birr


January 14, 2016, 02:50:43 AM 

All of these numbers and formulas are wrong (except smooth, who is just giving rough numbers anyway). Risto's is admittedly labeled as a simplification. With 2.5% of the network hash rate, you have about a 60% chance of getting one or more double blocks each day. On average, you should get 27 double blocks per month. Every time you get a double block, you have a chance to get a triple block, so you end up with something like (per month):  a 50.4806% chance of no triple
 a 34.9481% chance of one triple
 a 11.6494% of two triples
 a 2.9219% chance of three or more triples
Again, this is just on an average month and obviously assumes your % hash rate remains constant. The chance of getting at least two blocks in a row is 90%. If you count only double blocks that are not part of triple blocks, the probability is lower than 90%. I haven't worked it out.






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

Bassica


January 14, 2016, 10:28:40 AM 

Pretty crazy to see XMR's marketcap being only 12.207 btc whilst it's ranked number 7 on coingecko.com. First coin having a lower marketcap is number 14, which is ftc. Talking about undervalued! Check it out: https://www.coingecko.com/en




mathgal23


January 14, 2016, 01:42:44 PM 

All of these numbers and formulas are wrong (except smooth, who is just giving rough numbers anyway). Risto's is admittedly labeled as a simplification. With 2.5% of the network hash rate, you have about a 60% chance of getting one or more double blocks each day. On average, you should get 27 double blocks per month. Every time you get a double block, you have a chance to get a triple block, so you end up with something like (per month):  a 50.4806% chance of no triple
 a 34.9481% chance of one triple
 a 11.6494% of two triples
 a 2.9219% chance of three or more triples
Again, this is just on an average month and obviously assumes your % hash rate remains constant. Probabilities are fun. If I get time I will look at the math more later.




iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


January 14, 2016, 02:11:44 PM 

Pretty crazy to see XMR's marketcap being only 12.207 btc whilst it's ranked number 7 on coingecko.com. First coin having a lower marketcap is number 14, which is ftc. Talking about undervalued! Check it out: https://www.coingecko.com/enI think the (comparative) undervaluation is intentionally created by XMR's aggressive early emission schedule, so everyone can get a nice stack of cheap early coins and start bootstrapping ASAP. Thanks for reminding me to post this: https://monerohash.com/nodesdistribution.htmlMonero is a tiny newborn baby in terms of full nodes and global distribution (WTF Australia/India/Brazil? Get with it!). If Szabo or another cryptocelebrity blessed Monero with just half of the public attention he's directed towards ETH, node number could easily rise by an order of magnitude or two. Even without some famous person's endorsement, we have nowhere to go but up, up, up!




luigi1111
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1113


January 14, 2016, 04:02:23 PM 

All of these numbers and formulas are wrong (except smooth, who is just giving rough numbers anyway). Risto's is admittedly labeled as a simplification. With 2.5% of the network hash rate, you have about a 60% chance of getting one or more double blocks each day. On average, you should get 27 double blocks per month. Every time you get a double block, you have a chance to get a triple block, so you end up with something like (per month):  a 50.4806% chance of no triple
 a 34.9481% chance of one triple
 a 11.6494% of two triples
 a 2.9219% chance of three or more triples
Again, this is just on an average month and obviously assumes your % hash rate remains constant. The chance of getting at least two blocks in a row is 90%. If you count only double blocks that are not part of triple blocks, the probability is lower than 90%. I haven't worked it out. No, it's not. The math you used to arrive at 90% (.025 x .025 x 1440) is not how probabilities work. 60% is much closer to the actual number.




Hueristic
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


January 14, 2016, 04:36:16 PM 

WTF is with these trolls? I posted to get on Polo for another coin Ive been part of since day 1 that I'd to see a XMR/VPN pairing and I get this shit. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789961.msg13535318#msg13535318This looks like a concerted effort to keep the price down. I'm wondering if these P&D groups are accumulating.




GTO911


January 14, 2016, 04:54:20 PM 

HCL is a known troll which hates Monero, maybe you missed it. Add it to you list




birr


January 14, 2016, 05:06:58 PM 

I stand corrected. I think the chance of getting one or more double block in a day, including any double that's part of a triple 1  (1  .025^2)^1339 =~57% Using exponents 3 and 1338, you have about a 2% chance of hitting a triple on any given day.




slapper


January 14, 2016, 05:17:56 PM 

Blow me bitch, I haven't held XMR since dec of 2014. Idiot
And how exactly is it going to help your stance? What's next sucking TrueCryptonnaire's wang? Why not try in r/crymeariver ? Dumbass c*nt




luigi1111
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1113


January 14, 2016, 05:58:01 PM 

I stand corrected. I think the chance of getting one or more double block in a day, including any double that's part of a triple 1  (1  .025^2)^1339 =~57% Using exponents 3 and 1338, you have about a 2% chance of hitting a triple on any given day.
Now we're on the same page. Though, I don't think it's correct to subtract from the exponent like that, but I could be wrong.




