on Devcoin (DVC) you see that the source of Newly Generated Bitcoins is just a covered up cross-chain transaction where the input is an outbound (vout) block reward of 12.5 DVC. Now read that as much as you need to. It is really hard to word, but the block reward for DVC is supposed to be 50,000 DVC. All one has to do is look in the raw block data to see only 12.5 DVC are awarded in AuxPow to DVC and then that those 12.5 DVC are immediately output to a BTC address. They show up on the BTC ledger at Blockchain.info. How is that not ground breaking? The fact that the DVC vout pubkeyhash meets up with the I0C Op_Hash160 pubkey on the BTC ledger is even further proof that there is certainly a way to reverse these invalid unspent transactions right back to their real main chain of AuxPow - I0C. That's clear as ever in my articles. Combined with your analysis - we see that the ASIC boost proves China is stepping up their mining effort to 51% "BTC". However such an attack can only come by way of them processing BTC transactions, since BTC does not mint its own coins. So then when that attack takes place, the protection mechanism kicks in to reverse all of these invalid "newly generated coins" block rewards to DVC and via AuxPow to I0C. The scenario here is the Devs are protecting Bitcoin by allowing a 51% attack from somewhere only to show a backup plan and 99.99% minted blockchain exists. It won't be able to be 51'd with that amount minted and is very, very secure with the high hash rate I0C DVC + NMC GRP IXC (the original 5 merge mined coins). I believe that will happen very soon. By Q3 - July 1, 2018. So hold onto your belt buckles folks. EDIT: It has to be said, IMO, that I believe Bitmain is going to run this attack as an exercise for Bitcoin's overall health and to prove it is very secure against mining attacks -> this will gain public praise -> mass adoption will follow. |
From the many one, from one, the source
|
|
|
|
realdantreccia
|
|
June 27, 2018, 08:02:56 AM |
|
|
From the many one, from one, the source
|
|
|
|
wiked1
|
|
June 27, 2018, 12:51:45 PM |
|
I have read your articles and commend you on your level of insight but was wondering if you ran any of this past any of the i0 coin developers or anyone who worked on its client/codebase recently? Maybe they could chime in with their opinion and add some weight to this? Thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
realdantreccia
|
|
June 27, 2018, 01:04:27 PM |
|
I have read your articles and commend you on your level of insight but was wondering if you ran any of this past any of the i0 coin developers or anyone who worked on its client/codebase recently? Maybe they could chime in with their opinion and add some weight to this? Thanks I hope they do I haven't talked to any directly. However, the Alert Key was just triggered on I0Coin's chainz block explorer. I updated here with photos. Predicted it about 1 hour before it happened! https://medium.com/@danieltreccia/bitcoin-state-reorganization-are-you-prepared-for-june-30-2018-d28cba344ccb |
From the many one, from one, the source
|
|
|
|
wiked1
|
|
June 27, 2018, 01:18:09 PM |
|
I have read your articles and commend you on your level of insight but was wondering if you ran any of this past any of the i0 coin developers or anyone who worked on its client/codebase recently? Maybe they could chime in with their opinion and add some weight to this? Thanks I hope they do I haven't talked to any directly. However, the Alert Key was just triggered on I0Coin's chainz block explorer. I updated here with photos. Predicted it about 1 hour before it happened! https://medium.com/@danieltreccia/bitcoin-state-reorganization-are-you-prepared-for-june-30-2018-d28cba344ccbI have mentioned it to one person who would have a far greater knowledge of coding than myself and who has actually worked on the client and they don't seem to have any knowledge of there being anything special about i0 coin apart from it being a merge mined coin allowing it this level of hashrate. |
|
|
|
|
|
realdantreccia
|
|
June 27, 2018, 01:21:36 PM |
|
I have read your articles and commend you on your level of insight but was wondering if you ran any of this past any of the i0 coin developers or anyone who worked on its client/codebase recently? Maybe they could chime in with their opinion and add some weight to this? Thanks I hope they do I haven't talked to any directly. However, the Alert Key was just triggered on I0Coin's chainz block explorer. I updated here with photos. Predicted it about 1 hour before it happened! https://medium.com/@danieltreccia/bitcoin-state-reorganization-are-you-prepared-for-june-30-2018-d28cba344ccbI have mentioned it to one person who would have a far greater knowledge of coding than myself and who has actually worked on the client and they don't seem to have any knowledge of there being anything special about i0 coin apart from it being a merge mined coin allowing it this level of hashrate. Just read my entire medium when you have three days free  https://medium.com/@danieltreccia/bitcoins-alert-key-triggered-on-i0coin-s-blockchain-ee82e97d4819 |
From the many one, from one, the source
|
|
|
|
hornetsnest
|
|
June 27, 2018, 03:53:23 PM |
|
Yes, for Bitcoin which prides itself on having transparency through code you would expect at least a handful of people to have inspected the code and come forward if Daniel's claims about i0coin are true.
