Bitcoin Forum
July 21, 2019, 01:55:06 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 [82] 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 ... 139 »
  Print  
Author Topic: delete  (Read 165295 times)
rdnkjdi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 06:55:23 AM
 #1621

But perhaps his appraisal was near to some threshold and some events pushed him over the edge and he decided to force the XMR community to prove it is worthy or insolent. Just one possible theory for the chain of events.

Remember Risto issued the 4 - 8% proclamation of the likelihood of a BCX attack while the 72 hour deadline was ongoing. One could ponder if this might have caused BCX to not call off the attack. There was some progress on trying to find any vulnerabilities, so perhaps one could ponder if he might have called off the threat citing progress and cooperation.

But just five posts up he says he's still attacking?   I mean if we are guessing that he called it off for certain reasons and make the assumption that our guesses are more accurate than his stated intentions within the last few hours isn't that a little insane?
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
TheUsualStuff
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 06:55:44 AM
 #1622

Fail. You don't pay attention. The event was two of those, plus two with two blocks in a minute, and all four of the intervals consecutive.

I apparently do fail and don't pay attention. I'll go and hunt for these! Cheesy

Hey is this a sequence like you're looking for?

two groups of five in one minute, and two groups of two in one minute, close to each other/sequential.


90000   2014-06-18 00:28:57 (4 months ago)   331   1   e7b31b49633084bae03c9b6e0ea592e3a9e7a86625d094f21ef9268d2020f83c
89999   2014-06-18 00:28:53 (4 months ago)   331   1   4edc506643a50cd79fe3c7117a2054b2661e05cd9b4e2071c1f6d5ac4e04281d
89998   2014-06-18 00:28:49 (4 months ago)   692   2   1aa0404dc484ccb9f7df07918203e26c44442a5fd3708e20534fae1909095379
89997   2014-06-18 00:28:32 (4 months ago)   13996   2   22f56466512b866b4eabed7d1d2cabcb71e1fcabb6b15a808a54f4fdfd5b3af3
89996   2014-06-18 00:28:21 (4 months ago)   18119   3   bb8a5303e7d8b36cfbb8864b25ef88f454c09b0c45a5a9c5c74f0e2ba5a6499f

89992   2014-06-18 00:25:39 (4 months ago)   12666   4   b629477961abc251c930c1d1ec60b4c21465df0532a03fb3d03639a541f6897d
89991   2014-06-18 00:26:04 (4 months ago)   2903   2   3e8c16de6dbb736e23da91d97ca46f8a3e2b83b8b032e5cd185a8cf4ec0faa68
89990   2014-06-18 00:25:45 (4 months ago)   331   1   d06c80fd6ccbd0aa5d8dd88379692be67583b329fdc07e774e5444533132d869
89989   2014-06-18 00:25:37 (4 months ago)   331   1   bff324b52cc714d91822a49617b9cb7588093f6a2e17432cdb294060744165b9
89988   2014-06-18 00:24:59 (4 months ago)   321   1   e7d153a29c61ce7b81bdc08e16f8993a4ca506eb66d6d8de4639285ee59d7ce3

89987   2014-06-18 00:24:34 (4 months ago)   19991   3   bda5788127bc6072c01f0e8a6178f2fdc8c7f684669dd9f3ff804e8604814ac9
89986   2014-06-18 00:24:13 (4 months ago)   24873   4   6cd867bc7abb3aa485f0094540e5c87481ce46baed7395f80251c34525102fb4

89985   2014-06-18 00:21:11 (4 months ago)   12323   4   3267bf7beb1458248ebf81764dc2c4040ec382e19f7641307dd3b90e9cea0509
89984   2014-06-18 00:20:16 (4 months ago)   332   1   d75bb3948fb3fd69d1420970852f52a1f8d295baf8307a68b5323bfcbc9ff21f

or does it need to be totally sequential? this is a 16 block window
xulescu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 263
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 06:58:16 AM
 #1623

For the fifth time, the burden of proof rests with you for your initial claim (haven't picked up the ball yet but catching up).

