add 1762444800, remove 1724248800

[jurraca]

This adds the latest_asmap.dat result for the coordinated launch from #34 for epoch 1762444800. We had a match from 5/7 participants in the coordinated launch.

The sha256 hash after encoding the file are:

• filled (encoded with --fill) / latest_asmap.dat: 9d85ecc9d5875a38ba3f6956d566c1c5ede56ef2d9d785f8771c7333a669e732 latest_asmap.dat
• unfilled 5c7b8f7b203dec3ac8e20e4672ae816f6a742003c62d6da5b20f57f225b4a8cc 1762444800_asmap_unfilled.dat

To confirm the result of the encoding you can use asmap-tool.

$ sha256sum final_result.txt
ad7409c8d698cfdb7612ec3e1c72dc53f8bc130ac3b8e207ef731173345291fd final_result.txt

$ python bitcoin/contrib/asmap/asmap-tool.py encode --fill final_result.txt 1762444800_asmap.dat

$ sha256sum 1762444800_asmap.dat
9d85ecc9d5875a38ba3f6956d566c1c5ede56ef2d9d785f8771c7333a669e732 1762444800_asmap.dat

this also removes the oldest ASmap file 1724248800_asmap.dat (October 2024).

[jurraca]

maybe interesting: the oldest ASmap here was from October 2024, so I diff'd the new latest and that one with the asmap_tool, and we have a total diff of 8.8% for IPv4 addresses. We had previously estimated 1% per month drift, so it may be sub-linear generally, tbd. The IPv6 diff is tiny, simply due to the size of the IPv6 address space and current adoption.

[fjahr]

maybe interesting: the oldest ASmap here was from October 2024, so I diff'd the new latest and that one with the asmap_tool, and we have a total diff of 8.8% for IPv4 addresses. We had previously estimated 1% per month drift, so it may be sub-linear generally, tbd. The IPv6 diff is tiny, simply due to the size of the IPv6 address space and current adoption.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing! I guess both can still be true: looking at month to month you could see 1% each time but due to overlaps between these you end up with 8.8% over 12 months. E.g. 3.2% were dropped via "cut-through". If you could filter out the 8.8% that changed it would be very interesting to see how many bitcoin nodes where hosted there and how big that part of the network is % wise.

[laanwj]

ACK 9f24447
Reproduced:

/kartograf/out/1762444800$ sha256sum  final_result.txt 
ad7409c8d698cfdb7612ec3e1c72dc53f8bc130ac3b8e207ef731173345291fd  final_result.txt
/kartograf/out/1762444800$ python .../bitcoin/contrib/asmap/asmap-tool.py encode --fill final_result.txt 1762444800_asmap.dat
/kartograf/out/1762444800$ sha256sum 1762444800_asmap.dat
9d85ecc9d5875a38ba3f6956d566c1c5ede56ef2d9d785f8771c7333a669e732  1762444800_asmap.dat
/kartograf/out/1762444800$ python .../bitcoin/contrib/asmap/asmap-tool.py encode final_result.txt 1762444800_asmap_unfilled.dat
/kartograf/out/1762444800$ sha256sum 1762444800_asmap_unfilled.dat
5c7b8f7b203dec3ac8e20e4672ae816f6a742003c62d6da5b20f57f225b4a8cc  1762444800_asmap_unfilled.dat

[jurraca]

both can still be true

yep, exactly, will see if I can estimate the nodes hosted in those AS.

[fjahr]

ACK 9f24447

Reproduced the same hashes from the result of the run and confirmed the newly added files have the same hashes.

$ sha256 final_result.txt
SHA256 (final_result.txt) = ad7409c8d698cfdb7612ec3e1c72dc53f8bc130ac3b8e207ef731173345291fd
$ python ../projects/clones/bitcoin/contrib/asmap/asmap-tool.py encode --fill final_result.txt 1762444800_asmap.dat
$ sha256 1762444800_asmap.dat
SHA256 (1762444800_asmap.dat) = 9d85ecc9d5875a38ba3f6956d566c1c5ede56ef2d9d785f8771c7333a669e732
$ python ../projects/clones/bitcoin/contrib/asmap/asmap-tool.py encode final_result.txt 1762444800_asmap_unfilled.dat
$ sha256 1762444800_asmap_unfilled.dat
SHA256 (1762444800_asmap_unfilled.dat) = 5c7b8f7b203dec3ac8e20e4672ae816f6a742003c62d6da5b20f57f225b4a8cc