rhavar at protonmail.com [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-10-24 📝 Original message:Actually, I think it can ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-10-24
📝 Original message:Actually, I think it can be calculated a bit smarter using maths (which unfortunately I'm not very good at...). But I assume it's something like:
```
falsePositiveChances := 0.0
foreach( transaction of transactions) {
falsePositiveChances += (1 / factorial(transaction.Inputs)) * (1 / factorial(transaction.Ouputs))
}
totalFalsePositives := falsePositiveChances / transactions.length
```
If so, I get 42.4% false positive rate. So clearly bip69 is getting used a fair bit, but not nearly as much as randomization.
-Ryan
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 10:52 AM, <rhavar at protonmail.com> wrote:
> That's pretty easy to quantify. I wrote a quick script to grab the last few blocks, and then shuffle the inputs/outputs before testing if each transaction is bip69 or not.
>
> The result was 42% of all transactions would accidentally be bip69 when randomized.
>
> So clearly randomization is a lot more popular than bip69 at the moment, but I'm not sure that it matters much. As soon as you have more than a few inputs/outputs, you can tell with a high confidence if the transaction is bip69 or not.
>
> And of course if you're clustering a wallet, you can figure out extremely easily how that wallet behaves wrt bip6.
>
> -Ryan
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 9:12 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 3:52 PM Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for bringing our attention to this important topic.
> > > According to (https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/bip-69-stats) around 60% of
> > > transaction follow bip69 (possibly just by chance).
> >
> > A two input randomly ordered transaction has a 50% chance of
> > 'following' bip-69. So 60% sound like a small minority.
📝 Original message:Actually, I think it can be calculated a bit smarter using maths (which unfortunately I'm not very good at...). But I assume it's something like:
```
falsePositiveChances := 0.0
foreach( transaction of transactions) {
falsePositiveChances += (1 / factorial(transaction.Inputs)) * (1 / factorial(transaction.Ouputs))
}
totalFalsePositives := falsePositiveChances / transactions.length
```
If so, I get 42.4% false positive rate. So clearly bip69 is getting used a fair bit, but not nearly as much as randomization.
-Ryan
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 10:52 AM, <rhavar at protonmail.com> wrote:
> That's pretty easy to quantify. I wrote a quick script to grab the last few blocks, and then shuffle the inputs/outputs before testing if each transaction is bip69 or not.
>
> The result was 42% of all transactions would accidentally be bip69 when randomized.
>
> So clearly randomization is a lot more popular than bip69 at the moment, but I'm not sure that it matters much. As soon as you have more than a few inputs/outputs, you can tell with a high confidence if the transaction is bip69 or not.
>
> And of course if you're clustering a wallet, you can figure out extremely easily how that wallet behaves wrt bip6.
>
> -Ryan
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 9:12 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 3:52 PM Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for bringing our attention to this important topic.
> > > According to (https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/bip-69-stats) around 60% of
> > > transaction follow bip69 (possibly just by chance).
> >
> > A two input randomly ordered transaction has a 50% chance of
> > 'following' bip-69. So 60% sound like a small minority.