8XMR


January 14, 2016, 09:28:15 PM 

WTF is with these trolls? I posted to get on Polo for another coin Ive been part of since day 1 that I'd to see a XMR/VPN pairing and I get this shit. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789961.msg13535318#msg13535318This looks like a concerted effort to keep the price down. I'm wondering if these P&D groups are accumulating. [/quote It make no sense attack you since you are known supported of VPN coin. Not only he is a troll, apparently he is not smart one. I like XMR trade pairings on Poloniex and hope they create more volume in the future.

8xmr.com



birr


January 14, 2016, 10:43:11 PM 

I stand corrected. I think the chance of getting one or more double block in a day, including any double that's part of a triple 1  (1  .025^2)^1339 =~57% Using exponents 3 and 1338, you have about a 2% chance of hitting a triple on any given day.
Now we're on the same page. Though, I don't think it's correct to subtract from the exponent like that, but I could be wrong. Let's see if this makes sense. Consider a group of three consecutive blocks. Your chance of winning at least one is 1  (1  .025^1)^3 Your chance of winning at least two in a row is 1  (1  .025^2)^2 Your chance of winning all three is .025^3, or 1  (1  .025^3)^1. The sum of the exponents is constant.




aerbax


January 15, 2016, 01:29:52 AM 





ArticMine
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2030
Monero Core Team


January 15, 2016, 03:07:05 AM 

He makes some very valid points and he is of course right about the negative impacts of the 1 MB blocksize. He is also correct in saying the "bloat" is not the issue, in fact the small blocksize in Bitcoin may have led to the massive concentration of the Bitcoin hash rate in China effectively allowing the Government of China to control Bitcoin. On the other hand I do not agree at all with the criticism of people such as Gregory Maxwell, who I must say has also made many very valid points on the matter of scaling Bitcoin. The simple reality is that the Bytecoin solution of adaptive blocksize limits without a tail emission is also a prescription for disaster. The problem with Bitcoin is that nobody has found and it may well be impossible to find a way to develop a fee market, in the, absence of a block subsidy, that does not over time converge to one of two undesirable results: Fixed blocksize and infinite fees or infinite blocksize and zero fees. Mike Hearn has made a very persuasive argument as to why a fixed blocksize and infinite fees is such an undesirable outcome; however I am sure that Gregory Maxwell can make an equally persuasive argument as to why an infinite blocksize and zero fees is an equally undesirable outcome. Maybe the real reason why there has not been a solution to Bitcoin blocksize debate is that a solution may in fact not be possible, if one keeps the 21,000,000 maximum number of XBT limit in place, rather than because of the personalities involved. So in all of this where does Monero stand? Well Monero is the highest capitalization coin that has solved this problem in a pure proof of work coin. My philosophy on this is that when one takes care of the long term the short term will take care of itself. On the other hand focus on the short term and expect grief over the long term. Monero has taken care of the long term, unfortunately Bitcoin and for that matter most other crypto currencies have not.




tifozi


January 15, 2016, 03:41:01 AM 

He makes some very valid points and he is of course right about the negative impacts of the 1 MB blocksize. He is also correct in saying the "bloat" is not the issue, in fact the small blocksize in Bitcoin may have led to the massive concentration of the Bitcoin hash rate in China effectively allowing the Government of China to control Bitcoin. On the other hand I do not agree at all with the criticism of people such as Gregory Maxwell, who I must say has also made many very valid points on the matter of scaling Bitcoin. The simple reality is that the Bytecoin solution of adaptive blocksize limits without a tail emission is also a prescription for disaster. The problem with Bitcoin is that nobody has found and it may well be impossible to find a way to develop a fee market, in the, absence of a block subsidy, that does not over time converge to one of two undesirable results: Fixed blocksize and infinite fees or infinite blocksize and zero fees. Mike Hearn has made a very persuasive argument as to why a fixed blocksize and infinite fees is such an undesirable outcome; however I am sure that Gregory Maxwell can make an equally persuasive argument as to why an infinite blocksize and zero fees is an equally undesirable outcome. Maybe the real reason why there has not been a solution to Bitcoin blocksize debate is that a solution may in fact not be possible, if one keeps the 21,000,000 maximum number of XBT limit in place, rather than because of the personalities involved. So in all of this where does Monero stand? Well Monero is the highest capitalization coin that has solved this problem in a pure proof of work coin. My philosophy on this is that when one takes care of the long term the short term will take care of itself. On the other hand focus on the short term and expect grief over the long term. Monero has taken care of the long term, unfortunately Bitcoin and for that matter most other crypto currencies have not. Excellent insight. The problem of hash concentration could still be something that needs to be smartly tackled. Otherwise XMR has got some pretty solid design for a crypto currency. I am a big believer in PoW but hash concentration is a potential problem (down the road) On the markets, seeing some minor positive action even at this hour for a change.