Edit: I think what may motivate BCX is defeating overconfidence.

I don't think the devs have been overconfident at all, on the contrary. Maybe I am. But what is BCX's problem?

I don't understand how you think geographics affects the model? Isn't clustering modeled by Poisson?

I do not assume independence. You do. I cannot assume Poisson, I look at the data and see it isn't.

4 times in 1.5 hours. 3 months ago.

Anecdotal evidence against your claim.


What's interesting to me is that he said "roughly", he said "at present time" and said it three months ago. I hardly see how this could still be accurate.

(Picking up the ball)

Picked the most recent 12.

http://chainradar.com/xmr/blocks

242773    14-10-02 05:35:56
242772    14-10-02 05:35:56
242771    14-10-02 05:35:42
242770    14-10-02 05:34:35
242769    14-10-02 05:32:59
242768    14-10-02 05:31:30
242767    14-10-02 05:30:29
242766    14-10-02 05:28:55
242765    14-10-02 05:26:41
242764    14-10-02 05:25:48
242763    14-10-02 05:25:24
242762    14-10-02 05:22:34


That looks roughly to be one occurrence of 3 in one minute, one occurrence of 2 in one minute, and 7 occurrences of roughly 1 per minute (slightly longer than a minute so my summary is not a precise model).

p = (13 / 3!e) × (12 / 2!e) × (11 / 1!e)7 = 0.001%

So that is within a factor of 5, and note my model above isn't incorporating the effect of the slow blocks. So that anecdotally confirms your claim.

Within a factor of 5 to what? What do you compare it to?

However the math above is wrong because for a perfect distribution the probability would be even less.

p = (11 / 1!e)12 = 0.0006%

Instead we shouldn't be be comparing 12 gaps. Rather for the example above there are 9 intervals of one minute, so the probability for a perfect distribution over 9 intervals is as follows.

p = (11 / 1!e)9 = 0.01%

Thus the example we were considering was only 4 intervals of one minute. So let me test your claim again as follows.

242773    14-10-02 05:35:56
242772    14-10-02 05:35:56
242771    14-10-02 05:35:42
242770    14-10-02 05:34:35
242769    14-10-02 05:32:59
242768    14-10-02 05:31:30


That looks roughly to be one occurrence of 3 in one minute, and 3 occurrences of roughly 1 per minute (slightly longer than a minute so my summary is not a precise model).

p = (13 / 3!e) × (11 / 1!e)3 = 0.8%

Sorry that fails your claim. Let's test another.

How does this fail my claim? You changed the experiment in the middle of the experiment. Again, what do you compare that to, to conclude it fails a margin?


242767    14-10-02 05:30:29
242766    14-10-02 05:28:55
242765    14-10-02 05:26:41
242764    14-10-02 05:25:48
242763    14-10-02 05:25:24


That looks roughly to be one occurrence of 2 in one minute, and 3 occurrences of roughly 1 per minute (slightly longer than a minute so my summary is not a precise model).

p = (13 / 2!e) × (11 / 1!e)3 = 1.25%

Sorry that fails your claim.

0.8% and 1.25% seem within my margin, and they're not even the values for the initial experiment and not even directly comparable (you compare 6 gaps to 5 gaps).

Now you see why independent verification is important. Ball in your court. What is my mistake?

So you ignore permutations and variants, change the experiment twice and still don't manage to get it your way?

Also, put error bars on your numbers. Your confidence will drop significantly if you did that.


Are we sure there are no symptoms already?

Well let's put it this way. My argument so far is that there aren't. Suppose I was wrong and there were symptoms. Smoothie's argument was that it wouldn't matter anyway. If I was wrong, BCX claimed they would bring chaos. They didn't.



In fact I again openly invite any Global Mod, Badbear or Theymos to Permaban me if I am Moneroman88.

This is a vacuous claim. You could be Moneroman88 in many ways in which none of those would know.




My theory is BCX has the ability to manipulate either block lengths or the timestamps for minutes at a time.

