* Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 2, Issue 95
@ 2015-07-24 16:32 Dave Scotese
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Dave Scotese @ 2015-07-24 16:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 800 bytes --]
> Alternatively I think instead of displaying a meaningless number we ought
> to go by a percentage (the double spend improbability) and go by
> 'confidence'.
That is a great idea, and not too hard to implement. A bit of code can
determine over the last N blocks, how many blocks that were at the current
depth of the present transaction were orphaned and divide that by the total
number of blocks solved (orphaned or not) while those N blocks were
solved. That's the historical number (H), and then the "51% attack" number
(A) can make an explicit assumptions like "Assuming a bad actor has 51% of
the hashing power for 24 hours starting right now, the block holding this
transaction has an X% chance of being orphaned." Report "# confirmations"
as "99.44% confidence" using [100% - max(H,A)].
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1100 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2015-07-24 16:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-07-24 16:32 [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 2, Issue 95 Dave Scotese
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox