It is completely different '+' than the '+' from P(A or B) =/= P(A) + P(B) 
I know. I say that u roll 1 (one) die, not 2 (two) dice. That's how I knew that u had assumed that P(A or B) == P(A) + P(B).
Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 1279. (Read 2761629 times)
I know. I say that u roll 1 (one) die, not 2 (two) dice. That's how I knew that u had assumed that P(A or B) == P(A) + P(B).
I am sill checking how it works to find out if I can generate the priv key for an "i" without having to calc all the priv keys in the sequence.
Let me know if u figure out how they do this, plz. If u can create a new public key without knowledge of the corresponding private key... it's something awesome. Or insecure, coz 2 consecutive public keys would reveal ur private key.
That's called 'substitution of notions'. You suggested this topic. I didn't address summation of probabilities in my original post. And I don't see how summation of probabilities is connected to it.
This is my original post. Where do you see summation of probabilities? Why are we discussing it?
I'm talking about three times probability increase for a two times larger wallet. What orphan blocks are you talking about?
This is my original post. Where do you see summation of probabilities? Why are we discussing it?
Transition to Transparent Forging (at least the way it is described in the wiki) will ruin the axiom of
Here's why.
Steps 3-5 in http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Transparent_Forging from the statistics point of view are equivalent to comparing random numbers uniformly distributed between 0 and 1/N where N is number of coins in the wallet (normalization coefficient is the same for all wallets and is omitted for clarity).
Now imagine that you throw a dice with numbers from 1 to 6 and your opponent throws a semi-dice with three possible values from 1 to 3. Who gets the lower number wins the round. In half of the cases you will throw 4-6 and win. In the other half you will have 50:50 chances to win. Thus your chances are 1/2 + 1/4 = 0.75 and his chances are 1/4 = 0.25. Which is 3 times lower.
For arbitrary ratio K between two wallets the probability ratio is 2K-1. For example, a wallet with 100k coins is 199 times more likely to forge a block than 1k wallet.
Quote
"Rate of return to 1 Nxt is the same regardless how many Nxt you have."
Here's why.
Steps 3-5 in http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Transparent_Forging from the statistics point of view are equivalent to comparing random numbers uniformly distributed between 0 and 1/N where N is number of coins in the wallet (normalization coefficient is the same for all wallets and is omitted for clarity).
Now imagine that you throw a dice with numbers from 1 to 6 and your opponent throws a semi-dice with three possible values from 1 to 3. Who gets the lower number wins the round. In half of the cases you will throw 4-6 and win. In the other half you will have 50:50 chances to win. Thus your chances are 1/2 + 1/4 = 0.75 and his chances are 1/4 = 0.25. Which is 3 times lower.
For arbitrary ratio K between two wallets the probability ratio is 2K-1. For example, a wallet with 100k coins is 199 times more likely to forge a block than 1k wallet.
I'm talking about three times probability increase for a two times larger wallet. What orphan blocks are you talking about?
Here u say this:
Quote
Now imagine that you throw a dice with numbers from 1 to 6 and your opponent throws a semi-dice with three possible values from 1 to 3. Who gets the lower number wins the round. In half of the cases you will throw 4-6 and win. In the other half you will have 50:50 chances to win. Thus your chances are 1/2 + 1/4 = 0.75 and his chances are 1/4 = 0.25. Which is 3 times lower.
You mean this?
Quote
Thus your chances are 1/2 + 1/4 = 0.75
It is completely different '+' than the '+' from P(A or B) =/= P(A) + P(B)
Here I solve a completely defined mathematical problem. Orphans should be taken into account in a different place. And by the way, shouldn't transparent forging eliminate orphans altogether?
Orphaned blocks don't make A and B not mutially exclusive...
They do and this is by design to make it impossible to predict next forging accounts 1440 blocks in advance.
In TF it is possible by design to predict who will forge the next block. That's exactly what I address in this post.
Well, u should roll 2 dice, not 1 die. When u roll 1 die we get P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B).
MPK is a public key generated using a wallet seed in a way so that you can generate other addresses right from the MPK without needing the priv keys. To see the utility of this check acceptbit.com, it is a POS system that do not require ANY private keys you just supply it an MPK and then it can generate addresses for your customers, imagine the implications, a cashless register, where transactions happen and only the administration can move the money.
Did I get u right? U state that there a function F() exists such as
F(MPK, i) = PKi
?
Yes for bitcoin, Using electrum client, I was wishing someone can make something like this for nxt, I don't quite understand how it works but this is what I know so far.
In electrum when you start it you can create a new wallet from a deterministic seed, You can use this seed to reconstruct the wallet later so you just have to backup the seed, the generation of the public keys for even larger and further addresses is almost instant procedure for any "i"(tried 1000000!) but when generating the corrosponding private key it will have to iterate throught the sequence of private keys until it reaches "i".
for more information check this https://github.com/prusnak/addrgen, In electrum console try "wallet.accounts[0].get_address(0,1000000)", I am sill checking how it works to find out if I can generate the priv key for an "i" without having to calc all the priv keys in the sequence.
