Bitcoin, Litecoin Hashrate vs. Price in USD Chart

[ANN][ANDROID MINING][AIRDROP] NewEnglandcoin: Scrypt RandomSpike

New England
New England 6 States Songs: https://www.reddit.com/newengland/comments/er8wxd/new_england_6_states_songs/
NewEnglandcoin
Symbol: NENG
NewEnglandcoin is a clone of Bitcoin using scrypt as a proof-of-work algorithm with enhanced features to protect against 51% attack and decentralize on mining to allow diversified mining rigs across CPUs, GPUs, ASICs and Android phones.
Mining Algorithm: Scrypt with RandomSpike. RandomSpike is 3rd generation of Dynamic Difficulty (DynDiff) algorithm on top of scrypt.
1 minute block targets base difficulty reset: every 1440 blocks subsidy halves in 2.1m blocks (~ 2 to 4 years) 84,000,000,000 total maximum NENG 20000 NENG per block Pre-mine: 1% - reserved for dev fund ICO: None RPCPort: 6376 Port: 6377
NewEnglandcoin has dogecoin like supply at 84 billion maximum NENG. This huge supply insures that NENG is suitable for retail transactions and daily use. The inflation schedule of NengEnglandcoin is actually identical to that of Litecoin. Bitcoin and Litecoin are already proven to be great long term store of value. The Litecoin-like NENG inflation schedule will make NewEnglandcoin ideal for long term investment appreciation as the supply is limited and capped at a fixed number
Bitcoin Fork - Suitable for Home Hobbyists
NewEnglandcoin core wallet continues to maintain version tag of "Satoshi v0.8.7.5" because NewEnglandcoin is very much an exact clone of bitcoin plus some mining feature changes with DynDiff algorithm. NewEnglandcoin is very suitable as lite version of bitcoin for educational purpose on desktop mining, full node running and bitcoin programming using bitcoin-json APIs.
The NewEnglandcoin (NENG) mining algorithm original upgrade ideas were mainly designed for decentralization of mining rigs on scrypt, which is same algo as litecoin/dogecoin. The way it is going now is that NENG is very suitable for bitcoin/litecoin/dogecoin hobbyists who can not , will not spend huge money to run noisy ASIC/GPU mining equipments, but still want to mine NENG at home with quiet simple CPU/GPU or with a cheap ASIC like FutureBit Moonlander 2 USB or Apollo pod on solo mining setup to obtain very decent profitable results. NENG allows bitcoin litecoin hobbyists to experience full node running, solo mining, CPU/GPU/ASIC for a fun experience at home at cheap cost without breaking bank on equipment or electricity.
MIT Free Course - 23 lectures about Bitcoin, Blockchain and Finance (Fall,2018)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP63UUkfL0onkxF6MYgVa04Fn
CPU Minable Coin Because of dynamic difficulty algorithm on top of scrypt, NewEnglandcoin is CPU Minable. Users can easily set up full node for mining at Home PC or Mac using our dedicated cheetah software.
Research on the first forked 50 blocks on v1.2.0 core confirmed that ASIC/GPU miners mined 66% of 50 blocks, CPU miners mined the remaining 34%.
NENG v1.4.0 release enabled CPU mining inside android phones.
Youtube Video Tutorial
How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in Windows 10 Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdOoPvAjzlE How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in Windows 10 Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHnRJvJRzZg
How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in macOS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj7NLMeNSOQ
Decentralization and Community Driven NewEnglandcoin is a decentralized coin just like bitcoin. There is no boss on NewEnglandcoin. Nobody nor the dev owns NENG.
We know a coin is worth nothing if there is no backing from community. Therefore, we as dev do not intend to make decision on this coin solely by ourselves. It is our expectation that NewEnglandcoin community will make majority of decisions on direction of this coin from now on. We as dev merely view our-self as coin creater and technical support of this coin while providing NENG a permanent home at ShorelineCrypto Exchange.
Twitter Airdrop
Follow NENG twitter and receive 100,000 NENG on Twitter Airdrop to up to 1000 winners
Graphic Redesign Bounty
Top one award: 90.9 million NENG Top 10 Winners: 500,000 NENG / person Event Timing: March 25, 2019 - Present Event Address: NewEnglandcoin DISCORD at: https://discord.gg/UPeBwgs
Please complete above Twitter Bounty requirement first. Then follow Below Steps to qualify for the Bounty: (1) Required: submit your own designed NENG logo picture in gif, png jpg or any other common graphic file format into DISCORD "bounty-submission" board (2) Optional: submit a second graphic for logo or any other marketing purposes into "bounty-submission" board. (3) Complete below form.
Please limit your submission to no more than two total. Delete any wrongly submitted or undesired graphics in the board. Contact DISCORD u/honglu69#5911 or u/krypton#6139 if you have any issues.
Twitter Airdrop/Graphic Redesign bounty sign up: https://goo.gl/forms/L0vcwmVi8c76cR7m1
Milestones
Roadmap
NENG v1.4.0 Android Mining, randomSpike Evaluation https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/NENG_2020_Q3_report/NENG_2020_Q3_report.pdf
RandomSpike - NENG core v1.3.0 Hardfork Upgrade Proposal https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/2020Q1_Report/Scrypt_RandomSpike_NENGv1.3.0_Hardfork_Proposal.pdf
NENG Security, Decentralization & Valuation
https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/2019Q2_report/NENG_Security_Decentralization_Value.pdf
Whitepaper v1.0 https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/whitepaper_v1.0/NENG_WhitePaper.pdf
DISCORD https://discord.gg/UPeBwgs
Explorer
http://www.findblocks.com/exploreNENG http://86.100.49.209/exploreNENG http://nengexplorer.mooo.com:3001/
Step by step guide on how to setup an explorer: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/nengexplorer
Github https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin
Wallet
Android with UserLand App (arm64/armhf), Chromebook (x64/arm64/armhf): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.5
Linux Wallet (Ubuntu/Linux Mint, Debian/MX Linux, Arch/Manjaro, Fedora, openSUSE): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.3
MacOS Wallet (10.11 El Capitan or higher): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.2
Android with GNUroot on 32 bits old Phones (alpha release) wallet: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0
Windows wallet: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.3.0.1
addnode ip address for the wallet to sync faster, frequently updated conf file: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/cheetah_cpumineblob/mastenewenglandcoin.conf-example
How to Sync Full Node Desktop Wallet https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/comments/er6f0q/how_to_sync_full_node_desktop_wallet/
TWITTER https://twitter.com/newenglandcoin
REDDIT https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/
Cheetah CPU Miner Software https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/cheetah_cpuminer
Solo Mining with GPU or ASIC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52187727#msg52187727
How to Run Two Full Node in Same Desktop PC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53581449#msg53581449
ASIC/GPU Mining Pools Warning to Big ASIC Miners Due to DynDiff Algo on top of Scrypt, solo mining is recommended for ASIC/GPU miners. Further more, even for mining pools, small mining pool will generate better performance than big NENG mining pool because of new algo v1.2.x post hard fork.
The set up configuration of NENG for scrypt pool mining is same as a typical normal scrypt coin. In other word, DynDiff on Scrypt algo is backward compatible with Scrypt algo. Because ASIC/GPU miners rely on CPU miners for smooth blockchain movement, checkout bottom of "Latest News" section for A WARNING to All ASIC miners before you decide to dump big ASIC hash rate into NENG mining.
(1) Original DynDiff Warning: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48324708#msg48324708 (2) New Warning on RandomSpike Spike difficulty (244k) introduced in RandomSpike served as roadblocks to instant mining and provide security against 51% attack risk. However, this spike difficulty like a roadblock that makes big ASIC mining less profitable. In case of spike block to be mined, the spike difficulty immediately serve as base difficulty, which will block GPU/ASIC miners effectively and leave CPU cheetah solo miners dominating mining almost 100% until next base difficulty reset.
FindBlocks http://findblocks.com/
CRpool http://crpool.xyz/
Cminors' Pool http://newenglandcoin.cminors-pool.com/
SPOOL https://spools.online/
Exchange
📷
https://shorelinecrypto.com/
Features: anonymous sign up and trading. No restriction or limit on deposit or withdraw.
The trading pairs available: NewEnglandcoin (NENG) / Dogecoin (DOGE)
Trading commission: A round trip trading will incur 0.10% trading fees in average. Fees are paid only on buyer side. buy fee: 0.2% / sell fee: 0% Deposit fees: free for all coins Withdraw fees: ZERO per withdraw. Mining fees are appointed by each coin blockchain. To cover the blockchain mining fees, there is minimum balance per coin per account: * Dogecoin 2 DOGE * NewEnglandcoin 1 NENG
Latest News Aug 30, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.5 Released for Android/Chromebook Upgrade with armhf, better hardware support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg55098029#msg55098029
Aug 11, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.4 Released for Android arm64 Upgrade / Chromebook Support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54977437#msg54977437
Jul 30, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.3 Released for Linux Wallet Upgrade with 8 Distros https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54898540#msg54898540
Jul 21, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.2 Released for MacOS Upgrade with Catalina https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54839522#msg54839522
Jul 19, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.1 Released for MacOS Wallet Upgrade https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54830333#msg54830333
Jul 15, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0 Released for Android Mining, Ubuntu 20.04 support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54803639#msg54803639
Jul 11, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0 Android Mining, randomSpike Evaluation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54777222#msg54777222
Jun 27, 2020 - Pre-Announce: NENG v1.4.0 Proposal for Mobile Miner Upgrade, Android Mining Start in July 2020 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54694233#msg54694233
Jun 19, 2020 - Best Practice for Futurebit Moonlander2 USB ASIC on solo mining mode https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54645726#msg54645726
Mar 15, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG v1.3.0.1 Released for better wallet syncing https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54030923#msg54030923
Feb 23, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG Core v1.3.0 Relased, Hardfork on Mar 1 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53900926#msg53900926
Feb 1, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike Proposal Published- NENG 1.3.0 Hardfork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53735458#msg53735458
Jan 15, 2020 - NewEnglandcoin Dev Team Expanded with New Kickoff https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53617358#msg53617358
Jan 12, 2020 - Explanation of Base Diff Reset and Effect of Supply https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/comments/envmo1/explanation_of_base_diff_reset_and_effect_of/
Dec 19, 2019 - Shoreline_tradingbot version 1.0 is released https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5121953.msg53391184#msg53391184
Sept 1, 2019 - NewEnglandcoin (NENG) is Selected as Shoreline Tradingbot First Supported Coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52331201#msg52331201
Aug 15, 2019 - Mining Update on Effect of Base Difficulty Reset, GPU vs ASIC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52169572#msg52169572
Jul 7, 2019 - CPU Mining on macOS Mojave is supported under latest Cheetah_Cpuminer Release https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg51745839#msg51745839
Jun 1, 2019 - NENG Fiat project is stopped by Square, Inc https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg51312291#msg51312291
Apr 21, 2019 - NENG Fiat Project is Launched by ShorelineCrypto https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50714764#msg50714764
Apr 7, 2019 - Announcement of Fiat Project for all U.S. Residents & Mobile Miner Project Initiation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50506585#msg50506585
Apr 1, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50417196#msg50417196
Mar 27, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50332097#msg50332097
Mar 17, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50208194#msg50208194
Feb 26, 2019 - Community Project - NewEnglandcoin Graphic Redesign Bounty Initiated https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49931305#msg49931305
Feb 22, 2019 - Dev Policy on Checkpoints on NewEnglandcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49875242#msg49875242
Feb 20, 2019 - NewEnglandCoin v1.2.1 Released to Secure the Hard Kork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49831059#msg49831059
Feb 11, 2019 - NewEnglandCoin v1.2.0 Released, Anti-51% Attack, Anti-instant Mining after Hard Fork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49685389#msg49685389
Jan 13, 2019 - Cheetah_CpuMiner added support for CPU Mining on Mac https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49218760#msg49218760
Jan 12, 2019 - NENG Core v1.1.2 Released to support MacOS OSX Wallet https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49202088#msg49202088
Jan 2, 2019 - Cheetah_Cpuminer v1.1.0 is released for both Linux and Windows https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49004345#msg49004345
Dec 31, 2018 - Technical Whitepaper is Released https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48990334#msg48990334
Dec 28, 2018 - Cheetah_Cpuminer v1.0.0 is released for Linux https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48935135#msg48935135
Update on Dec 14, 2018 - NENG Blockchain Stuck Issue https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48668375#msg48668375
Nov 27, 2018 - Exclusive for PC CPU Miners - How to Steal a Block from ASIC Miners https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48258465#msg48258465
Nov 28, 2018 - How to CPU Mine a NENG block with window/linux PC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48298311#msg48298311
Nov 29, 2018 - A Warning to ASIC Miners https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48324708#msg48324708
Disclosure: Dev Team Came from ShorelineCrypto, a US based Informatics Service Business offering Fee for service for Coin Creation, Coin Exchange Listing, Blockchain Consulting, etc.
submitted by honglu69 to NewEnglandCoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin (BTC)A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

