PotCoin, designed to empower, secure and facilitate our community's daily transactions. The budding / legalized Marijuana industry is literally calling out for its own distinct crypto-currency - PotCoin effectively forms a global community with each participant undoubtedly anchored in this new economy. On every level of the industry, aficionados can count on PotCoin to stand for truth and the exponential power of very large numbers.
Hey shibes, I see a lot of posts about mining lately and questions about the core wallet and how to mine with it, so here are some facts! Feel free to add information to that thread or correct me if I did any mistake.
You downloaded the core wallet
Great! After a decade it probably synced and now you are wondering how to get coins? Bad news: You don't get coins by running your wallet, even running it as a full node. Check what a full node is here. Maybe you thought so, because you saw a very old screenshot of a wallet, like this (Version 1.2). This version had a "Dig" tab where you can enter your mining configuration. The current version doesn't have this anymore, probably because it doesn't make sense anymore.
You downloaded a GPU/CPU miner
Nice! You did it, even your antivirus system probably went postal and you started covering all your webcams... But here is the bad news again: Since people are using ASIC miners, you just can't compete with your CPU hardware anymore. Even with your more advanced GPU you will have a hard time. The hashrate is too high for a desktop PC to compete with them. The blocks should be mined every 1 minute (or so) and that's causing the difficulty to go up - and we are out... So definitly check what is your hashrate while you are mining, you would need about 1.5 MH/s to make 1 Doge in 24 hours!
Let us start with a quote:
"Dogecoin Core 1.8 introduces AuxPoW from block 371,337. AuxPoW is a technology which enables miners to submit work done while mining other coins, as work on the Dogecoin block chain." - langerhans
What does this mean? You could waste your hashrate only on the Dogecoin chain, probably find never a block, but when, you only receive about 10.000 Dogecoins, currently worth about $25. Or you could apply your hashrate to LTC and Doge (and probably even more) at the same time. Your change of solving the block (finding the nonce) is your hashrate divided by the hashrat in sum - and this is about the same for Doge and LTC. This means you will always want to submit your work to all chains available!
Mining solo versus pool
So let's face it - mining solo won't get you anywhere, so let's mine on a pool! If you have a really bad Hashrate, please consider that: Often you need about $1 or $2 worth of crypto to receive a payout (without fees). This means, you have to get there. With 100 MH/s on prohashing, it takes about 6 days, running 24/7 to get to that threshold. Now you can do the math... 1 MH/s = 1000 KH/s, if you are below 1 MH/s, you probably won't have fun.
Buying an ASIC
You found an old BTC USB-miner with 24 GH/s (1 GH/s = 1000 MH/s) for $80 bucks - next stop lambo!? Sorry, bad news again, this hashrate is for SHA-256! If you want to mine LTC/Doge you will need a miner using scrypt with quite lower numbers on the hashrate per second, so don't fall for that. Often when you have a big miner (= also loud), you get more Hashrate per $ spent on the miner, but most will still run on a operational loss, because the electricity is too expensive and the miners will be outdated soon again. Leading me to my next point...
You won't make money running your miner. Just do the math: What if you would have bougth a miner 1 year ago? Substract costs for electricity and then compare to: What if you just have bought coins. In most cases you would have a greater profit by just buying coins, maybe even with a "stable" coin like Doges.
Okay, this was a lot of text and you are still on the hook? Maybe you are desperated enough to invest in some cloud mining contract... But this isn't a good idea either, because most of such contracts are scams based on a ponzi scheme. You often can spot them easy, because they guarantee way to high profits, or they fake payouts that never happened, etc. Just a thought: If someone in a subway says to you: Give me $1 and lets meet in one year, right here and I give you $54,211,841, you wouldn't trust him and if some mining contract says they will give you 5% a day it is basically the same. Also rember the merged mining part. Nobody would offer you to mine Doges, they would offer you to buy a hashrate for scrypt that will apply on multiple chains.
Maybe try to mine a coin where you don't have ASICs yet, like Monero and exchange them to Doge. If somebody already tried this - feel free to add your thoughts!
Folding at Home (Doge)
Some people say folding at home (FAH - https://www.dogecoinfah.com/) still the best. I just installed the tool and it says I would make 69.852 points a day, running on medium power what equates to 8 Doges. It is easy, it was fun, but it isn't much. Thanks for reading _nformant
Hey everyone! Welcome to the ABCmint (Or ABC, or Abcardo) subreddit! Please feel free to introduce yourselves below. I wrote a few questions to get the creative juices flowing.
What's your cryptocurrency journey? How does ABC compare to other crypto projects you've invested/participated in?
Are you currently mining? If you do mine, have you been able to draw meaningful analytics from your mining activity? (Reason I say this: "gethashespersec" is typically the golden standard when it comes to benchmarking your mining speed. With ABC, we aren't solving hashes).
What features and applications would you like to see in the ABC ecosystem?
Have been involved with Crypto since roughly 2011, in the early Bitcoin days. I didn't strike it rich off the early bull runs, but to be fair, I was just a 13-year-old.
I mine on and off, main reason being my rig will keep me up at night if it's running.
I haven't been able to meaningfully conclude what the ideal mining hardware is for this coin, because there is no statistic for the amount of work I'm performing. "polyspersec" (polynomials factored per second) needs to be implemented; not only would that provide insight and less waste for current miners, but it would also allow mining pools to form.
It's not a necessity yet, as solo mining still yields payouts. As I mentioned above, there are blockers to creating a mining pool in the project's current state. But I firmly believe that a pool is a pretty important item on ABC's roadmap, and I would love to work with someone on that.
Plans for the future: I'll start scouring the web for ABC related news that pops up, and share them on this subreddit. Additionally, I'd like to add some good PQC readings. If you have articles or books, please share them in a comment!
Weekly Update: Jason starts #discussionThursday, $COTI on Binance, WibsonTree, Harmony + IBC Media... – 21 Feb - 27 Feb'20
Hiya folks! With this update we will finally be 100% caught up with the latest. Let’s go! Here’s your week at Parachute + partners (21 Feb - 27 Feb'20): As mentioned 2 weeks back, Alexis announced the start of a new style of raffle from this week. 300k $PAR in the pot to be won! Bose hosted a Friday Quiz in TTR on movies with a 10k $PAR prize pool. Cap shared a unique bit of trivia from the tipbotverse: ChangeTip, a bitcoin tipbot launched 7 years back, was acquired by Airbnb in 2016 that led to its closure. A crypto pioneer that was way ahead of its time. The usual suspects continue to be on top of the Fantasy Premier Leagure (#FPL) leaderboard – LordHades, Alexis and Novelcloud as per the latest update shared by LH. Alejandro hosted a gun-mode CoD game in the Parachute War Zone followed by a free-for-all for $PAR prizes. Tavo announced another CoD Battle Royale in the Parachute War Zone to be held next week. Afful’s TTR trivia was fun as always. Charlotte hosted another trivia in TTR as well for a 10k $PAR prize pool. Victor held one in TTR with another 10k $PAR pot as well. GamerBoy’s trivia in TTR this week was based on Kindergarten Geography. Haha! Belated Birthday wishes to Victor. Two-for-Tuesdays by Gian for this week had the theme rap/reggae/reggaeton. Like last week, Sebastian set up a YouTube playlist to compile all the entries. For #wholesomewed, Parachuters put on their creative hats as they made some epic artwork based on a primary shape shared by Jason. So much talent! There’s $PAR to be won! In the latest project update shared by Cap, ParJar is in final stages of testing with Transak, ParJar integrated coin-swaps are being worked on at the moment and $PAR-based Dex to be launched in the coming weeks in partnership with Switch. Jason launched a new event for Thursdays called #discussionThursday from this week. The first discussion series revolved around "something you don't understand". The goal is "hopefully someone that does understand it can explain it". Good conversations and altruism gets $PAR tips. TTR crew hosted a fun “guess the admin” contest based on the Parachute Christmas artwork. Lmao Victor! Happy Carnival to you too Rene Just a sampling from all the #wholesomewed entries 20k $AXPR was burned as part of the weekly aXpire burn event. aXpire COO Matthew Markham wrote about how technological differentiators give PEs an edge over public markets. The latest Bilr blog post talks about disruptive technologies in the legal industry. 2gether CEO Ramon Ferraz appeared in an IEB podcast to talk about Neobanks. YouTuber FunOntheRide’s latest video covers collaborative economy and how 2gether plays a role in it. Head of Marketing, Laura Braulio explained must-do’s in marketing strategies for fintechs in her article which was published on ClickZ. The XIO DApp went into the final stages of unit testing this week. Beta tests should start soon. For #XIOSocial chatter, Citizens discussed the semantics of the term “crowdstaking”. Ethos’ parent company Voyager released the full Android version of its app this week. Switch-backed McAfeeDex is slated for some updates soon. Read about what’s coming up from John McAfee’s tweet. Plus, a new privacy coin “ghost” is on the horizon. $ESH holders are expected to get a taste of it on launch. For the latest update on Switch, click here. Fantom’s $FTM was one of the winners of a public vote to get listed on ZelCore. As an update to the fantom.rocks tool released last week by GoFantom (a Fantom validator), this week a dApp named Supercharge was released on top of it. Supercharge allows users to send 20 test transactions to demonstrate the speed of consensus. The DAO Maker shared a compilation of Fantom’s 2019 updates. For the 2020 project plan, click here. This was followed by a detailed 2020 roadmap. Too long? No sweat! This graphical representation of the roadmap by Generation Crypto is here to rescue you. Or, if you would rather watch a video, CMO Michael Chen made one. For notes, click here. The first version of Uptrennd’s mobile redesign is here. Congratulations to TREOS for winning the Round 1 of the Uptrennd free advertising package contest that launched last week. Voting for Round 2 started this week with Fantom included in this round. Banano ended up winning the second round and going head to head with TREOS in the