Topic: Please run a full node - page 6. (Read 6669 times)

Sorry bud... Franky... that's not how it works at all!

Time most certainly does not reset after any block.
The chances of solving a block are exactly the same at any point in time.

It doesn't matter if you run 100 trillion hashes, your chance of solving the block is (for all intents and purposes), exactly the same as when you started hashing.

The 10 minute interval comes from the probability of the entire network hashrate solving a block, which can be expressed as a Poisson distribution.   If you take away most pools, your time interval goes up.

no
the pool would make blocks on average of 10 minutes

I run a full node whenever my PC is on so I can solo-mine whilst playing games / photography / etc...

I am also on the hunt for old miners for an Aussie solar panel system I am putting in...if you want to help strengthen the network, consider all those old dust collecting miners you have and now think about donating some.

Details from my marketplace post...

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/wanted-old-miners-collectiong-dust-1907886
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Please consider supporting crytpocurrency security with active distributed hashing, not consolidated into a handful of big miners / pools. If you have any old ASIC miners of any type that are currently door stoppers / dust collectors, please consider donating the items to an Aussie for strengthening the networks.

I am an electrical engineer that is putting some of my crypto into a modest stand alone solar / wind system using salvaged parts;
1. ~480W of solar panel
2. MPPT regulator
3. 2 car batteries
4. 3 UPS
5. 10 year old motherboard with AMD dual core processor
6. 30GHs R-Box (SHA-256) consumes 30W
7. 5GHs Butterfly labs consumes 30W

With this set up, I can establish some stand-alone ASIC miners to help strengthen the networks.

I am on the look out for:
1. Old ASIC miners of any type

I have some spoondoolies to cover shipping costs....

This is only true if you mean that : once the other miners are removed and the difficulty re-adjusts to the one miner/pool.... at THAT POINT, it would be every 10 minutes on average.

But sans difficulty adjustment, if you kill 9 out of 10 pools and have only 1 pool left, it would take 100 minutes, not 10.

Is that what you meant?

I did warn you 

This is probably a good reason to run a full node: to get a feeling of satisfaction of contributing "something" to this Great Network and sleep with the comforting thought of a deed well done.

Bull crap all of you, you tell us to run a full node so miners get fat faster? what is the reason for a person not mining to run a full node? if a miner wants the votes of nodes then he will run them by himself, Bitcoin is not peer to peer, who says that? if miners refuse to include our transactions we can't do jack by our so called full nodes.
People like Franky1 can diversify the network by the money they earn through covert asicboost mining.

Generally ASIC miners are hacking machines, I can't mine with CPU and GPU? so I need to buy ASIC from a private manufacturer which turns out to be worse than governments?
Joke is on you hackers, miner=node no miner node=fool
Any miner out there to include my 120sat/b transactions if I broadcast from my full node every time without exception? then I will run a full node.

I run a full node, multiple actually. My reasoning for this is I am not a programmer I also do not own a business that I can accept Bitcoin at. The only way I can do my part in this community is to buy/spend Bitcoin, which I do, try to explain the benifits of using Bitcoin, which I do, and run a full node. I also dont currently mine Bitcoin and havent for quite awhile. Running a full node really doesnt cost that much if you have the hardware laying around. I was given a few old dell desktops with Core2Duo CPUs. I upgraded the hard drives to 1TB for cheap and taa-daa!

If this is all I am able to do to help out, even if its only a small help, Im ok with the tiny cost of doing so.

dinofelis is looking at things from a 2 dimensional view. he is not understanding all the features of bitcoin and what makes bitcoin so different than a fiat cheque clearing house.

bitcoin is unique for many more reasons than dinofelis seems to realise. and it seems all he wants to do is convince people to run lite wallets to hand pools more power by diluting the node count that can obstruct pools from changing the rules soo easily.(sorry if my critical mind things thats his motives, where it could just b he has yet to really fall down the bitcoin rabbit hole)

nodes do provide a crucial and critical part ofthe symbiotic relationship way more than dinofelis ieither wants to admit to, or yet to grasp.
but if he wants to run a lite wallet he should just go ahead and run a lite wallet.. but those of us that understand the real need/reasons for running a node will continue to

i feel that dinofelis is still stuck in the mindset of the fiat world of central control. and is still learning but not yet grasped ALL of the beauty of ALL of the bitcoin features that differentiate it from fiat archaic systems

lets say there are atleast a dozen different mechanisms of bitcoin.
i feel dinfelis only understands 4 out of 12... and is only brushing against understanding another 1or2 (from reading his post history).. id give him another year of actually running simulations and learning the context of it.. before he see's the mindblowing wonder of why bitcoin is better than fiat.

i feel he has not yet had that mind blowing experience.. but it will come

Franky1 -

You've made some good observations over the years. However, I think your clinging to bad analogies has you confused. On this mining issue, dinofelis is correct.

Absolutely. With the caveat that despite the misappropriation of the word, entities that do not mine are not 'nodes', by the original definition. That aside, you sum up pretty completely the reason that I run a fully-validating-wallet.

There's really no point any more in trying to explain how mining works to you.

they dont
they find a solution in an average of 10 minutes..