Block lengths don't exist, there are only timestamps (or the differential, gaps). As smoothie argued, everyone can "manipulate" them because it is not enforced in any way. It is also not very useful to do so.
TheFascistMind
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 06:58:32 AM
 #1624

But perhaps his appraisal was near to some threshold and some events pushed him over the edge and he decided to force the XMR community to prove it is worthy or insolent. Just one possible theory for the chain of events.

Remember Risto issued the 4 - 8% proclamation of the likelihood of a BCX attack while the 72 hour deadline was ongoing. One could ponder if this might have caused BCX to not call off the attack. There was some progress on trying to find any vulnerabilities, so perhaps one could ponder if he might have called off the threat citing progress and cooperation [if Risto didn't assert that BCX is not a credible threat].

But just five posts up he says he's still attacking?   I mean if we are guessing that he called it off for certain reasons and make the assumption that our guesses are more accurate than his stated intentions within the last few hours isn't that a little insane?

Please re-read what I wrote. I didn't posit that the attack is called off.
rdnkjdi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 07:03:59 AM
 #1625

But perhaps his appraisal was near to some threshold and some events pushed him over the edge and he decided to force the XMR community to prove it is worthy or insolent. Just one possible theory for the chain of events.

Remember Risto issued the 4 - 8% proclamation of the likelihood of a BCX attack while the 72 hour deadline was ongoing. One could ponder if this might have caused BCX to not call off the attack. There was some progress on trying to find any vulnerabilities, so perhaps one could ponder if he might have called off the threat citing progress and cooperation [if Risto didn't assert that BCX is not a credible threat].

But just five posts up he says he's still attacking?   I mean if we are guessing that he called it off for certain reasons and make the assumption that our guesses are more accurate than his stated intentions within the last few hours isn't that a little insane?

Please re-read what I wrote. I didn't posit that the attack is called off.

Yep.  I misread.   
xulescu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 263
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 07:05:22 AM
Last edit: October 02, 2014, 07:22:54 AM by xulescu
 #1626

Remember Risto issued the 4 - 8% proclamation of the likelihood of a BCX attack while the 72 hour deadline was ongoing. One could ponder if this might have caused BCX to not call off the threatened (unconfirmed) attack. There was some progress on trying to find any vulnerabilities, so perhaps one could ponder if he might have called off the threat citing progress and cooperation.

The reason for not just handing over the vulnerability and fix, may be to illustrate the competence and to teach the community.

Are you suggesting Risto should feel guilty for BCX's continued wrath?
Were we looking for vulnerabilities with a BCX quota?
The ALLEGED vulnerability.

But you are otherwise an excellent devil's advocate.

My more substantive post is here in case you missed it on the previous page
...


Edit: I think I know exactly what your mistake is. You assume the sample in the screenshot is uniformly sampled. But it is not, because it is chosen adversarially, to prove the point BCX was making (that is it a strange ocurrence).
rdnkjdi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 07:24:46 AM
 #1627

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say both Risto and BCX are functioning in their proper roles.  Risto is arrogant to the point of predicting the technical likelyhood of something he doesn't understand in a typical buericratic way.  BCX is the joker personality type that will always exist.  These personalty types play out again and again.  Anonymous vs Scientology, etc.

The only thing that matters is "can the coin survive whatever attack BCX has planned"

Both his willingness to puff up like a puffer fish and Risto trying to calm investor fears with dismissal coated in his "analysis" really are not the crux of the issue.  I don't get why people have a problem with BCX or care if other people think Risto pervoked him.

This scenario will play out as long as there is top down trying to lead the sheep (risto) and joker personality types who get their rocks off showing how "weak" the system & both are interacting with each other over the world wide web.  

Maybe risto provoked him?  Maybe he didn't?   Who cares?   BCX is doing nothing wrong and neither is rpetilia.
TheUsualStuff
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 07:25:00 AM
 #1628

Last one I'll look for before I hear back, maybe this one can help you?

Blocks are totally sequential, but one of the groups of two is a group of three, so two groups of 4, a group of three within the same minute, and a group of two within the same minute. Maybe thats even more rare than the event you asked for?

it's a 13 block window, in 6 minutes.