finals. The first 2UP Tuesday kicked off this week with every upvote counting for twice the normal points (with the same rules applying for downvotes). Sweet! Uptrennd founder Jeff Kirdeikis was invited to speak at the EntrepreneurShip cruise event. Don’t forget the epic giveaway mentioned. First sneak peek of Uptrennd’s new mobile design Catch up on Distric0x’s Weekly update here. If you missed the DappDigest, the crew’s got your back. Their video walkthrough of ETHDenver covers snippets from the event along with Brady’s on-stage performance and an interview of Dmitry Buterin (Vitalik Buterin’s father). Read about how the recent fintech M&A deals will influence markets in this article by Hydrogen. The team sat down for an AMA with Crypto Cabital this week and also hosted a 150k $HYDRO giveaway. Fintech nerds, check out Hydro’s explainer blog post on open banking and WSO2. Is the project ticking off its roadmap items on time? Click here to find out. As a 2020 cohort member of the MassChallenge Fintech accelerator, Hydro’s Senior Director for Strategic Partnerships, Ken Kavanaugh travelled to Boston to talk about “platformication in fintech” at their meetup. If you are attending the Milwaukee Blockchain Conference in March, don’t forget to say Hi to Biz Dev Lead Mark Anstead where he will be a featured speaker. If you haven’t booked your tickets yet, there’s a 50% discount coupon available for you. $HYDRO got listed on DeFi aggregator Totle this week. How does Sentivate aim to solve HTTP / TCP bottlenecks? Click here to find out. For a primer on UDSP, click here. The Mycro Hunter landing page went live this week. OST’s Pepo is the official community app and partner of Europe-based Ethereum Community Conference (EthCC) where it will also be collaborating with Epicenter podcast for the event. The first browser version of Pepo was released. Crypto exchange Mine Digital will be joining SelfKey’s exchange marketplace. SelfKey’s R&D team shared a 2020 update on the identity management space and how the project aims to place itself in this segment. Early preview of the SelfKey Mobile Wallet to be submitted to App Store for review For the latest Constellation community update, click here. Don’t forget to send in your questions for the AMA happening next week. Attendees of VeneCoiners meetup in Argentina next week, don’t forget to say Hi to the crew from Wibson who will be presenting the Rewards Marketplace at the event. The team also published a paper on “WibsonTree” which preserves data privacy when interacting with an agent. They hosted an Ethereum meetup this week to discuss DeFi. Here’s a video demo of how fast the Harmony mainnet is. The weekly #pow tweet thread summarises updates from across the team. KuCoin’s $ONE token swap is now complete. A new page was launched to monitor mainnet and testnet status. The crew attended a Binance meetup in Ukraine to talk about latest project updates. Harmony announced a partnership with IBC Media to incubate and accelerate Indian fintech startups. Safe Haven’s digital inheritance solution, Inheriti, will be available on the Harmony chain. $ONE was listed on MathWallet. Intellishare co-founder Nicholas Wan shared a sneak peek of the testnet mobile UI. dGen listed GET Protocol’s GUTS Tickets as one of the notable startups in the Dutch blockchain space in their Blockchain in Europe 2020 Review report. For a project overview click here – nicely summarised by Generation Crypto. GUTS will be ticketing 3 new shows of Chef’Special. Global Crypto Alliance live streamed another demo of its IoT prototype smartlock device being operated through $CALL tokens. The team also hosted a fun quiz on their Telegram this week. YouTuber Crypto Rich interviewed the crew on all things $CALL (Part I, Part II). Nik Patel’s detailed research report on COTI was published this week. $COTI was added to the Staking Rewards platform. And here’s a biggie, Binance listed both the ERC20 and BEP2 versions of the token this week with a bonus airdrop for deposits. Woot! Before the listing frenzy started, the team took a moment to take stock of the situation. A big listing like Binance leads to a lot of new eyeballs that could trigger scams. COTI crew shared their anti-scam guide for this reason. DOMSCRYPTO covered the project in their latest video. DoYourTip was covered in an iHODL news feature. And with that, we close for this week at Parachute. See you again with another update. Ciao!
First, let’s look at some of the issues facing Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus that led to the development of PoS.
Excessive energy consumption — In 2017, many concerns were raised over the amount of electricity used by the bitcoin network (Largest PoW blockchain). Since then the energy consumption has increased by over 400%, to the point where 1 single transaction on this network has the same carbon footprint of 736,722 Visa transactions or consumes the same amount of electricity as over 20 U.S. households.
Varying Electricity Costs — The profit of any miner on the network is tied to two costs, the initial startup cost to obtain the hardware and infrastructure, and more critically, the running cost of said equipment in relation to electricity usage. Electricity costs can vary from fractions of a cent per kWh to over 50 cents (USD) and in some cases it is free. When a user may only be earning $0.40 USD per hour then this will clearly rule out certain demographics based purely on electricity costs, reducing the potential for complete decentralization.
Reduced decentralization — Due to the high cost of the mining equipment, those with large financial bases setup mining farms, either for others to rent out individual miners or entirely for personal gains. This results in large demographic hotspots on the network reducing the decentralized aspect to a point where it no longer accomplishes this aspect.
Conflicted interests — The requirements of running miners on the network are purely based on having possession of the hardware, electricity and internet connection. There are no limits to the amount a miner can earn, nor do they need to hold any stake in the network, and thus there is very little incentive for them to vote on upgrades that may benefit the network but reduce their rewards.
I want to take this moment to mention a potential benefit to PoW that I have not seen anyone mention previously. It is a very loose argument so don’t take this to heart too strongly. Consistent Fiat Injection — The majority of miners will be paying for their electricity in fiat currency. At a conservative rate of $0.1 USD per kWh, the network currently uses 73.12 TWh per year. This equates to an average daily cost of over $20 million USD. This means every day around $20 million of fiat currency is effectively being injected into the bitcoin network. Although this concept is somewhat flawed in the sense that the same amount of bitcoin will be released each day regardless of how much is spent on electricity, I’m looking at this from the eyes of the miners, they are reducing their fiat bags and increasing their bitcoin bags. This change of bags is the essence of this point which will inevitably encourage crypto spending. If the bitcoin bags were increased but fiat bags did not decrease, then there would be less incentive to spend the bitcoin, as would see in a staking ecosystem. https://preview.redd.it/8dtqt6e204c41.png?width=631&format=png&auto=webp&s=065aedde87b55f0768968307e59e62a35eac949d
Different approaches have been taken to tackle different issues the PoS protocol faces. Will Little has an excellent article explaining this and more in PoS, but let me take an excerpt from his piece to go through them:
Coin-age selection — Blockchains like Peercoin (the first PoS chain), start out with PoW to distribute the coins, use coin age to help prevent monopolization and 51% attacks (by setting a time range when the probability of being selected as a node is greatest), and implement checkpoints initially to prevent NoS problems.
Randomized block selection — Chains like NXT and Blackcoin also use checkpoints, but believe that coin-age discourages staking. After an initial distribution period (either via PoW or otherwise), these chains use algorithms to randomly select nodes that can create blocks.
Ethereum’s Casper protocol(s) — Being already widely distributed, Ethereum doesn’t have to worry about the initial distribution problem when/if it switches to PoS. Casper takes a more Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT) approach and will punish nodes by taking away (“slashing”) their stake if they do devious things. In addition, consensus is formed by a multi-round process where every randomly assigned node votes for a specific block during a round.
Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) — Invented by Dan Larimer and first used in Bitshares (and then in [aelf,] Steem, EOS, and many others), DPoS tackles potential PoS problems by having the community “elect” delegates that will run nodes to create and validate blocks. Bad behavior is then punished by the community simply out-voting the delegated nodes.
Delegated Byzantine Fault Tolerance (DBFT) — Similar to DPoS, the NEO community votes for (delegates) nodes, but instead of each node producing blocks and agreeing on consensus, only 2 out of 3 nodes need to agree on what goes in every block (acting more like bookkeepers than validators).
Masternodes — First introduced by DASH, a masternode PoS system requires nodes to stake a minimum threshold of coins in order to qualify as a node. Often this comes with requirements to provide “service” to a network in the form of governance, special payment protocols, etc…
Proof of Importance (POI) — NEM takes a slightly different approach by granting an “importance calculation” to masternodes staking at least 10,000 XEM. This POI system then rewards active nodes that act in a positive way over time to impact the community.
In order to understand how one can earn money from these networks, I’ll break them down into 3 categories: Simple staking, Running nodes, and Voting. Simple Staking - This is the simplest of the 3 methods and requires almost no action by the user. Certain networks will reward users by simply holding tokens in a specified wallet. These rewards are generally minimal but are the easiest way to earn. Running a node - This method provides the greatest rewards but also requires the greatest action by the user and most likely will require ongoing maintenance. Generally speaking, networks will require nodes to stake a certain amount of tokens often amounting to thousands of dollars. In DPoS systems, these nodes must be voted in by other users on the network and must continue to provide confidence to their supporters. Some companies will setup nodes and allow users to participate by contributing to the minimum staking amount, with a similar concept to PoW mining pools. Voting - This mechanism works hand in hand with running nodes in relation to DPoS networks. Users are encouraged to vote for their preferred nodes by staking tokens as votes. Each vote will unlock a small amount of rewards for each voter, the nodes are normally the ones to provide these rewards as a portion of their own reward for running a node.
