Pages:
Author

Topic: Requesting Testnet4 tBTC (Read 2333 times)

legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
November 23, 2024, 05:19:25 AM
Because each ASIC block, which will confirm all previous blocks, basically sets the attack in stone, so the chain will not be reorged in the future.
That was kinda my point: since there are so few ASIC blocks, reorging some of them shouldn't take long for an ASIC.
My earlier estimate:
their "cost" is about $0.63 per block
Since then, Bitcoin's price went up. Let's say an ASIC miner misses out on $1 on Bitcoin earnings if he switches to Testnet4. That means it costs $7 to replace the last 500 CPU blocks and while doing so, set a precedent for the future.
Unless my math is wrong. Anyone with an ASIC who wants to give this a shot?
copper member
Activity: 906
Merit: 2258
November 23, 2024, 03:55:46 AM
Quote
Shower thought: I'm not sure how "chain work" competes against "chain length": can 1 difficult ASIC block wipe out thousands of easy CPU blocks?
Yes. The main limitation is difficulty adjustment: you cannot make "stronger" block, than your difficulty says (because then, everyone would just work on top of the Genesis Block, all the time, and would be guaranteed to throw away the whole chain in the future, with constantly increasing probability).

For example: the mainnet Genesis Block has the "real" difficulty of 2536, but it is declared as "1d00ffff", so it is only counted as 1. And the chainwork is then counted as 0x100010001, not 0x9e8770a5c23.

Quote
Does this mean an ASIC miner can reorg the last ~600 blocks if he ignored those blocks and mines 7+ blocks on top of block 54502?
Yes. But they don't do that, because most miners just run the default settings, without thinking about profitability, and without coding their own implementations. I guess most people would not even enable CPU mining, if Garlo Nicon would not share those changes publicly. It is not that easy to come up with a better algorithm, and most people are not programmers, and they simply stick to what they can find, instead of writing their own code.

However, if ASIC miners would want to maximize their profits (and lower the network difficulty), then they would ignore hundreds of CPU-mined blocks, and only consider ASIC-mined blocks as "real", and reorg all CPU-mined blocks, just by mining on top of the latest ASIC-mined block.

But of course, as long as this change is not implemented, then this miner can happily rule testnet4, and make it de-facto signet for a while. Because each ASIC block, which will confirm all previous blocks, basically sets the attack in stone, so the chain will not be reorged in the future.

And also, because testnet4 coins got some value anyway, and are actively traded, then another network should be used for real testing. And of course, testnet5 should have completely different rules, because in other case, Bitcoin Core developers would participate just in altcoin pump and dump, if they will keep making test networks, without preventing those coins from being traded.
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
November 23, 2024, 03:11:56 AM
I rather rent an ASIC miner for a few dollars than having to spend days playing with the code and running a few nodes to perform selfish mining
~
a person with an ASIC miner would still be able to fork the network with his longer chain
Shower thought: I'm not sure how "chain work" competes against "chain length": can 1 difficult ASIC block wipe out thousands of easy CPU blocks?
I checked my logs:
Code:
grep 'new best=00000000000000' debug.log # I manually removed duplicate block hashes from this list
2024-11-15T13:27:30Z UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000fa5e90d59206958c807e084c9988b4ee6c2738a1f4dd53014 height=54502 version=0x26c06000 log2_work=71.560382 tx=944754 date='2024-11-15T13:28:04Z' progress=1.000000 cache=0.3MiB(280txo)
2024-11-15T22:40:32Z UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000042c5b525b1f097ed366f790be3eeef9d157267644417fb6db height=54536 version=0x21472000 log2_work=71.560728 tx=945201 date='2024-11-15T22:48:33Z' progress=1.000000 cache=0.3MiB(1110txo)
2024-11-16T20:56:21Z UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000146be121b6ecdf28f5d415c010b6969851a031ebcdb016049b height=54609 version=0x22b74000 log2_work=71.561074 tx=948063 date='2024-11-16T21:09:41Z' progress=1.000000 cache=0.7MiB(4155txo)
2024-11-18T22:23:33Z UpdateTip: new best=00000000000000079cf95417ef8a090c76d9f87f90ff79b28e5725a42daa95a8 height=54763 version=0x25eec000 log2_work=71.561420 tx=951402 date='2024-11-18T22:32:10Z' progress=1.000000 cache=1.4MiB(7993txo)
2024-11-19T02:00:07Z UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000167286a4bea3bca60d6c3ab2cbbef79537bdf07b6420a2d2d height=54780 version=0x21e70000 log2_work=71.561766 tx=951770 date='2024-11-19T02:12:22Z' progress=1.000000 cache=1.7MiB(8858txo)
2024-11-22T20:06:45Z UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000123a9df4e2b399ac26492922dfc6ec2081045d0cacc17100 height=55056 version=0x20638000 log2_work=71.562112 tx=960307 date='2024-11-22T20:16:53Z' progress=1.000000 cache=2.7MiB(16356txo)
That's only 6 ASIC blocks on testnet4 in 8 days.
Does this mean an ASIC miner can reorg the last ~600 blocks if he ignored those blocks and mines 7+ blocks on top of block 54502?
copper member
Activity: 821
Merit: 1992
November 05, 2024, 07:09:21 AM
Quote
Can CPU miners mine testnet4 now?
1. Yes. Their blocks can be reorged, but they can mine them.
2. There are addresses, where you can move coins, if you grind a small enough signature. More details: https://github.com/adambor/btc-pow-locked-outputs

