261–266 of 266 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Block propagation time is only a part of the problem and it doesn't make sense to consider it separately from other parameters. By the way, why do you think block times in PoS have a normal distribution?
Because validators target their expected time slot and multiple random factors impact latency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because validators target their expected time slot and multiple random factors impact latency.
But it doesn't mean there should be a normal distribution there! Have you ever heard about log normal distribution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it doesn't mean there should be a normal distribution there! Have you ever heard about log normal distribution?
Where do you see multiplication occurring? If a node spends 1% longer on making a block than expected and propagation takes 1% longer, this results in additive delay, not multiplicative. Ie. if every single separate step takes 1% longer the total delay is 1%.
1) The length of comments posted in Internet discussion forums
2) Users' dwell time on online articles
3) income of 97%–99% of the population
4) Milk production by cows
5) Amounts of rainfall
6) Size distributions of rainfall droplets
7) The size of cash payments and size of transactions in Bitcoin
Many other examples could be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-normal_distribution
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do you see multiplication occurring? If a node spends 1% longer on making a block than expected and propagation takes 1% longer, this results in additive delay, not multiplicative. Ie. if every single separate step takes 1% longer the total delay is 1%.
You appeal to your intuition. However, it could be misleading. Log-normal distribution has been found in many real world processes. Could you explain where is multiplication in cases below? 1) The length of comments posted in Internet discussion forums 2) Users' dwell time on online articles 3) income of 97%–99% of the population 4) Milk production by cows 5) Amounts of rainfall 6) Size distributions of rainfall drop…
There's some confusion in this question. A log normal distribution is proof enough that multiplication exists.
3 and 7 are trivial because there are clear compounding effects - they are most obvious in finance. 5 is easy too, more rainfall means more water evaporates, it's a simple multiplicative cycle. 1 because larger response is more likely to generate more larger responses.
There's no causal relation between multiple factors in block propagation. It snows and latency to starlink rises. There's congestion somewhere because a new tv series is being massively downloaded. A node has random clock skew of 1 s. These are all additive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You appeal to your intuition. However, it could be misleading. Log-normal distribution has been found in many real world processes. Could you explain where is multiplication in cases below? 1) The length of comments posted in Internet discussion forums 2) Users' dwell time on online articles 3) income of 97%–99% of the population 4) Milk production by cows 5) Amounts of rainfall 6) Size distributions of rainfall drop…
>Could you explain where is multiplication in cases below? There's some confusion in this question. A log normal distribution is proof enough that multiplication exists. 3 and 7 are trivial because there are clear compounding effects - they are most obvious in finance. 5 is easy too, more rainfall means more water evaporates, it's a simple multiplicative cycle. 1 because larger response is more likely to generate mor…
Ha-ha. Maybe it's a good reason to forge the evidence. However, it doesn't mean you can't forge an additive law here!
In 3 you can add value of house to the value of car instead of "multiplying" them. In 7 you can add values "cent by cent". "Multiplicative cycle" in 5 is a real conspiracy theory. Is there the same thing for "cow's milk"? Could you increase milk yield with the same "multiplicative cycle"?
According to this logic bank interests for credits with "simple interest" should have a normal distribution and those with "compound interest" should have a log-normal one!
I can give you more simple criteria for all cases above:
1) "The length of comments" can't be negative
2) "Users' dwell time" can't be negative
3) income can't be negative
4) cow's don't suck milk from farmers
5) Law of Gravity works for rainfalls
6) Size rainfall droplets can't be negative
7) Payer is the one who pays
8) "Latency" and "delay" for nodes can't be negative too. It's very likely that it has a log-normal distribution as many other sort of delay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Could you explain where is multiplication in cases below? There's some confusion in this question. A log normal distribution is proof enough that multiplication exists. 3 and 7 are trivial because there are clear compounding effects - they are most obvious in finance. 5 is easy too, more rainfall means more water evaporates, it's a simple multiplicative cycle. 1 because larger response is more likely to generate mor…
> There's some confusion in this question. A log normal distribution is proof enough that multiplication exists. Ha-ha. Maybe it's a good reason to forge the evidence. However, it doesn't mean you can't forge an additive law here! In 3 you can add value of house to the value of car instead of "multiplying" them. In 7 you can add values "cent by cent". "Multiplicative cycle" in 5 is a real conspiracy theory. Is there…