Bitcoin (BTC)A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
  • Bitcoin (BTC) is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that aims to function as a means of exchange that is independent of any central authority. BTC can be transferred electronically in a secure, verifiable, and immutable way.
  • Launched in 2009, BTC is the first virtual currency to solve the double-spending issue by timestamping transactions before broadcasting them to all of the nodes in the Bitcoin network. The Bitcoin Protocol offered a solution to the Byzantine Generals’ Problem with a blockchain network structure, a notion first created by Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta in 1991.
  • Bitcoin’s whitepaper was published pseudonymously in 2008 by an individual, or a group, with the pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto”, whose underlying identity has still not been verified.
  • The Bitcoin protocol uses an SHA-256d-based Proof-of-Work (PoW) algorithm to reach network consensus. Its network has a target block time of 10 minutes and a maximum supply of 21 million tokens, with a decaying token emission rate. To prevent fluctuation of the block time, the network’s block difficulty is re-adjusted through an algorithm based on the past 2016 block times.
  • With a block size limit capped at 1 megabyte, the Bitcoin Protocol has supported both the Lightning Network, a second-layer infrastructure for payment channels, and Segregated Witness, a soft-fork to increase the number of transactions on a block, as solutions to network scalability.

https://preview.redd.it/s2gmpmeze3151.png?width=256&format=png&auto=webp&s=9759910dd3c4a15b83f55b827d1899fb2fdd3de1

1. What is Bitcoin (BTC)?

  • Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that aims to function as a means of exchange and is independent of any central authority. Bitcoins are transferred electronically in a secure, verifiable, and immutable way.
  • Network validators, whom are often referred to as miners, participate in the SHA-256d-based Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism to determine the next global state of the blockchain.
  • The Bitcoin protocol has a target block time of 10 minutes, and a maximum supply of 21 million tokens. The only way new bitcoins can be produced is when a block producer generates a new valid block.
  • The protocol has a token emission rate that halves every 210,000 blocks, or approximately every 4 years.
  • Unlike public blockchain infrastructures supporting the development of decentralized applications (Ethereum), the Bitcoin protocol is primarily used only for payments, and has only very limited support for smart contract-like functionalities (Bitcoin “Script” is mostly used to create certain conditions before bitcoins are used to be spent).

2. Bitcoin’s core features

For a more beginner’s introduction to Bitcoin, please visit Binance Academy’s guide to Bitcoin.

Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) model

A UTXO transaction works like cash payment between two parties: Alice gives money to Bob and receives change (i.e., unspent amount). In comparison, blockchains like Ethereum rely on the account model.
https://preview.redd.it/t1j6anf8f3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=33bd141d8f2136a6f32739c8cdc7aae2e04cbc47

Nakamoto consensus

In the Bitcoin network, anyone can join the network and become a bookkeeping service provider i.e., a validator. All validators are allowed in the race to become the block producer for the next block, yet only the first to complete a computationally heavy task will win. This feature is called Proof of Work (PoW).
The probability of any single validator to finish the task first is equal to the percentage of the total network computation power, or hash power, the validator has. For instance, a validator with 5% of the total network computation power will have a 5% chance of completing the task first, and therefore becoming the next block producer.
Since anyone can join the race, competition is prone to increase. In the early days, Bitcoin mining was mostly done by personal computer CPUs.
As of today, Bitcoin validators, or miners, have opted for dedicated and more powerful devices such as machines based on Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (“ASIC”).
Proof of Work secures the network as block producers must have spent resources external to the network (i.e., money to pay electricity), and can provide proof to other participants that they did so.
With various miners competing for block rewards, it becomes difficult for one single malicious party to gain network majority (defined as more than 51% of the network’s hash power in the Nakamoto consensus mechanism). The ability to rearrange transactions via 51% attacks indicates another feature of the Nakamoto consensus: the finality of transactions is only probabilistic.
Once a block is produced, it is then propagated by the block producer to all other validators to check on the validity of all transactions in that block. The block producer will receive rewards in the network’s native currency (i.e., bitcoin) as all validators approve the block and update their ledgers.

The blockchain

Block production

The Bitcoin protocol utilizes the Merkle tree data structure in order to organize hashes of numerous individual transactions into each block. This concept is named after Ralph Merkle, who patented it in 1979.
With the use of a Merkle tree, though each block might contain thousands of transactions, it will have the ability to combine all of their hashes and condense them into one, allowing efficient and secure verification of this group of transactions. This single hash called is a Merkle root, which is stored in the Block Header of a block. The Block Header also stores other meta information of a block, such as a hash of the previous Block Header, which enables blocks to be associated in a chain-like structure (hence the name “blockchain”).
An illustration of block production in the Bitcoin Protocol is demonstrated below.

https://preview.redd.it/m6texxicf3151.png?width=1591&format=png&auto=webp&s=f4253304912ed8370948b9c524e08fef28f1c78d

Block time and mining difficulty

Block time is the period required to create the next block in a network. As mentioned above, the node who solves the computationally intensive task will be allowed to produce the next block. Therefore, block time is directly correlated to the amount of time it takes for a node to find a solution to the task. The Bitcoin protocol sets a target block time of 10 minutes, and attempts to achieve this by introducing a variable named mining difficulty.
Mining difficulty refers to how difficult it is for the node to solve the computationally intensive task. If the network sets a high difficulty for the task, while miners have low computational power, which is often referred to as “hashrate”, it would statistically take longer for the nodes to get an answer for the task. If the difficulty is low, but miners have rather strong computational power, statistically, some nodes will be able to solve the task quickly.
Therefore, the 10 minute target block time is achieved by constantly and automatically adjusting the mining difficulty according to how much computational power there is amongst the nodes. The average block time of the network is evaluated after a certain number of blocks, and if it is greater than the expected block time, the difficulty level will decrease; if it is less than the expected block time, the difficulty level will increase.

What are orphan blocks?

In a PoW blockchain network, if the block time is too low, it would increase the likelihood of nodes producingorphan blocks, for which they would receive no reward. Orphan blocks are produced by nodes who solved the task but did not broadcast their results to the whole network the quickest due to network latency.
It takes time for a message to travel through a network, and it is entirely possible for 2 nodes to complete the task and start to broadcast their results to the network at roughly the same time, while one’s messages are received by all other nodes earlier as the node has low latency.
Imagine there is a network latency of 1 minute and a target block time of 2 minutes. A node could solve the task in around 1 minute but his message would take 1 minute to reach the rest of the nodes that are still working on the solution. While his message travels through the network, all the work done by all other nodes during that 1 minute, even if these nodes also complete the task, would go to waste. In this case, 50% of the computational power contributed to the network is wasted.
The percentage of wasted computational power would proportionally decrease if the mining difficulty were higher, as it would statistically take longer for miners to complete the task. In other words, if the mining difficulty, and therefore targeted block time is low, miners with powerful and often centralized mining facilities would get a higher chance of becoming the block producer, while the participation of weaker miners would become in vain. This introduces possible centralization and weakens the overall security of the network.
However, given a limited amount of transactions that can be stored in a block, making the block time too longwould decrease the number of transactions the network can process per second, negatively affecting network scalability.

3. Bitcoin’s additional features

Segregated Witness (SegWit)

Segregated Witness, often abbreviated as SegWit, is a protocol upgrade proposal that went live in August 2017.
SegWit separates witness signatures from transaction-related data. Witness signatures in legacy Bitcoin blocks often take more than 50% of the block size. By removing witness signatures from the transaction block, this protocol upgrade effectively increases the number of transactions that can be stored in a single block, enabling the network to handle more transactions per second. As a result, SegWit increases the scalability of Nakamoto consensus-based blockchain networks like Bitcoin and Litecoin.
SegWit also makes transactions cheaper. Since transaction fees are derived from how much data is being processed by the block producer, the more transactions that can be stored in a 1MB block, the cheaper individual transactions become.
https://preview.redd.it/depya70mf3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=a6499aa2131fbf347f8ffd812930b2f7d66be48e
The legacy Bitcoin block has a block size limit of 1 megabyte, and any change on the block size would require a network hard-fork. On August 1st 2017, the first hard-fork occurred, leading to the creation of Bitcoin Cash (“BCH”), which introduced an 8 megabyte block size limit.
Conversely, Segregated Witness was a soft-fork: it never changed the transaction block size limit of the network. Instead, it added an extended block with an upper limit of 3 megabytes, which contains solely witness signatures, to the 1 megabyte block that contains only transaction data. This new block type can be processed even by nodes that have not completed the SegWit protocol upgrade.
Furthermore, the separation of witness signatures from transaction data solves the malleability issue with the original Bitcoin protocol. Without Segregated Witness, these signatures could be altered before the block is validated by miners. Indeed, alterations can be done in such a way that if the system does a mathematical check, the signature would still be valid. However, since the values in the signature are changed, the two signatures would create vastly different hash values.
For instance, if a witness signature states “6,” it has a mathematical value of 6, and would create a hash value of 12345. However, if the witness signature were changed to “06”, it would maintain a mathematical value of 6 while creating a (faulty) hash value of 67890.
Since the mathematical values are the same, the altered signature remains a valid signature. This would create a bookkeeping issue, as transactions in Nakamoto consensus-based blockchain networks are documented with these hash values, or transaction IDs. Effectively, one can alter a transaction ID to a new one, and the new ID can still be valid.
This can create many issues, as illustrated in the below example:
  1. Alice sends Bob 1 BTC, and Bob sends Merchant Carol this 1 BTC for some goods.
  2. Bob sends Carols this 1 BTC, while the transaction from Alice to Bob is not yet validated. Carol sees this incoming transaction of 1 BTC to him, and immediately ships goods to B.
  3. At the moment, the transaction from Alice to Bob is still not confirmed by the network, and Bob can change the witness signature, therefore changing this transaction ID from 12345 to 67890.
  4. Now Carol will not receive his 1 BTC, as the network looks for transaction 12345 to ensure that Bob’s wallet balance is valid.
  5. As this particular transaction ID changed from 12345 to 67890, the transaction from Bob to Carol will fail, and Bob will get his goods while still holding his BTC.
With the Segregated Witness upgrade, such instances can not happen again. This is because the witness signatures are moved outside of the transaction block into an extended block, and altering the witness signature won’t affect the transaction ID.
Since the transaction malleability issue is fixed, Segregated Witness also enables the proper functioning of second-layer scalability solutions on the Bitcoin protocol, such as the Lightning Network.

Lightning Network

Lightning Network is a second-layer micropayment solution for scalability.
Specifically, Lightning Network aims to enable near-instant and low-cost payments between merchants and customers that wish to use bitcoins.
Lightning Network was conceptualized in a whitepaper by Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja in 2015. Since then, it has been implemented by multiple companies. The most prominent of them include Blockstream, Lightning Labs, and ACINQ.
A list of curated resources relevant to Lightning Network can be found here.
In the Lightning Network, if a customer wishes to transact with a merchant, both of them need to open a payment channel, which operates off the Bitcoin blockchain (i.e., off-chain vs. on-chain). None of the transaction details from this payment channel are recorded on the blockchain, and only when the channel is closed will the end result of both party’s wallet balances be updated to the blockchain. The blockchain only serves as a settlement layer for Lightning transactions.
Since all transactions done via the payment channel are conducted independently of the Nakamoto consensus, both parties involved in transactions do not need to wait for network confirmation on transactions. Instead, transacting parties would pay transaction fees to Bitcoin miners only when they decide to close the channel.
https://preview.redd.it/cy56icarf3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=b239a63c6a87ec6cc1b18ce2cbd0355f8831c3a8
One limitation to the Lightning Network is that it requires a person to be online to receive transactions attributing towards him. Another limitation in user experience could be that one needs to lock up some funds every time he wishes to open a payment channel, and is only able to use that fund within the channel.
However, this does not mean he needs to create new channels every time he wishes to transact with a different person on the Lightning Network. If Alice wants to send money to Carol, but they do not have a payment channel open, they can ask Bob, who has payment channels open to both Alice and Carol, to help make that transaction. Alice will be able to send funds to Bob, and Bob to Carol. Hence, the number of “payment hubs” (i.e., Bob in the previous example) correlates with both the convenience and the usability of the Lightning Network for real-world applications.

Schnorr Signature upgrade proposal

Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (“ECDSA”) signatures are used to sign transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain.
https://preview.redd.it/hjeqe4l7g3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=8014fb08fe62ac4d91645499bc0c7e1c04c5d7c4
However, many developers now advocate for replacing ECDSA with Schnorr Signature. Once Schnorr Signatures are implemented, multiple parties can collaborate in producing a signature that is valid for the sum of their public keys.
This would primarily be beneficial for network scalability. When multiple addresses were to conduct transactions to a single address, each transaction would require their own signature. With Schnorr Signature, all these signatures would be combined into one. As a result, the network would be able to store more transactions in a single block.
https://preview.redd.it/axg3wayag3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=93d958fa6b0e623caa82ca71fe457b4daa88c71e
The reduced size in signatures implies a reduced cost on transaction fees. The group of senders can split the transaction fees for that one group signature, instead of paying for one personal signature individually.
Schnorr Signature also improves network privacy and token fungibility. A third-party observer will not be able to detect if a user is sending a multi-signature transaction, since the signature will be in the same format as a single-signature transaction.