And I am currently focused on the second point, because it works without any forks, on all networks, including mainnet.

I think it is technically possible to make a Proof of Work based sidechain out of that, just by applying OP_SIZE on DER signatures. And then, it could allow activating something like BIP-300 or BIP-301, without a soft-fork.
legendary
Activity: 2436
Merit: 6640
be constructive or S.T.F.U
November 05, 2024, 06:20:09 AM
I hardly doubt this has anything to do with scarcity. People just need tBTC sometimes to test things, and out of this need, speculation arises. And, empirically, people speculate without taking into account scarcity.

I believe it would help, some people have this illusion that anything that is limited holds some value in it, if you could press a button and make an unlimited supply of seashells, it would likely result in less people at the beach looking for them, I am not just speculating here, I had several discussions with folks who were hammering tesetnet3 with S9s back in the day, they generally don't intent to screw CPU miners, they just think testnet coins are fun to have, and obviously, some of them, would want them so they can re-sell them to devs who can't mine them, so by making the total supply = infinity, it would most likely drive many of these miners away.

Quote
Then only ASIC miners will mine. The goal should be to allow CPU miners to test mining blocks.

Can CPU miners mine testnet4 now? they can not, so at least, if this isn't going to be solved, someone with an ASIC can still find blocks, because as it stands right now, you need and ASIC + selfish mining which requires some programming skills + the time to do so, so it's only a tiny set of people who can mine it, if I am developing a wallet or something, I rather rent an ASIC miner for a few dollars than having to spend days playing with the code and running a few nodes to perform selfish mining, so while it's not an optimal solution, it certainly is better than the current situation.

Quote
Once per two weeks, there is a difficulty adjustment, and then, only ASICs can mine a single block. Recently, it took one hour. And before that, there was a time, when it took around 4 hours. And ASIC miners could simply block all CPU miners, once per two weeks, if they would just stop mining.

The guys who control testnet4 have been maintaining the difficulty at almost flat for almost a month, they can do so because it's only them finding the majority of the blocks basically at the time they want.

Quote
If no CPU solves the block for 20 minutes, then the difficulty drops to the minimum for everyone. Then, even if you have some ASIC, you have no other choice, than to mine at the minimum difficulty

It drops for everyone but that's just on paper, a person with an ASIC miner would still be able to fork the network with his longer chain, even at a difficulty of 1, the average (more so the high-end) CPU would need a few minutes to solve a block, whereby with an ASIC it could be less than a second, again, even if your CPU was lucky enough to solve a block right at that 20 mins mark, once he receives it, he would still be able to mine 6 consecutive blocks and make you lose your block.
copper member
Activity: 906
Merit: 2258
November 05, 2024, 05:45:08 AM
Quote
Lifting the 21M cap
It wouldn't change anything now, because we are still before the first halving. And I don't know, if testnet4 will live long enough, to even approach the first halving.

Quote
Removing the 20mins exception rule all together
It will only increase the price on centralized exchanges, and make testnets even more similar to the mainnet. Then, a different Genesis Block, would be the only major difference.