89968   2014-06-18 00:05:54 (4 months ago)   24795   4   dfb8ba9a0b745e36ffa02254a531cf93458f8d56fe4ed043aa8c77f7d97227f0
89967   2014-06-18 00:05:30 (4 months ago)   20994   6   a5c0cab928c8f6c007c62d7a5afe53e58f54eeda4a89ecc34dbf94511fd5c031

89966   2014-06-18 00:03:18 (4 months ago)   2594   2   cc2e92864395868e445179288b69be2e01e38e3f23f89ca2099a8b8862ccabbb
89965   2014-06-18 00:03:12 (4 months ago)   332   1   e3aaa0903294c6d524ffc78c1304b68cb30bf4c0ee3fe4725d57cfa8e5778290
89964   2014-06-18 00:02:52 (4 months ago)   332   1   6c92a2ea92f425e9a8ef035730b2fc0585c85cce8c83965e929dcd28e955995a

89963   2014-06-18 00:02:37 (4 months ago)   332   1   e93355ed89bb06237adf0b78dd72b7fd20f10daa32760b657415e5f27e3bb301
89962   2014-06-18 00:02:35 (4 months ago)   22631   2   ef6bdf2429428dc752d0eae80ed0d151814f52ac6bdd7a01793a8978ee7673a3
89961   2014-06-18 00:02:26 (4 months ago)   7267   2   3d33195a90d825316998f59a810d8b8427508a640bd430efa3e87ca7a907a05a
89960   2014-06-18 00:02:24 (4 months ago)   21847   6   0b6f624332dfab3113d867eb2c7c140f5bb30437807f01d9da558f572184c288

89959   2014-06-18 00:00:40 (4 months ago)   332   1   ee978852972ca2d2ab8cfa3fe9bcb091eed6ecea4af202075370678f5daaadca
89958   2014-06-18 00:00:53 (4 months ago)   5128   4   95f381dc5893136258139432c0861abaf1cd383ef47a28ac4dc703729ae12de9
89957   2014-06-18 00:00:11 (4 months ago)   332   1   7b2b9416cb979e2cbc795252fcdf78af1c75098f1ec3daad35c647cccabf2aed
89956   2014-06-17 23:59:55 (4 months ago)   1334   2   a37439d68281951b2d40fdf52f72087a28f882166a643024d7462db63b1f88eb
TheFascistMind
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 07:26:06 AM
 #1629

Edit: I think what may motivate BCX is defeating overconfidence.

I don't think the devs have been overconfident at all, on the contrary. Maybe I am. But what is BCX's problem?

You apparently forgot that Risto predicted in public only a 4 - 8% chance that BCX could attack.

Perhaps you've forgotten fluffypony's confidence upthread, he said basically until there is an attack there is no attack and he is going to the beach.

OTOH, some of the developers have been openly concerned, such as smooth and NewLiberty have tried to investigate and implement improvements. Perhaps fluffypony did too behind the scenes, I am only commenting about his public demeanor in that one instance.

I don't understand how you think geographics affects the model? Isn't clustering modeled by Poisson?

I do not assume independence. You do. I cannot assume Poisson, I look at the data and see it isn't.

What does geographics have to do with it? Specifics please.

4 times in 1.5 hours. 3 months ago.

Anecdotal evidence against your claim.

Absolutely not. That was a complete fail. That was only 1 time interval of 1 minute. The event I analyzed as being extremely rare was 4 intervals of 1 minute consecutively.

I've given readers the education they need to go hunting in the block chain to see if they can find comparably rare events.


What's interesting to me is that he said "roughly", he said "at present time" and said it three months ago. I hardly see how this could still be accurate.

You make sweeping ass-u-me-ptions. Do you actually have your mind deep in the Github commits?

Within a factor of 5 to what? What do you compare it to?

How does this fail my claim? You changed the experiment in the middle of the experiment. Again, what do you compare that to, to conclude it fails a margin?

0.8% and 1.25% seem within my margin, and they're not even the values for the initial experiment and not even directly comparable (you compare 6 gaps to 5 gaps).