SEPARATELY

their solution is only accepted every 10th time, due to the competition

being accepted as part of the chain.. is different than how long it takes them to make a solution.

learn the context

10 pools with each 10% of the hash power find, each individually, a single solution on average every 100 minutes (1 hour and 20 minutes).  On AVERAGE with an exponential distribution: so sometimes after 1 minute, sometimes after 5 hours.  Note that statistically, there is not the slightest influence *on what block* they mine.  They could change block at each hash, that wouldn't change their rate of success nor the statistical distribution of their finding solutions.  As such, they don't care when they have to switch blocks on which they mine: it doesn't change anything to their success.

Each time they find a solution, they win a block.  The chronological order in which the different blocs are found, is the block chain.  

Very rarely, it can happen that two pools find a solution within a few seconds interval, while they were mining on the same block - then, one of them will orphan.  The only reason why the second pool has an orphaned block, was that he wasn't aware he had to switch the block on which he was mining, and continued to mine on the old block (in vain), and happened to find a solution right at that moment.

If miners would know each-others' solutions instantaneously (no propagation delay, no verification delay) there wouldn't be any orphaning, because at the microsecond when a pool found a block, all others are aware of this, and switch to the next one.  So if 3 seconds later, a miner finds another block, it is already the following block, not an orphan on the old block.  Orphaning only happens because of delays between miners.

It is simply fascinatingly amazing to be talking about bitcoin technical aspects, and to miss this ultra elementary aspect.

you argue it takes hours, and you knitpick my simplifying of "a few seconds" difference (facepalm)
the few seconds difference is in regards to your scenarios of all pools having equal hash..
you mention 10 pools of 10% hash.. so times would be similar...

yes if you add in other variables and change your scenario the times become more than just a few seconds.. but still not going to be hours like you suggest.

seriously go run some tests.. get some dice.. get you and some friends to run a few lengths of a field
make an alt and buy a few usb asics and run some proper tests
make an bitcoin testnet and buy a few usb asics and run some proper tests

As I said, and tried (in vain, apparently) to explain, you're totally wrong about how mining happens.  You think it is a cumulative calculation effort (even if you say you know it isn't, you think it takes very close to 10 minutes for every miner each time, whether that miner has 1% of the hash rate, or 40% of the hash rate, it always takes, up to a few seconds, 10 minutes). Can't help you any more.  This invalidates much of what you think about many things in bitcoin.

he only gets a block every one sixth, because there is other competitors that beat him by seconds. and only the fastest guy wins..
as soon as the winner is found the clock resets.. blocks are found in 10 minute average. they do not continue hashing the same data for hours..
they reset and start again on fresh data as soon as a winner is found

You're digging yourself deeper in the hole.  Of course, that is EXACTLY the reason why he only has a block every hour, and hence, about 1/6 of the total amount of blocks.  

i do understand, much more then you think

my maths are only simplified not due to not understanding, but just to try getting to the point in a way even a layman can understand easily.
i use layman analogies to tone DOWN technicals into average guy speak. however it seems you try to grasp things at a laymen and try to abstract it into technical babble, while still missing the main points

yes there are more variables, but my posts only explain parts of them because the parts i mention are trying to show where your parts fall flat and it would end up taking a whole book to explain how the other parts interplay aswell..(which then just sidetracks the point)

you some how think there are only like 2 mechanisms of bitcoin and that non-mining nodes play no part in any security, bar being a data backup.

there are over a dozen mechanisms that all interplay each other. where nodes and pools have a symbiotic relationship not just for data backup, but for security purposes and data validation, collation and formation.

bitcoins symbiotic relationship, the fastest first, the orphan consensus, the propagation, the relay the tx validation, the block validation, and all the others all have a part to play.

you keep thinking that its only a pool is master.. node is slave game. where if a pool only gets a block every 6th block its average solution must take 60 minutes to find.. is RIDICULOUS

your maths of statistics has not looked at the context of where the numbers come from, nor (it seems) have you run scenarios either using algorithms, or paper or dice or just your mind.

the short and curlies of the part you try to suggest is that if there were 20 pools of say 5% (where the average pool only gets 1 block every 20th block) in your eyes means a pool only finds a block every 3 hours 20 minutes..(wrong on so many levels of understanding the context of numbers)

when the reality is they find block solutions much faster, but are IGNORED/GIVE UP as soon as a winner is found. and they all start again.. the hashtime does not add up on the next round. it starts at 0 again.
just look at the times of orphans where a runner up actually does get to win because the fastest first cheated or done something wrong, or other unmentioned reasons
https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks
not hours apart

much like olympic runners, having to run 100m..
just because linford christie or usain bolt win the majority of races, does NOT mean it takes 20 years for someone else to run 100m because they only win every 4th Olympic game

please look deeper at the numbers and look at the context of the stats.

I think ideally, you run the full node you wrote yourself !  As such, you don't have to trust anyone and the reason to run a full node is to verify whether the thing one presents you as bitcoin corresponds to what has been sold/told to you as bitcoin.  If you trust code writers, you can just as well trust block chain writers, and you don't need a full node.