4. Economics and supply distribution

The Bitcoin protocol utilizes the Nakamoto consensus, and nodes validate blocks via Proof-of-Work mining. The bitcoin token was not pre-mined, and has a maximum supply of 21 million. The initial reward for a block was 50 BTC per block. Block mining rewards halve every 210,000 blocks. Since the average time for block production on the blockchain is 10 minutes, it implies that the block reward halving events will approximately take place every 4 years.
As of May 12th 2020, the block mining rewards are 6.25 BTC per block. Transaction fees also represent a minor revenue stream for miners.
submitted by D-platform to u/D-platform [link] [comments]

IRC Log from Ravencoin Open Developer Meeting - Sept 7, 2018

Hi all
Greetings and salutations!
two is a good number for lips
sup
how do you dooski?
{|}
Jesse is not going to make it.
master
salut
so what is todays topic
Yes, who's moderating? Announcements, etc.
well i guess thats chatturgas job
but hes not here so idk
I'm a poor substitute for Jesse. I'm moderating today.
lol
Just FYI, there is a testnet5 with unique assets. Build from release_2.0.5 branch.
Are we able to connect to the testnet v5 seed nodes?
Yes. Testnet seed nodes are working now.
Yes. Testnet5 seed nodes are working now.
https://medium.com/@Tronblack/ravencoin-asset-issuance-cost-52b553c507cb
Medium
Ravencoin — Asset Issuance Cost – Tron Black – Medium
Let me start by thanking everybody in the community that has passionately contributed thoughts and ideas on the economics of asset…
looks like im compiling the binaries lol
I wrote a blog post about the pros/cons of the various burn options.
If anyone wants to weigh-in on their preference.
Because of the simplicity, I lean towards the first two options listed.
2.0.5 isn't going to be put on the webpage as an official binary release is that right?
Yes, that's right.
But, I'd encourage anyone to build it and run it on testnet5
i personally prefer the halvening option
@russkidooski With a particular floor?
yep
500->250->125
the best option isn't listed, POM
tl what's POM?
Proof of Market
ah
zaab is the author and just joined
Yes
Hi Boo and Zaab
Also "Prisoner Of her Majesty"
Sorry on vacation so not all in on this conversation but felt it was importsnt to join
Hey Zaab, welcome!
Hi all. Just observing. Hope no one minds.
Thanks for taking the time to write that article Zaab, it was very thought provoking.
Hi s&l
If anything, that was its main purpose
hello
I prepped some questions i had before i realized i could make it
great
1. Why was a burn deemed necessary at all? What is the purpose of it? 2. How/why was the number 500 chosen. Was an economic analysis ran? Or was an analyzis done on how many assests could be reasonably handled (thus needed an asset amount cap)
3. Tell me the truth, how likely are you to impliment any alternative idea. Are we wasting our time making our cases?
Shotgun!
being in favor becauseit is simplicity is not a plan for success; POM is fairly simple and will give a true market pricing
And i dont mean nust my own
Just*
any code contribution with ideas would be appreciated and tested.
That's a lot of questions.
Burning RVN helps the economics of the coin. Fewer circulating supply (more scarcity) the higher the value of the coin (assuming all else equal).
Also, there should be a cost to creating asset names in the namespace.
that is only half the economic formula
Burn is necessary because there must be a cost to consume the resources of the network.
hi bw
I didnt realize making the coin economical was one of the purposes of the coin
We could've recycled the RVN back through the miners (like fees), but the burn economics should help RVN price.
IMHO, all the well designed coins have a good economic model behind them.
Also sorry i would code it if i could but im not a programmer, if that invalidates my ideas so be it
It doesn't Zaab
recycle seems much more complex than POM
Because you tie good economics to a good mining base which is what ultimately is needed for security
It doesn't invalidate your ideas, but some of the complexities introduced with your ideas may not be feasible before Oct 1 (RC goal date).
simplicity/predictability is the guiderail here on burn vs recycle
This is deadline does not feel healthy
The ideas in POM, which I'll address in a minute also cause some issues.
launch deadline should not be more important than a successful launch design
agreed!
My preference is burn with diminishing price over time.
When creating an asset, all nodes must agree on the price, and if that changes each block (or frequently), there may be issues. The signed transaction may sit in the mempool waiting for confirmation and the "price" in RVN may change.
To me a burn has 2 purposes only. One prevent a spam attack and two for the transaction id of the burn to act as a signature of authenticity of an asset
Zaab I'll tell the truth -- we want the best solution, but for all parties including application developers. Project planners like being able to budget and whole numbers.
simple is better
fix the price daily based on an avg; could taht solve
we don't want the nightmare of eth gas
The authenticity isn't an issue, because there are other ways to handle it.
What ive proposed at its maximum only increases under 2 rvn per day. Thats well within planning limits
@twolips An average of what?
POM formula being based on an avg of max burn and daily burn numbers
@Zaab If I understood your paper correctly (not a given) then it seems like the cost went down as more assets were created. Is that the case, or did I misunderstand the chart.
that ius healthy
^^
at that point, the value of RVN will increase
As assets are created the remaining burnable rvn drops. Thus price drops
because of function not scarcity
As rvn are mined the remaining burnable rvn increases thus price increases
POM seemed to show higher burnrate, lower RVN cost (-10 RVN delta).
hi X_K
hi
You need to burn 3,600,000 rvn daily just to keep up with mining. POM will almost certainly cause price to increase
That seems backwards to me -- from an economic standpoint.
Just like crypto is deflationary, its backwarsa
Backwards
So if fewer people are creating assets, the price increases?
sdrawkcaB
Yep
blink
That seems counterintuitive to the project tho
How so
To me, price determines demand, not the other way around
Again -- that seems backwards. "Nobody is coming into our store, now we have to sell these sofas for a $1,000,000"
Thought the whole idea of rvn was asset creation
there are 2 aspects, cost of creation and value of RVN
But theres no maximim to sofas in the world you could always make more
both cause moves
Not the case with rvn
What do you all think about the 5-4-3-2-1 model?
If not many are being created, the cost of creation should be lower.
The value of RVN is closely tied to mining hash rate, but not correlated with number of asset names created.
you sell the for 1,000,000 but that is in Venezuelan bolívar
bad example
@boodog The purpose of RVN is assets. Not necessarily asset issuance.
As far as mempool blockage i envisioned something similar to mining difficulty calculation. Where it checks the previous assets created in comparison to the current one within a valid range
Tron_: thanks for clarification
I expect lots of assets to be created, but even better would be some really quality assets with real use cases and transactions on the nodes.
How many assets can the network currently handle?
More than the real world needs
More then 42million?
none compare to POM
As coded, 6000 per block for issuances.
But those issuances would squeeze out transactions.
Ok
@zabb that would mean that some transactions in the mempool would be valid and some wouldn't because they were created at different time.
42million is maximum not including sub assets or unqiue assets or reissuing
If we hit high loads, there are some scalability improvements we can make.
Ya that part of the idea isnt fully worked out but i dont know whats techicnally possible
True, as coded 42,000,000 root level assets is a max.
42MM is not accurate because as some point there is a breaking point where we price ourselves out of business
I meant if we had 42mil assets could the network support it
Lots more, sub-level assets. So a market could form under "COM" for example.
hi Skan
@twolips the question was how much can the network handle. not pricing
demand for the rare RVN will be expensive and competition will come in with a much better idea
Hi everybody
and 42MM was mention as max...not a true number
@Zaab It could issue them, but transaction volume has its limits at about 20x what Bitcoin does (sans Lightning).
Also again how did the number 500 come up? Did you do an econmic analysis or is it set based on max workload of the network
the breaking point is probably, at best, near half of that
if you haven't, you should all read zaab's proposal
options 5,4,3,2,1 can not be fairly comment ed on withot reading POM
Link please?
https://medium.com/@Zaab/ravencoin-proof-of-market-an-asset-issuance-cost-alternative-c5b6f9457acf
Medium
Ravencoin — Proof of Market: An Asset Issuance Cost Alternative
9/5/2018 — In response to “Ravencoin — Asset Issuance Cost” by Tron Black
Ty
Hitting the maximum number of asset is not nearly as worrisome nor pressing of an issue as the economic design , in my opinion
discord #burn-discussion as ongoing convo on this topic
Ive got to go, id like the 3 questions i posted earlier answered if possible. Ill be around if anyone has any questions.
POM would be more compelling if there was a (-) in there somewhere.
Depending on question 3 i will be willing to write 2 more papers
One attacking my own idea
When I foresee obstacles in the future for RVN having used the coin to it's maximum potential is very low on the list
One defending it
Bye!
Take care everyone! Thank you for all the hard work!
peace
Later Zaab
Thanks Zaab!
To hit maximum number of assets and not be able to issue anymore means that RVN worked to the highest extent
it's hard to model; it's hard to predict
but there will be no adoption if budgeting isn't easy for application developers
imo
eth gas is a nightmare
true
The NASDAQ has ~3,300 companies on it. For reference and understanding this means if the NASDAQ completely converts all its companies to RVN, the total RVN burned will be….. ~1,650,000 or roughly 22% of the total RVN mined daily (until halving). Therefore, the amount of RVN burned will unlikely have any effect on the value of RVN if the proposed system is allowed to pass.
not only market flux but the MATHS
We will never come anywhere near that if the economic design makes it unappealing to issue assets on RVN. A decay to the cost as a safeguard against having become too expensive against dollars or investment of resources to model is necessary. Making so we can issue more assets than our wildwst dreams is a much lower priority and doesn't even matter unless the rest is figured out
Resources to mine*
i stand by the halvening model with a minimum
simple and effective
what about all the other assets we want to be tokenized
The most attractive thing to big time players is security, which implies hashrate, which implies value, which implies adoption (buy pressure)..
vehicles, land deeds, gold bars....
I think halving should be a safeguard not a regular thing, so iirc the chain has ways of knowing how many assets are being issued. I say we only even trigger an upcoming happening if assets being issued grinds to a halt, indicating price issues
I'm on halvening too althought I like the 5-4-3-2-1 flavor
Otherwise whatever the burn fee is is working fine, no reason to just always half it without context
halving is a sharp cost adjustment...talk about bidgeting issues
DGW for asset? lol
POm smooths this out
@skan that would allow people to attack the network by now issuing assets. forcing a halving
no Skan it needs to be predictable to normals because planning/budgeting
not*
the worse thing we can do is design limitations into the project
As it stands it costs 18 cents to issue assets on ethereum. Say what you will about the quality or lack of features, it's still a factor that we are competing against. Obviously RVN is different because there are only so many unique asset names and it has more complex and easier to use features, so it should be more expensive. But we are already starting our nearly x100 before we even go live
twolips it's not an algorithm -- it needs to interact with buyers/users or it's worthless
Skan yeah and did you read that smart contract code?
You're getting into ???
we're UTXO
i know
i dont know algos, i know user
thats the perspective i come from
You don't have to, their browser automatically singles out the important variables for you to change
yeah user want's cheap/easy
and predictable
@Tron what is your preference?
Why is Roshii so quiet? ;)
I say we code in a burn fee halvening that only triggers itself if no assets or very few assets have been issued for an extended period of time
relaxing from a talking section
@skan again that allows the network to the attacked
In this order: 500 RVN -> 500 RVN with halvening and 125 floor -> 500 RVN with 20% drop from original price each halvening.
@skan That doesn't work
when does it half?
@Tron Thnx
skan; have you read POM, kinda does that
Every 2,100,000 blocks. Should be roughly 4 years.
I'm on (3) in tron's list but (1) is ok too
Interesting, how so?
you have to read it
POM is not that -- it would be that with a (-) somewhere..
@skan, user, or miners wouldn't accepts asset transaction into blocks. Which would trigger a halving.
What @CORbie means is that the economics of POM as written seem backwards.
@skan, I'm not saying that would happen. But it is an easy attack vector that we can avoid.
The best part about flat rate of 500 is that if it becomes an issues down the road when more variables are known, we can reevaluate changing to a cheaper model.
Why make asset name creation cheaper when lots of names are being created?
^^
i think we are redesigning an economic model, that is the beauty
sounds like a recipe for spamming the network
a spam recipe? sounds dubious.. :)
again there are 2 values; the cost of creation and the value of a RVN
Absolutely should get more expensive or stay flat with high demand, not cheaper.
the halvening model tron is talking about seems to be the simplest and most predictable
^^
There is an interesting case study with the fixed cost to create a proposal in Dash. It was 5 Dash. That was really cheap at the time (under $5). The same 5 Dash went to $8000.
yes Russ -- the thing the 5-4-3-2-1 adds is legibility/budgetability to app developers (I don't think that's a word)
They haven't changed it, but there were solutions that were built around it.
if a lot are being created, RVN is succeeding, demand increases, RVN cost per creation goes down as value increases...keeping it affordable for all that desire to tokenize assets
And, the value of a Dash proposal went way up when the masternodes were kicking out millions.
Halvening model is my preference
how are we going to vote this?
on discord?
halving on a time schedule will not give a true market value
RVN already has market value
@twolips, you are associating asset creation to rvn value increasing. It doesn't work that way. It is almost always difficulty -> value increasing
@russkidooski By writing and running code :)
frog; you seem to be speaking from a miners perspective
A vote would be interesting - not binding - but really interesting.
the devs have a preference and people will ultimately follow them
@twolips, i am speaking from the perspective that the only thing that holds value is being able to make sure that the value is secure.
the devs have a preference and people MAY follow them
the devs.. those guys..
Would be interesting but could cause community issues if not chosen by devs. I am for no voting. Write and run code.
it is a complex issue; votes should only occur after big discussion
BW agree
let's take an informal vote now
Votes are never needed.
here it is
i vote for pizza
type 1 for 500, 2 for half, 3 for 5-4-3-2-1, 4 for POM, 5 for other
go
3
which one is the 5-4-3-2-1?
i forgot
and this is why no cvote should occure
20% discount at each halving.
like half but -20% orig value
o yea i like that one
3
not famil with the plan
20% discount at each halving. 500->400->300->200->100
Unique asset issuance cost 5->4->3->2->1
russ, how well do you know POM?
Nice round numbers.
not crazy well
but enough
i need to read up on it more
POM seems backwards to me.
same
have you read the proposal?
@twolips Are you recommending POM with the economics as written, or the opposite economics?
this is all backwards
6 (-) POM
yes
well
i see 2 votes
no but it is a great starting point
you guys are so opinionated!
the variables need to be analysed
KISS 54321
ok! there's #3
any more informal non-binding votes?
Is 3 winning?
3 has 3
no other votes
the beauty is when the cost of creation goes down, say to .05 RVN, the value of RVN will be 1,000
VeronicaBOTLast Friday at 3:00 PM
exaggerated for demenstration
if cost goe to 1kRVN, the value willbe .05
^^
twolips. Are you saying that as more assets are created the price decreases?
brb
not the 'price', the cost of creation, yes
okay.
there needs to be a thorough analysis of POM
in the beginning of the #burn-discussion, there are some simple spread sheet examples
but with zaabs proposal it is backwards
how so
more assets being created > price for creation goes down
that is just asking the network to be spammed
So, that only works if the price of raven in the real world follows it. If not, the cost of creation will get lower, and people will start to be able to spam the network with assets.
^
This will make the nodes use more databasing and memory to run RVN.
This is bad ^^
and if a node isnt in sync you can get a lot of problems
this keeps the reation cost stable...great for customer acqusition
but it isnt technically feasable, we dont want the problems ethereum has
can that be cured with avging?
So because it is good for customer aqusition it is okay? Even if it is bad for the network?
daily, weekly,monthy? avgs to adjust cost of creation?
a opposed to what zaab said; each transaction, cost changes?
Lot's of talk but only 3 votes?
type 1 for 500, 2 for half, 3 for 5-4-3-2-1, 4 for POM, 5 for other
6 (-) POM
the POM seems to be a simple formula to be coded in (maybe naive)
i vote 3 if my vote counts, i feel like it has to be a set number, it would be easy to change if needed in future.
idk about network issues
@xiztak agreed
there's 4 for #3 with no other voes -- make it 5
X changing it in the future shows a centralized coin
how
who makes that decision
3 but I'm not for voting
community
and when
it's informal BW just taking temp
community is talkin about it now
and voting
for a set number
uninformed
outline for me vote 2?
haha
haha
2 is following the halvening of coinbase -- 500 250 125 to some floor
1 o 3
of course the 500 magic number is up for debate in 1,2,3..
I agree it would be good to know where 500 came from.
Meaning the thinking behind that exact number
i suggest nybody serious about the importance of this topic, to join the active convo
Maybe @Tron_ can tell a story but it's just (starting_block_reward/10) in my mind..
important to the success of all your hard work
twolips I don't know what that means -- you mean Discord or something?
as far as i know, that is the most active
or do you mean there are like 4 cats in here?
why people in Discord when we here? talk about shouting at clouds..
5000 per block so 500 per aseet creation so 10% of mined coins per block? maybe
^^
interesting
@twolips is there a floor that the cost of issuance would get to on POM?
if attacked it could be 0 or 1 then its game over
seems in the rough spreadsht examples
corbie; here once a week...startin 3 weeks ago
and it's been fun!
a lot more fun in discord
i'm hjere al week...tip ur waitresses
-_-
Is there anything more we are going to discuss?
maybe Xiz concept may fit into POM
need zaab to think about
Nothing on my agenda -- final informal vote seems to favor 5-4-3-2-1
no real support for POM (zorry zaab)
Thanks everyone!
wow, an uninformed vote...impressive
you vote?
what's your vote twolips I don't think I got it
this vote is informal, it means nothing really
^^
exactly
so you don't want to make an informal meaningless vote twolips?
i case u haven't noticed...team POM
ok!!
but (-) or no?
because as is it makes no sense as many of us have pointed out..
haha
many uninformed
..
4 cats i think u called them
I can read and do basic math..
that was just a reference to nobody being here..
write up a retort to zaabs propasal explainin (-); would love to seeit
I like the idea of using ratio of coinbase to burn to set market, just has it in wrong direction
And I'm a (3) guy so don't think we want market anyway..
POM is a self regulating federal reserve
revolutionary and RVN could intro it to the world
Thanks for the discussion everyone -- I'm signing off. Buy RVN!
hope you are all putting a lil more thought into this...could be make or break
@twolips. We are 100% putting lots of thought into this
@twolips This is something that is very important to RVN
i know...hence my passion
and I truely believe POM can be revolutionary
It could be, sure. There are lots of different good option though tbh.
bring thm up...lets out the community to work
a lot of eager minds
POM needs to be more thoroughly developed
we also need working prototypes
it started with fixed burn number and progressed
Can someone point me to a good readup on POM
bring in some thoughts
#burn-discussion on discord
i (vincent) invited you on rvntalk
We're done thank you
submitted by Chatturga to Ravencoin [link] [comments]