You are entirely missing the point that the example we started to debate about had 4 time intervals of 1 minute. The probable reason all your statistical analysis may be irrelevant (can't say for sure because yours is closed source) is because you are purportedly looking at "gaps" and not at 1 minute intervals. Afaics, you've likely got the wrong model, so you aren't seeing anything.

So you ignore permutations and variants, change the experiment twice and still don't manage to get it your way?

I didn't change the experiment. You framed the experiment inconsistently. There aren't 12 gaps, rather there were 4 time intervals of 1 minute. If you have the wrong model, you see noise.

I don't have to consider permutations because there are 2+ orders-of-magnitude between the probabilities I showed. There is the stratification I am referring to. We could get more analytical, but really isn't necessary. It is quite obvious that we saw a rare event. And no one has shown otherwise yet.

Also, put error bars on your numbers. Your confidence will drop significantly if you did that.

All of the them will so the relative 2+ orders-of-magnitude will likely remain.

Are we sure there are no symptoms already?

Well let's put it this way. My argument so far is that there aren't. Suppose I was wrong and there were symptoms. Smoothie's argument was that it wouldn't matter anyway. If I was wrong, BCX claimed they would bring chaos. They didn't.

That is illogical. The overt chaos doesn't hit until his estimate of 22 days. The chaos that would be happening now is hidden to those who use incorrect statistical models. That is why I am hunting.

In fact I again openly invite any Global Mod, Badbear or Theymos to Permaban me if I am Moneroman88.

This is a vacuous claim. You could be Moneroman88 in many ways in which none of those would know.

I also thought of that. Surely he is sophisticated enough to conceal his IP.

Wild speculation follows.

But even if Moneroman88 is a sockpuppet, it doesn't exclude a possible motivation being to teach a lesson to the community. In that case, MM88 would just be some political cover.

My theory is BCX has the ability to manipulate either block lengths or the timestamps for minutes at a time.

Block lengths don't exist, there are only timestamps (or the differential, gaps). As smoothie argued, everyone can "manipulate" them because it is not enforced in any way. It is also not very useful to do so.

You ass-u-me that is not a vulnerability. Can you prove it is not?
TheFascistMind
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 07:39:13 AM
 #1630

Last one I'll look for before I hear back, maybe this one can help you?

Blocks are totally sequential, but one of the groups of two is a group of three, so two groups of 4, a group of three within the same minute, and a group of two within the same minute. Maybe thats even more rare than the event you asked for?

it's a 13 block window, in 6 minutes.

89968   2014-06-18 00:05:54 (4 months ago)   24795   4   dfb8ba9a0b745e36ffa02254a531cf93458f8d56fe4ed043aa8c77f7d97227f0
89967   2014-06-18 00:05:30 (4 months ago)   20994   6   a5c0cab928c8f6c007c62d7a5afe53e58f54eeda4a89ecc34dbf94511fd5c031

89966   2014-06-18 00:03:18 (4 months ago)   2594   2   cc2e92864395868e445179288b69be2e01e38e3f23f89ca2099a8b8862ccabbb
89965   2014-06-18 00:03:12 (4 months ago)   332   1   e3aaa0903294c6d524ffc78c1304b68cb30bf4c0ee3fe4725d57cfa8e5778290
89964   2014-06-18 00:02:52 (4 months ago)   332   1   6c92a2ea92f425e9a8ef035730b2fc0585c85cce8c83965e929dcd28e955995a

89963   2014-06-18 00:02:37 (4 months ago)   332   1   e93355ed89bb06237adf0b78dd72b7fd20f10daa32760b657415e5f27e3bb301
89962   2014-06-18 00:02:35 (4 months ago)   22631   2   ef6bdf2429428dc752d0eae80ed0d151814f52ac6bdd7a01793a8978ee7673a3
89961   2014-06-18 00:02:26 (4 months ago)   7267   2   3d33195a90d825316998f59a810d8b8427508a640bd430efa3e87ca7a907a05a
89960   2014-06-18 00:02:24 (4 months ago)   21847   6   0b6f624332dfab3113d867eb2c7c140f5bb30437807f01d9da558f572184c288

