,
15 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
This is stupid.
There's a technical problem, which I'll expand on in a blog post.
But the real issue is that the Bitcoin community is so wound up, so insecure about their system that they cannot handle anything that hints at how their tech is ancient and badly parameterized.
There's a technical problem, which I'll expand on in a blog post.
But the real issue is that the Bitcoin community is so wound up, so insecure about their system that they cannot handle anything that hints at how their tech is ancient and badly parameterized.
No one knows what actually happened to the Bitcoin hash rate.
Could be software configuration errors at a miner
Could be a mining facility that went down.
Last time, it was hydro problems in China.
Samson has no idea. He's just asserting that it was a statistical anomaly.
Could be software configuration errors at a miner
Could be a mining facility that went down.
Last time, it was hydro problems in China.
Samson has no idea. He's just asserting that it was a statistical anomaly.
The maxis are clinging onto the claim that it was "just" a statistical anomaly. Samson isn't a mathematician, he's the chief meme officer at a company that has no products, no CTO. His expertise is sock puppets and personal attacks to cover up for the VC exit scam of his company.
*Of course*, if you average a lot of data points together, you can make *any* anomaly disappear.
Guess what the maxis are doing? They are claiming that we should be averaging lots of blocks together, because reasons.
Guess what the maxis are doing? They are claiming that we should be averaging lots of blocks together, because reasons.
But the root problem is that Satoshi picked a very long interblock interval. 10 minutes is a long time. Bitcoin has to pick that number generously because it's a synchronous protocol. This then yields a finalization time of 6 blocks, 1 hour. Exchanges have 6 blocks hardwired.
This means that everyone has to monitor the blockchain and detect attacks *within 5 blocks*, ideally earlier.
Only a moron would suggest using a running average of 2016 blocks to examine the hash rate. You'd detect attacks 2011 blocks too late.
Only a moron would suggest using a running average of 2016 blocks to examine the hash rate. You'd detect attacks 2011 blocks too late.
Because of the long interblock times, false positive alerts are just a fact of Bitcoin life, *assuming that the problem was statistical variation*. Of course, no one actually knows that, least of all, an internet clown.
There was a critical teachable moment here:
Exchanges need to monitor the blockchain and adjust the confirmation time in response to sudden loss of hash rate.
You don't know why that hash disappeared, and it's not safe to continue with 6 confirms.
Exchanges need to monitor the blockchain and adjust the confirmation time in response to sudden loss of hash rate.
You don't know why that hash disappeared, and it's not safe to continue with 6 confirms.
Bitcoin developers keep making a lot of noise about how they always target the worst case scenario, when doing so suits the aims of the VC exit scam and apparel company. When there's some inconvenient truth, they try to pretend it's the best case and resort to personal attacks.
Underneath Samson's "nothing to see here, really, just look at this other graph where we averaged everything out and made the anomaly disappear" narrative lies abject fear.
BTC is ancient technology. Many of its parameters are badly chosen.
BTC is ancient technology. Many of its parameters are badly chosen.
You all know about the block size, and how it's outdated.
Now you know about the block interval, and how it inherently gives rise to false positives.
Now you know about the block interval, and how it inherently gives rise to false positives.
But what's damning here isn't anything technical.
It's the community: the BTC thought leaders are mostly coin shilling clowns. The few BTC code janitors who inherited Satoshi's code base hide behind them, never once correcting their aberrant behavior.
It's the community: the BTC thought leaders are mostly coin shilling clowns. The few BTC code janitors who inherited Satoshi's code base hide behind them, never once correcting their aberrant behavior.
Bottom line is that BTC mining is extremely centralized. Most of it is manufactured by one company. It's mostly in one country. The mining game causes the miner with the lowest capex to overtake others. It's just decentralization theater.
At the end of the day, the entire space will go up together, or sink together. Among the coins that rise, the winner will be the one that has the best technical features and is able to draw the biggest community together. Clowns like Samson can only lead BTC to nowhere.
Bob is right. If the maxis want to evaluate their hypothesis that what happened was a statistical aberration, then they could do what he says. It still wouldn't be conclusive! But it's at least not moronic, like using a long running average.