ArticMine
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2030
Monero Core Team


January 15, 2016, 04:02:14 AM 

... Excellent insight. The problem of hash concentration could still be something that needs to be smartly tackled. Otherwise XMR has got some pretty solid design for a crypto currency. I am a big believer in PoW but hash concentration is a potential problem (down the road)
On the markets, seeing some minor positive action even at this hour for a change.
The problem of Bitcoin hash concentration in China was paradoxically a direct result of keeping the blocksize small. This happened because ASIC production is most economical in China. With an adaptive blocksize limit in Bitcoin this likely would not have happened since The Great Firewall of China would have placed miners in China at a very significant disadvantage due to latency. This would have forced Chinese ASIC manufacturers to sell their devices for export. The lesson I see here is that a well designed crypto currency will route around censorship and drive mining to those jurisdictions that do not engage in Internet censorship. Monero is way less vulnerable here since it is likely that both China will be the most cost effective place to manufacture electronics and will also continue to censor the Internet. Well the myth that "bloat" leads to centralization has been debunked. Edit: Monero has also other ways to mitigate this risk such as an ASIC resistant algorithm, and initiatives such as smart mining; nevertheless I do agree that this risk will need to be addressed and minimized.




primer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008


January 15, 2016, 08:40:55 AM 





Johnny Mnemonic


January 15, 2016, 09:03:56 AM 

An article about privacy that mentions ring signatures being "promising tech." How exactly does that mean "the beginning of the end" for Monero? Because Vitalik wrote the article? Don't worry. He still has to implement his 12 second block times and secure proofofstake model, first




iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


January 15, 2016, 09:13:09 AM 

The problem of Bitcoin hash concentration in China was paradoxically a direct result of keeping the blocksize small. This happened because ASIC production is most economical in China. With an adaptive blocksize limit in Bitcoin this likely would not have happened since The Great Firewall of China would have placed miners in China at a very significant disadvantage due to latency. This would have forced Chinese ASIC manufacturers to sell their devices for export. The lesson I see here is that a well designed crypto currency will route around censorship and drive mining to those jurisdictions that do not engage in Internet censorship. Monero is way less vulnerable here since it is likely that both China will be the most cost effective place to manufacture electronics and will also continue to censor the Internet.
Well the myth that "bloat" leads to centralization has been debunked.
Edit: Monero has also other ways to mitigate this risk such as an ASIC resistant algorithm, and initiatives such as smart mining; nevertheless I do agree that this risk will need to be addressed and minimized.
Miner concentration in China is the result of market forces, and not any more of a "problem" than developer concentration in California. China may become XMR's biggest market, so it would be great if you stopped emulating Hearn's Sinophobia. The Yellow Peril stuff was funny when Hearn did it in his recent Opus, immediately before walking out on Bitcoin like a spurned lover being told "Sorry, not tonight dear." But if you're going to hang around for a while, I'd appreciate you not insulting/offending/alienating citizens of the world's largest economy.




smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512


January 15, 2016, 09:15:17 AM 

The problem of Bitcoin hash concentration in China was paradoxically a direct result of keeping the blocksize small. This happened because ASIC production is most economical in China. With an adaptive blocksize limit in Bitcoin this likely would not have happened since The Great Firewall of China would have placed miners in China at a very significant disadvantage due to latency. This would have forced Chinese ASIC manufacturers to sell their devices for export. The lesson I see here is that a well designed crypto currency will route around censorship and drive mining to those jurisdictions that do not engage in Internet censorship. Monero is way less vulnerable here since it is likely that both China will be the most cost effective place to manufacture electronics and will also continue to censor the Internet.
Well the myth that "bloat" leads to centralization has been debunked.
Edit: Monero has also other ways to mitigate this risk such as an ASIC resistant algorithm, and initiatives such as smart mining; nevertheless I do agree that this risk will need to be addressed and minimized.
Miner concentration in China is the result of market forces, and not any more of a "problem" than developer concentration in California. Those market forces include the block size limit.