89959   2014-06-18 00:00:40 (4 months ago)   332   1   ee978852972ca2d2ab8cfa3fe9bcb091eed6ecea4af202075370678f5daaadca
89958   2014-06-18 00:00:53 (4 months ago)   5128   4   95f381dc5893136258139432c0861abaf1cd383ef47a28ac4dc703729ae12de9
89957   2014-06-18 00:00:11 (4 months ago)   332   1   7b2b9416cb979e2cbc795252fcdf78af1c75098f1ec3daad35c647cccabf2aed
89956   2014-06-17 23:59:55 (4 months ago)   1334   2   a37439d68281951b2d40fdf52f72087a28f882166a643024d7462db63b1f88eb

Yes that is good. But that is one in past 4 months. That still points to it being a rare event. If you find them more frequently before July (when BCX allegedly might have begun experiments), then that would refute the recent one being rare.

Again the recent allegedly rare event doesn't indicate an attack is ongoing. I was only skeptical about the assertion that it wasn't rare.

Edit: the model I presented didn't factor in slower blocks, so I can't quantify if the one you found is more allegedly (by the model) rare.
TheUsualStuff
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 07:44:09 AM
 #1631


Yes that is good. But that is one in past 4 months. That still points to it being a rare event. If you find them more frequently before July (when BCX allegedly might have begun experiments), then that would refute the recent one being rare.

Again the recent rare event doesn't indicate an attack is ongoing. I was only skeptical about the assertion that it wasn't rare.

Note I'm not concerned economically in any way, shape or form with pretty much anything to do with whatever this is. I see interesting math, and I'd like to understand better the probability of distribution of block times for cryptocurrencies, because most all I hear about is expected block frequencies when it comes to the technical end.

It's as if the entire forum is just a giant economics and morality textbook since the day I've gotten here, mostly barren of anything I can take home with me besides another dollar in my pocket, or in many cases a dollar less. I'm so tired of that.

I'll keep looking for another, actually I'll look for three more. One more before july and two more after May 1.
xulescu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 263
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 07:47:10 AM
 #1632

... he said basically until there is an attack there is no attack ...

AnonyMint, this is, trivially, the case.

and he is going to the beach.

...and kept thinking about the problem. Walks help the mind get unstuck.

What does geographics have to do with it? Specifics please.

Since you ask about geographics specifics, the way nodes connect to each other cause orphans and "opportunity cost orphans" due to delay. The real world is far from uniform. This is informative for a model

Quote
What's interesting to me is that he said "roughly", he said "at present time" and said it three months ago. I hardly see how this could still be accurate.

You make sweeping ass-u-me-ptions. Do you actually have your mind deep in the Github commits?

Sorry buddy, seems you're the one making the assumption. I DON'T assume the time interval length is independent from hash rate, etc etc etc. you ASSUME it is independent.

Afaics, you've likely got the wrong model, so you aren't seeing anything.

So you answer none of my questions and instead broadly say my model is wrong. Well, that is not an argument.

All models are wrong, but some are useful. If you don't understand this, go deeper into modelling. You assume your model is right. Mine allows for some uncertainty. Certainly black swans are black swans by definition.


I didn't change the experiment. You framed the experiment wrong. There aren't 12 gaps, rather there were 4 time intervals of 1 minute. If you have the wrong model, you see noise.

I don't have to consider permutations because there are 2-4 orders-of-magnitude between the probabilities I showed. There is the stratification I am referring to. We could get more analytical, but really isn't necessary.

We will have to agree that this was my model from the beginning, and you have a different model, possibly from the beginning, and then the numbers are not directly comparable. I certainly fail to see why "blocks per minute" is more fundamental than "length of gap". They're certainly inversely proportional. You're just throwing away data.

It is quite obvious that we saw a rare event. And no one has shown otherwise yet.

See above for correction. At least an even rarer than that was found with little manual inspection.

