Comments for Bitslog

Comment on A New Mystery in Patoshi Timestamps by SDLerner

SDLerner — Thu, 27 Aug 2020 23:50:23 +0000

In reply to TechMiX.

This may be because the 5 threads that mine synchronize to sleep after the first block has been created, not before it.

Comment on The Patoshi Mining Machine by TechMiX

TechMiX — Sun, 23 Aug 2020 11:58:09 +0000

Thanks for solving the mystery on LSB 19! I should look deeper into it.

BTW I think you forgot to put the image of the Non-Patoshi nonces histogram under the “From Speculation to Evidence” section.

Comment on A New Mystery in Patoshi Timestamps by SDLerner

SDLerner — Thu, 25 Jun 2020 02:47:51 +0000

In reply to TechMiX.

Yes, the first 40 blocks do not show this pattern. The next 500 blocks show a delay of 180 seconds approximately. The rest show a delay of 300 seconds.

Comment on A New Mystery in Patoshi Timestamps by Jeremy Davis

Jeremy Davis — Wed, 24 Jun 2020 19:55:17 +0000

This would make sense while trying to bootstrap a distributed system and wanting to be fair about it. I would try to balance wanting ~10 minute blocks, not hoarding if I got lucky, and the network not having a consistent hash-power (both high and low).
Just a guess, but as a programmer, the easiest thing would be to way over-provision my personal mining pool, and then sprinkle with Sleep() with various random thresholds.
Maybe look at the estimated hashrate over the same period? Satoshi probably _was_ the network early on, with hobbyists coming and going. As a consistent amount of hash started to build, I would probably start to phase out.

Comment on A New Mystery in Patoshi Timestamps by TechMiX

TechMiX — Wed, 24 Jun 2020 14:47:31 +0000

Nice catch 🙂

About the minimum time delta of 300 seconds, I think it doesn’t apply to the first two blocks of a mining season. Look at time delta of these blocks:
– 1 and 2 -> 79s
– 15 and 16 -> 12s
– 26 and 27 -> 123s
– 38 and 39 -> 23s

Comment on A New Mystery in Patoshi Timestamps by Frank Oppedijk

Frank Oppedijk — Wed, 24 Jun 2020 08:20:01 +0000

I have a comment about “if we look at the distribution of extranonces between consecutive Patoshi blocks, we can see the curve is still exponential, meaning that no blocks were discarded”. My opinion is that if Patishi did throw away all blocks that were mined within 5 minutes of the previous block, the extraNonce values that would be discarded would be proportional across the board. So you wouldn’t notice that in the exponential graph. Or am I missing something?

Comment on A New Mystery in Patoshi Timestamps by SDLerner

SDLerner — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 03:08:12 +0000

In reply to btcfacile.

No, I don’t think there was a pre-mine, because there many public events witnessed by many people associated with Bitcoin during the early years.

Comment on A New Mystery in Patoshi Timestamps by btcfacile

btcfacile — Mon, 22 Jun 2020 23:46:02 +0000

Hi,

Do you think there is a possiblility Patoshi pre-mined some blocks?

Patoshi testing routines are weirds or he/she just messed a little with the Timestamps,

a little like with the genesis block.

Comment on The Return of the Deniers and the Revenge of Patoshi by york

york — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 21:05:48 +0000

Yet another great analysis. You are probably the only person in the world who knows Satoshi.

Comment on New quadratic delays in Bitcoin scripts by SDLerner

SDLerner — Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:34:47 +0000

In reply to hostfat.

I think it is essential to scalability. It reduces the impact of all block-size related issues.