- lophie
Orphaned blocks don't make A and B not mutially exclusive...
They do and this is by design to make it impossible to predict next forging accounts 1440 blocks in advance.
In TF it is possible by design to predict who will forge the next block. That's exactly what I address in this post.
That's called 'substitution of notions'. You suggested this topic. I didn't address summation of probabilities in my original post. And I don't see how summation of probabilities is connected to it.
This is my original post. Where do you see summation of probabilities? Why are we discussing it?
I'm talking about three times probability increase for a two times larger wallet. What orphan blocks are you talking about?
This is my original post. Where do you see summation of probabilities? Why are we discussing it?
Transition to Transparent Forging (at least the way it is described in the wiki) will ruin the axiom of
Here's why.
Steps 3-5 in http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Transparent_Forging from the statistics point of view are equivalent to comparing random numbers uniformly distributed between 0 and 1/N where N is number of coins in the wallet (normalization coefficient is the same for all wallets and is omitted for clarity).
Now imagine that you throw a dice with numbers from 1 to 6 and your opponent throws a semi-dice with three possible values from 1 to 3. Who gets the lower number wins the round. In half of the cases you will throw 4-6 and win. In the other half you will have 50:50 chances to win. Thus your chances are 1/2 + 1/4 = 0.75 and his chances are 1/4 = 0.25. Which is 3 times lower.
For arbitrary ratio K between two wallets the probability ratio is 2K-1. For example, a wallet with 100k coins is 199 times more likely to forge a block than 1k wallet.
Quote
"Rate of return to 1 Nxt is the same regardless how many Nxt you have."
Here's why.
Steps 3-5 in http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Transparent_Forging from the statistics point of view are equivalent to comparing random numbers uniformly distributed between 0 and 1/N where N is number of coins in the wallet (normalization coefficient is the same for all wallets and is omitted for clarity).
Now imagine that you throw a dice with numbers from 1 to 6 and your opponent throws a semi-dice with three possible values from 1 to 3. Who gets the lower number wins the round. In half of the cases you will throw 4-6 and win. In the other half you will have 50:50 chances to win. Thus your chances are 1/2 + 1/4 = 0.75 and his chances are 1/4 = 0.25. Which is 3 times lower.
For arbitrary ratio K between two wallets the probability ratio is 2K-1. For example, a wallet with 100k coins is 199 times more likely to forge a block than 1k wallet.
I'm talking about three times probability increase for a two times larger wallet. What orphan blocks are you talking about?
Here u say this:
Quote
Now imagine that you throw a dice with numbers from 1 to 6 and your opponent throws a semi-dice with three possible values from 1 to 3. Who gets the lower number wins the round. In half of the cases you will throw 4-6 and win. In the other half you will have 50:50 chances to win. Thus your chances are 1/2 + 1/4 = 0.75 and his chances are 1/4 = 0.25. Which is 3 times lower.
That's called 'substitution of notions'. You suggested this topic. I didn't address summation of probabilities in my original post. And I don't see how summation of probabilities is connected to it.
This is my original post. Where do you see summation of probabilities? Why are we discussing it?
I'm talking about three times probability increase for a two times larger wallet. What orphan blocks are you talking about?
This is my original post. Where do you see summation of probabilities? Why are we discussing it?
Transition to Transparent Forging (at least the way it is described in the wiki) will ruin the axiom of
Here's why.
Steps 3-5 in http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Transparent_Forging from the statistics point of view are equivalent to comparing random numbers uniformly distributed between 0 and 1/N where N is number of coins in the wallet (normalization coefficient is the same for all wallets and is omitted for clarity).
Now imagine that you throw a dice with numbers from 1 to 6 and your opponent throws a semi-dice with three possible values from 1 to 3. Who gets the lower number wins the round. In half of the cases you will throw 4-6 and win. In the other half you will have 50:50 chances to win. Thus your chances are 1/2 + 1/4 = 0.75 and his chances are 1/4 = 0.25. Which is 3 times lower.
For arbitrary ratio K between two wallets the probability ratio is 2K-1. For example, a wallet with 100k coins is 199 times more likely to forge a block than 1k wallet.
Quote
"Rate of return to 1 Nxt is the same regardless how many Nxt you have."
Here's why.
Steps 3-5 in http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Transparent_Forging from the statistics point of view are equivalent to comparing random numbers uniformly distributed between 0 and 1/N where N is number of coins in the wallet (normalization coefficient is the same for all wallets and is omitted for clarity).
Now imagine that you throw a dice with numbers from 1 to 6 and your opponent throws a semi-dice with three possible values from 1 to 3. Who gets the lower number wins the round. In half of the cases you will throw 4-6 and win. In the other half you will have 50:50 chances to win. Thus your chances are 1/2 + 1/4 = 0.75 and his chances are 1/4 = 0.25. Which is 3 times lower.
