Very cool, thanks Matt.
I was actually thinking this morning, maybe we should require all nodes to
go through the inv/getdata dance. Otherwise it's possible to improve your
chances at racing a block by mining a block, waiting to see a block inv
from another node, then blasting out your block
The problem with academics is that they don't have to worry about the real
world. They get paid to publish things, not to be helpful to society.
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:33 PM, kjj bitcoin-de...@jerviss.org wrote:
One of the things that really gets me going is when someone devises a
model,
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Matt Corallo bitcoin-l...@bluematt.mewrote:
Relay node details:
* The relay nodes do some data verification to prevent DoS, but in
order to keep relay fast, they do not fully verify the data they are
relaying, thus YOU SHOULD NEVER mine a block building on top
I might try building this sometime soon. I think it may also serve an
educational purpose when trying to understand the whole network's behaviour.
What level of accuracy are we looking for though? Obviously we need to
fully emulate the steps of the network protocol, and we need to be able to
bounty++
On 06-11-13 06:33, kjj wrote:
One of the things that really gets me going is when someone devises a
model, tests it against itself, and then pretends that they've learned
something about the real world.
Naturally, the Selfish Mining paper is exactly this sort of nonsense.
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:06:47PM -0500, Christophe Biocca wrote:
I might try building this sometime soon. I think it may also serve an
educational purpose when trying to understand the whole network's behaviour.
What level of accuracy are we looking for though? Obviously we need to
fully
You are ignoring the gambler's ruin. We do not operate on an infinite
timeline. If you find a big pool willing to try this, please give me
enough advance warning to get my popcorn ready.
Peter Todd wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:06:47PM -0500, Christophe Biocca wrote:
I might try
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:15:40PM -0600, Kyle Jerviss wrote:
You are ignoring the gambler's ruin. We do not operate on an
infinite timeline. If you find a big pool willing to try this,
please give me enough advance warning to get my popcorn ready.
Gamblers ruin has nothing to do with it.
At
What I want is configurable 1/10/100 millisecond ticks, and accurate
flow of information.
It doesn't seem necessary to really emulate the whole protocol, nor to
be overly concerned with the content of messages, nor to simulate every
little housekeeping step or network message.
I'm not
9 matches
Mail list logo
