51

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

Let's "adjust" as dictionary .

52

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

mayton wrote:

Let's "adjust" as dictionary .

-- In sense the Big File filled with output  and  to all participants of communications, certainly? Give. To that does it contradict?
Perhaps, you begin to state, what I will not find in specific compressed bit sequence generally ANY subsequence which would be present as well at the Big GPSCH-FILE and which address in it (the Big GPSCH-FILE) would register essentially more shortly, than she?

53

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

Find. But what for to you to compress ? The oblate data deprives of us the interface
Direct access.

54

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

Not , but only the new unit delivered on a network. Receivers unpack it and add to the copies .

55

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

Then you speak about compression of network packets. A subject -  and uninteresting .
The old man Shannon simply informs us on that that there is a certain upper theoretical
Compression boundary. He - knows nothing about . I add from myself that favor from
Collective compression will be any. In quality proof-of-work it is not necessary in force
Absence of the useful effect. Compressed long. Reached theoretical boundary.
Further it is not compressed. A question.  we worked?

56

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

mayton wrote:

the Old man Shannon simply informs us on that that there is a certain upper theoretical
Compression boundary. He - knows nothing about .

-- Unfortunately, I am so illiterate that at all I do not know, about which to "the compression task" it was told by the old man Shannon. Whether he told (it) about the compression task in which certain "the big dictionary" is sent the addressee in advance separately from the compressed message, for example?

mayton wrote:

In quality proof-of-work it is not necessary owing to absence of the useful effect.

-- This phrase for my ear sounds more than strange as I consider a variant of leaving from (present ) proof-of-work in which really "there is the useful effect".

mayton wrote:

Reached theoretical boundary. It is not compressed further.

-- If compression tasks it appears insufficiently (for implementation sufficient proof-of-work) it is possible, eventually, AFTER (over) it to add normal (present) "useless" proof-of-work.

57

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

FXS wrote:

it is passed...
-- If compression tasks it appears insufficiently (for implementation sufficient proof-of-work) it is possible, eventually, AFTER (over) it to add normal (present) "useless" proof-of-work.

I think that in ours with you theses it is necessary to remove everyones "if".
There should be a well-founded volume of calculations.

58

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

mayton;
You can present the hybrid car which "brakes the generator" ( kinetic energy) and IF it is not enough this braking "useless" braking by disk brakes turnes on? Or here too "it is necessary to remove everyones if"?

59

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

(By the way, proof-of-work is, actually, and there are "brakes"... Process of generation of new units.)

60

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

Namely: if capacity increases in system a saltus involved  farms (for example, owners switch them with  BCH reversely on  BTC) the system "is dispersed" - units I start to appear with frequency,  standard value 1 10 minutes.
But at following recalculation of "complexity" it increases so that to "brake" system till standard "speed" - standard frequency of appearance of units (1 10 minutes).

61

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

FXS wrote:

mayton;
You can present the hybrid car which "brakes the generator" ( kinetic energy) and IF it is not enough this braking "useless" braking by disk brakes turnes on? Or here too "it is necessary to remove everyones if"?

You are in a position . It is a heavy position. You should collect statistics
On  and to prove that your method carries the useful effect.
My position is convenient. I am a critic. I specified that at us not enough stat-data on that
To state that compression gives any favor. Especially for lossless compression
Which is initially very dependent on entropy.
And if you compressed c lossy compression a sound or video that I at once occupied yours
Position since very much I respect methods in which result it is certainly known and carries
Rated favor a priori. But it does not approach us.
The useless effect is that variant when "compression it appeared insufficiently" is
The algorithm step which does not bring any favor for technology but causes mass
Questions at participants of the project. Worse. It does not have even approximate estimation of efficiency.
They ask - What for Ivan imported useless step to algorithm? - I do not know. I have nothing to answer.
And braking by the generator here not in a subject. A beautiful but unsuccessful example.

62

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

It seems to me, I already wrote that the obvious favor of compression consists that it allows to "embroider" restriction on the size of the unit. I think, for the sake of it it is possible even to endure some complication of algorithm.
As it is strong " compression" (and which) allows to compress  units Bitkojna - I, of course, do not know it.