Quote
Reset the blockchain every X block
Yes, I guess X=1 should work quite well.

Quote
I need 866TH to solve a block every 10 mins on average
The real difficulty is around 6x bigger, than it should be, because of CPU miners.

Quote
I don't need to keep it mining 24/7
Once per two weeks, there is a difficulty adjustment, and then, only ASICs can mine a single block. Recently, it took one hour. And before that, there was a time, when it took around 4 hours. And ASIC miners could simply block all CPU miners, once per two weeks, if they would just stop mining.

Quote
you can always see their blocktimestamp is 20m+1 second of the previous block
If no CPU solves the block for 20 minutes, then the difficulty drops to the minimum for everyone. Then, even if you have some ASIC, you have no other choice, than to mine at the minimum difficulty. Of course, you can mine in the past, but Median Time Past rule forces timestamps to move forward, so it is quite limited by the timestamps of the previous blocks (which is why sometimes you have no other option, than to put a timestamp from the future, when MTP rule forces you to do so).

Quote
It explains how none of other miners can compete at 121M difficulty.
Well, it just makes much more sense to mine mainnet blocks, or pick some other altcoin in that case. Many people expected to sell testnet4 coins at 7000 satoshis per unit, and they were quite surprised, when CPU miners dumped 100k coins, and dumped the price into 20 satoshis (which is now slowly recovering, but testnet3 is worth much more than testnet4, so many people just don't have any reason to switch; also because testnet3 is much faster chain, and allows much more bloat).
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
November 05, 2024, 05:02:52 AM
1- Lifting the 21M cap:

Unlimited supply of testnet coins would make these assholes give less value to testnet coins.
I hardly doubt this has anything to do with scarcity. People just need tBTC sometimes to test things, and out of this need, speculation arises. And, empirically, people speculate without taking into account scarcity.

Quote
2- Removing the 20mins exception rule all together and let the difficulty climb exponentially to the point where everyone has the same the same chance of hitting a block based only on their hashrate and not how dirty they are willing to play.
Then only ASIC miners will mine. The goal should be to allow CPU miners to test mining blocks.

Quote
3- Reset the blockchain every X block so that holding testnet coins becomes useless
This sounds like the best approach.

Quote
I am pretty certain the Portland guy/s are the same operators of the other miner that solves the 1 diff blocks, you can always see their blocktimestamp is 20m+1 second of the previous block.
Yes, that's I think as well. It explains how none of other miners can compete at 121M difficulty.
legendary
Activity: 2436
Merit: 6640
be constructive or S.T.F.U
November 05, 2024, 04:45:22 AM
If the ASIC miners also do it for profit, garlonicon's Fork idea isn't going to solve the value problem.

They do it because they are some smart assholes who know how to make use of the not-so-smart censuses related to testnet.

Quote
They waste all this ASIC power on testnet, only to lose ~80% to CPU miners. If I'd be an ASIC miner, I'd wipe the floor with them

Believe it or not, even having more hashpower than those guys isn't going to cut it, you will need some coding skills to do selfish mining, all you need is one large ASIC miner and the rest could be done on another node that runs a smaller miner or a CPU.

So testnet4 as is, not only that a CPU miner has no chance in it, even a regular person with ASIC has no chance, you need an ASIC miner + coding skills + the ability of ruining the testnet4 without feeling bad, you basically need to steal the blocks from those assholes, but again, is that even ethical?

Here are a few solution to this never ending problem of testnet.

1- Lifting the 21M cap:

Unlimited supply of testnet coins would make these assholes give less value to testnet coins.

2- Removing the 20mins exception rule all together and let the difficulty climb exponentially to the point where everyone has the same the same chance of hitting a block based only on their hashrate and not how dirty they are willing to play.

3- Reset the blockchain every X block so that holding testnet coins becomes useless



Quote
So ASIC miners are "spending" (or "wasting") about $13 worth of computing power per day on Testnet 4

Maybe less, it all depends on who else is competing against them.

As of right now, at the current difficulty of 121M let's say I want to mine all blocks alone.

