Dave Scotese [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-07-24 📝 Original message:> Alternatively I think ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-07-24
📝 Original message:> 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)].
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150724/537c5972/attachment.html>;