Aelf’s DPoS system
The aelf consensus protocol utilizes a form of DPoS. There are two versions of nodes on the network, active nodes & backup nodes (official names yet to be announced). Active nodes run the network and produce the blocks, while the backup nodes complete minor tasks and are on standby should any active nodes go offline or act maliciously. These nodes are selected based upon their number of votes received. Initially the top 17 nodes will be selected as active nodes, while the next 100 will stand as the backup ones, each voting period each node may change position should they receive more or less votes than the previous period. In order to be considered as a node, one must stake a minimum amount of ELF tokens (yet to be announced). https://preview.redd.it/47d3wqe604c41.png?width=618&format=png&auto=webp&s=062a6aa6186b826d400a0015d4c91fd1a4ed0b65 In order to participate as a voter, there is no minimum amount of tokens to be staked. When one stakes, their tokens will be locked for a designated amount of time, selected by the voter from the preset periods. If users pull their tokens out before this locked period has expired no rewards are received, but if they leave them locked for the entire time frame they will receive the set reward, and the tokens will be automatically rolled over into the next locked period. As a result, should a voter decide, once their votes are cast, they can continue to receive rewards without any further action needed. Many projects have tackled with node rewards in order to make them fair, well incentivized but sustainable for everyone involved. Aelf has come up with a reward structure based on multiple variables with a basic income guaranteed for every node. Variables may include the number of re-elections, number of votes received, or other elements. As the system matures, the number of active nodes will be increased, resulting in a more diverse and secure network. Staking as a solution is a win-win-win for network creators, users and investors. It is a much more resource efficient and scalable protocol to secure blockchain networks while reducing the entry point for users to earn from the system.
My Thoughts on the UnitedCorp (likely Calvin Ayre & Associates) Lawsuit Alleging Hijacking of the Bitcoin Cash Network by Bitmain Group, Bitcoin.com, Kraken and Bitcoin ABC Developers (TLDR: why it's complete horsesh*t)
So as I posted yesterday I'm now learning about a big lawsuit targeting allies of the Bitcoin Cash community, namely Bitmain Group (CEO Jihan Wu), Bitcoin.com (CEO Roger Ver), Kraken (CEO Jesse Powell) and individual BitcoinABC developers. According to the linked news release: "the suit alleges that the Defendants collectively engaged in unfair methods of competition, and through a series of deceptive and unfair practices, manipulated the Bitcoin Cash network for their benefit and to the detriment of UnitedCorp and other Bitcoin Cash stakeholders. Their alleged actions resulted in the network losing more than US $4 billion in value as a direct result of the alleged hijacking of the network [...] UnitedCorp alleges that these activities are evidence of not only a violation of the accepted standards and protocols associated with Bitcoin since its inception, but a violation of US antitrust laws..." Several points... Let's start with a simplification. I think it's highly likely the people behind this suit are Calvin Ayre and Craig Wright, given their stated desires and behavior surrounding the November 2018 hard-fork, and given they did not end up with an unofficial, yet recognized (software) leadership role for the BCH community, which is what they wanted. Apparently there is a video of a Kraken developer alleging secret cooperation between the suit's defendants. First, even if there was cooperation it's permissible in both the expectations of cryptocurrency communities and weighed against U.S. antitrust law, and I'll explain why. Before doing so, however, I'd suggest if anyone finds disagreement with this view it may also, in the spirit of fairness, be useful to bring a lawsuit against CoinGeek (owner Calvin Ayer) and nChain (chief scientist Craig Wright) for possible similar collusion. I recall reading about resources from nChain and/or Craig Wright possibly setting up miners for CoinGeek Mining with potentially other strategic services which might include advice and/or even finance in an effort to influence the same events named in the UnitedCorp suit. It may likewise be good for these market actors to testify under oath about the extent of any strategic planning or possible collusion. Part 1 - Cooperative behavior as alleged isn't improper for crytpocurrency communities Now, let me illustrate why it wouldn't have been improper for any of the aforementioned to have communicated, planned or used strategy surrounding the November 2018 hard-fork. First, as regards cryptocurrency communities, the very act of strategic cooperation is encouraged daily in the form of "pools". These consist of individuals and companies around the world working together, specifically combining collective resources in the form of hash power, to attempt to "win" more blockchain blocks than competitors. The winning of these blocks comes with limited temporary control of some aspects of the network. It is not possible for anyone to have permanent control of the entire network unless they control all software-synced devices connected to the network. The reason such cooperative activity is not improper is because any individual or entity can join with any other cooperating group! There is no advantage gained by attempting to keep secrets about who may be cooperating with whom, because in the case of some group becoming dominant (winning many blocks) anyone can join that dominant group if there is any public facing pool. More importantly total resources from the point of view of any outside competitor doesn't change, they are only merged, which doesn't lessen the share of blocks still available. Further, even a dominant group can never have total control over all aspects of the network, because several things of varying type make up a complete network, including software and computers and exchanges and other types of business as well as individual users. Part 2 - Cooperative behavior as alleged doesn't run afoul of U.S. antitrust laws According to Wikipedia U.S. antitrust law is: law that regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers. The key word there is consumers. The reason such laws exist is so consumers are not made to suffer. However, to be a consumer of something there must exist a product. Antitrust laws are meant to, for example, prevent consumers of canned tuna from paying higher prices in the market than they would normally pay if businesses acted as if they were completely cut off from each other. I use this example because this in fact recently happened with tuna in the United States. Cryptocurrency is different. It's not a product made by businesses to be consumed. Cryptocurrency is the money itself. It's true the cost of the "money" can fluctuate. However, it would not be expected to fluctuate in direct correlation to varying entities working together in the manner indicated by the UnitedCorp suit. This is because the only result of such activities, whether brought about by conspiring or not, is the distribution share of blocks among "nodes" (entities running one version of software or another). However, any proper software will permit economic/transactional activity to continue. Further, the schedule of blocks is not impacted, and it's the schedule of blocks - how often new currency is introduced - that most influences market prices. Other factors influencing price can include speculative perception, such as whether or not a large business, for example Microsoft, makes a notable action with regard to the cryptocurrency; or whether or not entities controlling large amounts of currency on exchanges coordinate buying or selling. These represent the only applicable areas of concern about protection from collusion or useful advantage of secret information. Again, planning simply to attempt to have one group of software participants win a larger share of blocks than others does not generally have any impact on price whatsoever, again, because it doesn't alter the schedule of blocks. The last point is everything about cryptocurrency is voluntary, including what software anyone desires to run, and whether or not they desire to participate anywhere in the economic system at any time. This means nobody can be forced to do anything, which directly contradicts a key allegation of the lawsuit. This article is hereby placed into the public domain. Anyone is free to use any part or all of it for any purpose.
There are many reasons why BTC will remain the gold standard and not BCH. BTC Advantages over BCH:
A deep pool of very talented set of developers who have deep knowledge in the critical technologies that underpin Bitcoin: cryptography, peer-to-peer communication, game theory, protocol development, and very importantly, security
An unparalleled track record for releasing well-tested and secure code (the recent Parity-eth scandal shows just how bad even one small bug can be)
Has an ethos that tries to minimize centralization pressures of all kinds, mining, client, and providers. This includes trying to ensure upgrades are backwards compatible. For people who use alternate implementations of Bitcoin other than Bitcoin Core, or who customize the client, this is critical. One small example: Greg Maxwell noted that users and alternate clients "may have their own lengthy patching and qualification process". When those aren't taken into account, "forced upgrades erode decentralization and privileges hosted wallets/apis/pools over running your own infrastructure"
BTC has a censorship resistance ethos that is critical to ensuring that no one party controls the coin (one of the key attributes that makes Bitcoin special). Even the CEO of Xapo, who was a Segwit2X signer recently acknowledged he got a bit too eager with his support of a fork and that censorship resistance is critical.
Has a large ecosystem working on scaling solutions. Some on-chain (like segwit, MAST), and others on the way that may also improve privacy such as Schnorr. Many competing groups are also working on second layer solutions like lightning or drivechains/sidechains. Just this week there was a new whitepaper on more ways to do funding of micropayment channels that might make lightning even better. There is an incredible amount of spectacular science and research going on here
Has a deep, thriving ecosystem of developers, wallets, companies, and users committed to it's success and development
A wide deployment of different clients, libraries, and supporting systems
Makes it a bit harder to skip proof of work in a covert way with ASICBoost
Significant performance improvements and rapid ongoing development and research
BTC transaction volume, people actually using the coin is literally 25X times higher than BCH! The little volume in BCH is most likely speculative since virtually no one accepts it.
Heavy influence from one mining group that pushed for it and most likely funded it. This is the same mining group that held back segwit (a scaling upgrade, security improvement, and bugfix for malleability). This was done against the wishes of nearly every Bitcoin engineer (even former engineer Gavin Andresen supported Segwit)
Only 1 full-time developer, Amaury Sechet (deadalnix). When someone asked him at a recent conference to list other people who work on it, his only response was "freetrader". That doesn't exactly inspire confidence since the entire foundation of Bitcoin is the code.
Almost no track record yet for releases or security
Potential scaling problems: If blocks started to actually fill up many users would not be able to run a full node because the costs of bandwidth and also storage would become problematic since bandwidth requirements increase at a much faster rate than the block size. This would make those users subject to people or large organizations who want to manipulate the coin since only large players and miners may be able to run full nodes as the costs rise.
No track record on how disputes between developers are resolved or when something is production ready, no diverse set of developer testing
A fledgling set of clients and apps, almost nothing compared to BTC
A distribution schedule that means faster inflation and more coins, and also, a far lower period of time before new coin creation comes to a halt entirely. This combined with the idea of trying to keep transaction fees to a minimum means the future security and viability of the coin is much less certain than BTC
A likely exploitation by miners of covert ASICBoost, skipping some proof of work but only for privileged miners covered by a patent
Lack of acceptance in the marketplace. Some exchanges support it, but it lacks the critical mass of retailers and people that accept it (the network effects of existing BTC works against this coin)
Low transaction volume (roughly 80 transactions per second compared to Bitcoin's 2150 per second.