Not Impossible, worth a hedge, but is it true?
Maybe this guy is right! I just read some articles, it's a situation that we could believe in and also discredit! But look, I checked and there are blocks checked in the future and in the past! Who will explain this? Why does not anyone show up and refute it? If it continues like this, the theories of this face would become axioms. Does the transaction include a timestamp?The time stamp comes from the block explorer node itself which can be off.When the time stamp is off it just indicates the block explorer api not reading the output script correctly. |
████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
|
|
|
CHIEF56
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 126
Merit: 2
|
|
June 27, 2018, 10:45:46 PM |
|
(sorry to keep going off-topic on I0coin)
But, my theory is this:
Someone is doing testing or has deployed, or is in the process of deploying, a large amount of ASIC using covert asic BOOST. Reasons being:
1. Sudden large increase of hash power and diff on Bitcoin and Merged-mined BTC coins
2. Empty/small size blocks
- Empty blocks being added to BTC's chain
- Small block sizes
Mining empty blocks and small blocks are clues that covert asic boost is in use. Covert asic boost
"Miners must look for one collision of 4 bytes, which is 32 bits — so this collision is one of 232 hashing attempts. We take the square root this due to the birthday paradox to arrive at a n approximate expected total of 65,536 attempts.
Each attempt may require changing the extra nonce to generate a new Merkle root hash. However, due to the structure of the Merkle tree, this would require even more additional hashing. If we change the extra nonce, a new is hash is required for each row of the Merkle tree. For a large Bitcoin block with perhaps 10 or more rows, this is a lot of extra work and is an inefficient process.
The following methodologies may make this process more efficient:
Option 1 is to produce empty or smaller blocks. This simply reduces the size of the Merkle tree and therefore requires fewer hashing operations to generate a different Merkle root hash. The extra nonce can therefore vary in the normal way to produce more Merkle root hashes."
- A few other options to make the process more efficient.
Each option, however, can have an undesirable effect on your operations if not done correctly, which brings me to:
3. Skewed transaction time stamps.
- We are seeing a large # of blocks containing (received) time stamps that are way out out whack. I can think of many reasons this would happen:
- Huge hash increase on local network overloading systems (self inflicted DDoS). Think of a computer processor and system like a highway. Sudden increase of massive amounts of data clogs
things up. Quite simply, if there are any constraints placed upon the call to/from the clock register, there will be time corruption.
- Buggy or flawed/low quality chip design
- Sudden temperature changes
- Environmental issues causing frequency changes
- Power supplies that are not clean/stable
- Packet storms and overloaded network resulting in timing update issues
If current UNIX time is 1530041671 (06/26/2018 @ 7:34pm utc), and system issues result in time being updated or read as say, 1030041671 (one bit off), we see transaction received time set to 12/04/2002 @ 10:41pm UTC
China is supposed putting an end to crypto miners in China. Complete BS obviously.. Seems like they are ramping things up instead.