I need 866TH to solve a block every 10 mins on average, I don't need to keep it mining 24/7, I would mine for 10 mins, find a block, stop there or point the ASIC to a mining pool, start selfish mining on a much smaller ASIC or even a small CPU that can do 70MH per second, that way, I can find a block every 60 seconds, while doing that, everybody else is stuck at the 121M block, if nobody finds a block, I just go on with solving the 1 diff blocks on my CPU or a small miner, if someone finally manages to solve the 121M block I would propagate the chain I have, fork the network, force every node to reject that block and accepts mine being the longest chain.

I am pretty certain the Portland guy/s are the same operators of the other miner that solves the 1 diff blocks, you can always see their blocktimestamp is 20m+1 second of the previous block.






copper member
Activity: 821
Merit: 1992
November 01, 2024, 09:14:54 AM
Quote
garlonicon's Fork idea isn't going to solve the value problem
The linked topic on GitHub is not my idea. This is what Core developers are planning to do. And of course, it won't solve the problem of testnets becoming valuable.

My idea was to make all testnet blocks stale, then they would always be worthless, because they would never be part of the heaviest chain, and they will always get reorged.
?
Activity: -
Merit: -
November 01, 2024, 08:48:38 AM
Interesting theories you're presenting. Indeed, the combination of different mining methods can significantly affect block distribution. It will be intriguing to see how this develops in the future.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
November 01, 2024, 07:47:22 AM
If that's the case, why not call it Portland instead of ckpool?
If he calls it Portland, then it'd be clear that Portland takes advantage of his ASIC power, but combines it with CPU mined blocks, and therefore, it'd signal to other ASIC miners that he does not use as much hashrate as it seems, and they could take a big portion of the pie as well.

Another theory: ckpool miner is not a CPU miner. He's an ASIC miner, but mines with difficulty=1, and so, when Portland broadcasts his block, he possesses enough power to solve 5-6 blocks in a row. (That'd explain "ckpool" in the name.)

Quote
If the ASIC miners also do it for profit, garlonicon's Fork idea isn't going to solve the value problem.
Certainly not. Reorging would clearly indicate that ASIC miners do, in fact, gain some benefit beyond the mere satisfaction of testing.
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
November 01, 2024, 06:45:56 AM
Here's a conspiracy theory: The Portland and ckpool are the same guy, and therefore, with that much power, he can outpace any other CPU miners, while enjoying the benefit of mining most of his coins with a CPU instead. That would explain how ckpool can mine multiple blocks within a second difference the moment Portland broadcasts the block.
If that's the case, why not call it Portland instead of ckpool?

Quote
They're worth real money. I didn't know this before, I thought they'd be extremely cheap if any fool bought them, but right now you can sell 1 tBTC for  $0.01-0.02. I had completely overlooked on humans' desire to speculate, even with the most worthless coins. Now it makes sense why ASICs dominated in testnet3. It's extremely profitable right now in testnet4.
If the ASIC miners also do it for profit, garlonicon's Fork idea isn't going to solve the value problem.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
November 01, 2024, 06:09:21 AM
So ASIC miners are "spending" (or "wasting") about $13 worth of computing power per day on Testnet 4. If that gets them 1/6th of the blocks, their "cost" is about $0.63 per block, or just over a cent per Testnet 4 coin.
Here's a conspiracy theory: The Portland and ckpool are the same guy, and therefore, with that much power, he can outpace any other CPU miners, while enjoying the benefit of mining most of his coins with a CPU instead. That would explain how ckpool can mine multiple blocks within a second difference the moment Portland broadcasts the block.

Quote
It's still baffles me people spend that much computing power on testnet.
They're worth real money. I didn't know this before, I thought they'd be extremely cheap if any fool bought them, but right now you can sell 1 tBTC for  $0.01-0.02. I had completely overlooked on humans' desire to speculate, even with the most worthless coins. Now it makes sense why ASICs dominated in testnet3. It's extremely profitable right now in testnet4.
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
November 01, 2024, 05:31:20 AM
These 167k tBTC he has mined can be sold for 0.05 BTC as we speak.
I got curious: vjudeu's post shows that about 1/6th of the blocks are mined by ASICs, and the difficulty is 245290781. If I understand this correctly, it means that only a sixth of the difficulty is "caused" by ASICs, so their work is equal to difficulty 40881797. Bitcoin's difficulty is 97.67T. That's 2,389,082 times more difficult. In the past days, transaction fees were (give or take) 0.03 BTC per block. Add the block reward, and it's 3.155 BTC. At 6 blocks per hour, that's close to $32 million per day. So ASIC miners are "spending" (or "wasting") about $13 worth of computing power per day on Testnet 4. If that gets them 1/6th of the blocks, their "cost" is about $0.63 per block, or just over a cent per Testnet 4 coin.
The 167k coins for 0.05 BTC you mentioned equals 2 cent per coin.

Ending CPU mining would give ASIC miners 6 times more blocks for the same amount of computing power (after the difficulty adjusts). It's still baffles me people spend that much computing power on testnet.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
October 30, 2024, 01:48:08 PM
It's now a Speedy Gonzales blockchain
Traitors 1, Byzantine generals 0.  Tongue

Quote
They waste all this ASIC power on testnet, only to lose ~80% to CPU miners. If I'd be an ASIC miner, I'd wipe the floor with them
Justice to Portland!

Quote
What hashrate do you have? I assume that minute is an average, it can be a second if you're lucky.
What hashrate do I have? How about 12 cores on an i5 10400?  Cheesy

The average is 20 minutes + 1 sec, so it's much less than 1/60th possibility.

Quote
What do you mean by "manually"?
I mine on paper.  Tongue

I mine the block with cpuminer-opt, export it in text, and submit it with "submitblock . But to reach to that, I firstly find the previous block's timestamp with:
Code:
./bitcoin-cli getblock "$(./bitcoin-cli getbestblockhash)" | grep '"time":' | awk '{print $2}' | tr -d ','

Edit: Technology improved since then, and I have written code to do things more automatically now, but it must had been as I described when your server logged it.
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
October 30, 2024, 01:05:54 PM
So basically, it's practically no longer a proof-of-work blockchain.
It's now a Speedy Gonzales blockchain Cheesy

Quote
unless of course ASICs join and dictate the truth.
They waste all this ASIC power on testnet, only to lose ~80% to CPU miners. If I'd be an ASIC miner, I'd wipe the floor with them Tongue

Quote
What I don't understand from your logs is how your node heard of my block 12 seconds after the previous block, when the previous block could not have been broadcasted only 12 seconds before, because for me to have broadcasted my block manually (with submitblock), it'd take around a minute to mine it and prepare it manually for submitblock.
What hashrate do you have? I assume that minute is an average, it can be a second if you're lucky.

Quote
The only reasonable explanation is that my block wasn't done manually, I just left cpuminer-opt running in the background, and it just found a block and broadcasted it.
What do you mean by "manually"? Is it a script, or you really have to manually do that? Check your own logs, compare times with my logs. Mine are probably on Amsterdam time, so ignore the hours.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
October 30, 2024, 12:29:45 PM
So basically, it's practically no longer a proof-of-work blockchain. It is not Byzantine tolerant. It's whoever "hears" it first, unless of course ASICs join and dictate the truth.

[...]
What I don't understand from your logs is how your node heard of my block 12 seconds after the previous block, when the previous block could not have been broadcasted only 12 seconds before, because for me to have broadcasted my block manually (with submitblock), it'd take around a minute to mine it and prepare it manually for submitblock.