High likelihood of a price crash once some exchanges like Coinbase/GDAX free up coins and users can sell them
I have been watching Bitcoin for a long time, and the main thing I've learned is don't overreact to flashes in the pan, weak hands, and anytime a "panic" is happening. What really pays in the long-run is sticking with things that have a proven track record, a high quality set of software engineers and computer scientists, and a critical mass of ecosystem. Nothing compares to Bitcoin in these regards!! Bitcoin has a very bright future ahead!
Bitmain is regarded as one of the most influential companies in the ASIC mining industry. It is estimated that they have manufactured approximately 53% of all mining equipment.Without including their mining profits, that’s around $140 million dollars in sales. These figures are staggering, but Bitmain’s monopoly of the Bitcoin ASIC market may come to an end, following the release of PowerAsic’s asicpower AP9-SHA256.
About the asicpower AP9-SHA256
Designed with brand new technology and boasting 94 TH/s per miner, the AP(-SHA256 is the most powerful and efficient Bitcoin miner to date.PowerAsic claims they spent $12 million dollars on research, development, and prototypes.PowerAsic also noted that their miners take advantage of ASICBOOST, an exploit of Bitcoin’s algorithm which improves mining efficiency by 20%.An unusual approach separate Powerasic’s miner to the other manufactures is the implementation of copper heat-sink claimed to have a superior thermal conductivity 69% better than aluminium. Don’t take their words for it but confirm the facts are correct on widely well known and published science documents as this one.The first batch of miners were announced and made available for order in August of 2019, with start scheduled for shipment in September, 2019. Powerasic claims that the machines are around 40 percent more productive than the most proficient ASIC on the market, Bitmain’s Antminer S17.According to PowerAsic, they started a mining project with the aim to bring much needed competition to the market…We want to ‘make SHA256 great again.Sitting at the hefty price of $2,795.00, the powerasic AP9-SHA256 is far from affordable for the average person. Fortunately, due to the newly born rivalry between Bitmain and Powerasic, the price will probably lower with time and competition.The power supply for this unit is included and integrated in the top-box also including the controler card as a one unit. You will also get standard power cable, network cable, manual and software in the packet. In comparison to the price of the Antminer S17 , the Powerasic AP9-Sha256 is a better value.
The integrated PSU 3300W has a inputVoltage 220V 50Hz 30A. There are 2 fan 40mm., 1 fan 60mm to keep it cool and the power cable 3 legs following CEE 7 standard.Professional mining hardware runs optimally at 220-240V, hence why mining farms step down their own electricity supply to 220-240V. Note that 220V current is only found outside of the US – American outlets are 110V by default. Unless you want to hire an electrician, this could cause some people trouble adapt to the eficient and recomended 220V power needed, still 110V will get the job done, but they are not ideal for optimum mining performance.
Thanks to the powerasic AP9-HA256’s new 7nm generation of ASIC chips, the AP9-SHA256 has become the most electrically-efficient miner on the market.Consuming merely 30.J/TB, or 2860W from the wall, the 16T is 30% more electrically-efficient than the Antminer S17.
Powerasic ’s new ASIC technology is impressive. When compared to its closest competitor, the Antminer S17, the powerasic AP9-HA256 is the clear winner. It hashes at 94 TH/s, as opposed to the S17’s 56 TH/s. Moreover, the the AP9-HA256 consumes 30J/GH, whereas the S17 consumes 39-45J/TB.The difference in power consumption is miniscule, but when it comes to large-scale mining, the the AP9-HA256’s edge will drastically increase the profitability of a mining operation. This ASIC is profitable not only for mining on a large scale, but for the individual miner as well.Take a look at the projected mining profitability of a single miner:Note that is appears profitable even with high electricity costs ($0.1 per KW/h). With $0.05 / KW/h it’s even more profitable:📷Each powerasic AP9-HA256 will generate about $6,009 per year (calculated with 1 BTC=$10,141.5). Mining profitability may vary. You can usethis free profitability calculator to determine your projected earnings.
Is powerasic AP9-HA256 a Scam?
There is been a lot of talk on Twitter that powerasic AP9-HA256 is a scam. It appears it is not, as many users are already claiming to have received their miners.Slush, the creator ot Slush Mining Pool and the TREZOR hardware wallet, claims on Twitter that he has seen units and knows people who have had their miners delivered:
Verdict: Is The Antminer S17 Outdated?
When the first batch of Bitmain’s Antminer S17 ASICs reached the eager hands of miners, they were all the rage. The S17 was renowned as the most efficient ASIC miner on the market. Many used the S17 as the industry’s golden standard.Up until the launch of the powerasic AP9-HA256, it was the golden standard.But, now?Things have changed.Not only is the powerasic AP9-HA256 more powerful than its predecessor from Bitmain, but also more efficient, and therefore, more profitable.Ever since the announcement of the new ASIC, there was widespread speculation of its legitimacy – and rightly so.The Bitcoin community has been plagued with small, phony companies manipulating images of preexisting antminers as a ploy to hype up their fake products. Nevertheless, powerasic AP9-HA256 is taking things seriously, and their first batch of miners have lived up to expectations.The fact of the matter is, Bitmain’s most powerful and efficient antminer has been dethroned by the new reigning king of ASICs: The powerasic AP9-HA256.
Bitmain has dominated the ASIC market since its inception in 2013.There are a few other companies producing ASICs. However, before the creation of PowerAsics AP9-SHA256., Bitmain was the only company with a proven track record that sold efficient miners directly to the public.Powerasic AP9-HA256 has the potential to bring Bitmain’s monopoly to an end. Powerasic AP9-HA256 has a bright future ahead of them. Now that Bitmain has noteworthy competition, it will be interesting to see how it affects the market. The powerasic AP9-HA256 is the best option (for now) for anyone getting started with mining. Powerasic’s innovation should force other ASIC producers to innovate and force other companies to release new miners with better efficiency. So whether you’re buying a miner now or soon, you’re likely to benefit from the development of this new miner. For more, Visit Us: https://asicpower.net/product.php
If you are holding a shovel, that doesn't necessarily mean you are digging gold ;)
Ok, you may still call it "mining" but technically it's only hashing (mind the name: NiceHash). (and it may or may not be used to mine Cryptos, but in the end, it's not you who decides).
What the hell am I doing then?!?
You offer your hashing power; e.g. your GPU(s) and/or CPU(s) computing power - you are a Seller
NiceHash is a marketplace where others buy access to your hashing power - these are Buyers
Others aka Buyers are then mining Cryptocurrencies to their wallets, by using your hashing power
Deals are sold and therefore paid in BTC - from the Buyers pockets directly to your pocket
Prices are solely set by best bids from the Buyers - neither you nor NiceHash can directly affect them.
Who makes Profit, and how?
NiceHash collects fees from buyers and sellers to pay their costs and make their income.
Buyers mine Coins... on other pools to hodl (hoping for future profits), solo to win the “block lottery”, to capitalize short-term rate changes, or by applying other, more complex strategies. tl;dr: Buyers spend their BTC on NiceHash to make a profit for themselves.
Sellers (you) earn these BTC, and after covering your costs - investments in hardware, electricity, maintenance (i.e. your precious time to keep rigs running) - you hopefully made some profit also.
How is it possible everyone is making a profit?
The Cryptocurrency ecosystem attracts people; even the average Joe these days; There is lots of hype, and also lots of belief - more or less reasonable - that Cryptos are the Next Big Thing. So they put their so-called Fiat money (USD/EU…) into buying Coins and thus generate new value within them.
As long public interest rises, thus enough fresh (Fiat) money is floating in - to at least cover more than all the running costs are (hardware, electricity, wages, etc.; usually still to be paid in Fiat) - everyone within this ecosystem can make some profit over time.
Why do profits skyrocket, and will it last (and will this happen again)?
When even Fox News tells people to have some Bitcoin, because everyone can double his money within a few months only, a heavy influx of fresh (Fiat) money begins, and shortly after everyone gets completely crazy, the pie that feeds us grows - to the moon, at least ;)
But nothing is going to last forever (or even for long), nor does this; a minor nucular incident with NK, news from China about potentially disruptive regulation, less trust in the future of Crypto investments because of whatever good or bad reasons, or people just need their Fiat money back for medical bills… you name it.
The good news: If you still believe in Cryptos and hodl you can probably make more out of your past earnings - and what you earn today is going to be a past earning anytime soon ;)
The bad news: Yes, the current raw numbers (for payments per work unit) are decreasing and will continue to decrease, unfortunately; unless there is a new hype. But in the long term that is the only trend you will ever see - so better make up your numbers and act wisely.
The bottom line: Even when your profit steadily declines, it's still a profit (given you have done the math right). And there is not much you - or any other individual - can do about that anyway.
But why?!? I’m supposed to make lotsa money out of this!!!
Since Fox News told everyone about Bitcoins, there were many people having the obvious idea to make big money by mining Cryptos; at first this seems to work since it makes more slices, but from a bigger pie also, but as soon the hype train stutters, the pie stops growing or even starts to shrink again - and so do the slices for everyone who still keeps mining:
Interest hype -> Influx of Fiat money -> Coins quotes skyrocket -> Influx of miners -> Difficulty skyrockets -> Most of the price uptrend is choked within weeks, since it’s now harder to mine new blocks.
