Quote from: SapphireSpire on August 25, 2025, 06:41:51 PM

Quote from: ABCbits on August 25, 2025, 08:58:07 AM

Are you aware of (estimated) average time between block[1]? How do you handle the fact that each node may have slightly different date/time?
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/average-block-interval

Average time between blocks is just that, it approximates the target block interval.

I think you missed my point. Using Bitcoin as example, there are few occurrence when time between 2 blocks is far higher than 10 minute interval. The worst one i know is between block 679785[1] and 679786[2].

Quote from: SapphireSpire on August 25, 2025, 06:41:51 PM

Dedicated full-time miners tend to have the best internet connections and, with a good communications protocol, like QUIC, used by Solona, they can keep themselves synced in milliseconds. They will give each other a few seconds of tolerance, but they will know when blocks are too soon or too late and make every effort to avoid ambiguity.

Fair point. Although with how most miners simply connect to pool, they only ensure their internet is reliable enough to communicate to pool with low latency to send/receive work that have rather small size.

Quote from: God Of Thunder on Today at 05:34:30 AM

Quote from: ABCbits on August 25, 2025, 08:58:07 AM

It's known FUD, qubic (the malicious group) never had 51% hashrate. According to BitMEX[2], they actually perform 6 block re-org with lower hashrate percentage.

[1] https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/average-block-interval
[2] https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1955254320305217726

Have you read the recent articles from other media? I checked an article from Coindesk, which is this: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2025/08/12/monero-s-51-attack-problem-inside-qubic-s-controversial-network-takeover. They also quoted Qubit's claims. So, I don't really understand who to trust at this point. Also, the XMR price has fluctuated due to this.

I think you should take a look at this news and share your opinion about it. You cannot just deny saying it's a FUD. Something similar happened with the ETC and Bitcoin Gold in the past. So, I don't want to deny it just saying it's a FUD.

I actually have read news and some analysis that before i write my previous reply. Aside from brief analysis from BitMEX research that i already mentioned[3], one of blockchain developer shared both analysis and some data that Qubic is unlikely to had more than 35% hashrate[4].

[1] https://mempool.space/block/0000000000000000000b975fedb1fe62e271bd20d1fa74d2fe28dcfac6f761f3
[2] https://mempool.space/block/0000000000000000000b5d9bcbd38c64e5a39bf4073f7a94348c1336618957ae
[3] https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1955254320305217726
[4] https://shai-deshe.gitbook.io/parallel-thoughts/proof-of-work/the-qubic-minority-report