Quote
Block lengths don't exist, there are only timestamps (or the differential, gaps). As smoothie argued, everyone can "manipulate" them because it is not enforced in any way. It is also not very useful to do so.

You ass-u-me that is not a vulnerability. Can you prove it is not?

Barring weird implementation artifacts, timestamps only influence difficulty, thus we're talking strictly about a time warp attack or another difficulty-adjustment-attack. This would be seen in the data. It is true that using the wrong model you might not see the pattern, but I said that the dataset is too small to support you noticing a change or that screenshot being relevant.
TheFascistMind
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 07:47:28 AM
Last edit: October 02, 2014, 08:01:03 AM by TheFascistMind
 #1633

Last one I'll look for before I hear back, maybe this one can help you?

Blocks are totally sequential, but one of the groups of two is a group of three, so two groups of 4, a group of three within the same minute, and a group of two within the same minute. Maybe thats even more rare than the event you asked for?

it's a 13 block window, in 6 minutes.

89968   2014-06-18 00:05:54 (4 months ago)   24795   4   dfb8ba9a0b745e36ffa02254a531cf93458f8d56fe4ed043aa8c77f7d97227f0
89967   2014-06-18 00:05:30 (4 months ago)   20994   6   a5c0cab928c8f6c007c62d7a5afe53e58f54eeda4a89ecc34dbf94511fd5c031

89966   2014-06-18 00:03:18 (4 months ago)   2594   2   cc2e92864395868e445179288b69be2e01e38e3f23f89ca2099a8b8862ccabbb
89965   2014-06-18 00:03:12 (4 months ago)   332   1   e3aaa0903294c6d524ffc78c1304b68cb30bf4c0ee3fe4725d57cfa8e5778290
89964   2014-06-18 00:02:52 (4 months ago)   332   1   6c92a2ea92f425e9a8ef035730b2fc0585c85cce8c83965e929dcd28e955995a

89963   2014-06-18 00:02:37 (4 months ago)   332   1   e93355ed89bb06237adf0b78dd72b7fd20f10daa32760b657415e5f27e3bb301
89962   2014-06-18 00:02:35 (4 months ago)   22631   2   ef6bdf2429428dc752d0eae80ed0d151814f52ac6bdd7a01793a8978ee7673a3
89961   2014-06-18 00:02:26 (4 months ago)   7267   2   3d33195a90d825316998f59a810d8b8427508a640bd430efa3e87ca7a907a05a
89960   2014-06-18 00:02:24 (4 months ago)   21847   6   0b6f624332dfab3113d867eb2c7c140f5bb30437807f01d9da558f572184c288

89959   2014-06-18 00:00:40 (4 months ago)   332   1   ee978852972ca2d2ab8cfa3fe9bcb091eed6ecea4af202075370678f5daaadca
89958   2014-06-18 00:00:53 (4 months ago)   5128   4   95f381dc5893136258139432c0861abaf1cd383ef47a28ac4dc703729ae12de9
89957   2014-06-18 00:00:11 (4 months ago)   332   1   7b2b9416cb979e2cbc795252fcdf78af1c75098f1ec3daad35c647cccabf2aed
89956   2014-06-17 23:59:55 (4 months ago)   1334   2   a37439d68281951b2d40fdf52f72087a28f882166a643024d7462db63b1f88eb

Yes that is good. But that is one in past 4 months. That still points to it being a rare event. If you find them more frequently before July (when BCX allegedly might have begun experiments), then that would refute the recent one being rare.

Again the recent allegedly rare event doesn't indicate an attack is ongoing. I was only skeptical about the assertion that it wasn't rare.

Edit: the model I presented didn't factor in slower blocks, so I can't quantify if the one you found is more allegedly (by the model) rare.

Actually my model would organize that differently as follows.

89968   2014-06-18 00:05:54

89967   2014-06-18 00:05:30

89966   2014-06-18 00:03:18
89965   2014-06-18 00:03:12
89964   2014-06-18 00:02:52
89963   2014-06-18 00:02:37
89962   2014-06-18 00:02:35
89961   2014-06-18 00:02:26

89960   2014-06-18 00:02:24

p = (16 / 6!e)(1/e)3 = 0.0025%

So thus what you found was not as rare (by an order-of-magnitude) as alleged by my model.