63

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

Considering the infinite variety   I think that we can
To create own with the arbitrary size of the unit.

64

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

FXS wrote:

as I consider a variant of leaving from (present ) proof-of-work in which really "there is the useful effect".

at you all is added in a heap.
That you want to replace standard check of a hash by any check through compression you want to superimpose compression over standard check (as one more check?) you want to compress simply ready units for transfer on a network.
Besides, you it seems are assured that there are magic algorithms for compression of any initial data, is simple processors for them are rather weak.
You are assured, what for yourself clarified what exactly want? Or simply it would be desirable to thrust compression in  by a principle "porridge oil not to spoil"?
Above on a subject like all it is already chewed.
- And why check should be difficult
- And why compression is not necessary for check
- And all remaining

65

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

S.G.;
Probably, I do not manage to express clearly enough.
1. Not "hash check" and "check through compression", and "demonstration of the performed operation (proof-of-work) through a presentation of a beautiful hash" and "demonstration of the performed operation (proof-of-work) through a presentation of strongly oblate unit".
2. Not "compression to superimpose over standard check", and, on the contrary, is mandatory strong compression, and only if it does not suffice for "creation of sufficient complexity" (of what I am not assured) POSSIBILITY to add its requirement "a beautiful hash".
But yes, "it would be desirable to thrust compression in " as it is a pity the huge computing resources spent for empty (in itself) searches " hashes".

S.G. wrote:

- and why check should be difficult

-- Thanks, I know.

S.G. wrote:

- and why compression is not necessary for check

-- Suits.

66

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

FXS wrote:

But yes, "it would be desirable to thrust compression in " as it is a pity the huge computing resources spent for empty (in itself) searches " hashes".

It is a pity - at the bee, and the  you simply throw out idea of numeral gold?

67

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

Basil A. Sidorov;
At all I do not throw out idea of numeral gold as the "labor input" principle ("") "extraction" of new units remains on the place.

68

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

"About one method  data compressions"
http://www.sql.ru/forum/1281667/ob-odno … iya-dannyh

69

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

FXS wrote:

But yes, "it would be desirable to thrust compression in " as it is a pity the huge computing resources spent for empty (in itself) searches " hashes".

For useless compression it is not a pity resources? What difference: to burn down resources for the sake of an additional zero in  or for the sake of reduction of archive by 1 byte?
On mine of a difference any.

70

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

Dima T;
You have a version of the answer to a question why in November community Bitkojna refused from (the promised!) magnifications of the size of the unit about pity 2 MB to (so pity, actually) 4 MB?

71

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

FXS wrote:

Dima T;
You have a version of the answer to a question why in November community Bitkojna refused from (the promised!) magnifications of the size of the unit about pity 2 MB to (so pity, actually) 4 MB?

I do not know, I do not track this subject.
In a more way to the account  for the size of this digit, neither 2, nor 4 here it is inappropriate. This value should not be a bottleneck of all system, i.e. there should be analog "", i.e. any large number which will be never reached. For example 2^64.
From that that 2 MB to replace on "2 MB shaken" a problem does not dare in any way since it not "", and in 3-5-10 times more than 2 MB, i.e. compression a problem do not solve all, and removes in the future.

72

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

I have a version that *coin/*cash - next , allowing one participants to take away money of others in game with the zero total.

73

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

Dima T wrote:

compression does not solve a problem, and removes in the future.

Yes, the perpetuum mobile is necessary. And all this struggle for fuel consumption lowering on 100 km of run (what difference, 7 liters or 2?!) a problem does not solve, and removes in the future.

74

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

Basil A. Sidorov;
You not in a subject: at BitkojnKesha the size of the unit 8 and it just appeared. And with 2 to 4 agreed (summer)
To raise (since November) the size of the unit in "main" Bitkojne. And then changed the mind.

75

Re: Dispersion of length of archive?

FXS wrote:

it is passed...
- And here I open in Total Commander the tab of adjustment of archiver Zip and there "the compression Level" is offered to be selected from section from 0 to 9, and 1 is designated as "fast"... Do not prompt, why?
And if 1 - "fast", 9, probably, "slow"?... And why it slow - because the processor simply works with a disposition to laziness?

and still you confuse complexity of algorithm and speed of the processor.