Topic: delete - page 72. (Read 165521 times)

I understand that block finding is a Poisson process where the probability of finding a block in any small interval of time dt seconds long is dt/T where T is the mean time between blocks.  Then, the probability of n blocks being found in an interval with length t is
exp(-t/T)*(t/T)^n/n!

In your example, t/T is 240 and we want the probability of n being 268 blocks or more.  The answer is
exp(-240)*sum(k=268..oo  240^k/k!
That is not easy to compute, but for those range of values the distribution should be close to a Gaussian distribution with mean 240 and standard deviation sqrt(240).  So we can instead compute the probability of a standard Gaussian variable (mean 0, variance 1) being greater than r = (268 - 240)/sqrt(240).  I can't compute that right now, will do that later...

The mean interval T between blocks depends on the current difficulty and the current hashrate.  Bitcoin's difficulty, IIUC, is adjusted at regular intervals to try to keep T at 10 minutes.  However, the adjustment is by large steps and is not instantaneous; so, if the hashrate drops for a while, or the difficulty has just been increased, T may be longer than 10 minutes for some time.  

In any case, even if the mean time T is exactly 10 minutes, the variance of the actual time between blocks is large, so the probability of having 6 or fewer blocks in an 80 minute interval is not that small.

I understand that Monero's difficulty is adjusted after every block instead of by steps, correct?  Even so, the algorithm would have to look at several past blocks in order to estimate the hashrate and compute the correct adjustment.  So, if there is an increase in the hashrate, it should take a while for the difficulty to be increased accordingly, and T would be less than a minute for a while.  And, in any case, the variance is substantial, for Monero too.

Can anyone find the link of BCX litecoin attack threat?

~dld~

So I did a little analysis on the number of blocks generated in the past 3 days (since the timewarp was 'set in motion'). I've broken them down into 12-hour (0.5 day) increments from 11:00 to 23:00 and vice-versa. I then compared the number of blocks we'd expect in these increments given one block per minute, vs the number of blocks we have actually had.

I further considered both cumulative variance (the total blocks generated between now and then vs what we would have expected) and the period variance (the number of blocks generated in any 12 hour increment vs what we would have expected). For any 12 hour period we should be getting, on average, 720 blocks.

Days		No. Mins		Block height		Total Blocks		Cumulative Variance		Period Blocks		Period Variance
0		0		236012		0		0.00%		0		0.00%
-0.5		720		235287		725		0.69%		725		0.69%
-1		1440		234495		1517		5.35%		792		10.00%
-1.5		2160		233792		2220		2.78%		703		-2.36%
-2		2880		233083		2929		1.70%		709		-1.53%
-2.5		3600		232353		3659		1.64%		730		1.39%
-3		4320		231678		4334		0.32%		675		-6.25%

As we can see, the major number that jumps out was the 10% period variance in the 12-hour interval between block 235287 and block 234495. This means there was 10% more blocks generated than we would have expected.

Personally I don't believe this to be outside of the bounds of normal generation-rate fluctuations, especially given the prolonged increase in difficulty over that period of time (see difficulty on http://chainradar.com/xmr/chart between 11am and 11pm on 26th September). This suggests there was an increase in network hashrate over this period, which could account for the 10% extra blocks generated while difficulty caught up.

Obviously this is just my opinion and it's possible that it may be the symptom of some sort of timewarp attack, but I do not believe this to be the case. Especially given that there has only been 0.32% more blocks generated than there should have been in total over the past 3 days.

I'll continue to analyse the block generation rate in 12-hour intervals going forward, and post the results on these forums, pointing out anything I spot that seems anomalous.

I welcome the opinion of others on these figures, or any suggestions on how to improve this analysis going forward.

tl;dr there's nothing wrong with the block generation rate since the 'attack' started. Will keep an eye on it going forward.

~pst~

bullshit express is just irrelevant. Go steal some private keys about it.

i like how you had to cut out the part where you said "so what" about ripping people off for Bitcoins (on a Monero topic)
where you are here posting on all of them attacking the credibility of anyone that dares criticize Monero.

funny too how i doubt you would be going for my throat had i not said anything about Monero.
and your post history speaks volumes.. you don't possess the intellect to mount a counter argument so your run around from topic to topic
trying to attack the credibility of anyone that criticizes Monero rather that discussing the pro's or cons of Monero itself.
A classic little game here.. nothing new.
And to potential investors.. painfully obvious.

