The Well Deserved Fortune of Satoshi Nakamoto, Visionary and Genious - page 3.

Atheros

sr. member

Activity: 249

Merit: 251

Quote from: deepceleron on April 17, 2013, 10:07:41 AM

The nonce may increase faster if Satoshi was discarding fast block finds to make the block rate more regular (which they are statistically - pull out and analyse one series of increasing extranonces).

This is all Extremely interesting.

Why would Satoshi's xMiner bother to do the work to generate blocks during particular seconds or minutes if it doesn't want blocks at that time? Why not pause generation and continue when too much time has gone by without any blocks?

rpietila

donator

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1036

Cheese guys, soon you will be able to match all BTC1,000 paperwallets with their owners, and I start to feel queasy. Undecided

deepceleron

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1036

Quote from: Zibbo on April 18, 2013, 03:45:59 AM

One interesting observation about this graph is about two months after "Satoshi disappears". At that point a new, and from the looks of it, very efficient miner starts working, with a very similar (identical?) "slope" as with Satoshi miner. Lots of those coins are spent.

That would be knightmb, who made mad coin with thousands of dollars of Amazon compute cloud.

deblurred July 24, 2010 screenshot for you:

Zibbo

newbie

Activity: 59

Merit: 0

Quote from: Sergio_Demian_Lerner on April 17, 2013, 05:38:47 PM

How Satoshi mining pattern disappears...

One interesting observation about this graph is about two months after "Satoshi disappears". At that point a new, and from the looks of it, very efficient miner starts working, with a very similar (identical?) "slope" as with Satoshi miner. Lots of those coins are spent.

Of course, any vertical looking slope will look a lot like Satoshi miner.

Crypto Canary

newbie

Activity: 41

Merit: 0

Surprise-o-meter: 0%

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

Quote from: johnyj on April 18, 2013, 12:07:25 AM

I suppose that the early version of client have only one address per wallet?

No. Early versions had most of the functionality that Bitcoin-Qt's GUI has now.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Some thing I wonder: If every block generated by Satoshi belongs to a different address, how many addresses he has to manage? I suppose that the early version of client have only one address per wallet? So if he have 1 million coin he has to manage 20000 wallets? At a time that no one knows if bitcoin will success or not, he backup 600 wallets every 100 hour??

I suppose that if he would like to accumulate all the coins generated by him, he would have transferred all the coins to a few addresses, to be able to manage. I think that setting up a bot miner's scenario is more resonable

(And even if he owned 5% of total amount of coin, comparing with central banks owned every USD when they issue it, it's still very very little)

Nancarrow

hero member

Activity: 492

Merit: 503

Nice work, Sergio. And please don't let them grind you down - I mean the fuckwits who think ignorance is EVER preferable to knowledge (and especially for markets!).

jl2012

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1111

Is it the same time when he disappeared on this forum?

Quote from: Sergio_Demian_Lerner on April 17, 2013, 05:38:47 PM

How Satoshi mining pattern disappears...

Etlase2

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Which is why I said the community would have to agree since they'd have to voluntarily use the fork with the change. However, you only need a 75% majority of miners because 49% can power the network while the 26% 51% attack the 25% left.

deepceleron

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1036

Quote from: Etlase2 on April 17, 2013, 07:10:39 PM

I think it would be hilarious if a majority of the miners (and I suppose the community would have to agree) decided to set a date where coins still unspent from blocks prior to say 30,000 would become unspendable. Then we could answer the question of satoshi's intentions once and for all.

That won't happen. That would mean Satoshi only need spend some coins to fork the blockchain. Which you still may find hilarious.

Etlase2

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

I think it would be hilarious if a majority of the miners (and I suppose the community would have to agree) decided to set a date where coins still unspent from blocks prior to say 30,000 would become unspendable. Then we could answer the question of satoshi's intentions once and for all.

MysteryMiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1049

Death to enemies!

I think Satoshi is still tripping balls from Silk Road stuff since day he disappeared.

