For the fifth time, the burden of proof rests with you for your initial claim (haven't picked up the ball yet but catching up).

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?

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.

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.

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.

(Picking up the ball)

Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 02, 2014, 06:05:29 AM

Picked the most recent 12.

http://chainradar.com/xmr/blocks

242773    14-10-02 05:35:56 242772    14-10-02 05:35:56 242771    14-10-02 05:35:42 242770    14-10-02 05:34:35 242769    14-10-02 05:32:59 242768    14-10-02 05:31:30 242767    14-10-02 05:30:29 242766    14-10-02 05:28:55 242765    14-10-02 05:26:41 242764    14-10-02 05:25:48 242763    14-10-02 05:25:24 242762    14-10-02 05:22:34

That looks roughly to be one occurrence of 3 in one minute, one occurrence of 2 in one minute, and 7 occurrences of roughly 1 per minute (slightly longer than a minute so my summary is not a precise model).

p = (1³ / 3!e) × (1² / 2!e) × (1¹ / 1!e)⁷ = 0.001%

So that is within a factor of 5, and note my model above isn't incorporating the effect of the slow blocks. So that anecdotally confirms your claim.

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

However the math above is wrong because for a perfect distribution the probability would be even less.

p = (1¹ / 1!e)¹² = 0.0006%

Instead we shouldn't be be comparing 12 gaps. Rather for the example above there are 9 intervals of one minute, so the probability for a perfect distribution over 9 intervals is as follows.

p = (1¹ / 1!e)⁹ = 0.01%

Thus the example we were considering was only 4 intervals of one minute. So let me test your claim again as follows.

242773    14-10-02 05:35:56 242772    14-10-02 05:35:56 242771    14-10-02 05:35:42 242770    14-10-02 05:34:35 242769    14-10-02 05:32:59 242768    14-10-02 05:31:30

That looks roughly to be one occurrence of 3 in one minute, and 3 occurrences of roughly 1 per minute (slightly longer than a minute so my summary is not a precise model).

p = (1³ / 3!e) × (1¹ / 1!e)³ = 0.8%

Sorry that fails your claim. Let's test another.

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?

242767    14-10-02 05:30:29 242766    14-10-02 05:28:55 242765    14-10-02 05:26:41 242764    14-10-02 05:25:48 242763    14-10-02 05:25:24

That looks roughly to be one occurrence of 2 in one minute, and 3 occurrences of roughly 1 per minute (slightly longer than a minute so my summary is not a precise model).

p = (1³ / 2!e) × (1¹ / 1!e)³ = 1.25%

Sorry that fails your claim.

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).

Now you see why independent verification is important. Ball in your court. What is my mistake?

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

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

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.

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.

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.