From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0C3D41C for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:32:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23F6910A for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:32:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so36296512wib.0 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:32:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=gnpTcn1xHWrpHWjDXvPYhmW5ZCuTIcxAiq10E5JP0JA=; b=JORgiMtORYHdwWcFSasKJPv/RvfVRX47qu3O5dugqle7vZOPnqtZUnVYBInm0UmHfJ JYpSXNftdMoDdf2QiOVMgdwExfrabZtqSiLXXi5282zmhPixRbtYYCxC/ry1IzXmgtOr pA2BsGdrtzPL+yo94IRw6x/d5gxwSIgXe1Kk4w+SuxiESOaHe0DsZYvuXwJtib6MQZgg wmWhQBZqQXPSrMLT+o9K94Eo8ltnLXQ38X7nNqk2i9r6SiajLyFowntWC3TR+HmhOxDP B1tQeovZpY1UglUCpd8fgjq39NjPwQrtXPR08YnHuz/T2L8RZ3aBjCUjoF6Gz+PlYma8 bnog== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.250.69 with SMTP id za5mr28471485wjc.90.1437755554698; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:32:34 -0700 (PDT) Sender: dscotese@gmail.com Received: by 10.27.184.134 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:32:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:32:34 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: bJ3aKyLc8iBrpIXlGOopfeZ8inM Message-ID: From: Dave Scotese To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1b95c1c9b5a051ba18d00 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 2, Issue 95 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:32:36 -0000 --001a11c1b95c1c9b5a051ba18d00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > 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)]. --001a11c1b95c1c9b5a051ba18d00 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=
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.=C2=A0 A bit of code = can determine over the last N blocks, how many blocks that were at the curr= ent depth of the present transaction were orphaned and divide that by the t= otal number of blocks solved (orphaned or not) while those N blocks were so= lved.=C2=A0 That's the historical number (H), and then the "51% at= tack" number (A) can make an explicit assumptions like "Assuming = a bad actor has 51% of the hashing power for 24 hours starting right now, t= he block holding this transaction has an X% chance of being orphaned."= =C2=A0 Report "# confirmations" as "99.44% confidence" = using [100% - max(H,A)].
--001a11c1b95c1c9b5a051ba18d00--