The only reasonable explanation is that my block wasn't done manually, I just left cpuminer-opt running in the background, and it just found a block and broadcasted it. It just makes little sense though, because the chances for this to happen are extremely slim...
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
October 30, 2024, 11:22:49 AM
How I managed to mine 50 tBTC in the midst of all this chaos a few days ago is beyond me. I simply let the software run, and somehow, the block propagated. I honestly can't explain how it happened.
I don't know how I did it last time with block 52398
This is what my logs (on my Xeon server) show (I use quote-tags instead of code-tags so I can make parts bold):
Quote
2024-10-27T16:57:19Z Saw new header hash=0000000028f87c58bdb01ba6a210d2d88d7c966a63ec8fe1ecaf4929c3b8710a height=52391
2024-10-27T17:11:30Z Saw new header hash=00000000008347b88c5aa87cd660351ae3ca53db11d1c505a9b2254586508526 height=52392
2024-10-27T17:11:30Z UpdateTip: new best=00000000007d60cba4505a8671208bec811cc9ee14e448d9e604ca851980ae41 height=52390 version=0x248ca000 log2_work=71.484223 tx=902996 date='2024-10-27T18:31:28Z' progress=1.000000 cache=198.8MiB(1040653txo)
2024-10-27T17:11:30Z UpdateTip: new best=0000000000d556ee68c84a9030e09adbeccd7c3f0c8d180be375ae326567ef86 height=52391 version=0x28508000 log2_work=71.484223 tx=903256 date='2024-10-27T18:51:29Z' progress=1.000000 cache=198.8MiB(1040845txo)
2024-10-27T17:11:30Z UpdateTip: new best=00000000008347b88c5aa87cd660351ae3ca53db11d1c505a9b2254586508526 height=52392 version=0x2601a000 log2_work=71.484223 tx=903296 date='2024-10-27T19:11:30Z' progress=1.000000 cache=198.8MiB(1040960txo)
2024-10-27T17:11:55Z Saw new header hash=000000007f1921af25a0c371e0aeb4f44cc39d73bb0d380dc9025ca2b879f770 height=52392
2024-10-27T17:30:48Z Saw new header hash=000000000000000a0ed7f8ae1756e89a49df644c63639a1bf64ab1763afcb88e height=52393
2024-10-27T17:30:50Z UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000a0ed7f8ae1756e89a49df644c63639a1bf64ab1763afcb88e height=52393 version=0x2fd5c000 log2_work=71.484683 tx=903421 date='2024-10-27T17:31:26Z' progress=1.000000 cache=198.8MiB(1041131txo)
2024-10-27T17:30:51Z Saw new header hash=0000000000f4bd4bc8930745c33c5e5e78d72658a8ec323731d45aef6340cf19 height=52394
2024-10-27T17:30:51Z UpdateTip: new best=0000000000f4bd4bc8930745c33c5e5e78d72658a8ec323731d45aef6340cf19 height=52394 version=0x213b6000 log2_work=71.484683 tx=903431 date='2024-10-27T17:51:27Z' progress=1.000000 cache=198.8MiB(1041140txo)
2024-10-27T17:30:51Z Saw new header hash=0000000000d5f9cbdf8ca9e4b1d52322d1f17831a3468351d05edb15fe5d2ed9 height=52394
2024-10-27T17:30:51Z Saw new cmpctblock header hash=0000000000d5f9cbdf8ca9e4b1d52322d1f17831a3468351d05edb15fe5d2ed9 peer=274325
2024-10-27T17:30:53Z Saw new header hash=0000000000b1723bab8d88bd17e36531725900cbd0f1af13a8230f58a3cb72d5 height=52394
2024-10-27T17:30:53Z Saw new cmpctblock header hash=0000000000b1723bab8d88bd17e36531725900cbd0f1af13a8230f58a3cb72d5 peer=274325
2024-10-27T17:30:55Z Saw new header hash=0000000000f74d4658d6868ea82302bc8eabd326d04ccd1e6c0d9dffa3974cdd height=52395
2024-10-27T17:30:56Z Saw new header hash=000000000001ce5deaf6c2f504d773ce1490960b8b793ed994e01e80dae16581 height=52395
2024-10-27T17:30:57Z UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000a0ed7f8ae1756e89a49df644c63639a1bf64ab1763afcb88e height=52393 version=0x2fd5c000 log2_work=71.484683 tx=903421 date='2024-10-27T17:31:26Z' progress=1.000000 cache=198.8MiB(1041132txo)
2024-10-27T17:30:57Z UpdateTip: new best=0000000000d5f9cbdf8ca9e4b1d52322d1f17831a3468351d05edb15fe5d2ed9 height=52394 version=0x26afa000 log2_work=71.484683 tx=903431 date='2024-10-27T17:51:27Z' progress=1.000000 cache=198.8MiB(1041140txo)
2024-10-27T17:30:57Z UpdateTip: new best=0000000000f74d4658d6868ea82302bc8eabd326d04ccd1e6c0d9dffa3974cdd height=52395 version=0x27302000 log2_work=71.484683 tx=903441 date='2024-10-27T18:11:28Z' progress=1.000000 cache=198.8MiB(1041133txo)
2024-10-27T17:30:57Z Saw new header hash=00000000008ae7bb2829882bf885677daf6baf746ddd275102e9fa7fe15e34a8 height=52395
2024-10-27T17:30:57Z Saw new header hash=00000000002a1b56d96a6f56555cf54fc8e7e6e66820c85a3cc4f4f05eb315b6 height=52396