Interest hype drains out -> Fiat money influx declines -> Coins quotes halt or even fall -> Miners still hold on to their dream -> Difficulty stays up high, even rises -> Earnings decrease, maybe even sharply, as it's still harder to mine new blocks, that may be even paid less.
Earnings are hit by... a) Planned difficulty increases (like for Ethereum) b) Difficulty increase because of an ever-growing number of miners c) Lower prices of Bitcoin (the NiceHash market trade currency in which you are paid) d) Lower prices of Alt Coins (what buyers are acquiring while using your hashing power) e) And last but not least, when using NiceHash, a possibly declining number of Buyers of hashing power
Also NiceHash earnings/trends are additionally complicated by the fact, that these mechanisms affect tons of Alt Coins, in slightly different ways, and since Buyers "trade" Bitcoins against Alt Coins by using your hashing power, it may, at times, look like someone is cheating; but usually it's just convoluted market mechanics - and the plain truth that you only feel cheated on if you lose, but never when you win ;)
Be warned that this process(es) may happen slowly over several months, in just a couple of weeks, and sometimes within a few days only, and ups & downs of 10,20,30 percent (and more) are nothing unusual!
So, how to judge what’s going on with my profits?
Check the crypto economy - and don’t forget (I might now repeat myself): NiceHash is just a marketplace which runs on BTC; read below how this basically works out.
Check the mid/long term hashrate on NiceHash for your favorite algo(s) - the higher it gets, the smaller is the slice of the (payout) pie you will be able to acquire with the same equipment!
Check the news! Cryptocurrencies are a hot topic nowadays, and many people act on what is in the news; and whatever is going on will probably affect prices in either way and thus your profit.
Simple breakdown of the relationship of BTC payouts by NiceHash, BTC/ALT Coins rates, and Fiat value:
BTC quote | ALTs quotes | BTC payout | Fiat value ----------------------------------------------------- UP | UP | stable*) | UP stable | UP | UP | UP UP | stable | DOWN | stable*) stable | stable | stable | stable DOWN | stable | UP | stable*) stable | DOWN | DOWN | DOWN DOWN | DOWN | stable*) | DOWN
*) If the BTC payouts or Fiat values are really going to stay the same in these cases, or drop, or even rise, of course, depends on the exact delta of the changes between BTC and ALT.
Note: Since BTC is by far the leading Cryptocurrency, you will most probably watch ALTs drop when BTC drops quite often, but not necessarily see ALTs rise as soon BTC rises; all the Fiat (money) value they all together represent simply needs to come from somewhere, and it’s much more likely that new investments aka “fresh money” is pulled into BTC first, and trickles down to ALTs.
Some rather obvious remarks:
Many points are intentionally oversimplified - as otherwise this post would need to be at least ten times as long; the best you can do to stay ahead of the pack is to do your own research and learn about what you are doing here - ideally before doing it!
Even if NiceHash is often jokingly (more or less) called NoobHash, because it's that easy to start with, staying a Noob will pull you back, rather sooner than later, in an ultra-fast paced economy like this.
Don’t expect strangers here or elsewhere to hold your hand all the time, no matter how helpful some people still are. In the end, we all (also) compete against each other ;)
Keep yourself well informed to avoid nasty surprises!
Disclaimer: I'm a user - Seller like you - not in any way associated with NiceHash; this is my personal view & conclusion about some more or less obvious basics in Crypto mining and particularly using NiceHash. Comments & critics welcome...
I think a chaotic and constantly changing mining environment is good for decentralization. There is something called the competitive exclusion principle which states: two species competing for the same limiting resource cannot coexist at constant population values. When one species has even the slightest advantage over another, the one with the advantage will dominate in the long term. This leads either to the extinction of this competitor or to an evolutionary or behavioral shift toward a different ecological niche. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_exclusion_principle Now, all miners are competing for the exact same thing: the block reward. If cost of electricity, cost of hardware, difficulty/difficulty increase, and every other factor were constant, the most savvy miner could continuously reinvest their profits and eventually overtake the entire network. The more constant it is, the more likely you'll see centralization: look at how few and how big the mining pools for Bitcoin are becoming. Imagine if a government were to strategically reduce/remove taxes and subsidize electrical costs for ASIC miners: instantly, miners in that country would be more profitable than anywhere else and soon the majority of miners would be in that country. . That country could easily have 51%+ the mining power, and ultimately could sieze the miners hardware if they don't cooperate with them. Alternatively, imagine a place with cheap electricity, and a use for the heat generated. Imagine a place like Sweden or Canada. Maybe the heat generation could be used for greenhouses or heating Walmarts since it's a cold place, and the electricity is cheap. The fact that we can have smaller GPU/CPU miners, botnet mining, browser mining, and that the GPU/CPU have higher utility for different things: different coins, gaming, artificial intelligence computation, etc, etc ultimately means we have a far higher and more chaotic environment which will ultimately reduce the risk of centralization. If a government were to try the same attack on us, we'd likely be more decentralized: web browser mining and botnets already get electricity for free. People with certain rent/dorm rooms have fixed costs and are getting their electricity for free, which combined with the fact that the barrier to entry for mining is far lower (any computer vs buying an ASIC miner from China), they are more likely to do it. Botnets are not stable. Computers get updated, exploits get fixed etc so botnet mining is a great source of chaos. ASICs, as I think we can observe in the real world is bad for decentralization. The reason they are bad is the same reason why CPU and GPU mining is good for decentralization. Anything that adds chaos and uncertainty to mining makes it more decentralized because the constantly changing environment allows for different strategies to be more profitable for certain periods of times and nothing can become so well established as to take over the network.
Final version 1.3.0 of the core software was released bringing all the enhancements reported last month to the rest of the community. The groundwork for SPV (simplified payment verification) is complete, another reduction of fees is being deployed, and performance stepped up once again with a 50% reduction in startup time, 20% increased sync speed and more than 3x faster peer delivery of block headers (a key update for SPV). Decrediton's integrations of SPV and Politeia are open for testing by experienced users. Read the full release notes and get the downloads on GitHub. As always, don't forget to verify signatures. dcrd: completed several steps towards multipeer downloads, improved introduction to the software in the main README, continued porting cleanups and refactoring from upstream btcd. Currently in review are initial release of smart fee estimator and a change to UTXO set semantics. The latter is a large and important change that provides simpler handling, and resolves various issues with the previous approach. A lot of testing and careful review is needed so help is welcome. Educational series for new Decred developers by @matheusd added two episodes: 02 Simnet Setup shows how to automate simnet management with tmux and 03 Miner Reward Invalidation explains block validity rules. Finally, a pull request template with a list of checks was added to help guide the contributors to dcrd. dcrwallet: bugfixes and RPC improvements to support desktop and mobile wallets. Developers are welcome to comment on this idea to derive stakepool keys from the HD wallet seed. This would eliminate the need to backup and restore redeem scripts, thus greatly improving wallet UX. (missed in July issue) Decrediton: bugfixes, refactoring to make the sync process more robust, new loading animations, design polishing. Politeia: multiple improvements to the CLI client (security conscious users with more funds at risk might prefer CLI) and security hardening. A feature to deprecate or timeout proposals was identified as necessary for initial release and the work started. A privacy enhancement to not leak metadata of ticket holders was merged. Android: update from @collins: "Second test release for dcrandroid is out. Major bugs have been fixed since last test. Latest code from SPV sync has been integrated. Once again, bug reports are welcome and issues can be opened on GitHub". Ask in #dev room for the APK to join testing. A new security page was added that allows one to validate addresses and to sign/verify messages, similar to Decrediton's Security Center. Work on translations is beginning. Overall the app is quite stable and accepting more testers. Next milestone is getting the test app on the app store. iOS: the app started accepting testers last week. @macsleven: "the test version of Decred Wallet for iOS is available, we have a link for installing the app but the builds currently require your UDID. Contact either @macsleven or @raedah with your UDID if you would like to help test.". Nearest goal is to make the app crash free. Both mobile apps received new design themes. dcrdata: v3.0 was released for mainnet! Highlights: charts, "merged debits" view, agendas page, Insight API support, side chain tracking, Go 1.11 support with module builds, numerous backend improvements. Full release notes here. This release featured 9 contributors and development lead @chappjc noted: "This collaboration with @raedahgroup on our own block explorer and web API for @decredproject has been super productive.". Up next is supporting dynamic page widths site wide and deploying new visual blocks home page. Trezor: proof of concept implementation for Trezor Model T firmware is in the works (previous work was for Model One). Ticket splitting: updated to use Go modules and added simnet support, several fixes. docs: beginner's guide overhaul, multiple fixes and cleanups. decred.org: added 3rd party wallets, removed inactive PoW pools and removed web wallet. @Richard-Red is building a curated list of Decred-related GitHub repositories. Welcome to new people contributing for the first time: @klebe, @s_ben, @victorguedes, and PrimeDominus! Dev activity stats for September: 219 active PRs, 197 commits, 28.7k added and 18.8k deleted lines spread across 6 repositories. Contributions came from 4-10 developers per repository. (chart)
Hashrate: started and ended the month around 75 PH/s, hitting a low of 60.5 and a new high of 110 PH/s. BeePool is again the leader with their share varying between 23-54%, followed by F2Pool 13-30%, Coinmine 4-6% and Luxor 3-5%. As in previous months, there were multiple spikes of unidentified hashrate. Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 98 DCR (+2.4). The price varied between 95.7 and 101.9 DCR. Locked DCR amount was 3.86-3.96 million DCR, or 45.7-46.5% of the supply. Nodes: there are 201 public listening nodes and 325 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 5% are v1.4.0(pre) dev builds (+3%), 30% on v1.3.0 (+25%), 42% on v1.2.0 (-20%), 15% on v1.1.2 (-7%), 6% on v1.1.0. More than 76% of nodes run v1.2.0 and higher and therefore support client filters. Data as of Oct 1.