That is some great analysis and really helps me picture some of what is happening here. Let me ask you though - with all of your facts on mining and such not being my wheelhouse - who can factually prove that Bitcoin (BTC) is directly minting its own new coins? By producing a block reward from mining BTC directly? Are you saying the blocks generated from merge mining are abnormal? |
|
|
|
|
Vlad2Vlad
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3052
Merit: 1530
www.ixcoin.net
|
|
June 27, 2018, 11:16:32 PM |
|
Are you saying the blocks generated from merge mining are abnormal?
I believe he’s saying that BTC isn’t being directly mined, but rather thru I0 and via DVC. Kinda hard to argue with the hard facts he’s put up. |
iXcoin - Welcome to the F U T U R E! |
|
|
|
realdantreccia
|
|
June 28, 2018, 03:35:18 AM |
|
(sorry to keep going off-topic on I0coin)
But, my theory is this:
Someone is doing testing or has deployed, or is in the process of deploying, a large amount of ASIC using covert asic BOOST. Reasons being:
1. Sudden large increase of hash power and diff on Bitcoin and Merged-mined BTC coins
2. Empty/small size blocks
- Empty blocks being added to BTC's chain
- Small block sizes
Mining empty blocks and small blocks are clues that covert asic boost is in use. Covert asic boost
"Miners must look for one collision of 4 bytes, which is 32 bits — so this collision is one of 232 hashing attempts. We take the square root this due to the birthday paradox to arrive at a n approximate expected total of 65,536 attempts.
Each attempt may require changing the extra nonce to generate a new Merkle root hash. However, due to the structure of the Merkle tree, this would require even more additional hashing. If we change the extra nonce, a new is hash is required for each row of the Merkle tree. For a large Bitcoin block with perhaps 10 or more rows, this is a lot of extra work and is an inefficient process.
The following methodologies may make this process more efficient:
Option 1 is to produce empty or smaller blocks. This simply reduces the size of the Merkle tree and therefore requires fewer hashing operations to generate a different Merkle root hash. The extra nonce can therefore vary in the normal way to produce more Merkle root hashes."
- A few other options to make the process more efficient.
Each option, however, can have an undesirable effect on your operations if not done correctly, which brings me to:
3. Skewed transaction time stamps.
- We are seeing a large # of blocks containing (received) time stamps that are way out out whack. I can think of many reasons this would happen:
- Huge hash increase on local network overloading systems (self inflicted DDoS). Think of a computer processor and system like a highway. Sudden increase of massive amounts of data clogs
things up. Quite simply, if there are any constraints placed upon the call to/from the clock register, there will be time corruption.
- Buggy or flawed/low quality chip design
- Sudden temperature changes
- Environmental issues causing frequency changes
- Power supplies that are not clean/stable
- Packet storms and overloaded network resulting in timing update issues
If current UNIX time is 1530041671 (06/26/2018 @ 7:34pm utc), and system issues result in time being updated or read as say, 1030041671 (one bit off), we see transaction received time set to 12/04/2002 @ 10:41pm UTC
China is supposed putting an end to crypto miners in China. Complete BS obviously.. Seems like they are ramping things up instead.
That is some great analysis and really helps me picture some of what is happening here. Let me ask you though - with all of your facts on mining and such not being my wheelhouse - who can factually prove that Bitcoin (BTC) is directly minting its own new coins? By producing a block reward from mining BTC directly? Are you saying the blocks generated from merge mining are abnormal? I'm saving that Devcoins should not be 1:1 with BTC... |
From the many one, from one, the source
|
|
|
Buzhou
Member
Offline
Activity: 199
Merit: 10
|
|
June 28, 2018, 04:05:36 AM |
|
Treccia I read in your article about the possibility of the BTC not reorganize properly, what would happen? NLX plans the testnet with zeroprotocol in Q3, which started exactly in 3 days... After that, what else is missing? Will ETC start operations on coinbase and wall street arrive?
|
|
|
|
|
|