Block Collider: Fusing existing chains into a Multi-Chain, a dramatic evolution in Blockchain Interoperability

SOURCE: SPECULATIVE RATIONALITY
BLOCK COLLIDER WEBSITE: https://www.blockcollider.org
A New Approach to Blockchain Interoperability (True Decentralisation)
Recommended Reading to assist in better informing this post:
A close look at the Blockchain space reveals a series of blockchain projects that operate largely in distinct silos. The reality is that blockchain technology is yet to realise widespread real-world adoption, however as we accelerate towards maturity a key infrastructure level requirement will be the ability for information to be transmitted in real time from blockchain to blockchain and even off-blockchain to old world systems. Anecdotally we need to look only as far as the internet to conceive the value that interconnectivity can generate.
“Bridging chains with a multichain is like building roads between buildings. Hypothetically, one could build a building that has everything, but in practice some buildings are built to work in, some are built to live in — as long as citizens want to be in multiple buildings at different points in time, roads are valuable. The crypto community as it exists demonstrates a wide variety of features across blockchains — some chains have quick block times, some chains have expressive smart contracts, some are purely deflationary and an excellent store of value. As long as users need features from more than one blockchain, bridging those chains with a multichain is needed.” – Block Collider Whitepaper (Source)
There are some well known projects that are trying to tackle interconnectivity between disparate chains. Of those known projects, only a few are focused on Interoperability as their core focus – some examples are Polkadot, Cosmos and Ark. A new project which as yet has remained under the radar (by design) has come out with a radically different solution to the issue of interconnectivity between chains: Block Collider.
“A mineable multi-chain protocol for stable coins, decentralized exchanges, and meta contracts.” – Block Collider
Let’s take a quick look at a few of the key interoperability projects within the space:
Comparison Table
For more detailed Table of comparison click here
The Multi-Chain: The Advent of Multi-chain Distributed Applications and Meta Contracts
Block Collider is the first true “multi-chain”, which at genesis will connect 6 chains – Bitcoin, Ethereum, Neo, Waves, Lisk and another chain that is yet to be named. Block Collider’s core ledger is the aggregate of all blocks on all member chains, giving rise to the term “multi-chain”. Block Collider’s blockchain is built by “weaving” together disparate chains using PoD* (Proof of Distance – a modified version of Nakamoto consensus), consuming blocks from each chain into a Block Collider block, recording in effect the state of each member chain.
The multi-chain not only facilitates value transfer between chains but more importantly allows these previously “siloed” projects to know the “state” of each other’s chains. Why is knowing the state of other chains so important? True interoperability is much more than just value transfer, it is the ability for different blockchains to work in parallel. This innovation opens the gates to something truly remarkable – multi-chain distributed applications and meta contracts (multi-chain smart contracts).
Example Diagram
The above diagram illustrates a simple example of a distributed multi-chain DAPP handling trust funds. This kind of application only scratches the surface of the true potential Block Collider brings to the blockchain ecosystem. The multi-chain functionality is not merely transferring data but proving data relative to another chain.
“…distributed application developers can modularly combine exotic features from blockchains across the ecosystem …. distributed application developers can build in the capability to load-balance work between chains” – Block Collider Whitepaper (Source)
As an aside there is an additional security benefit that results from Block Collider being a multi-chain, an aggregate of member chains. A miner attempting to use bad blocks would not only have to reverse the entire chain on Block Collider but also break the hash power of difficulty of the member chain.
*PoD – Proof Of Distance consensus mechanism is beyond the scope of this article. Please refer to Block Collider Whitepaper – Section 3.2 The Edit Distance Computational Challenge (pp 13) or Building a Blockchain Singularity with Proof of Distance by Patrick McConlogue (Co-founder of Block Collider).
True Decentralisation
“The Block Collider multichain is collaboratively created exclusively by decentralized peer-to-peer miners — with no centralized points of failure, oracles, or validators.” – Block Collider Whitepaper (Source)
One of the core tenets of Block Collider is to provide a platform that is very much in line with Blockchain’s vision of true decentralisation. Block Collider prides itself on the absence of validators in its consensus mechanism and its resistance to centralising elements.
Validators vs no validators
What is a validator? A validator in a blockchain is a “human element” or third party to whom the network cedes some degree of trust. A validator is incentivised by a network to confirm that an event/transaction has occurred on the network. This approach has been/will be adopted by many chains including interoperability chains like Cosmos, Polkadot and Ark who utilise Delegated-Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) or similar consensus models, where there are a set number of validators.
Block Collider does not require validators, it builds it’s blockchain with a mining algorithm (PoD), requiring proof of work to validate events on the blockchain. It in effect removes the requirement to place trust in a fallible party.
Centralisation of Power
A concern in any decentralised network is that power may accrue to a few. We see some commentators point to this occurrence in the Bitcoin network, where there is a centralisation of power around a few mining pools. Power in this context is the governance of the chain and the rewards for block validation. In this situation existing economic power is entrenched and can conceivably lead to the ongoing centralisation of consensus, governance and wealth. However, it is also worth noting one of the advantages that the Bitcoin platform has in comparison to its counterparts who have pursued PoS or DPoS is that it does not require the network to cede any additional trust to validators.
PoS or DPoS and their varying iterations aim to solve for some of the bottlenecks in current blockchain technology, however, these consensus mechanisms still contain elements that can give rise to centralisation. PoS requires that a node stake a sufficiently high bond in order to achieve the status of “validator” and thus PoS is still heavily weighted to those with economic power. DPoS has the added functionality of “democracy” by allowing delegates to vote for a trusted “validator”. Ideally the scenario is one of a democratic approach, however such a system may still lend itself towards centralisation as voting is typically weighted by share of network. Without going into an exhaustive discussion about various consensus methodologies, their strengths and shortcomings, we can nevertheless see that the use of validators presents some departure from trustless consensus without necessarily resolving the centralising effects of economic power.
Block Collider is a mineable chain like bitcoin and faces the same issue of centralisation of power from mining pools but has implemented certain conditions to alleviate the pressure towards centralisation. These include:
1) Splitting the mining of blocks and transactions (Refer Whitepaper Section 3 – Mining on the collider for technical details)
“… by allowing for competition in two spaces, there is reduced risk of centralization, since an actor would have to win the centralization game at both levels.” – Block Collider Whitepaper – Section 3.4
Transaction mining is open to anyone and does not require ASIC hardware to mine. This allows anyone on the network to have an economic incentive to participate in the network whilst achieving greater throughput and greater load distribution, reducing the strain on the network.
2) Emblems – Block Size Bonus (Refer Whitepaper Section 3 – Mining on the collider for technical details)
BC has a unique proposition to implement dynamic block sizes through the use of Emblems. In effect miners can “stake” Emblems which will allow them to expand the size of the block, thereby fitting more transactions into a single block for greater rewards. How does this alleviate pressure towards centralisation? We look to the Co-Founder Patrick McConlogue for answers:
“Block Collider implements game theory to the benefits of mining incentives beyond block/fee rewards. The Emblem bonuses for mining is sublinear (that is, there are diminishing returns for emblem ownership) which balances the economic incentive against centralisation (as the marginal utility of Emblems will be highest for those with fewer emblems).” – Patrick McConlogue
As an example, noting that all metrics are hypothetical, Sue has 10 Emblems and Mike has 100 Emblems. If the optimal number of Emblems required to achieve a desired block size was around 20 Emblems, staking beyond the 20 emblems does not significantly increase the block size. In effect, any additionally staked emblems has a diminishing value in comparison to the optimally staked 20 Emblems. So, in this example Sue’s block size could be “Standard block size + 5” and the optimal block size is “Standard block size + 7”. As staking has a diminishing bonus, Mike staking 100 Emblems would result in “Standard block size + 8”. This is to say those without large economic power can still compete on a near equal footing. In this way Block Collider aims to mitigate the pull of economic power towards centralisation.
What if Mike splits his 100 Emblems to utilise the optimal number of emblems to stake, to run multiple mining rigs concurrently? In this case 20 Emblems to 5 mining operations.
“A miner could absolutely split the Emblem rewards among mining rigs but in order to maximize the rewards from this he/she would have to be connected to the least number of identical peers that the original rig is connected to. In this way they must expand to other regions. This leads to less centralization regionally and increases the overall efficiency + speed of the network.” – Patrick McConlogue
In addition, Mike replicating 4 more instances of the original mining operation would require significant resources.
Interoperability Technology
Member Chain Conditions
One of the greatest breakthroughs that Block Collider has achieved is that it has a very low threshold to incorporate foreign blockchains into its multi-chain. In laymans terms there is no need for modification of member chains to participate in the network.
This is a significant development in the blockchain ecosystem as current and planned future interoperability solutions require some form of compatibility or change to the participating chains. To achieve compatibility Cosmos and Polkadot primarily require chains to be built on top of their infrastructure. Ark on the other hand requires direct changes to existing chains in the form of embedded code.
However, it should be noted though that Cosmos Polkadot, and Ark have alternate solutions to compatibility for existing chains who choose not to be modified. This can be achieved through intermediate zones, peg-zones, bridgechains, smart bridges and encoded listeners. If we are to borrow from the Polkadot whitepaper certain chains (Ethereum) are clearly easier to adapt into intermediate zones but others not so much (Bitcoin):
1) Ethereum – “Due to Ethereum’s Turing completeness, we expect there is ample opportunity for Polkadot and Ethereum to be interoperable with each other, at least within some easily deducible security bounds.” – (Polkadot Whitepaper – Source)
2) Bitcoin –* “…. As such we believe it not unrealistic to place a reasonably secure Bitcoin interoperability “virtual parachain” between the two networks, though nonetheless a substantial effort with an uncertain timeline and quite possibly requiring the cooperation of the stakeholders within that network.”* – (Polkadot Whitepaper – Source)
The breakthrough by Block Collider should not be understated, the multi-chain by providing a low threshold for member chains to interoperate without the need for validators provides crucial infrastructure for a trustless internet of blockchains.
Scalability and Shared Security for Member Chains
Through comparison of Cosmos and Polkadot, the question may arise does Block Collider provide scalability and shared security for member chains? The simple answer is no.
Block Collider does not provide scalability and shared security primarily because of its conditionless participation for member chains. Block Collider follows the philosophy of Doug McIlroy, the inventor of Unix pipes, “Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together.” In this sense scaling solutions are the responsibility of protocol level chains, interoperability is the responsibility of Block Collider.
Cosmos and Polkadot provide these solutions for member chains that “join” their networks and is a unique and commendable value proposition provided by their platforms. Although it should be noted that for existing chains, using the intermediate zones referenced earlier, does not provide the same scalability and shared security benefits as those built natively on the platforms. This is because the existing chain does not function atop the platform, rather they are bridged to the platform with links (bridgechains or pegzones) built by Polkadot or Cosmos.
Scalability – Size and Transaction Speed
Block Collider as a multi-chain is the aggregate of blocks from its member chains. What does this mean for scalability in terms of size & transaction speed?
Size of the Chain
A valid concern would be that Block Collider which is an aggregate of all blocks on all member chains can be quite space consuming. To combat this Block Collider’s PoD consensus mechanism primarily uses header states and Merkle proofs of other chains to store the chain on the Block Collider network. The headers are less than 1% of the size of the original chains’ block. So, one could imagine without any modifications, Block Collider could merge 100 chains and still only be the size of one Ethereum sized chain.
As Block Collider evolves, we can envision a day when 1000 plus chains are interoperable with Block Collider. So, what then? Block Collider is designed to tackle this growth in two ways, compression as far as possible and then through reverse chain pruning.
“To handle the first part [compression], we start with header states. After which we switch to a signature only model like that proposed in Mimblewimble (once the Block Collider hash rate is strong enough). Finally the pruning which will be the process of creating a second blockchain which mines backwards. In the second blockchain, “the work” is transactions that should be trimmed from the block. In this way it works like defragmenting your hard drive.”* – Patrick McConlogue
*Mimblewimble – an experimental blockchain network
Transaction Speed
Block Collider as the aggregate of blocks from member chains will always be slightly faster than the fastest member chain. This is due to Block Collider having a high block issuance rate that is based on blocks issued on member chains.
Image Example of Block Issuance
In the above example from the whitepaper we see that Bitcoin issues 2 blocks in a set time frame “x”, Ethereum issues 6 blocks and Waves issues 3 Blocks. The first Block Collider block is formed when the 3 chains issue their first block. It should be noted that block times vary across chains and as such member chains will issue blocks at different intervals. At each issuance from a member chain Block Collider will issue its own block containing the new set of blocks from the member chains. In this example 9 Block Collider blocks are issued in the time frame “x”. So the block issuance rate (block velocity) will always be higher than the fastest member chain.
Higher block velocity of course brings up the issue of throughput – the number of transactions per second. Mining has been designed with throughput being the primary mandate. The satisfaction of this mandate was one of the primary motivations for Block Collider splitting block mining and transaction mining into separate processes.
“Unlike other cryptocurrencies, the transactions and the blocks of the Collider blockchain can be mined separately. Transactions being pre-mined makes it easier for a miner to add a transaction to a block it has discovered, which balances the power that miners have in current systems.” – Block Collider
TECH COMPARISON // Multi-chain Protocols (The Internet of Blockchains)
LINK
Conclusion
Block Collider has come to the space with a radical solution to the “Internet of Blockchains”, connecting disparate chains whilst maintaining blockchain technology’s vision of being truly decentralised. The mainnet launch will include interoperability between 6 chains, BTC, ETH, NEO, Waves, Lisk and a yet to be named chain.
submitted by Lifeandthecosmos to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