2024-10-27T17:30:57Z Saw new cmpctblock header hash=00000000002a1b56d96a6f56555cf54fc8e7e6e66820c85a3cc4f4f05eb315b6 peer=274325
2024-10-27T17:30:58Z UpdateTip: new best=0000000000d5f9cbdf8ca9e4b1d52322d1f17831a3468351d05edb15fe5d2ed9 height=52394 version=0x26afa000 log2_work=71.484683 tx=903431 date='2024-10-27T17:51:27Z' progress=1.000000 cache=198.8MiB(1041141txo)
2024-10-27T17:30:58Z UpdateTip: new best=00000000008ae7bb2829882bf885677daf6baf746ddd275102e9fa7fe15e34a8 height=52395 version=0x23e14000 log2_work=71.484683 tx=903441 date='2024-10-27T18:11:28Z' progress=1.000000 cache=198.8MiB(1041134txo)
2024-10-27T17:30:58Z UpdateTip: new best=00000000002a1b56d96a6f56555cf54fc8e7e6e66820c85a3cc4f4f05eb315b6 height=52396 version=0x25814000 log2_work=71.484683 tx=903451 date='2024-10-27T18:31:29Z' progress=1.000000 cache=198.8MiB(1041140txo)
2024-10-27T17:31:00Z Saw new header hash=0000000000c1ce881d17395fe360d9597f315ceff47a17e5ebc99d786ac20c03 height=52396
2024-10-27T17:31:00Z Saw new cmpctblock header hash=0000000000c1ce881d17395fe360d9597f315ceff47a17e5ebc99d786ac20c03 peer=274325
2024-10-27T17:31:02Z Saw new header hash=00000000002a412cc2da553e2bd8618f0e782f52b7148bc0195b7f4eec5f39f2 height=52397
2024-10-27T17:31:02Z UpdateTip: new best=00000000002a412cc2da553e2bd8618f0e782f52b7148bc0195b7f4eec5f39f2 height=52397 version=0x237e6000 log2_work=71.484683 tx=903461 date='2024-10-27T18:51:30Z' progress=1.000000 cache=198.8MiB(1041149txo)
2024-10-27T17:31:02Z Saw new header hash=00000000001f6ce3f400e586b314b96b9e13798b883a242094fbf4c13bcb8be9 height=52397
2024-10-27T17:31:19Z Saw new header hash=0000000044ea653dce3aa39a18f2a044b0a3712e462c1fa11064bc45a51db0df height=52398
2024-10-27T17:31:19Z UpdateTip: new best=0000000044ea653dce3aa39a18f2a044b0a3712e462c1fa11064bc45a51db0df height=52398 version=0x20000000 log2_work=71.484683 tx=903462 date='2024-10-27T19:11:31Z' progress=1.000000 cache=198.8MiB(1041150txo)
2024-10-27T17:31:32Z Saw new header hash=00000000002a850cf6d478f2416ac45fd0949dd38e3861f2e6b1cf936883fe4f height=52399
2024-10-27T17:31:32Z UpdateTip: new best=00000000002a850cf6d478f2416ac45fd0949dd38e3861f2e6b1cf936883fe4f height=52399 version=0x254a8000 log2_work=71.484683 tx=903476 date='2024-10-27T19:31:32Z' progress=1.000000 cache=198.8MiB(1041162txo)
2024-10-27T17:31:33Z Saw new header hash=00000000002fdaceb0a170b4a8a767b5f3bf8bb6728c6cc8274956c97df2745d height=52399
2024-10-27T17:31:33Z Saw new cmpctblock header hash=00000000002fdaceb0a170b4a8a767b5f3bf8bb6728c6cc8274956c97df2745d peer=274325
2024-10-27T17:34:45Z Saw new header hash=000000000000000d05f10861281490b34277f90b995f66927ab941bcfef7d011 height=52400
2024-10-27T17:34:45Z UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000d05f10861281490b34277f90b995f66927ab941bcfef7d011 height=52400 version=0x2c03e000 log2_work=71.485143 tx=903496 date='2024-10-27T18:31:30Z' progress=1.000000 cache=198.8MiB(1041183txo)
2024-10-27T17:35:12Z Saw new header hash=00000000003b72bbb8760d1ba00847e65a1483d044d4c8ce364c00aba2182123 height=52401
2024-10-27T17:35:12Z Saw new cmpctblock header hash=00000000003b72bbb8760d1ba00847e65a1483d044d4c8ce364c00aba2182123 peer=274325
2024-10-27T17:35:12Z UpdateTip: new best=00000000003b72bbb8760d1ba00847e65a1483d044d4c8ce364c00aba2182123 height=52401 version=0x22620000 log2_work=71.485143 tx=903507 date='2024-10-27T18:51:31Z' progress=1.000000 cache=198.8MiB(1041194txo)
2024-10-27T17:35:13Z Saw new header hash=00000000007350988a5aa3173fbff5ae68fc61390be204d492ece89bd13db146 height=52402
At 17:30:48, my server saw ASIC block 52393. It took 2 seconds to validate, after which it became the new best chain. After this it's a feeding frenzy at difficulty 1.
1 second later, it saw and updated the new best to block 52394.
2 seconds later, it saw another block 52394, instantly followed by a new block 52395. It saw 2 more blocks 52395 in the next seconds.
At 17:30:57, block 52394 was replaced and block 52395 became the new best chain.
One second later, block 52395 is replaced and a new block 52396 becomes the best chain.
Another new block hash 52396 is seen, and 4 seconds after this block 52397 becomes the best chain without reorg.
At 17:31:19, 17 seconds after the last block, your block 52398 is seen and becomes the new best chain.
12 seconds later, block 52399 is added.