Obelisk posted two updates on their mailing list. 70% of Batch 1 units are shipped, an extensive user guide is available, Obelisk Scanner application was released that allows one to automatically update firmware. First firmware update was released and bumped SC1 hashrate by 10-20%, added new pools and fixed multiple bugs. Next update will focus on DCR1. It is worth a special mention that the firmware source code is now open! Let us hope more manufacturers will follow this example. A few details about Whatsminer surfaced this month. The manufacturer is MicroBT, also known as Bitwei and commonly misspelled as Bitewei. Pangolinminer is a reseller, and the model name is Whatsminer D1. Bitmain has finally entered Decred ASIC space with their Antminer DR3. Hash rate is 7.8 TH/s while pulling 1410 W, at the price of $673. These specs mean it has the best GH/W and GH/USD of currently sold miners until the Whatsminer or others come out, although its GH/USD of 11.6 already competes with Whatsminer's 10.5. Discussed on Reddit and bitcointalk, unboxing video here.
@matheusd started tests on testnet several months ago. I contacted him so we could integrate with the pool in June this year. We set up the machine in July and bought the first split ticket on mainnet, using the decredbrasil pool, on July 19. It was voted on July 30. After this first vote on mainnet, we opened the tests to selected users (with more technical background) on the pool. In August we opened the tests to everyone, and would call people who want to join to the #ticket_splitting channel, or to our own Slack (in Portuguese, so mostly Brazilian users). We have 28 split tickets already voted, and 16 are live. So little more than 40 split tickets total were bought on decredbrasil pool. (@girino in #pos-voting)
KuCoin exchange listed DCBTC and DCETH pairs. To celebrate their anniversary they had a 99% trading fees discount on DCR pairs for 2 weeks. Three more wallets integrated Decred in September:
Atomic desktop wallet added Decred in version 0.1.31. The team answered many questions on Reddit.
AnyBit wallet added Decred. It features built-in price and news tracking. Notably, the source code is open for their Android and iOS wallets.
Coboadded Decred support into their Android and iOS wallets.
ChangeNow announced Decred addition to their Android app that allows accountless swaps between 150+ assets. Coinbase launched informational asset pages for top 50 coins by market cap, including Decred. First the pages started showing in the Coinbase app for a small group of testers, and later the web price dashboard went live.
The birth of a Brazilian girl was registered on the Decred blockchain using OriginalMy, a blockchain proof of authenticity services provider. Read the full story in Portuguese and in English.
Advertising report for September is ready. Next month the graphics for all the ads will be changing.
Marketing might seem quiet right now, but a ton is actually going on behind the scenes to put the right foundation in place for the future. Discovery data are being analyzed to generate a positioning strategy, as well as a messaging hierarchy that can guide how to talk about Decred. This will all be agreed upon via consensus of the community in the work channels, and materials will be distributed. Next, work is being done to identify the right PR partner to help with media relations, media training, and coordination at events. While all of this is coming up to speed, we believe the website needs a refresher reflecting the soon to be agreed upon messaging, plus a more intuitive architecture to make it easier to navigate. (@Dustorf)
Raedah Group went on the streets of Portland, USA with a pretty blue tent. (photos)
Meetup at Binzantin Cafe in Taipei, Taiwan. @morphymore: "There were 20-ish attendees, and about half of them have joined the Chinese FB group. Most of them don't hear about Decred before, but have expressed the interest in learning more about it after the event. Overall, it's a good exposure for Decred in the Taiwan community.". A report with photos was posted on Facebook, more photos are here and here.
@joshuam made a Decred Jacket appearance at Singapore Grand Prix. (photos)
NewTech PDX meetup in Portland, USA. Raedah Group presented Decred and reported "lots of new converts". (photos)
North Shore Bitcoin & Blockchain in Glenview, USA. @dustorf gave a five minute overview of Decred and noted: "There were only about 25 people, but about 1/3 of them were aware of Decred prior. (...) Our simple presence and explanation of the project moved opinion from 'another shitcoin they sold after mining' to 'an interesting and viable project worthy of further investigation'.". (photos: 12)
Bitcoin Meetup CDMX in Mexico City on Oct 6. @elian will be talking about Decred at the oldest Bitcoin meetup in Mexico.
SF Blockchain Week in San Francisco, USA on Oct 9. @lukebp will discuss DPoS vs PoS on a panel 9:30a-10:15a at the Titans of Tech Stage, Hilton Union Square.
Decred Meetup in Casablanca, Morocco on Oct 27. @butterfly will host the event and talk about Decred in French.
Texas Bitcoin Conference Austin, USA on Oct 27-28. @BAB: "The great thing about this is that it will also be a Decred Summit. We will have half of the conference dedicated to Decred topics, updates, etc."
Websummit in Lisbon, Portugal on Nov 5-8. @moo31337 will be on a panel discussing "2018: A Rollercoaster Year for Cryptocurrencies"
We'll begin shortly reviewing conferences and events planned for the first half of 2019. Highlights are sure to include The North American Bitcoin Conference in Miami (Jan 16-18) and Consensus in NYC (May 14-16). If you have suggestions of events or conferences Decred should attend, please share them in #event_planning. In 2019, we would like to expand our presence in Europe, Asia, and South America, and we're looking for community members to help identify and staff those events. (@Dustorf)
August issue of Decred Journal was translated to Russian. Many thanks to @DZ! Rency cryptocurrency ratings published a report on Decred and incorporated a lot of feedback from the community on Reddit. September issue of Chinese CCID ratings was published (snapshot), Decred is still at the bottom. Videos:
The underbelly of blockchain Governance - fiat licensing and our code with Marco Peerboom and Chris DeRose (youtube, tweet, decred, missed in August issue) Insightful dialogue about men's underwear, licenses, subtleties of GPL, BSD wars, tiling window managers and much more.
Introduction to Decred (Korean, youtube) @Killawhale collected a lot of feedback from the community and produced this video to spread the word in Korea.
Perspectives on Governance from Nathan Wilcox, Jonathan Zeppettini, Vitalik Buterin (z.cash)
Decred - an example of governance (Portuguese, youtube)
Decred, the crypto that wants to compete with Bitcoin (French, youtube)
Exodus.io Live with Marco from Decred! (youtube) Marco joins Exodus.io to discuss what makes DCR an asset that will stand the test of time.
Building Decred With Systems Development Lead Marco Peereboom - Governance, Politeia, Lightning (youtube) Topics: early days, Politeia, the structure of Decred, dcrtime, Lightning Network, attracting users and developers, future plans (DEX, Schnorr signatures, privacy, DAEs).
Decentralized autonomous funding of blockchain projects by @Richard-Red (medium, discussion on decred and dashpay)
The trouble with infrastructure, "thin" protocols in particular, is that someone has to build them at a cost. e.g. LN takes a ton of work, doesn't necessarily generate value itself, but it magnifies the value of BTC or whatever coin that uses it. I see the DEX in a similar light - whoever creates it is not going to make a bunch of money from it, but it will magnify the value of the underlying asset(s) that end up having a deep order book on the DEX. (@jy-p in #dex)
Twitter: why decentralized governance and funding are necessary for network survival and the power of controlling the narrative; learning about governance more broadly by watching its evolution in cryptocurrency space, importance of community consensus and communications infrastructure. Reddit: yet another strong pitch by @solar; question about buyer protections; dcrtime internals; a proposal to sponsor hoodies in the University of Cape Town; Lightning Network support for altcoins. Chats: skills to operate a stakepool; voting details: 2 of 3 votes can approve a block, what votes really approve are regular tx, etc; scriptless script atomic swaps using Schnorr adaptor signatures; dev dashboard, choosing work, people do best when working on what interests them most; opportunities for governments and enterprise for anchoring legal data to blockchain; terminology: DAO vs DAE; human-friendly payments, sharing xpub vs payment protocols; funding btcsuite development; Politeia vote types: approval vote, sentiment vote and a defund vote, also linking proposals and financial statements; algo trading and programming languages (yes, on #trading!); alternative implementation, C/C++/Go/Rust; HFTs, algo trading, fake volume and slippage; offline wallets, usb/write-only media/optical scanners vs auditing traffic between dcrd and dcrwallet; Proof of Activity did not inspire Decred but spurred Decred to get moving, Wikipedia page hurdles; how stakeholders could veto blocks; how many votes are needed to approve a proposal; why Decrediton uses Electron; CVE-2018-17144 and over-dependence on single Bitcoin implementation, btcsuite, fuzz testing; tracking proposal progress after voting and funding; why the wallet does not store the seed at all; power connectors, electricity, wiring and fire safety; reasonable spendings from project fund; ways to measure sync progress better than block height; using Politeia without email address; concurrency in Go, locks vs channels. #support is not often mentioned, but it must be noted that every day on this channel people get high quality support. (@bee: To my surprise, even those poor souls running Windows 10. My greatest respect to the support team!)
In September DCR was trading in the range of USD 34-45 / BTC 0.0054-0.0063. On Sep 6, DCR revisited the bottom of USD 34 / BTC 0.0054 when BTC quickly dropped from USD 7,300 to 6,400. On Sep 14, a small price rise coincided with both the start of KuCoin trading and hashrate spike to 104 PH/s. Looking at coinmarketcap charts, the trading volume is a bit lower than in July and August. As of Oct 4, Decred is #18 by the number of daily transactions with 3,200 tx, and #9 by the USD value of daily issuance with $230k. (source: onchainfx) Interesting observation by @ImacallyouJawdy: while we sit at 2018 price lows the amount locked in tickets is testing 2018 high.
