Quote from: xulescu on October 02, 2014, 06:58:16 AM

Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 02, 2014, 05:02:00 AM

Edit: I think what may motivate BCX is defeating overconfidence.

I don't think the devs have been overconfident at all, on the contrary. Maybe I am. But what is BCX's problem?

You apparently forgot that Risto predicted in public only a 4 - 8% chance that BCX could attack.

Perhaps you've forgotten fluffypony's confidence upthread, he said basically until there is an attack there is no attack and he is going to the beach.

OTOH, some of the developers have been openly concerned, such as smooth and NewLiberty have tried to investigate and implement improvements. Perhaps fluffypony did too behind the scenes, I am only commenting about his public demeanor in that one instance.

Quote from: xulescu on October 02, 2014, 06:58:16 AM

Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 02, 2014, 05:35:53 AM

I don't understand how you think geographics affects the model? Isn't clustering modeled by Poisson?

I do not assume independence. You do. I cannot assume Poisson, I look at the data and see it isn't.

What does geographics have to do with it? Specifics please.

Quote from: xulescu on October 02, 2014, 06:58:16 AM

Quote from: TheUsualStuff on October 02, 2014, 05:52:15 AM

4 times in 1.5 hours. 3 months ago.

Anecdotal evidence against your claim.

Absolutely not. That was a complete fail. That was only 1 time interval of 1 minute. The event I analyzed as being extremely rare was 4 intervals of 1 minute consecutively.

I've given readers the education they need to go hunting in the block chain to see if they can find comparably rare events.

Quote from: xulescu on October 02, 2014, 06:58:16 AM

Quote from: Viper1 on October 02, 2014, 05:46:32 AM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=709197.msg8038023#msg8038023

What's interesting to me is that he said "roughly", he said "at present time" and said it three months ago. I hardly see how this could still be accurate.

You make sweeping ass-u-me-ptions. Do you actually have your mind deep in the Github commits?

Quote from: xulescu on October 02, 2014, 06:58:16 AM

Within a factor of 5 to what? What do you compare it to?

How does this fail my claim? You changed the experiment in the middle of the experiment. Again, what do you compare that to, to conclude it fails a margin?

0.8% and 1.25% seem within my margin, and they're not even the values for the initial experiment and not even directly comparable (you compare 6 gaps to 5 gaps).

You are entirely missing the point that the example we started to debate about had 4 time intervals of 1 minute. The probable reason all your statistical analysis may be irrelevant (can't say for sure because yours is closed source) is because you are purportedly looking at "gaps" and not at 1 minute intervals. Afaics, you've likely got the wrong model, so you aren't seeing anything.

Quote from: xulescu on October 02, 2014, 06:58:16 AM

So you ignore permutations and variants, change the experiment twice and still don't manage to get it your way?

I didn't change the experiment. You framed the experiment inconsistently. There aren't 12 gaps, rather there were 4 time intervals of 1 minute. If you have the wrong model, you see noise.

I don't have to consider permutations because there are 2+ orders-of-magnitude between the probabilities I showed. There is the stratification I am referring to. We could get more analytical, but really isn't necessary. It is quite obvious that we saw a rare event. And no one has shown otherwise yet.

Quote from: xulescu on October 02, 2014, 06:58:16 AM

Also, put error bars on your numbers. Your confidence will drop significantly if you did that.

All of the them will so the relative 2+ orders-of-magnitude will likely remain.

Quote from: xulescu on October 02, 2014, 06:58:16 AM

Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 02, 2014, 06:42:55 AM

Are we sure there are no symptoms already?

Well let's put it this way. My argument so far is that there aren't. Suppose I was wrong and there were symptoms. Smoothie's argument was that it wouldn't matter anyway. If I was wrong, BCX claimed they would bring chaos. They didn't.

That is illogical. The overt chaos doesn't hit until his estimate of 22 days. The chaos that would be happening now is hidden to those who use incorrect statistical models. That is why I am hunting.

Quote from: xulescu on October 02, 2014, 06:58:16 AM

Quote from: BitcoinEXpress on October 02, 2014, 06:09:57 AM

In fact I again openly invite any Global Mod, Badbear or Theymos to Permaban me if I am Moneroman88.

This is a vacuous claim. You could be Moneroman88 in many ways in which none of those would know.

I also thought of that. Surely he is sophisticated enough to conceal his IP.

Wild speculation follows.

But even if Moneroman88 is a sockpuppet, it doesn't exclude a possible motivation being to teach a lesson to the community. In that case, MM88 would just be some political cover.

Quote from: BitcoinEXpress on October 02, 2014, 06:09:57 AM

Quote from: nutildah on October 02, 2014, 06:14:18 AM

My theory is BCX has the ability to manipulate either block lengths or the timestamps for minutes at a time.

Block lengths don't exist, there are only timestamps (or the differential, gaps). As smoothie argued, everyone can "manipulate" them because it is not enforced in any way. It is also not very useful to do so.

You ass-u-me that is not a vulnerability. Can you prove it is not?