At what price will Bitcoin fail to function? My estimate: ~$100.

I'll begin with my conclusions:
If the Bitcoin network consisted solely of 'Titanium ASIC' miners, the most powerful and energy efficient mining machine I know of, then the price point at which electricity costs begins to exceed rewards is $71/BTC (based on yesterday's network figures; more on that later). More realistically though, most miners aren't running highly efficient Titanium ASICs, hence I estimate ~$100/BTC as the turning point.
I say 'fail to function' in my title, because who will continue to mine at a pure loss? It would be irrational - the rational action would be turn off the machine until the value of the rewards increases. Note: This is not the same as sunk costs in buying hardware - because in that case even if you never get back how much you paid, you're still making something.
Perhaps, you might counter, Bitcoin enthusiasts will continue to mine at a loss. Well consider this: To sustain just 1% of the current network hash rate, you would require 559 Titanium ASICs costing over one million dollars in yearly electricity cost (at $0.10/kWh) - and that's a best case scenario.
Let's assume that's the case - you have Bitcoin Enthusiasts contributing the equivalent of 559 Titanium ASICs hashing power for free out of their pocket. That's a 99% drop in hash rate. The time to a difficulty retarget is 2016 blocks, or at 10minutes/block that's 2 weeks. But if the hash rate were to drop by 99% within that two week period, then the block time would balloon out to 16.66 hours - making the block retarget ETA up to 3.8 years!
If transactions took 16.66 hours just to get a single confirmation (if they had first priority), then how would use of Bitcoin remain practically feasible? Would people still have confidence in the system and the developers for allowing this to happen? How difficult or costly would it be to launch a 51% attack?
Now, on to the calculations, and a few less optimistic alternate scenarios:
Network hash rate at time of calculation: 335,365,290.09 GH/s
335,365,290.09 GH/s / 6000GH/s = 55894.215 'Titanium ASIC' miners
55894.215 x $5.28 daily electricity cost (At $0.10/kWh) = $295121.4552/day in electricity costs
= $1776.87709485/block (avg. time of 8.67 minutes)
$1776.87709485 / 25BTC block reward = $71.04/BTC = break even point.
The above does not account for pool fees or transaction fee revenue or more importantly variance in kWh rates ($0.10/kWh is nonetheless pretty low worldwide), and hardware cost is irrelevant to this calculation.
Without doing all the math again, here's some other popular mining machines for comparison:
$113.07 (SP35 Yukon)
$193.84 (CoinTerra TerraMiner IV)
$385.89 (Antminer S1)
I've also just seen the 'Antminer S4' mentioned in /Bitcoin, so just for comparison a Titanium ASIC is almost twice as energy efficient as an Antiminer S4 (2200W vs. 4200W for 6TH/s) - it's less efficient than the SP35 Yukon.
If I've made any miscalculations here or have left anything important out, feel free to correct me.
submitted by Josh_Garza to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Some stats on BCC blocks thus far (why isn't anyone concerned?)

I posted a similar comment on a different submission here but would appreciate sincere feedback. I pasted the block data from blockchair into excel to compare BCC vs BTC post split: this is based on BCC blocks 478,560 to 478,790 (bitcoin 478,560 to 479,614), or Aug 1 16:30 to Aug 8 06:00 (6.58 days).
METRIC BCC BTC
Blocks 232 1,056
Blocks/day 35 160
Avg since last blk 41min 9min
transactions 103,000 1,484,000
tx/hr 653 9,400
fee/kb .00097729 .00082846
fee/tx .00077360 .00051500
BCC has had only 232 blocks with an average time between blocks of just over 41 minutes, and often several hours passes between blocks. Instead of about 144 blocks/day, BCC has averaged around 35. This has lead to the average BCC fee/kb to be about 20% larger than Bitcoin's btc fee/kb. (seriously and sincerely) can some people fill me in as to how this is not a problem? The argument against 1mb blocks has long been about not wanting btc to become a settlement network with long confs and high fees. Is everyone just being willfully blind or rationalizing this away or what? (not trying to be flippant or insincere) In the interest of disclosure: I have previously supported the push to 2mb blocks, but after it became clear that it wasn't going to happen and that segwit was the way things were going I moved on. I supported classic, did not support unlimited, or BCC but still try to treat each side with equal disdain and loathing. ;)
Ref: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/blocks

update

it seems the hashrate is a little more variable and, more importantly, the difficulty hasn't adjusted downward as much as I had thought. The hash rate the past few days has roughly ranged from 300 to 1,100 petahash with difficulty going from 225bln down to 144bln to 115bln. For comparison, when Bitcoin had similar hash rates they had difficulties ranging from 45 bln to 150bln (~500phash resulted in roughly 70bln difficulty). So it does seem like the diff is a bit high relative to the current hash rate; and the last adjustment seems to have helped alot. I also added a few more stats to the table for reference.
submitted by ohituna to btc [link] [comments]