My take: "the other guy" was "slow" to find this new block, which gave you a chance to find it.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
October 30, 2024, 10:53:23 AM
My guess is future price speculation, or maybe just wanting to hold the record of owning most testnet coins
Probably speculation. These 167k tBTC he has mined can be sold for 0.05 BTC as we speak.

@BlackHatCoiner: was that your block? Or is there a third node involved trying to replace the same blocks?
Nope. Just three men fighting for the block reward. Apparently, there are more people than me and the ckpook guy interested in broadcasting the block at the same time.  Cheesy

How I managed to mine 50 tBTC in the midst of all this chaos a few days ago is beyond me. I simply let the software run, and somehow, the block propagated. I honestly can't explain how it happened. The question still remains: why is the ckpool guy winning 99% of the time?
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
October 30, 2024, 05:46:56 AM
Could it be that he has launched dozens of testnet4 nodes, all connected and broadcasting his blocks at the same time?
That would make sense, but doesn't work with my theory of running 2 different systems. I haven't checked if the blocks that get replaced also mined to the same address, or to a different address. I'll keep an eye on that for a while on memspace: the moment the latest block gets replaced, I'll know the answer.
It took a while, but I confirmed my theory:
Quote from: grep 52840
2024-10-30T10:17:33Z Saw new header hash=0000000000d73ea232e85cc5ec5a0f538809f95075ff3462d874d87b6145456d height=52840
2024-10-30T10:17:33Z UpdateTip: new best=0000000000d73ea232e85cc5ec5a0f538809f95075ff3462d874d87b6145456d height=52840 version=0x222a8000 log2_work=71.509533 tx=910475 date='2024-10-30T12:17:33Z' progress=1.000000 cache=199.2MiB(34387txo)
2024-10-30T10:17:33Z Saw new header hash=00000000005051c90fb8415b9a3feda1d8d00bb5aff69faad9a02c932e2e1a52 height=52840
2024-10-30T10:17:33Z Saw new header hash=000000000006d6eb31089aa3a1bda97378f27dd8747ae9d4a8af19fcb6ee76dc height=52840
2024-10-30T10:37:34Z UpdateTip: new best=000000000006d6eb31089aa3a1bda97378f27dd8747ae9d4a8af19fcb6ee76dc height=52840 version=0x21b9e000 log2_work=71.509533 tx=910475 date='2024-10-30T12:17:33Z' progress=1.000000 cache=199.2MiB(34388txo)
The first bold block hash mined to tb1q2dsc94zq40nwnz27w5rxljwllutnwjtlxk44fz, and was replaced by the next bold block hash, which mines to the same address.
In between, there was another (grayed out) block hash with the same block height, which never made it to "new best" on my node. @BlackHatCoiner: was that your block? Or is there a third node involved trying to replace the same blocks?
Pages:
Jump to: