Ninjastic
Search content
Sort by
Showing 3 of 3 results by AncestralManor
Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Re: Chain Archaeology - Answers from the early blockchain
by
AncestralManor
on 27/04/2014, 20:02:03 UTC
Quote from: Taras on April 25, 2014, 05:52:38 PM
Quote from: AncestralManor on April 19, 2014, 04:32:31 AM
I must still be missing something about the patterns of bitcoin generation in that first year. Why would the rate of mining success fall to roughly half of the first three months rate during the next six months?

If we look at an example of 10-20 minute intervals required to generate a block (there are 1440 minutes in a day), then it seems possible that 72 to 144 blocks could be generated in a day.

Thus if we use 90 days as a rough calculation of the first three months, then somewhere between 6480 to 12960 blocks would be generated in that first three months.

We know from Martti's first block sample in April that the block interval of 10 minutes was pretty much on track for the first three months - yet also indicates that there was at least someone running all the time.

If however, the rate of block generation over the next six months is more like 20 minutes on average (ie half the rate of the first three months), what is that due to?

- there wasn't at least one node working all the time
- the size of the block changed the solution rate
- something else?

Do we have any other examples like Martti's six month long sample that are identifiable?
The hashrate wasn't good enough for ten minutes a block at difficulty 1; And difficulty never goes lower than 1.
So, the difficulty won't change at all until the hashrate rises enough so that blocks are solved faster than every ten minutes.

So what you are suggesting is that whatever processors were used to hash in the first three months were more powerful by a factor of two than those used in the next six months - on average?

If the first three months produced 10,000+ blocks at 50 coins in each block, then that is half a million coins or approximately half of what has been attributed to Satoshi?

Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Re: Chain Archaeology - Answers from the early blockchain
by
AncestralManor
on 19/04/2014, 04:32:31 UTC
I must still be missing something about the patterns of bitcoin generation in that first year. Why would the rate of mining success fall to roughly half of the first three months rate during the next six months?

If we look at an example of 10-20 minute intervals required to generate a block (there are 1440 minutes in a day), then it seems possible that 72 to 144 blocks could be generated in a day.

Thus if we use 90 days as a rough calculation of the first three months, then somewhere between 6480 to 12960 blocks would be generated in that first three months.

We know from Martti's first block sample in April that the block interval of 10 minutes was pretty much on track for the first three months - yet also indicates that there was at least someone running all the time.

If however, the rate of block generation over the next six months is more like 20 minutes on average (ie half the rate of the first three months), what is that due to?

- there wasn't at least one node working all the time
- the size of the block changed the solution rate
- something else?

Do we have any other examples like Martti's six month long sample that are identifiable?
Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Re: Chain Archaeology - Answers from the early blockchain
by
AncestralManor
on 17/04/2014, 11:51:10 UTC
‏@marttimalmi posted  on his twitter feed a few months ago the following message:

"Found the first known bitcoin to USD transaction from my email backups. I sold 5,050 BTC for $5,02 on 2009-10-12. https:/[Suspicious link removed]/8XcBmzJljf "

I was confused by some aspects of this transaction.

I didn't think that BTC valuations were that high that early. The pizza story in 2010 gets all the press, but I have seen New Liberty Standard references for $1 = 1,309.03 BTC.

In any case, Martti appears to have begun mining in early April 2009 and continued into October just before he spent the 5050 BTC. Martti's earliest block number was a little over 10,000 - indicating that there was a lot of mining from January into April.

Yet, by mid October 2009, Martti's spend was only at block 24835.

The difficulty didn't change from 1 until the end of the year, Is that because both Satoshi and various early adopters stopped mining or am I missing something about the gating of the hashing rate?

Edit: This is the blockchain link https://blockchain.info/tx/7dff938918f07619abd38e4510890396b1cef4fbeca154fb7aafba8843295ea2