That doesn't say my model was any good at predicting anything.

Edit:

89966   2014-06-18 00:03:18
89965   2014-06-18 00:03:12
89964   2014-06-18 00:02:52
89963   2014-06-18 00:02:37
89962   2014-06-18 00:02:35
89961   2014-06-18 00:02:26

89960   2014-06-18 00:02:24

89959   2014-06-18 00:00:40

89958   2014-06-18 00:00:53
89957   2014-06-18 00:00:11
89956   2014-06-17 23:59:55

p = (16 / 6!e)(13 / 3!e)(1/e)2 = 0.0004%

That is indeed very rare according my model.
xulescu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 263
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 07:54:25 AM
 #1634

This cat and mouse game became very tiring and you are gasping for air. I do not get pleasure from "winning" this argument. I think all interested partied can learn something from this exchange and will terminate it here.

Your model very conveniently ignores a 4-blocks-per-minute minute. Put that in, take the last minute out and redo the math. Otherwise explain why it only seems that your model very conveniently ignores it.

Edit: Finally, do you have confidence in your model or not? This affects your confidence that something changed, according to your model.
nioc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 1008


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 08:04:04 AM
 #1635

Edit: I think what may motivate BCX is defeating overconfidence.

I don't think the devs have been overconfident at all, on the contrary. Maybe I am. But what is BCX's problem?

You apparently forgot that Risto predicted in public only a 4 - 8% chance that BCX could attack.

Perhaps you've forgotten fluffypony's confidence upthread, he said basically until there is an attack there is no attack and he is going to the beach.

OTOH, some of the developers have been openly concerned, such as smooth and NewLiberty have tried to investigate and implement improvements. Perhaps fluffypony did too behind the scenes, I am only commenting about his public demeanor in that one instance.



I know xulescu addressed this as a misperception, but how can something that happened after the announced attack have contributed to the attack.

             
             ~~why is chaos sweet?~~
TheFascistMind
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 08:06:49 AM
 #1636

Your model very conveniently ignores a 4-blocks-per-minute minute.

Incorrect.

My model asks how many blocks occur during each 1 minute interval, i.e. the Poisson distribution which afaik Meni Rosenfeld has used in his famous whitepapers.

I substituted 1 block in an empty interval, because 0! = 1!. No difference.
xulescu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 263
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 08:07:32 AM
 #1637

I know xulescu addressed this as a misperception, but how can something that happened after the announced attack have contributed to the attack.

It was not misperception. Fluffypony, like I earlier, got pissed off and used aggressive words. That was a communication mistake.

But that doesn't change your point.
TheFascistMind
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 08:11:00 AM
 #1638

I know xulescu addressed this as a misperception, but how can something that happened after the announced attack have contributed to the attack.

Afair, fluffypony did that during the 72 hour countdown, before the decision to attack had become final. I am not referring to the copy+paste of the feedback from the mathematicians, rather the prior exchange upthread.

I believe also Risto's proclamation of the likelihood occurred during the 72 hour countdown.

Hey I am not saying any body did anything out of their roles. This is a soap opera ya know. I'm included.  Embarrassed
TheFascistMind
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 08:17:02 AM
 #1639

Whos to say that BCX would have even bet, the guy is full of shit and could have easily backed out.  He has no credibility and integrity to maintain.  He took a chance that Risto wouldn't bet in order to give credibility to the FUD.  BCX you little fudster you.... lol

Poker players know probabilities.
TheFascistMind
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 08:19:22 AM
 #1640

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say both Risto and BCX are functioning in their proper roles.  Risto is arrogant to the point of predicting the technical likelyhood of something he doesn't understand in a typical buericratic way.  BCX is the joker personality type that will always exist.  These personalty types play out again and again.  Anonymous vs Scientology, etc.

Which is Putin and which is Obama?
Pages: « 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 [82] 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 ... 139 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!