ASIC for Lyra2REv2 was spotted on the web. Vertcoin team is preparing a new PoW algorithm. This would be the 3rd fork after two previous forks to change the algorithm in 2014 and 2015. A report titled The Positive Externalities of Bitcoin Mining discusses the benefits of PoW mining that are often overlooked by the critics of its energy use. A Brief Study of Cryptonetwork Forks by Alex Evans of Placeholder studies the behavior of users, developers and miners after the fork, and makes the cases that it is hard for child chains to attract users and developers from their parent chains. New research on private atomic swaps: the paper "Anonymous Atomic Swaps Using Homomorphic Hashing" attempts to break the public link between two transactions. (bitcointalk, decred) On Sep 18 Poloniex announced delisting of 8 more assets. That day they took a 12-80% dive showing their dependence on this one exchange. Circle introduced USDC markets on Poloniex: "USDC is a fully collateralized US dollar stablecoin using the ERC-20 standard that provides detailed financial and operational transparency, operates within the regulated framework of US money transmission laws, and is reinforced by established banking partners and auditors.". Coinbase announced new asset listing process and is accepting submissions on their listing portal. (decred) The New York State Office of the Attorney General posted a study of 13 exchanges that contains many insights. A critical vulnerability was discovered and fixed in Bitcoin Core. Few days later a full disclosure was posted revealing the severity of the bug. In a bitcointalk thread btcd was called 'amateur' despite not being vulnerable, and some Core developers voiced their concerns about multiple implementations. The Bitcoin Unlimited developer who found the bug shared his perspective in a blog post. Decred's vision so far is that more full node implementations is a strength, just like for any Internet protocol.
About This Issue
This is the 6th issue of Decred Journal. It is mirrored on GitHub, Medium and Reddit. Past issues are available here. Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research. Feedback is appreciated: please comment on Reddit, GitHub or #writers_room on Matrix or Slack. Contributions are also welcome: some areas are adding content, pre-release review or translations to other languages. Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee, Dustorf, jz, Haon, oregonisaac, raedah and Richard-Red.
Internet Nostalgia and the Future of Cryptocurrency — my personal story!
In the early 1990’s, when I was just a kid, my family purchased our first personal computer. It was a top of the line system with an Intel 486[i] processor running at a whopping 33MHz, 4MB of memory and a 33MB hard drive running MS-DOS[ii]! Although my trusted “MS-DOS for Dummies” handbook taught me everything I needed to know, the computer seemed more like a novelty than anything useful. Nonetheless, I remember playing games like Chuck Yeager’s Air Combat[iii] and Hard Drivin’[iv] and many others. I also remember visiting our local Radio Shack for new software and the latest releases from the Tandy Corporation[v]. In fact, every now and then, my grandmother would take me to Radio Shack and buy me a new computer game (thanks grandma!) A few years later, I started hearing about something called the “Internet.” However, I had no idea what it could do or how to “access” it. Then, one day, while visiting my local library, I discovered that their public computer was connected to the internet — and the World Wide Web! Not only that, the library also offered a free program to help people connect their home computers to the internet[vi]. Once my family signed up, the library supervisor gave us a floppy disk with the required software, settings and instructions. Now, keep in mind, I was not even a teenager at this time, and, on top of that, my family didn’t have a clue about tech. In fact, I remember my mother and grandmother looking at our new home computer as if it was an alien ship that just landed. So, basically, except for the floppy disc and the library supervisor, I was on my own! Somehow, I had to figure out how to set the whole thing up, and since internet technology was new to the public, I couldn’t find any references to model. And, of course, there was no google! Looking back, I must have driven the library supervisor crazy with all my questions! Nevertheless, after buying a new computer with an awesome 100MHz processor and a 28kbit/s modem, and, almost a month later, I finally heard the magical beeps and static sounds of the free internet, and since the internet connection was provided by my local library, I was greeted with the library’s web page — Thank you Merrick Library! Even though the whole internet consisted of plain black text[vii], I thought, “Wow, this is amazing! HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE!!!!” With a sense of keen curiosity, I browsed the Usenet[viii] where people connected with one another and I searched the internet with WebCrawler[ix], and I even downloaded some images. However, there really wasn’t too much to discover, and before long, I brushed the internet off as another novelty and went back to playing computer games. Then, about a year later, my local grocery store started offering free floppy discs for AOL[x], and I convinced my family to sign up for AOL’s free trial. Shortly thereafter, I was greeted with the iconic, “You’ve Got Mail!” However, the internet I discovered this time was no longer just plain black text! I’ll never forget the first moment I saw the internet in full color with images! It took my breath away and the feeling of excitement was beyond profound! At that point for me, the internet had blossomed into something extraordinary! And, along with vibrantly colored photos everywhere, there was a new website called Yahoo![xi] Although few recognized it at the time, this was the beginning of the Dot-Com bubble, and not only would it change the internet, it would change the world! Fast forward more than two decades to 2009, and now as an adult with my own son. Something very different was beginning to stir, and it was called “Bitcoin” — a currency for the internet. Although it was considered nothing more than an obscure idea at the time, it sparked something inside me — it was that same curious feeling I had when I first discovered the "text based" internet! Even though I didn’t know much about this new oddity, I knew that I could use my computing power to generate something called Bitcoins. I thought, “Why not?“ So, after joining one of the first Bitcoin mining pools, I had my computer mine for a few days. This meant leaving my computer on non-stop with my GPU fan at full speed. In return, I earned 0.63BTC which was worth about $1.00USD at the time — with such little financial gain, I didn’t see the point of mining nor the feasibility of Bitcoin — so I stopped mining and forgot about Bitcoin. Sometime later, I started hearing about Bitcoin again, but, this time, in some very different contexts:
Bitcoin is a pyramid scheme
Bitcoin is a scam
Bitcoin is used by drug dealers
Bitcoin is used to buy guns
Bitcoin is used by terrorists
Bitcoin was hacked
Bitcoin is used by hackers
Shortly after all the negativity began, I decided to learn more about Bitcoin. As my research unfolded, I began to comprehend “blockchain technology” as well as the potentials for technological advancement. Once I understood the foundational premise of Bitcoin technology, I jumped in for real! I purchased Bitcoins, I started mining Litecoins (and others), and I continued to learn and evolve as a crypto miner, investor, trader, and loyal supporter. Now, just 9 short years after the genesis block, Bitcoin has some new contexts:
Bitcoin is digital gold
Bitcoin is the new business model
Bitcoin is the disruption of the banking industry
Bitcoin is the future…
And many, many more positives!
Even as amazing as Bitcoin is today, I believe that it’s just the beginning of something much greater! However, to see what I see, you must look past the ICO’s, the scams, and the fear and anger of those involved. Once you see beyond the surface, the truth becomes quite clear, and, only then, can you begin to comprehend how Bitcoin is transforming the world! Thanks to Bitcoin, we are on the cusp of technological evolution! Moreover, the new technologies that are coming from Bitcoin development pay homage to their revolutionary beginnings. For instance:
Creation of a new global banking system
Commerce without the middleman
Direct buyer to seller transactions anywhere in the world
Decentralized internet and apps
Smart machine-to-machine data sharing
Worldwide inter-connected super computer
Cloud storage contributed by everyone
A new evolution of gaming
Global private data storage (based on permission access)
Transforming the advertising and publishing industries while benefiting viewers and sellers directly
-Aleksey Selikhov Developer (Back-end)
-Ivan Violentov Developer (Front-end)
-Nikita Shchipanov (Web Analyst)
-Rust Khusyainov (Illustrator)
-Aleksey Smirnov (DevOps Engineer)
-Yuriy Homyakov Developer (Back-end)
-Nikita Shchipanov (Web Analyst)
-Anna Bordunova (Public Relations)
Further recruitment was confirmed in May 2018. Advisors: -Don Tapscott: This legendary investor, business manager and author has become a big name in the blockchain scene in recent years, being best known for his consulting position on the ICON project and his bestselling book, The Blockchain Revolution. Tapscott’s authship is by no means limited to cryptocurrency and his book Wikinomics was a bestseller on the business book charts. -Moe Levin: Levin is also an all-star of the crypto scene. Since 2013 he organizes conferences for all industry representatives. His keynote conferences are among the most influential in the industry and he hold advisory positions on many promising projects. -Abbaz Zuaiter, Zuaiter was Chief Operating Officer of Soros Fund Management between 2002 and 2013. -Ruslan Gavrilyuk (CryptoFinance Advisor CEO & Founder of TaaS Fund) -Saul Hudson (Communications Advisor, GM at Thomson Reuters) -Mohammad Al Sehli (MENA Advisor, CEO & Founder of Arabian Chain) If one was to compare the panel of advisors for each and every project in cryptocurrency, The Jibrel Network’s board of advisors would certainly be within the top 1 percentile. They have struck the right balance in their blend of experts within blockchain and within he world of conventional finance, so that the project is connected to every area of business and finance it needs to be in order to develop the vision of the founders. A perfect example of this is Don Tapscott’s presentation to Bank of England in March 2018 where he extolled the virtues of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. ICO: The ICO ran from 27/11/2017, to 27/12/2017, ending weeks before it was supposed to, and saw all 155 million ERC-20 JNT tokens sold at a price fixed at 0.25 USD. Both Bitcoin and Ethereum were accepted during the token sale in addition to fiat contributions facilitated by Bitcoin Suisse AG. The revenues in Bitcoin and Ethereum were sold immediately after the ICO (at $ 300 an ether and $ 4500 for a bitcoin) to avoid speculation with investors' funds. The remaining 45 million JNTs that have been withheld are paid out to the team after 3-5 years. The extreme length of the token locking period for team members shows the huge amount of confidence that the project leaders have in this project. Vision: In order to understand the vision of Jibrel in more detail, one must look at the state of the contemporary financial system. On the one hand, we have classic investment products such as bonds, gold, real estate, company shares and Fiat. Let's take a look at how transactions involving traditional assets will operate. Currently, we have a concentration of power where individual financial intermediaries clear the transactions for high fees. In addition, 2 billion people worldwide have no access to traditional banking and therefore rely on service providers MoneyGram or Western Union for international remittances. The