Topic: WTF is this? Someone found a trick for fast mining? - page 2. (Read 15839 times)

Hmm, this 32 bit signed integer must be greater or equal to the current block version. Plenty of space here. Discussed on github: No forking Extra nonce added to Bitcoin header

Swapping nodes in Merkle tree seems to be cheaper than increasing extranonce2, but worse than increasing nonce or time.

i have always wondered about this thing also ... like i wanted to ask about pools how f2pool is always finding more blocks then antpool and others .. is it merely coz of it having a more hash power ? or its just being lucky ?

You're right, the merkle root spans both SHA-256 (512-bit) blocks, so you must recalc the entire SHA-256 from scratch.

Byte len	Byte pos	Bit pos	SHA block	Field
4	0	0	1	version
32	4	32	1	previous block header hash
32	36	288	1-2	merkle roothash
4	68	544	2	time
4	72	576	2	nBits
4	76	608	2	nonce
	80	640		(end)

There aren't very many other fields to change.  That's why the block has a nonce in the first place.  There's nothing special or magical about changing the nonce, it's just 4 bytes added to the header specifically for the purpose of being very fast and easy to change.

The other fields of the block header are:

• The block version number. This 4 byte field cannot be changed without invalidating the block you are mining.
• The hash of the previous block in the chain. This 32 byte field cannot be changed without invalidating the block you are mining.
• The merkle root of the transaction list. This 32 byte field cannot be changed without modifying or rearranging the transactions in your transaction list.  This would be a MUCH slower and more complicated thing to change than the nonce. However, a pool will create MANY different merkle roots (by modifying the extranonce in the coinbase transaction) so that they can give a different block header to each miner.  This allows each individual miner to only need to deal with the nonce (and timestamp) and not need to recompute the entire merkle root.  It is also possible for the pool to provide enough information for individual miners to modify the extranonce themselves along with the nonce.  Keep in mind though that modfying the extranonce increases the time and effort involved, so it makes more sense to exhaust the nonce range available to the equipment before making any effort to move on to a new extranonce.
• The timestamp.  This is a 4 byte field that some miners change after they've run out of nonces.  It essentially becomes a secondary nonce. However, it is very limited on allowable ranges.  Since the miner would need to test to make sure a value is within the allowable range before hashing the block, it very slightly increases the effort as compared to simply using the usual nonce.  If someone chooses to modify this instead of the nonce (or while keeping the nonce in a tight range), then this field BECOMES a nonce.  There is no benefit of manipulating these 4 bytes instead of the other 4 bytes.
• The current difficulty (represented as "bits"). This 4 byte field cannot be changed without invalidating the block you are mining.
• The nonce. This 4 byte field exists solely so that is is fast and easy to modify the header before hashing it again.  It serves no other purpose, and has no restrictions on its value.  This is also the field that you are saying NOT to change when "you change other fields".

That's 4 bytes + 32 bytes + 32 bytes + 4 bytes + 4 bytes + 4 bytes = 80 bytes.

That's it.  There's the 80 bytes that are hashed during mining.  I'm very curious to know which of those fields you think might be better to change instead of the nonce?

Those in red cannot be changed without invalidating the block.  Those in green are already manipulated as part of the typical mining process, and the typical mining process already manipulates them in the most efficient order.  If there is a benefit to manipulating the timestamp or merkle root INSTEAD of the nonce, I'd be very curious to know what you think that benefit might be.

I'm not certain, but I don't think you can adjust the merkle root without needing to recompute the midstate as well?

I don't think you understand my previous message.
What I am saying is that a reason to have these nonces near some value is that you don't change too much the nonce and you start from this value, and for solving the block you change other fields.

But you DO fabricate the block hash from the Block Header, which includes the other data in addition to the nonce. It is this hash, not a hash of the nonce itself that has to beat the Target. I am not sure if you understand how hashing works to suggest that with entirely different block header data a similar nonce could be exploiting the end hash.

These blocks are not empty, empty blocks are another business. You don't fabricate the nonce from the rest of the block, these nonces could be not the main dynamic variable for the purpose of mining, and you may start testing nonces starting from some nonce with many zero bits for some reason.

Is it just me, or is it silly to consider the nonce without considering the rest of the data in the block header?

Edit: Perhaps OP could provide detail on the merkleroot and transactions of the blocks in question.... I mean, if they were empty blocks it would indeed be suspect, but to produce a valid nonce and still manage to include a solid transaction set from the pool, come on now....

That's a good first step, you've just admitted that you are capable, like the rest of us, of making mistakes (nobody should be respecting 10 people all of whom are easily bribed).


Absolutely not! However your rational are choices are limited. As with any argument based in science or logic, you can either:

• Educate/fund yourself to the point where you can make investigations and an assessment on your own, or
• Ask someone you trust who has the relevant education/funding for their opinion.

I have never, not once, been into space. Yet I still believe there is (practically) no air in space. This is mostly as a result of the second choice above.

When it comes to this particular thread, I have enough of a background in math to easily follow gmaxwell's reasoning, and to largely dismiss valiron's.

The larger problem is the hubris which valiron seems to be displaying. If valiron were a troll, this would be expected. If valiron is simply having trouble following gmaxwell's reasoning, s/he should take a moment to consider that maybe s/he wrong, given the number of opponents there are.

Bribed mods?  



Sorry, but I can't agree. Enlightened individual is whoever thinks by himself, and not who follows blindly a leader or guru.

I believe the proper thing to do is to have a brain and think by yourself.

"The majority is always wrong; the minority is rarely right." Henrik Ibsen.

"To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection." Henry Poincaré

The data is there for anyone to analyze and reach conclusions if these are normal statistical anomalies or far out of normal.