For arbitrary ratio K between two wallets the probability ratio is 2K-1. For example, a wallet with 100k coins is 199 times more likely to forge a block than 1k wallet.
I'm talking about three times probability increase for a two times larger wallet. What orphan blocks are you talking about?
MPK is a public key generated using a wallet seed in a way so that you can generate other addresses right from the MPK without needing the priv keys. To see the utility of this check acceptbit.com, it is a POS system that do not require ANY private keys you just supply it an MPK and then it can generate addresses for your customers, imagine the implications, a cashless register, where transactions happen and only the administration can move the money.
Did I get u right? U state that there a function F() exists such as
F(MPK, i) = PKi
?
Quote
Where in my original post did I rely on P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B)?
Please address my post and not your argument taken from another thread.
V
V
V
In our case P(A and B) = 0 because A and B are mutually exclusive.
Orphaned blocks don't make A and B not mutially exclusive...
They do and this is by design to make it impossible to predict next forging accounts 1440 blocks in advance.
...because only one of them will get the revenue in the bottomline.
This is irrelevant to probabilities.
***Action Item***
One of our priorities needs to be able to get Nxt into the hands of people without Bitcoin.
One of our priorities needs to be able to get Nxt into the hands of people without Bitcoin.
You can purchase NXT without Bitcoin via CryptoKopen.eu.
Wow such expensive way to buy anything.
Guys I am in deperate need for a feature and for a reason price I will generiously pay
MASTER PULIC KEY ACCOUNT NUMBER GENERATION, ELECTRUM STYLE
any one can make this happen around here? I am willing to PAY for working code and concept and release it open source.
- Lophie
More infos please.MASTER PULIC KEY ACCOUNT NUMBER GENERATION, ELECTRUM STYLE
any one can make this happen around here? I am willing to PAY for working code and concept and release it open source.
- Lophie
MPK is a public key generated using a wallet seed in a way so that you can generate other addresses right from the MPK without needing the priv keys. To see the utility of this check acceptbit.com, it is a POS system that do not require ANY private keys you just supply it an MPK and then it can generate addresses for your customers, imagine the implications, a cashless register, where transactions happen and only the administration can move the money.
I really need this so if you have the knowledge, I am prepared to pay.
- Lophie
[quote author
In our case P(A and B) = 0 because A and B are mutually exclusive.
A and B r not mutually exclusive. U don't take into account network topology / orphaned blocks. Sometimes a block forged in 5 second after the previous one becomes orphaned by a block forged in 10 seconds. U get incorrect results coz u work with an over-simplified model.
Any more objections? How does network topology influence laws of statistics?
Please correct the algorithm, or explain where I'm wrong.
See above.
Quote
Where in my original post did I rely on P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B)?
Please address my post and not your argument taken from another thread.
Guys I am in deperate need for a feature and for a reason price I will generiously pay
MASTER PULIC KEY ACCOUNT NUMBER GENERATION, ELECTRUM STYLE
any one can make this happen around here? I am willing to PAY for working code and concept and release it open source.
- Lophie
More infos please. MASTER PULIC KEY ACCOUNT NUMBER GENERATION, ELECTRUM STYLE
any one can make this happen around here? I am willing to PAY for working code and concept and release it open source.
- Lophie
Please correct the algorithm, or explain where I'm wrong.
See above.
In our case P(A and B) = 0 because A and B are mutually exclusive.
A and B r not mutually exclusive. U don't take into account network topology / orphaned blocks. Sometimes a block forged in 5 second after the previous one becomes orphaned by a block forged in 10 seconds. U get incorrect results coz u work with an over-simplified model.
I wish you get me right. I'm not saying TF is bad. 
The idea is great. It's just the algorithm that is incorrect. Please correct the algorithm, or explain where I'm wrong.
btw, thanks for the explanation about base target<100%, Come-from-Beyond. Really helpful
The idea is great. It's just the algorithm that is incorrect. Please correct the algorithm, or explain where I'm wrong.btw, thanks for the explanation about base target<100%, Come-from-Beyond. Really helpful
What if we politely ask those 75 biggest stakeholders not to forge for the time being? That's small change for them (isnt it?) and we have a nice answer against "rich getting richer" argument.
Also: Hi everyone, I am new here!
Also: Hi everyone, I am new here!
Welcome verbosvn
If you look at the block explorer, a lot of the bigger accounts are not forging.
Also, depending on what BCNext means by "migrating out of PoS" could mean that larger stakeholders generate less coins.
Ur resume is incorrect
What do you mean by that?P(A or B) =/= P(A) + P(B) in our case.
P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A and B) http://www.mathwords.com/a/addition_rule.htmIn our case P(A and B) = 0 because A and B are mutually exclusive.
(here A is the probability of wallet #1 to forge a block in this round, and B - for wallet #2)
So what? Where in my original post did I rely on P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B)?
Jump to: