Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2E9A94B for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 19:54:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com (mail-pa0-f47.google.com [209.85.220.47]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 661DE126 for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 19:54:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id wk8so51672951pab.1 for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:54:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=thinlink-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=pTACif6rnP4IcHgW4XnEXQetSWtYzz4oKxVpB20HDaw=; b=MOggpNgmUtojhs2kII2pQokVGr8uy0TBHxpIMhpPIEllImawipmpZzkkK3XlndPsQV 52OhdDt33oYk4HK62iR71l+VSz6kDOc63s33tFioF1DT/LxsCfy6/3lbhaiBt0gT+3oh /SASzOrqEDH6UU5tNsbJaMHtp9+vaWra+0tXbJu+eCH5TS2VA+re9pEAoTZShh5ncx/8 WwoAjMjHJMl+sPQHhxZII5AgOtkjNuvPFYNTZc3lEaCHnggYuMz1z1l49Yd2G1plJraE NXxAngLZmmEvn7P92ZBQFu2g/47GDUqz5LjOhHM33vwBZhEz/tVV5SM5PvHTPWRnem6S +LSw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=pTACif6rnP4IcHgW4XnEXQetSWtYzz4oKxVpB20HDaw=; b=T7AyD67YrzSmytJaDILYN+gzNMGUP5jslxPymDInTh06dqGcwVPx7RN9YpuBNq3Qdr q09VZ2JCdew9QKLLppSPe9evRjy7lQC095HviKDF675n70OiMII+xX8nxB3XEFqIEU2b Qic8zedTG1fmrtW6uH3xP2a93ns5AYOrukQVrResK63EbBVcNQ0tJ38pDIcKblEn5I4F qthgmmdP7svgQ7NBUrsxDl8+vGbbeT/b0shVDrMqqcrcXc0Z2GEob9lO3lPkBGvzZBj9 hNaR4fqe40wD0ngBQE9llpk7EdZxQlROhhqyGTRLYk4srUwe4U9lBmVG0r3nhrmq+rWq +Dsg== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOPIxVcWQlG/vieChZ8NFfDluMbyHw6OrxHJbwBCZ5YAP2U6nMAk7z3dC+WLUHju883 X-Received: by 10.66.22.70 with SMTP id b6mr27689862paf.94.1474314841943; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:54:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-8-65-117.lightspeed.davlca.sbcglobal.net. [99.8.65.117]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id d5sm73487018pfc.4.2016.09.19.12.54.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:54:00 -0700 (PDT) To: Peter Todd , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <20160918042001.GA9076@fedora-21-dvm> <7ff1a87d-2916-2024-ea05-d6413bd17767@thinlink.com> <20160919175615.GA6360@fedora-21-dvm> From: Tom Harding Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:53:46 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160919175615.GA6360@fedora-21-dvm> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="r1vWbCUGCPMtc330R6GrGKSBDsnTeQFis" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 19:55:02 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Interpreting nTime for the purpose of Bitcoin-attested timestamps X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 19:54:02 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --r1vWbCUGCPMtc330R6GrGKSBDsnTeQFis Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="C3pXLBJAhLNWJ36uRrcPUCkGamm1LxFtN"; protected-headers="v1" From: Tom Harding To: Peter Todd , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Interpreting nTime for the purpose of Bitcoin-attested timestamps References: <20160918042001.GA9076@fedora-21-dvm> <7ff1a87d-2916-2024-ea05-d6413bd17767@thinlink.com> <20160919175615.GA6360@fedora-21-dvm> In-Reply-To: <20160919175615.GA6360@fedora-21-dvm> --C3pXLBJAhLNWJ36uRrcPUCkGamm1LxFtN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 9/19/2016 10:56 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > I should state that assumption more clearly. Glad to get you thinking, and I need to change my suggestion. The catch-up formula is not applicable because it doesn't limit how long the dishonest miners have to catch up. Instead you want the probability that the honest miners can build a chain N blocks long before the dishonest miners do the same, which is CDF[Erlang(N, q) - Erlang(N, 1 - q), 0] I have some apparatus for doing this numerically without simulation if you're interested. --C3pXLBJAhLNWJ36uRrcPUCkGamm1LxFtN-- --r1vWbCUGCPMtc330R6GrGKSBDsnTeQFis Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJX4EJTAAoJEG/AI00/Ca/qd5sP/1NpaoJk/Yrf3sb68jYv1NRM xNwQ9pJiyPOA5r5T1MRdkPdPxzno4yiDRsfP+v8LVq3MFEObg4jMXKYQ7okyytV5 2ExFAjktCSqSpYF97IqcPB0Su8gfRXaI2fy4F2u8T4AroGrGiabQALs6oG9enmpx AO0hDFnr+slrsWkbxM0SdfWbjFIDLb/s/L60VdAZObNHX8gfWxZ+ZMXnuWJr+RNE eI2Q05z4xk6iUcVdqzmzfUQja+JbKa0F9OOz3qt7J6e3xp1jBHxp5bYyTmKY6Oxf 28XtEt20AIoyB0YBwtliuhBGQz7j7ktOU2vjo65xXMqJ0dcZcWs+x+OIIBDMwvKX nW9I+TgD+MGYYE0wdsiSQwACclM1O1TJq9GCxiKuWiT8iwwfodL2lD/tLlFXDrBp pOVPUs8RoKzNtE79XDzZa6J8lpredgt2hLYgwCJe/+WgwR+Z7kT+ioAvO7829DXL FtVzjhAgBO+oiC5dqyCvf7u7mhRLvpq1Gg2a2FrUZwFjAqSHOwtH6xIbmBOVuxlf abgLGZPmfuZEdCqrXWLGCpXWOIjYWIVU/CxyLmtVMRGclvJH/7ZMM0Q99tLal6GT xGxVWl3Sg+0/YKStWiUUcRXgcfDNUkgpHRlwUl0rvp3hV0kWDJXnSjOZUwOS91OD u98uhvL0+HtYxUGut+K+ =+l2n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --r1vWbCUGCPMtc330R6GrGKSBDsnTeQFis--