Updated FAQs for newcomers

TL:DR: Don't bother mining if you want to get rich yo. You're way too late to the party.
Welcome to the exciting and often stressful world of bitcoin! You are wondering what looks like a once in a lifetime opportunity to get rich quick. Of course you guys probably heard about this "mining" process but what is this?
Simply put, a bitcoin mining machine that performs complicated calculations and when deemed correct by the network, receives a block which contains 25 bitcoins (XBT). This is how bitcoins are generated. So your brain instantly thinks, "Holy shit, how can I get on this gold rush?"
Before you proceed further, I would like to explain the concept of mining further. Bitcoin is limited 21m in circulation. It is coded to release a certain number of blocks at a certain time frame, ie: this year the network will release close to 500,000 bitcoins. What this means is that the more people (or specifically the amount of mining power) mine, the less each person gets. The network tries to keep to this time frame through the process of difficulty adjustments which makes the calculations harder and this happens every 2 weeks. So every 2 weeks, you get less bitcoins with the same hash rate (mining power) based on what the difficulty changes are. Recently, the changes have been pretty staggering, jumping 226% in 2 months. You can see the difficulty changes here.
Now, why are these changes so large?
A bit of a simple history. Bitcoin's algorithm runs on SHA-256. This algorithm can be solved using many hardware, from CPU to GPU and dedicated hardware (Application Specific Integrated Circuits). When bitcoin first started, mining on CPU was a trivial process, you can pretty much earn 50 XBT (the block size then) every few hours between Q1 and Q2 of 2010.
In late 2010, due to the difficulty increase that is reducing the effectiveness of CPU mining, people started to harness GPU mining. Only AMD GPU's architecture design are better optimized for bitcoin mining so this is what the community used. Immediate improvements of more than 10x was not uncommon.
In time of course, GPUs reached their limit and people started to build dedicated. In the same vein as the CPU to GPU transition, similar performance increase was common. These ASICs can only perform SHA-256 calculation so they can be highly optimized. Their performance mainly depends on the die size of the chips exactly like CPU chips.
In general, think of bitcoin mining's technological advancement no different to mining gold. Gold panning (CPUs) vs pickaxes (GPUs) vs machinery (ASICs) and we are still in the ASIC mining race.
ASIC mining started with ASICMiner and Avalon being first to the market, both producing 130nm and 110nm chips. The technology are antiquated in comparison to CPUs and GPUs which are now 22nm with 14nm slated for Q1 next year by Intel but they are cheap to manufacture and with performance gains similar to the CPU to GPU transition, they were highly successful and popular for early adopters. At that point in time since there were less competing manufacturers and the low batch runs of their products, miners became really rich due to the slow increase in difficulty.
The good days came to an end mid August with an unprecedented 35% increase in difficulty. This is due to existing manufacturers selling more hardware and many other players coming onto the market with better hardware (smaller die). Since die shrinking knowledge and manufacturing process are well known along with a large technological gap (110nm vs 22nm), you get an arms race. Current ASIC makers are closing in on our technological limit and until everyone catches up, the difficulty jumps will be high because it is just too easy to get a performance increase. Most newer products run at 28nm and most chips are not well optimized, so it will be around another 6 to 9 months before we see hit a hard plateau with 22nm or 14nm chips. The estimated time frame is because manufacturing chips at 22nm or 14nm is a more difficult and expensive task. In the meantime most manufacturers will probably settle at 28nm and we will reach a soft plateau in about 3 months.
Now, you might ask these questions and should have them answered and if you have not thought about them at all, then you probably should not touch bitcoin until you understand cause you are highly unprepared and probably lose lots of money.
No. If you have to ask, please do not touch bitcoin yet. You will spend more on electricity cost than mining any substantial bitcoin. Seriously. At all. A 7990 would produce a pitiful 0.02879 XBT (USD $14 @ $500/XBT exchange rate) for the next 30 days starting 23 Nov 2013 at 35% difficulty increase.
And if you think you can mine on your laptop either on a CPU or GPU, you are probably going to melt it before you even get 0.01 XBT.
Probably not because you probably forgot that GPUs and CPUs produce a ton of heat and noise. You can try but I see no point earning < $20 bucks per month.
No, because your machine will probably not mine as much as buying bitcoins. This situation is called the opportunity cost. While you can still make money if XBT rise in value, it is a fallacy.
IE: if you start mining on 1 Dec 2013, a KnC Jupiter running at 450Gh/sec (KnC lies as not all chips run at 550Gh/sec) will yield you a total revenue of 9.5189 XBT with a profit of 0.7859 XBT in profit by 30th Jan 2014 at a constant difficulty increase of 35%. The opportunity cost is: 8.5910 XBT @ USD $580/XBT with USD $5,000 which is the cost of a KnC Jupiter. This is the best you can earn and it's a bloody optimistic assumption because:
The only circumstances where you will earn money is when XBT exchange rates is so high that it makes the opportunity cost pales in comparison. Unfortunately this is not the case. If XBT stabilized at 900/XBT today (20 Nov 2013) then we might have a good case.
The risk is just generally not worth it. Unless you have at least a hundred thousand and can make a contract with a manufacturer for a lower cost, do not bother. Just wait until the arms race is over then you can start mining.
Okay, go buy an AsicMiner USB Block Erupter. They are cheap and pretty fun to have.
Sure, just read the answer below on who NOT to go for. You are doing bitcoin a service by securing the network and you have our (the users') gratitude.
You can check out the manufacturers and their products below along with a calculator here.
If you still insist on buying, do not to go for BFL. Their track record is horrid and borderline scammish. KnC fucked up a lot with defective boards and chips. Personally, I think CoinTerra is the best choice.
Alternatively, you can go on the secondary market to buy a delivered product. You can get a better deal there if you know how to do your "return on investment (ROI)" calculation. Personally, I will go for a 45%-50% difficulty increase for the next 3 months for my calculations and a 2% pool fee.
However, most products on ebay are sold at a cost much higher than it should. bitcointalk.org is a cheaper place because everyone knows what are the true value is so you will find less options. If you are unclear or need assistance, please post a question.
I actually do not use any of the pools recommended to the left because I think they lack features.
My favourite is Bitminter (Variable fees based on features used; max 2%). It has all advanced features for a pool, very responsive and helpful owner on IRC. Variable fees is good for those who do not need a large feature set, even with all features turned on, it is still cheap.
Eligius (0% fees) has high value for money but lacks features. It has anonymous mining which might be attractive to certain subset of people but not for others. Many other community member and I disagree highly with the opinions of the owner on the direction of bitcoin. I do use his pool for now but I do so only because I share my miners with a few partners and anonymous mining allows us to monitor the machines without using an account. Bitminter uses only OpenID which is problematic for me.
BTC Guild (3% fees) is another big pool and is fully featured and does charge a premium for their fees. That said, they are the most stable of the lot. I do use them but do so only because my hoster uses them for monitoring. I try not to use them because a pool with a very large hash rate (they are the largest) presents a large vulnerability to bitcoin's network if compromised.
All of them pay out transaction fees.
submitted by Coz131 to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

DASH mining in any capacity is officially dead thanks to greedy Masternodes

I have created an article on medium with mathematical models and indicators to show the competition SHA-256 mining brings to x11 mining, and how this will incredibly inhibit the possibility of DASH global infrastructure worldwide. Check it out:
https://medium.com/@aquilesgomez/highlighting-mining-difficulty-scalability-issues-with-x11-algorithm-on-the-dash-network-f48533a5e6fe
https://medium.com/@aquilesgomez/highlighting-mining-difficulty-scalability-issues-with-x11-algorithm-on-the-dash-network-f48533a5e6fe
https://medium.com/@aquilesgomez/highlighting-mining-difficulty-scalability-issues-with-x11-algorithm-on-the-dash-network-f48533a5e6fe
https://medium.com/@aquilesgomez/highlighting-mining-difficulty-scalability-issues-with-x11-algorithm-on-the-dash-network-f48533a5e6fe
EDIT 2: Anyone interested in buying one of these 8x Antminer D3's is more than welcome to buy one off of me LOL. Still in the box, PM me to set up an escrow.
Let's get this straight - I'm not here to complain about my shitty investment into the Antminer D3 which I've bought 10 of already, but I want to be frank about what the hell just happened - in ONE FOUL SWOOP, Bitmain managed to flood out one of bitcoin's main competition by showing just how weak their hashing algorithms were in terms of scalability for its mining community.
https://www.dash.org/forum/attachments/dash-profitability-jpg.5280/
We are officially in the negative when it comes to DASH profitability with a 1500 dollar Antminer D3 with an average cost per KW/h. Now that's not the part I want anyone to focus on - but look at that DASH mined per year - 2 DASH coins. Now let's look at the hashrate, which has only very recently in its lifetime reached above 1000TH/s https://www.dash.org/forum/attachments/dash-hashrate-jpg.5282/
In comparison, bitcoin is at a hashrate in the 5.3 MILLION TH/s range and its profitability stays stable: https://www.dash.org/forum/attachments/bitcoin-hashrate-jpg.5281/
Note that their S9 basic has a hash rate 100 times the size of the D3 hashrate, yet still gives us reasonable returns: https://www.dash.org/forum/attachments/bitcoin-profitability-jpg.5283/
From a mining investment point of view, it's obviously clear that bitcoin comes out superior in terms of profitability and sustainability as a business model. Most of the support and big push for bitcoin comes from its mining community - do you all honestly think your 5% governance structure is going to be enough to propel your DASH into mainstream limelight when the algorithm underlying it can't even support a few months supply of algorithm miners?
Part of the allure of bitcoin is that it created an industry under it - not just as a payment method, but also as a means of livelihood while supporting the underlying cryptocurrency structure and, in a way, propelling it into mainstream limelight due to its robust infrastructures around the world. What the hell did DASH miners get? A cryptocurrency whose profitability got flooded out by new technology WHILE using that same new technology? I'd like to remind everyone that we are only talking about 1500 TH/s. 1500... vs 5.3 million.. and its suddenly not viable to even mine it at all?
This is a serious issue in terms of scalability, and you're being delusional if you think no ones gonna take note off the lack of infrastructure DASH will be providing into the cryptocurrency sphere in comparison to bitcoin - we harp on bitcoin because of its shitty transaction speeds and high network fees, but we're literally killing DASH by not even accommodating to the mining community which supports its PoW infrastructure. In essence, DASH just hard-capped itself at the 1.5 PH/s line, while bitcoin will continue to improve itself around the world in terms of hashrate. You might have the software capable of bringing this to the masses, but without the hashrate and processing power to process those fancy 2MB/s blocks the devs have been promising, the DASH team just shot itself in the foot twice by introducing both cheaper network fees AND the promise that, somehow, 2MB/s blocks will be supported by its mining community. People are already dropping DASH mining like hotcakes everywhere - just look at ebay selling D3's for half of its price.
So, in conclusion, this is something that needs to be addressed immediately. The devs are just tip toeing around this issue by solving problems that don't even exist and building aritificial hype around the coin that shouldn't exist (why are 2MB/s blocks so important when you dont even have the tx volume or high tx fees to make it impactful?) meanwhile, their competition, bitcoin, is proving itself to be a competitor globally in terms of PoW infrastructure needed to support a global adoption to its base because, seriously, no amount of development work is going to transact thousands of trillions of dollars a day on a hash rate of 1.5 PH/s. Thanks for your time.
submitted by DASHBREAKER_ to DashUncensored [link] [comments]

A long term outlook at the Dogecoin economy and currency (intro & pt 1 - mining power and a 51% attack) [meta]

Dogecoin is awesome. Dogecoin is too the moon!
But like any moon mission, it's worth asking the question what can go wrong on the way there. What stakeholders exist in the Dogecoin economy, what outcomes are possible in Dogecoin's journey, and how those outcomes could affect the behavior of the stakeholders.
This post is designed to encourage you to ask questions about every aspect of how Dogecoin functions. I do not intend this as investment advice in any sense of the word and have worked hard to avoid any discussion about what will happen to the price of dogecoin in the future.
In this post I will outline the stakeholders, outline the factors that affect the currency, and address the question of how Hashrate is related to miners decisions, and how it protects Dogecoin from a 51% attack
A few of the key facts I'll discuss:
Disclosure: I own a small amount of Dogecoin and Bitcoin (less than $100 in total at current market value) It's purely for entertainment and research purposes.
At the moment, I see the following people in the Dogecoin community:
  1. Long term investors (individuals holding Dogecoin either as a store of value or an investment opportunity)
  2. Short term investors (individuals holding Dogecoin as an investment opportunity)
  3. Professional Dogecoin miners (individuals choosing to mine Dogecoin rather than other Scrypt based coins, motivated by income)
  4. Community Dogecoin miners (individuals choosing to mine Dogecoin because they like Dogecoin, not motivated by income)
  5. Dogecoin buyers and sellers (individuals using dogecoin as a short term medium of exchange)
  6. Dogecoin community members (individuals holding Dogecoin for fun and/or using it for non-monetary compensation {irrelevant of market value}
  7. Dogecoin developers (Individuals who will decide what changes are made to the Dogecoin protocol {some of which may affect market behavior})
It's important to note that individuals in the community can be in more than one category (someone who holds dogecoin for short term investment can also buy and sell dogecoin on the market)
Variables which can affect the above stakeholders:
A. The average (and future) mining reward from a block of Dogecoin per kilohash hour. (How much can I make mining Dogecoin, what will Dogecoin inflation look like)
B. The total mining power (in GH) focused on Dogecoin vs other Scrypt coins (the more distributed miners, the safer the blockchain)
C. The price of Dogecoin/Market Cap (to determine if Dogecoin is worth mining)
D. The market perception about the future price of Dogecoin (to determine if Dogecoin is worth holding/spending and worth mining) {this is harder to quantify}
E. The Transaction volume of Dogecoin (to determine the community interest in the currency)
F. The reliability of Fiat to Dogecoin exchanges and Crypto to Dogecoin Exchanges (to facilitate an efficient/accurate market price for Dogecoin)
G. The speed of Dogecoin conversion into fiat (for instant transactions by merchants)
H. The development pipeline for new Dogecoin compatible mining hardware (how far off are ASICs for Scrypt)
As I see it, there's one major outcome that affects the entire community equally.
A 51% attack on Dogecoin would be of massive adverse value to everyone (except the individuals perpetrating the attack). If Dogecoin's blockchain was corrupted, It would cease to function as a useful medium of exchange and as a store of value. Miners would leave because the value would plummet from it not being trusted. Short term investors would dump their holdings as they started to lose value. Long term investors would do the same.
The currency would die.
How does one prevent a 51% attack? Have a large total mining hashrate in the hands of a diverse number of miners. If the cost of running a 51% attack is so high it's not worth the money, it won't happen.
This leads to a fundamental question: what keeps people mining Dogecoin?
Dogecoin miners are separated into two groups (as mentioned above), Professional miners who will go where they can make the most money, and amateur miners who will mine Dogecoin because they like the currency.
From a community health perspective, the professional miners are the main concern (with a few caveats). If professional miners leave, that affects trust in Dogecoin.
So what keeps them mining for us? There are two major Scrypt based cryptos out right now, Litecoin and Dogecoin, and the community, as of this writing, is essentially split 50/50 is split 55/45 in favor of Dogecoin.
What this reflects is that miners expect to make more money mining Dogecoin than litecoin. Since an efficient market exists for trading Litecoin into Bitcoin and Dogecoin into Bitcoin, it seems to this author that value should be assessed in terms of current actual value (that miners choose what coin to mine based on how much they can sell it for today)
Since two large scale profitable currencies exist (LTE and DOGE) miners are going to choose the more profitable up until the point where the two converge. This depends on three variables:
Difficulty, total hash rate, and average reward.
As of Jan 23, DOGE is a little over twice as profitable as LTC.
This is what has prompted the major switch of the past few days.
I need help modeling is how much total value comes from LTC and how much from DOGE (essentially, if I owned the entire mining pool and split my work equally, how much could I make from each currency?)
At some point, enough miners will leave LTC that it's difficulty will drop. Assuming LTC retains its value (in fiat), falling difficulty will make it more profitable. Eventually, its profitability will once again match that of Dogecoin, and miners will stop leaving LTC for DOGE.
The problem is that as miners leave, it is possible that the currency value will drop as well.
On Jan 20, LTC had a 115GH rate, Doge had 57GH. Doge was trading at .00003 LTC. On Jan 23, Doge had 95, LTC had 75, and Doge more than doubled in price to .0000675. (Litecoin has also dropped about $1 (~5%) in value in USD over the same period.)
This is likely why even though Dogecoin has more miners than LTC, Litecoin is still less profitable for Miners (at this precise moment). Dogecoin has increased in currency value more than it has decreased in mining value.
Thus, the fundamental question is what kind of change is required in the price of DOGE/LTC and what hashing ratio will LTC and DOGE settle on based on their current price. It's important to remember that LTC has not dropped in value significantly, Doge has simply rose dramatically.
Fundamentally, as long as LTC has some value, it will have some percentage of Scrypt hashing power devoted to it. The same is true for Doge. So as long as people still want both currencies to some degree, mining power will be split. *Depending on that split, Dogecoin will be safe if it has enough mining power to prevent a malicious third party, and if that mining power remains in the hands of a diverse group of DOGE mining pools. *
My next post will address the different needs of the Long term investor, the short term investor, and the casual owner. (Some want a long term stable currency, some want a dramatic increase in price (even if it hurts the currency long term)
Please feel free to leave comments about anything you disagree with, any changes I should make, any thoughts about other factors that could affect the health of the currency, any other subjects you'd like to see explored. Thanks!
submitted by harddata to dogecoin [link] [comments]