When you come here and defend your shit coin with the top 2 excuses are as follows your fucking screwed baggies LOL
excuse #1 - BCX or Spoetnik etc, is a "Troll" ...FUD'ing (automatically makes your shitcoin legit i guess)
excuse #2 - Mind your own business (so what if people get ripped off)

I just posted a couple comments up why did Monero have to be coin clone fork no. 1,001 posted here ?
Either it's the Bitcoin killer or it's obviously a pump and dump attempt ..simple as that.
There is no way to bob or weave or attack your way around that logic.
When your put out coin no. 1,001 then it better be a damn good Bitcoin Killer
And sorry no you can't play the community card.. it's an invalid retort lol

Get a job baggy  

No kidding.  China on the run, Kim Jong-un gone into hiding.

I want to see BitcoinEXfoliated vs ISIS with the new cryptocaliphate being the prize.

i wouldnt discount his effect just yet

Just catching up on this thread so forgive me for replying to a post from some pages back.


You would know all about that wouldn't you, being an expert in back-peddling and all. Like the time you claimed to be able to steal Monero private keys, then it just became a timewarp attack. Or like the time you used your Poloniex trollbox name (that you had confirmed by a post on here to be yours) to threaten Poloniex with an attack in a matter of minutes, shortly before it coincidentally went down due to DDOS, then come on here to deny any involvement.

Edit: Not that I'm saying you're not currently trying to execute an attack. Hell, you might even pull it off. But to call someone else out for back peddling is very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black in my eyes. And as a result of your past untruths I have my doubts.

u dont make cents

btc rose off of pnd any stock rising is a  series of pnd.. u dont understand

1.2b chinese in crypto O rly?

shall i quote u in 6 months my son? If ur around maybe u can learn from someone more experienced period.

they said Cryptonote existed before so the public can make a lot of clone coins for "fixing bugs"
so i have no other recourse but to assume that Cryptonote exists as a Bug Fixing platform so what are you guys bitching about ?
what do you think exploits found are ?

The real hidden meaning (Pump & Dump) AKA: a way to harvest you idiot bag holders of your Bitcoin is more likely though.
And when you are creating a PLATFORM for CLONING what should we expect ? Monero 2.0 ? 3.0 ? 9.0 ?

It's really rather simple if it is not a new "coin" that makes a reasonably OBVIOUS attempt at beating Bitcoin
then it's a P&D lying scam coin.. designed to get noobs to send Fiat from their bank account to an exchange to buy XYZ Ponzi coin.
Now ask yourselves does Monero fit the bill so to speak ?
Does it seem like an obvious "this must be released NOW" new revolutionary coin ? (a Cryptonote clone / fork)
No ? then what ?

You see guys what we have here is bullshitters going into over time lying their ass off *as usual.
They make various statements and excuses for their coin and when challenged the either back peddle or scream FUD / Troll
and go on the attack bobbing and weaving all over the place.
And if this is all about making a better coin and making money at the same time then any BCX exploit to me would seem like the right thing to do.

But i don't suppose it has more to do with WHO had the "bug" advantage now huh ?"
Say ohh i don't know how about CENT for example ?
Seems to me that whooopsy accidental Proof of stake bug that paid out like crazy way back was perfectly fine for Cryptsy and their group of buddies.
I didn't see Cryptsy way back show any concern for guys buying the coins knowing in 9 days the POS pay outs were going to get dumped on buyers
and the back room boys who AVOIDED posting the coin here and were trading the wallet and miner on IRC before hand seemed ok with the "bug" LOL
And i don't suppose those same assholes are STILL HERE loitering around with brand new scams to pull huh ?
Naaaaaw they all must have left after harvesting morons for massive amounts of Bitcoin right ?
They must have thought hey.. well making a shitload of of BITCOIN is enough and retired right ?
Get it ? "Bug" ? It's only ever called a bug when your not the one exploiting it for massive BITCOIN profits hahahahha

Or is it more likely they are still here posting new clone coins and crying FUD / Troll to drain morons Bitcoin wallets's dry ?

Wow.  1.2B people afraid of BitcoinExhausted.  That should make his mirror happy.

u must be 16

this coin shall fall for months now.. bsx not attacking is bearish unless he says he cant attack.. chinese wont pump now. Never been wrong on my hunches from forex to cfds to crypto.. up to u. Check back in 6 months to c.

yeah.. precisely what you guys are doing coming here and spamming this forum with Monero BS 24/7
for ONE reason.. to get your Bitcoin from you .