The idea of auto miner is logical but nothing supports it. As the coins were almost zero value and he might just as well fund faucet with them back then. Or he still have the original keys and don't care about spending them to buy yacht or collection of supercars. He probably already have all things he want and what can be purchased with money. Not everybody want to have yachts, private islands and supercars.

deepceleron

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1036

Quote from: Impaler on April 17, 2013, 06:12:07 PM

deepceleron's theory of a 'auto-mininer' run by Satoshi that existed just to give the network a consistent block interval and which intentionally lost all it's coins seems logical given the total lack of spending on those coins. But why wouldn't such a detail not have been made public long ago? Why would such a miner use different addresses rather then not a clearly void address for which no private key could exist, it's trivial to do this and Satoshi would have know how. If deepceleron's theory is correct it also implies that Satoshi didn't make the slightest effort to inform the community he was destroying a large chunk of the theoretical potential 21M coins? Did he want people to believe those Million or so coins were liquid and could be sold?

It would be more secure to generate blocks with completely random pubkeys (which is exactly what Bitcoin does when it generates). If all the coinbase public keys had reduced address space or something in common, that could make their funds an attack target of weaker strength than normal addresses. There is no 64 bit public key for which a private key cannot theoretically exist and still be a valid point on the appropriate elliptic curve, which is required for implementation of public key validation.

If they were intended to be obviously discarded, they could claim a 1 base unit reward instead of 50 bitcoins, but this would likely just confuse people more - there wouldn't actually be 21M BTC and you would see other speculation and wild theories.

Impaler

sr. member

Activity: 826

Merit: 250

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

deepceleron's theory of a 'auto-mininer' run by Satoshi that existed just to give the network a consistent block interval and which intentionally lost all it's coins seems logical given the total lack of spending on those coins. But why wouldn't such a detail not have been made public long ago? Why would such a miner use different addresses rather then not a clearly void address for which no private key could exist, it's trivial to do this and Satoshi would have know how. If deepceleron's theory is correct it also implies that Satoshi didn't make the slightest effort to inform the community he was destroying a large chunk of the theoretical potential 21M coins? Did he want people to believe those Million or so coins were liquid and could be sold?

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote from: Remember remember the 5th of November on April 17, 2013, 05:42:55 PM

You know, I have a feeling he is reading this thread as we speak.

Satoshi is watching you especially.

... and you and you and all of us, lololol.

Sergio_Demian_Lerner

hero member

Activity: 555

Merit: 654

Quote from: Remember remember the 5th of November on April 17, 2013, 05:42:55 PM

You know, I have a feeling he is reading this thread as we speak.

I wish he would just sends us some words... I wonder if he will be grateful or annoyed at my posts. I hope he is well enough not to worry.

Sergio_Demian_Lerner

hero member

Activity: 555

Merit: 654

Quote from: Remember remember the 5th of November on April 17, 2013, 03:35:34 PM

That's not the impression I got from the blog post, I thought you meant that satoshi DID spend money.

Please point me out where it seems that, maybe my English was not precise enough to express it.

Quote from: Remember remember the 5th of November on April 17, 2013, 03:35:34 PM

Also, Satoshi's coins may now be valued at 100 million USD, however if Bitcoin hits mainstream where 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000351(and this is very inaccurate example) is your salary, imagine what having a million bitcoins would mean. It would mean he would have money enough to buy a continent and he could control the world.

But by then, the majority of people will agree that at least 75% of Satoshi's coins have to be blocked from being valid in the chain.

I've never thought about this kind of confiscation. But it would be terribly non-equitative, brutal, and not useful, since maybe there is other people holding as much as that coins, but in hundreds of small transaction outputs.

Remember remember the 5th of November

legendary

Activity: 1862

Merit: 1011

Reverse engineer from time to time

You know, I have a feeling he is reading this thread as we speak.

Sergio_Demian_Lerner

hero member

Activity: 555

Merit: 654

How Satoshi mining pattern disappears...

Topic: The Well Deserved Fortune of Satoshi Nakamoto, Visionary and Genious - page 3. (Read 13362 times)