A couple of questions...

I am looking to get into mining. Due to my research, it appears that I would need quite the rig to mine bitcoins. I have come to the conclusion that litecoins would be a good place to start. If you guys/gals don't mine, I would like to get some clarification on a few things.
1) I have a few older computers lying around, but they are not too good, and max at 4GB Ram and are running linux. Would it be worth it to connect decent GPUs and put them online to pool mine?
2) Is pool mining the best way to mine? It appears that I would need lots of startup money to mine solo.
3) Frys has MSI R9 270X cards on sale for Black Friday for $159. According to this, they have an approximate hash rate of 475 kH/s. If I were to put two in one computer, would that double the approximate hash? If so, would this be more effective than a single 7950, as that would be 950 kH/s vs the 7950s 650 kH/s?
4) If mining solo, you don't get a reward unless you solve a block, correct? At 950 kH/s at current difficulty, that approximately happen every 159 days.
5) So, if mining in a pool, anytime the pool solves a block, the reward is split, so I would gain litecoins faster that way, correct?
6) There seems to be multiple types of pools. Which would you suggest, and why?
I guess my main interest, is how many people are actually collecting coins off smaller rigs? Should I just wait until I have enough free money to invest into a great rig?
Thank you for your time in advance, and sorry if I asked too much. Just really interested in all aspects of this. I have been telling my wife for a while that we needed to get into this, but somehow now its my fault that we were not mining 9 months ago.
submitted by LegionOfBalloons to litecoin [link] [comments]

Musings on Bitcoins, and a comparison with gold (long)

Musings on Bitcoins, and a comparison with gold.

[[ Edit #1 - in the 2 days since I wrote this, BTC has gone up to $226 USD - abut 40% - I'm leaving the numbers as written, as I thinkt he point still holds ]]
Full disclosure: I recently bought $200 USD worth of bitcoins (April 7 2013), near the current price peak at about $159 USD / BTC. This is either the smartest or stupidest $200 I've spent, and only time will tell which. By my purchase, I guess that makes me "bullish" on the long term prospects of Bitcoin. I'll try to not let that color my analysis below.
This analysis is not intended to be extremely precise. I'm trying to ballpark numbers here for a sense of scale and future possibilities. Feel free to correct any errors you may find, but if they don't qualitatively change the sense of the results, I'm not really interested, given how rough some of my estimates are.

Assumptions:
1) Bitcoin will be around for the foreseeable future, and not succumb to any of the obvious existential threats it faces (e.g. Majority network control by an attacker, governments squash all legal interchange with fiat currencies, users and merchants become completely disinterested, etc...) If this assumption is false, the rest of the analysis doesn't matter. Bitcoins will effectively be worth zero. This is a distinct possibility, a total bust, which I choose to ignore here, as it is uninteresting.
2) While not a perfect fit, Bitcoin will (in the long run) behave much like gold does today, as both a commodity and a currency. Bitcoin shares a number of obvious qualities with gold. While gold has some intrinsic utility (value) which Bitcoins lack (in both decoration and electronics manufacture), Bitcoin has advantages as a currency and commodity in its ability to be transmitted electronically world-wide, and to be easily and arbitrarily subdivided. Ultimately, and historically, gold has had the majority of its value derived from the qualities it shares with Bitcoin (e.g. limited supply, difficulty to counterfeit, resistance to government manipulation, etc...) As such, it seems like a good proxy to gain some insight into the possible future of Bitcoin.
3) We may be able to predict some sort of future bitcoin value ranges based on what we know of gold, and how it has been priced vs fiat currencies, currently and historically. I'll focus specifically on the stability of gold's price when US dollars were exchangeable for gold, vs the rise when dollars were no longer redeemable for gold (1971).
4) Just as gold didn't stop the rise of fiat currencies, but rather continues to exist alongside them as an alternate store of value, so to will Bitcoin. Fiat currencies are very useful for (as well as abusable by) modern governments, and as such will continue. Gold hasn't destroyed fiat currencies in day-to-day business, and I seriously doubt Bitcoin will either. Most folks don't transact business in gold any more. I expect the same to be true of Bitcoins. Bitcoin's existential threat to the government's ability to manipulate macro-economic monetary policy has been wildly exaggerated.
5) The current explosion of BTC prices is most likely a speculative bubble, but may be the start of a recognition of Bitcoin's potential to be a gold-like store of value. If so, BTC should eventually reach parity with gold, proportionally scaled to the amount of each available,

with each occupying a similar place in the global economy.

Raw numbers to play with:
5.5 billion troy ounces (171,300 tonnes) of gold mined in all of human history as of 2011
2,700 tonnes world production in 2011 (approx 1.5% increase in world supply / year)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold
$1600 / oz - approximate price of gold April 2013 $160 / BTC - approximate price of BTC April 7 2013
$20-$40 / oz - historic gold cost while USD exchangeable for gold (until 1971)
Source: http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf
11 million bitcoins mined as of April 2013 21 million bitcoins max - estimated mined out by 2140
$16 trillion - US Gross domestic Product

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

Discussion:
From the number section above, as of April 2013... $8.8 trillion USD for all the gold in the world $1.76 billion USD for all the bitcoins in the world 500 ounces of gold in the world per bitcoin
If the BTC economy were equivalent to the gold economy today, the nominal BTC price would go up by a factor of 5,000 (500x as many ounces as bitcoins, at 10x the price each). That would yield a price of $800,000 / BTC. That's quite a potential upside, but assumes the total quantity of bitcoins today were as valuable as the total quantity of gold. A dubious proposition at best. Let's call this a hypothetical upper bound on BTC future value in today's money, as I really doubt bitcoins will ever replace gold.
Given that US GDP is only about twice the value of the current world gold supply, you could double the number above ($1.6 million / BTC) if you wanted all the bitcoins to stand in for all the economic activity of the US in one year. If you did that, one "satoshi" (10-8 BTC - the smallest subdivision) would be about one US penny.
Let's make a bunch more unfounded assumptions, and see what else happens. ;-) Let's assume gold is continually mined and the supply increases 1.5% / year (at the 2011 rate) for the next 127 years until 2140.
That would give us 36.44 billion ounces of gold (about a 6x increase) if compounded annually, or 16.5 billion ounces (3x, if not compounded and we just keep pulling the same amount out).
In that same time, we will have 21 million total bitcoins (2x increase) as we mine out the last one.
From this we can see that, if the value of bitcoins and gold derived solely from their scarcity, the intentionally deflationary nature of bitcoins would outpace gold in relative value over the next century. So, how fast has gold been appreciating historically vs Bitcoins?
Let's look at some history.
The bitcoin price graph is noisy, and there isn't much history (relatively speaking) so these numbers are all pretty rough.

Notable dates:

January 3, 2009 - Genesis block established July 12, 2010 - BTC crosses the $0.01 (one cent) USD mark. Feb 9, 2011 - BTC reaches the $1 USD mark. Jun 2, 2011 - BTC reaches $10 Source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/History
From the one cent point to $160 / BTC today (April 7 2013) is about 14 doublings (214= 16384 cents, or about $160) of value in 33 months. That's an insane 32x growth year over year. Going from the $1 mark to today would be about 7.5 doublings in 26 months. That's still a 12x growth year over year. From the $10 mark, that's 4 doublings to $160 in 22 months.
From $0.01 - to $160 - 2.35 months doubling period From $1.00 - to $160 - 3.46 months doubling period From $10.0 - to $160 - 5.5 months doubling period From $0.01 - to $10 - 1.1 months doubling period
The first three sets of numbers, of course, include the current spike/bubble from the beginning of 2013. But even the range from $0.01 to $10.00 (ten doublings, factor of 1024 growth) took only 11 months. The current 2013 spike went from approximately $20 at the beginning of January 2013 to $160 at the beginning of April. That's been three doublings in 3 months. Clearly, the current rate is unsustainable. If it were sustained, however, the BTC economy would reach the earlier mentioned level of the gold economy in roughly a bit over 3 years, giving us an $800,000 bitcoin. Let's call that the "ridiculously bullish upper bound scenario."
Let's look at gold's rise, after it was uncoupled from the dollar in 1971 (e.g. the "Nixon Shock")
We went from $40 for an ounce of gold (a relatively steady value for over 100 years) to $1600 in 42 years. That's 8.5 doublings in 42 years, or a doubling period of 5 years, or 60 months. An online inflation calculator says that only 2.5 of those doublings should be accounted for by inflation ($40 in 1970 buying the same bag of goods as $235 in 2012), so let's call the "I want gold for it's own sake" rate to be closer to 6 doublings in that time, or a doubling period of 7 years, which is 84 months. Even after we account for inflation, that is still about a 10% year over year appreciation. That may be close to the bitcoin steady-state rate, after all the hype has passed.
Over its short 4+ year history, Bitcoin's doubling period is 10x - 60x faster than gold's over the past 42 years. If I'm correct and Bitcoin will, in its maturity, resemble gold for its financial characteristics. 10% appreciation per year will be closer to the norm than the current, insane, 200% - 1000+% we are currently seeing.
So where does this leave us? Gold, while widely accepted, makes a lousy currency in practice. You can't effectively buy things online, or at the corner market for gold. In most cases, you have to trade it in for fiat currency to actually buy things. As a commodity, it does a much better job. Because of it's commodity qualities, it works well as a store of wealth, and is relatively easily convertible into various fiat currencies. Bitcoin would seem to share all of those qualities with gold, and in addition, is accepted by at least some merchants directly online for goods and services already, and that number is growing.
Ultimately, that, I think, will be the key. If merchants widely accept bitcoin directly, and/or it is at least as easy for consumers to convert bitcoins to fiat money as it is to convert gold, bitcoin should have a gold-like future.
I don't believe bitcoin will become the currency of the global masses. Gold certainly hasn't, and it has had a much longer time to try and claim that place. Fiat currency is too useful a tool to give up, and most of humanity doesn't own gold, and if they do, they don't buy things with it directly. Bitcoin will be no different. Further, one needs computer access to transact in bitcoins. While more and more of the world becomes connected every day, there are still vast numbers of people with no computer access (or water or shelter or bank accounts or...). Again, parallels to gold.
If we use a population figure of 7 billion for the world, and were to split the gold and the bitcoins up evenly, that would be a bit less than one ounce of gold per person, and a bit more than 1.5 thousandths of a bitcoin each. So if you have more than that already, you are ahead of the game, globally speaking. However, these numbers argue against either bitcoin or gold ever becoming a true "global currency."
The Global Wealth Report (http://www.cnbc.com/id/44956585) cites $231 trillion US dollars as a figure for total global wealth. That's $33,000 per person. From the numbers earlier, that means gold makes up only about 4% of that global wealth number, and recall that the collected value of all the worldwide bitcoins is less than a tenth of one percent of the gold wealth.
This 20 year old Straight Dope article is still relevant. It essentially says that "cash" in all it's forms is really small change in the global economy. Even upping Cecil's numbers a bit for 20 years, I think his premise still holds true.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/719/how-much-money-is-there