Statistics are tricky and one needs to have some intuition and expertise about it to not confuse normal rare statistical deviations from irregular ones. Irregular ones are detected because of coincidence of various independent indications.

Someone can come and claim that he found a collision with a bitcoin address in the blockchain. We know that mathematically speaking this is imposible and we may call this guy a liar and a fool. But we know that defective implementations of wallets with not enough entropy can indeed duplicate addresses.

I don't want to enter into the question if gmaxwell or I are right or wrong. This always deviates into a stupid fight of egos. The data is there and everyone can reach its own conclusions about the possibilities. No hardfeelings. No stress. Don't need to get your blood boiling.And finally...if you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry.  

Scanning the blockchain for nearby consecutive nonces we find 1 more ocurrence (starting at block 323246) of three consecutive closeness of less than 1.8% and 0.12% and 7.2% among the 140411 post 2013 blocks. The expected value is to not find any 4 out of 5 times since 144411*0.0012*0.018*0.072=0.218.

Now we relax the search and look for only 2 consecutive closeness. Scanning the blockchain for nearby consecutive nounces we find 15 ocurrences of two consecutive closeness of less than 1.8% and 0.12% among the 140411 post 2013 blocks. The expected value is 140411*0.0012*0.018=3, thus there are 5 times more occurrences than expected.

Some of these occurrences like to be abnormally near 2^30. For example:

Block 237144 nonce 1076288193
Block 237145 nonce  999124565
Block 237146 nonce  997353929

|nonce(237144)-nonce(2372145)|= 1.8%   of total range
|nonce(237145)-nonce(2372146)|= 0.04% of total range

and....nonce(237144) is within 0.059% of total range from 2^30=1073741824
      ...nonce(237145) is within 1.74%  of total range from 2^30
      ...nonce(237146) is within 1.78%  of total range from 2^30



Block 345506 nonce 1121422642
Block 345507 nonce 1050751563
Block 345508 nonce 1052220753

|nonce(345506)-nonce(345507)|= 1.6%   of total range
|nonce(345507)-nonce(345508)|= 0.03% of total range

and....nonce(345506) is within 1.11% of total range from 2^30=1073741824
      ...nonce(345507) is within 0.53%  of total range from 2^30
      ...nonce(345508) is within 0.50%  of total range from 2^30

Couple of years ago when I said BFL are crooks and low life 10 people I respected (incl. mods) told me I was wrong. They were just bribed by BFL to do so. At that time mods were not in a hurry to label BFL as scammers.

If we brush off all the pseudo scientific gibberish what gmaxell is basically saying we should treat all the irregularities as regular because of the big figures. Do we have to accept this knowledgeable explanation and move on just for the sake of protecting bitcoin from possible FUD?

I don't understand.... I was trying to imply "we're all alts of of gmaxwell" as being the third option (however unlikely IMO).


Into my "chart"? I'd rather think that if a government wanted to pollute this thread with puppets, they'd all be in support of valiron's FUD, not against it.

As this forum doesn't run on blockchain technology, we cant be sure large corporations or nation state governments havn't affected the data that has gone into this chart.

Or...

Someone has launched a Sybil attack against gmaxell's fan club.

valiron,

Nobody's perfect. Everyone is wrong sometimes, even gmaxwell, and even you. But consider for a moment this bar graph:



Either:

• You are wrong, and everyone else is right
• You are right, and everyone else is wrong
• Someone has launched a Sybil attack against you

It takes an enlightened individual to conclude that they are likely in err despite that they may not realize why. If 10 people I respect tell me I am wrong, I have to accept that conclusion even if I do not understand why.

Of course, I would seek to understand why I am wrong, but it is not the onus of these other 10 people to be my teacher. (The fact that gmaxwell has voluntarily chosen to try to teach you, and has shown so much patience in the process, certainly says something about his character.)

I mean no disrespect. I only hope that you can be this type of enlightened individual.

I hope everyone don't go off-topic and focus on the question "Someone found a trick for fast mining?"

I can't see any clues for supporting this hypothese with your latest data

Dear Mr Maxwell,

Let's try to not make it personal and focus on Technical Discussion for the benefit of the Technical Discussion. I will do my part.

The non-uniformity of the nonce distribution at the end of the range is expected because many miners increase the nonce from 0 to 2^32-1 stopping when they find a match, thus it is expected that the end of the range is less frequent. This is what we already pointed out from the beginning  jl2012 and myself:




But this non-uniformity at the end of the range on which you focussed is irrelevant for the question discussed.
What is relevant for the discussion is to know if the nonce distribution is uniform in the small range where the nonces of these blocks do cluster, which is not at the end near 2^32, but at the middle range around 2^31.
This is the reason why I carried further analysis in the neighborhood of this middle point at 2^31


I hope this clarifies things.

HAH.  You seem to forget even your own posts so quickly "(except slighty off at the very end of the range)".  And I provided specific, concrete examples of the very software and hardware that produces those effects.

I also countered your points _assuming_ uniformity, only noting that the distribution was known to be non-uniform and pointing out why; to point out that this assumption was known to be approximate. You might note that I never attempted to characterize the actual non-uniformity, and all the examples I gave were based on uniform numbers.

I note, several more days have passed and no more blocks have again matched your criteria--- I was sad to see that you declined to further discuss the "optimization" you discussed after I pointed out that midstate handling is universally used in all mining systems and has for the life of the system.


Actually this was already done a long time ago;
https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew/crackpot.html


 

As said; "Anyone is free to interpret the data and the facts as he wish."

Some knowledgeable people argued using the non-uniformity of the distribution of nonces. Ask them why this was necessary.

Have a good day Sir.