In the last few weeks, I have started simultaneously teaching people how bitcoin works for the first time in the last decade and have been tearing apart the selfish mining fallacy. Many believe what has been said so far is the entirety of my argument against selfish mining. I will say it is a long way away from the complete argument on how bitcoin works and why selfish mining is a failed strategy.

In this period of weeks, we have now seen people accept the concept of gamma being false. Later this week I will explain the concept of negative gamma and demonstrate how the selfish miner in sybilling the network, in fact, damages their propagation rate and success. For today, I am going to demonstrate an individual case. This post will detail the profitability of the 33% or one-third miner. According to the selfish mining paper even when gamma equals zero and ignoring the flawed mathematics that relies on independent processes that do not exist, I will demonstrate that this is not a viable strategy. …


Many people have weighed in on the issue of selfish mining. Today, we look at a key aspect of the model proposed by [1]. Interestingly the selfish mining paper utilizes formulas and equations from Feller [3] just as we see in the bitcoin white paper [2]. However, as we demonstrate in this post the authors fail to understand some of the key concepts.

The state machine defined within the selfish mining paper is reliant on a process in probability theory called a Markov process.

Bitcoin mining in its native form, that is without selfish mining or any other supposed attack based on this fallacy is a stochastic process that may be characterized by the term memorylessness. …


The heart of the selfish mining cancer is the false notion that rational miners are some sort of central socialist planner. In some ways this argument is understandable, most academics do not understand the difference between profit and revenue and local bureaucrats seek to maximise total revenue percentage as if this matters. Businessmen are not however socialist planners. This flaw is always the heart of why selfish mining is so insidious. In the selfish mining fallacy, the argument relies on the relative percentage of blocks earned by a particular miner. …


This details a bet with Peter Rizun in regards to selfish mining.

The bet with Peter Rizun was defined explicitly in words:

The following is the stated definition of the problem to be solved:

We are given two independent processes that start with process 1 (HM) having a mean time to discovery of 15 mins and a separate independent (to the HM) process (SM) with a mean of 30 minutes that are both exponentially distributed. The initial time for the system is t=-10. This is defined from the last discovery (of an event being a block issue).

Now, answer the…


It is interesting how the arguments against commercial mining come down to an outcry against “mining centralisation”. All things in life come from balance. In the commonly used image listed as Fig 1 below, we see what people like to have as a concept of Bitcoin. Unfortunately, it is also wrong.

In the paper, “on Red Balloons and Bitcoin” [1], The authors provide proof of the theorem stated as “Suppose that H ≥ 3. There is no Sybil-proof reward scheme in which information propagation and no duplication are dominant strategy for all nodes at depth 3 or less.” And go on to develop a Hybrid propagation scheme. The authors did not test the Bitcoin network and as most do, assumed that it is a distributed mesh as we see in Fig 1 (c). …


We at nChain have been doing research into many aspects of Bitcoin. One of these is scaling. A consequence of this includes the following paper:

“Moore’s Law, Innovation, and the Scaling of Bitcoin” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3065857

In this research, we tested the propagation of transactions and blocks over the Bitcoin network.

In this, I am going to list some of the objections to this paper and research. What we are finding is that there is a lot of pessimism and open condemnation of the idea that Bitcoin can scale. To put it simply, many academics seem to hate Bitcoin. As a result, let us pull apart some of the criticisms publicly. …


It seems to be that many people believe that we require a malleability fix in Bitcoin cash. When pushed for a real reason, one with business use, they at best come up with the concept that we need to be able to spend change in under 10 minutes. What is overlooked is that a chained payment is a second-class transaction and any merchant without knowledge of the parties would be foolish to accept such a transaction built without external trust links.

Why is this?

The reason is that no system, not even Schnorr solves first party malleability. Until a transaction is included within a Block, it is open to change. This is in effect a double spend. In Bitcoin cash, this is a low probability event, but the risk always increases as transactions are chained. …

About

Marlow

In knowledge we learn wisdom. The greatest innovations come from those outside the field.