Conclusions

Bitcoin will either be yet an other failed crypto-cash experiment, or it will become the de-facto standard Sci-Fi "credits" of the future. History suggests failure is the more likely outcome, but only time will tell for sure. Bitcoin has managed to anticipate and avoid many of the problems with previous systems.
Given it's deflationary nature, gold-like properties, and requirement for computer access to use, I do not believe it will ever become wide-spread in a world-wide population sense, but it may succeed in augmenting credit-card transactions for online "cash" purchases of goods and services. If it is wildly successful and widely adopted, it may reach a place of financial significance on par with gold at some point. Even then, this will still be a relatively small part of the global economy.
Given that half the bitcoins ever to be produced are extant right now, the total world supply will, at most, double. That's it. So, barring various fiat economic collapses in the future, whatever price we eventually settle on for a bitcoin's utility as a store of value in the near future (next few years? a decade?) should remain pretty constant (within a factor of 2). Markets and currency speculators will still cause wild price swings, but once it establishes a consensus "worth," that value shouldn't change much more based on supply, just on demand. Supply will be essentially fixed, but demand will be driven by utility (where can I spend it) and speculators.
We are currently (April 2013) in a massive speculative bubble, as "the market" tries to decide how much bunches of ever-harder-to-find hashes are really "worth," as a medium of exchange for goods and services. The success or failure of Bitcoin will be directly related to the network effect "lock in" as more merchants and users use it. If it catches on, its success will snowball. If not, it will tank.
submitted by Thespoian to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Eobot.com FAQ

FAQ https://www.eobot.com/new.aspx?referid=94984
General Questions What is a Bitcoin? Good question; see www.bitcoin.org for more information.
What are your options to withdraw? We currently only allow withdrawals in BTC/LTC/BC/NMC/DOGE/XRP/DRK/RDD/BTS/CURE/PPC/NXT/SYS.
Why can't I deposit or withdraw "real currency", aka fiat (USD/EUJPY/GBP/CNY/RUB/etc.)? Due to international law, we do not allow you to deposit or withdraw fiat currencies. In the USA, there are MSB and FinCen regulations; in Europe, certain countries have banned cryptocurrencies, and in China, the banks aren't allowed to transfer cryptocurrencies. The laws may change in the future.
Why does my "Total Cryptocurrency Value" go down? This is because that display is tied to the exchange rates on other websites. Also see this user generated YouTube video for more information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GucqlMuIXMg
Are their any fees to join or monthly fees? No fees.
Do you speak Spanish/Russian/Chinese? No, only English, but Google Translator works well.
What are the maximums/minimums for withdrawing? There are no maximums. The minimums are small, see the withdraw page for details.
Where can I see the terms and conditions? Please click here for terms and conditions.
Where can I see the privacy policy? Please click here for privacy policy.
Are you hiring? We are always looking for quality talent. If you would like to contribute, then please send your cover letter and resume to [email protected].
Do you have a bug bounty program? Yes, we pay for bugs, so contact us for details or visit us at CrowdCurity.com and submit bugs there!
Do you perform off-chain transactions? No we do not. All cryptocurrencies are sent, usually including miner fees, and can be seen on the blockchain for that respective cryptocurrency. This helps secure the network, makes our transactions transparent, provides an easier way to debug and track down coins, and reduces the chance for fraud. An off-chain transaction would be like what Coinbase could do if both users are Coinbase users and they change coins from one email to another, mark it in the database, and Bitcoin is never actually sent from one wallet to another.
Why does my balance reset after refreshing the page or changing cryptocurrencies? The server updates every 60 seconds and the balances you see updating in real-time are performed with Javascript. If you change pages quickly, or choose a new cryptocurrency, then it will look like it is resetting. However nothign is lost, as whatever cryptocurrency it is set at when the server updates will get the past 60 seconds of mining results.
Help! My account was hacked and withdraws are being made? Eobot is a secure site and has never been compromised. If your account was hacked, then you should change your password, turn on 2FA, and turn on email notifications. There are many unscrupulous Bitcoin sites, and most likely, you used the same password on another site. Never re-use passwords!
Do you have any wallpapers? Yes, you can download wallpaper1 or wallpaper2. Feel free to send us your own creations.
What does Eobot stand for? We have heard everything, let us know your favorite, including: Earn Online Bot, Earn Online Bitcoins Online Tool, Earn Online By Our Tech.
Is this legal? We cannot provide legal advice; make sure cryptocurrencies are legal in your jurisdiction before continuing to use Eobot.
Cloud Mining Questions What are the Cloud Mining fees? For electricity and maintenance, we currently charge a fee of 65% for SHA-256 and 65% for Scrypt. These values will change as difficulty increases, exchange rates change, and newer ASICs come online. These fees are better than our competitors, for instance CEX.IO charges $0.105 per GHS, which is a 81% fee! While GAW charges a 96% fee at current prices!
How long are the Cloud Mining rentals and contracts? Prior to October 11 2014, GHS/KHS contracts had no expiration. Old contracts are not affected. New contracts and rentals, mined or purchased after October 11 2014, are now limited in term for 5 years going forward. See your History tab for expiration dates.
Can I sell my Cloud Mining? No, you cannot sell the cloud shares at this time. This is because we own the hardware and do not want to be stuck if everyone decides to sell at once.
Can I buy Cloud Mining with credit card/USD? Yes, but please keep in mind you cannot sell or convert the Cloud Mining.
Can I buy Cloud Mining with cryptocurrency? Yes, deposit the cryptocurrency and then convert it to your choice of Cloud Mining.
What are the maximums/minimums when making a credit card purchase to buy Cloud Mining? The minimum is 1.0 GHS and 10.0 KHS and there is no maximum at this time.
Can I buy a Cloud Mining that mines in Scrypt? You can use the Cloud Mining SHA-256 hashing power to mine other currencies by automatically converting them as you mine, but the earnings will still be tied to SHA-256/Bitcoin difficulty, not Scrypt/Litecoin difficulty.
What is the difference between Cloud Mining SHA-256 and Cloud Mining Scrypt? One is tied to the difficulty in mining SHA-256 cryptocurrency (Bitcoin) and the other is tied to the difficulty in mining Scrypt cryptocurrency (Litecoin). This means that if history is any indication of the future, then the Cloud Mining Scrypt won't decrease as fast as the Cloud Mining SHA-256.
What does 1 instance of Cloud Mining SHA-256 and Cloud Mining Scrypt equal? 1 of Cloud SHA-256 equates to 1.0 GHS of SHA-256 mining power, while 1 of Cloud Scrypt equates to 1 KHS of Scrypt mining power.
Can I change the pool that my Cloud mines on? No, you cannot; this may change in the future.
What hardware is behind the Cloud Mining? The hardware varies from custom ASICs to GPUs. The ASICs are behind the SHA-256 and the GPUs are behind the Scrypt.
Can I RDP (remote desktop) into my Cloud Mining? No, you cannot at this time; we will run the servers for you.
What is the Cloud Mining Pre-Order? These are the same as the other Cloud Mining, but they will start mining on a later date. For instance, a Cloud Mining Pre-Order October 2014 will start mining on October 1, 2014.
Software/Miner Questions Why is it stuck on "initializing...please wait 5 minutes"? We recently changed our Scrypt pool, so this messge will show and the stats and speed won't show under your account. See pool info page for more info.
Why does it show as a trojan/virus? This is a false-positive that many of the popular antivirus programs report. For now you can ignore it, or try another free antivirus, like Microsoft Security Essentials. Hackers use something similar programs to make money off of people's computers, so that is why it shows up as a virus.
Why does Chrome block the download as malicious? This is another false-positive. Simply, go to your Chrome settings, scroll to the bottom and click on "Show Advanced Settings". Go to the Privacy section and uncheck "Enable phishing and malware protection". You will only do this temporarily. Then proceed to download our software. Then return to your privacy settings and recheck Enable Phishing to further protect you.
Do you have a Mac or Linux version? Yes, see the Pool Info under the Account page.
How do I use cgminer? See this English PDF tutorial for cgminer, or Spanish version, created by one of our members, for a simple walk-through.
How can I increase the speed? Important to increase speed: The default cgminer settings do not include hardware specific flags, which you may find here in the Litecoin Mining Hardware Comparison. Failing to use the proper flags can result in performance decreases in excess of 50%.
What do the intensity settings relate to? This is the same as cgminer flag --intensity. Low is 11, normal is none, high is 15, very high is 17, extreme is 19.
Can I use one account for multiple computers on same IP address? Yes, it will add your speed/rates together, you can use as many computers as you want.
Can I connect to the pool manually, through cgminer or bfgminer? Yes, see the Pool Info under the Account page.
Do you use Bitcoin and Litecoin? Yes, we are the easiest miner to use with BTC and LTC and convert on the backend automatically.
What do you use on the backend? We use cgminer, bfgminer, pooler's CPU miner, and a variety of pools.
Can I mine any cryptocurrency? Yes, regardless if you use SHA-256 or Scrypt (BTC vs LTC mode), you can earn and mine any cryptocurrency.
Can I use an ASIC? Yes, simply choose the option and run as GPU mode. Devices that work with bfgminer will work, for instance USB Block Eruptors or Butterfly Labs ASICs. You can also contact us for pool information for other ASICs.
What is the best graphics card/computer to buy? Either use a high end ATI Radeon card, or buy one of the USB Block Eruptor devices on Ebay/Amazon or a similar online store.
What drivers do I need for USB mode? http://www.silabs.com/products/mcu/Pages/USBtoUARTBridgeVCPDrivers.aspx
Why doesn't GPU mode work? You may need to download the OpenCL drivers; get them from here: http://developer.nvidia.com/opencl
Where can I get the .NET framework? Try Windows Update, or use Microsoft Web Platform Installer.
Can I use a proxy server? Yes, edit intensity.txt and put the details in there, for example, add "--proxy=http://mycompany-http-proxy:8080"
Where can I download the software? Download from link here
Can I use custom flags/change intensity? Yes, you can put in whatever custom flags/parameters/arguments you want. Edit the "resources/intensity.txt" file. Put in whatever you want, like for GPU mode: "--intensity 12 --shaders 1024" or for CPU mode (number of threads): "-t 32"
submitted by KryptosBit to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Does bitcoin hash rate Matter? Crypto Marketer Answers How to Calculate Bitcoin Difficulty ⛏️GTX 1080,GTX 1080TI,RTX 2080 MINING COMPARISON IN 2018⛏️ What Does Hashrate Mean?  Hashrate Mining Explained Why does it matter if the hashrate goes down?

Top 10 Cryptocurrency Hashrate Charts for 2020. (BEAM) Beam Hashrate Chart Bitcoin Cash Difficulty historical chart Average mining difficulty per day 385.174 G. Share: btc eth ltc bch bsv xmr xrp etc zec dash doge btg vtc rdd blk ftc nmc nvc. Scale: linear log. Latest Prices: BCH/USD: 268.141 (hitbtc) BCHABC/BTC: 0.02071845 (yobit) BCH/BTC: 0.020614 (binance) BCH/BTC: 0.020616 (rightbtc) Zoom: 3 months 6 months 1 year 2 years all time. Transactions Block Size ... This difficulty could change. It depends on the hashrate of the network (the number of miners who mine off this coin). If there are not many miners, difficulty falls, if there are a lot of miners, the difficulty starts growing, and it becomes harder for a particular miner to find this block. Miners mine for coins. All of them would like to buy ... Bitcoin SV Average hashrate (hash/s) per day Chart. Transactions Block Size Sent from addresses Difficulty Hashrate Price in USD Mining Profitability Sent in USD Avg. Transaction Fee Median Transaction Fee Block Time Market Capitalization Avg. Transaction Value Median Transaction Value Tweets Active Addresses Top100ToTotal Fee in Reward Bitcoin Cash Average hashrate (hash/s) per day Chart. en. en; ru; pl; de; zh; BitInfoCharts ... Transactions Block Size Sent from addresses Difficulty Hashrate Price in USD Mining Profitability Sent in USD Avg. Transaction Fee Median Transaction Fee Block Time Market Capitalization Avg. Transaction Value Median Transaction Value Tweets Active Addresses Top100ToTotal Fee in Reward. Transactions ...

[index] [38075] [3272] [5866] [2416] [13922] [8152] [9762] [17346] [32561] [17714]

Does bitcoin hash rate Matter? Crypto Marketer Answers

Does Bitcoin's hashrate matter to the network's level of security and its price action on the market? Veteran crypto pro Yasha Harari answers the question. Question's source: Krown's Crypto Cave ... This usually relates to the difficulty of generating a new hash address, also known as mining. This is a variable that the Bitcoin system is using to keep the growth of new Bitcoins on a ... For context, that’s double what the hash rate was at one year ago and 1,000% higher than the hash rate at Bitcoin’s $20,000 high. Bitcoin’s network difficulty, which regulates how fast ... What is Bitcoin's "hashrate", and just what does it actually mean? Is there a reason that a greater hashrate is more desirable and what happens when the rate goes down? In this video, shot in ... Bitcoin Mining Difficulty: An Overview - Duration: 4:37. AMBCrypto Recommended for you. 4:37. Why there will never be more than 21 million bitcoin. - Duration: 8:18. Keifer Kif 751 views. 8:18 ...

#