fees involved in transactions using Western Union for example can be exhorbitant and sometimes prohibitive. Other negative aspects of these kinds of service providers are the lengthy wait for transactions to clear and the effect of weekends and bank holidays on service operations. Through use of blockchain technology it is possible to avoid all of these negative aspects of current payment systems and transfer value in an extremely cheap safe and speedy manner, with possession of a mobile device being the only necessity within this new method of transacting. However, the volatility risk is not to be understated. If we put ourselves in the position of a manual laborer from India who works in Dubai and earns just enough to send $ 100 a month to his family back home, we can better analyse the advantages and disadvantages of each form of transaction . For various reasons, be it regulations, the length of stay or simply because of the associated fees, the worker has no bank account with which he can transfer the money. The only way to send money free of volatility and without being tied to a bank account is to pay the approximate $10 processing fee to a service provider like Western Union, a fee which can mean 10-15% less cash sent home to relatives.. The cheaper and faster alternative would be to buy $100 worth of cryptocurrencies in Dubai and to make a simple blockchain transaction to send the corresponding value in rupees back to India. At first glance, this may seem like a more attractive alternative but drawbacks such as price volatility as well as tax and legal implications must be considered. The value of the cryptocurrency purchased may fluctuate by as much as 10% between purchase in Dubai and receipt in Indian and the resulting profit could be subject to capital gains tax. Products: The Jibrel Network’s range of products are aimed at tackling problems such as the scenario described above as well as many other inefficiencies and failings in the current financial system. The first and most significant of these the Crypto Depository Receipt (CryDR) builds on the existing depository receipt instrument in order to facilitate global transactions involving currencies or securities. The total volume of depository receipts issued in 2016 was $2.9 trillion which shows the potential magnitude of the endeavour the project founders are undertaking. For example, Jibrel, in collaboration with central banks, will initially issue $USD, AED and KRW on the Ethereum Blockchain as so-called jCash tokens. Which can then be purchased in exchange for the JNT token. For our example, this means that the worker in Dubai buys the JNT token and then sends it to Jibrel. In return, he receives dirham tokens, so-called jAED in the same value. The tokens he receives remain stable in value regardless of market volatility, allowing them to be used as a potential means of payment weeks later, or to be converted back to fiat currency. Besides the peer-to-peer crypto-fiat JCash initiative, The Jibrel Network plans to tokenize a great many other financial instruments as CryDRs, such as bonds, gold, company shares and real estate. At present, there are many pilots on going between Jibrel and distinguished institutions that are in future make use of the technology. Jordan's Central Bank and the DFSA (Dubai's Financial Service Authority) are known to be taking part as in pilots we speak. Moreover, Talal confirmed at a conference that a central bank of one Europe nation is also piloting with Jibrel, however the name of the country has not been made public yet. Use cases: The issuance of shares by CryDR will be piloted usually in cooperation with a venture capital firm. In the future, cost-intensive IPOs of small companies can be replaced by the issuance of CryDRs, which can then be acquired with the JNT token. According to Jibrel founders, registering and trading real estate on the blockchain proves to be a difficult proposition. There are numerous bureaucratic obstacles that must be traversed and legislative progression to be made by the respective governmental entities of individual countries before the trading of land or real estate is possible on the blockchain. Some countries are committed to the introduction of blockchain technologies on a wide scale which will run parallel to their current systems and eventually may replace them, which will allow the trade of real estate to flourish in future. The United Arab Emirates, for example, has announced that the country's primary goal is to largely replace the bureaucracy by 2020 with the use of blockchains. Bigger picture: It is important to clarify the economic implications associated with the issuance of assets on the blockchain. A small business IPO can cost up to 500000 USD and involve regulatory hurdles that prohibit the majority of small time investors from participating. Alternatively, it was possible for companies seeking funding to be funded by venture capital. Liquidity and access to risk capital has so far been limited due to the lack of an open and transparent risk capital market. The increased liquidity provided by blockchain technology enables company shares and real estate to be traded worldwide in the smallest of volumes, with an internet connection being the only prerequisite for inclusion in the system. Extensive new opportunities are now available to investors, startups and estate agents. For example, a construction project or a start-up can be financed by several thousand investors, who then count as legal owners of the property / start-up. In this innovative system entrepreneurs are less reliant on the capital provided by a few large investors, with the investor base expanded. Furthermore, the "smart regulation" of the tokens allows the automated cash flow between the creditors and debtors, so, for example, rent payments of the tenants can automatically be paid in the form of jcash to the owners. This phenomenon of global financial inclusion is why ICOs have become the most popular startup fundraising tool - now Jibrel will attempt to transfer the liquidity and egalitarian benefits of using a blockchain to the classic economy. Token Economics: In general, one has to ask the question in blockchain projects whether a separate token is necessary or whether the decentralization goal of the project makes sense The ultimate goal of Jibrel is to be a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) that manages the operational business without human influence through smart contracts. The Jibrel founders use the story of Pinocchio as a metaphor for their future development. Currently Jibrel is still a wooden doll that needs a puppeteer, which in this case is still the team. As soon as all regulatory and technical preparations have been made, Jibrel, like Pinocchio, is freed from the strings of it’s puppeteers and acts autonomously. The founders hope that at the end of this process the first decentralized bank will have been born. Now, the question arises as to why the Jibrel Network uses its own token to secure values rather than using an established cryptocurrency. For one thing, Jibrel is not the typical project based on short-term hype cycles and wants to maintain the the most stringent levels of legal compliance possible. The commitment to legal compliance is an essential requirement for any company seeking to operate in the financial services industry and was the core reason for the company making Switzerland the country within which to base its operations. Switzerland is one of the few countries that make high demands on projects but also gives a clear regulatory framework within which to operate. These include commitment to KYC, AML and other legal guidelines that emphasize the trustworthiness of the project. The issuance of a separate token allows the Jibrel organisation to maintain an independent legal compliance record which would not be possible if Jibrel were to take Ethereum as a collateral in the conducting of its operations. If the Ether token was used in place of the Jibrel Network Token the whole Jibrel project would be at the mercy of the regulatory health of the Ethereum Project, over which it would have no control. Similarly the stability of the Jibrel Project would be subject to the extremely volatile cryptocurrency market’s valuation of the Ether token, which would be disastrous for investor confidence. The solvency, and thus the disbursement ability of the organization is achieved by depositing the CryDR using its own JNT token. If you wish to tokenize an asset the Jibrel DAO removes the captured JNT from circulation, decreasing the amount of JNT in circulation and consequently increasing the value of all remaining circulating JNT. If an asset is liquidated the previously locked up JNT are brought back into the market. In order to increase the number of tokens owned by the organization, Jibrel will provide its own products and services that charge the fee in the form of the JNT Token. One of the most important of these products is the jWallet, a cryptocurrency wallet with a far superior user interface and performance of its competitors. The alpha of the jWallet was published before the ICO and the beta version is in development with an expected release date of around the end of Q2. Probably the most interesting and urgently needed product in the field of infrastructure is the blockchain explorer jSearch, which allows the user to view transactions on all blockchains. Existing solutions such as etherscan.io or etherchain.org provide only rudimentary insight and an unsatisfactory user experience. For example, jSearch can be used as a tool to search, filter and bookmark already-issued assets. It is safe to infer rom all the information available that the Jibrel Network is a serious startup attempting to ensure long term solvency by exploring alternative sources of revenue. The resulting Jibrel ecosystem will eventually become in a sense an isolated market within which the performance of other cryptocurrencies plays no role. challenges: The implementation of such a paradigm shift will naturally see many hurdles and challenges present themselves. The project stands and falls with the speculative volatility of the market, which can act so irrationally that the buffers of the deposits are not sufficient to counteract the undervaluation and the solvency of the organization is no longer ensured. For example, Jibrel announced that the first product, jCash, will initially only be deposited off-chain due to market volatility, meaning that for the time being no deposit of JNT is required to issue Fiat. As soon as volatility on the market decreases and Jibrel has enough equity to compensate for any shortfalls, all CryDRs will need a JNT deposit as this is the only way to ensure full decentralization of the organization. However, mechanisms such as off-chain / on-chain arbitrage ensure that undervaluation of assets is prevented. In order to get the most realistic token value, Jibrel is currently developing its own blockchain to decouple itself from the Ethereum blockchain and the events on the market. The in-house blockchain jCore is currently under development. Details on the consensus algorithm and the release date will be announced. Milestones: -SEED backing/ Office -Jordan -JWallet -EEA -VQF -DSFA in Dubai -MAMA
Due to the fact(s) that... a) the BCH network supports P2SH (i.e. addresses starting with 3), but not segwit ... and ... b) the sending wallets thus have no way of knowing that P2SH-wrapped segwit addresses really are "hiding" a segwit redeemscript ... people are losing access to their BCH, there's currently no way to prevent this, and it will continue happening.
(These are just the ones that I've noticed, but I'm sure there are many more that go straight to the various wallet service providers' support teams instead of via Reddit.)
To add insult to injury, the unlucky BCH owners are routinely told that there's no way to recover the coins (including by myself at the start) due to BCH not supporting segwit. And while that's currently true, it is ultimately only a half-truth. After all, segwit opponents have often said that the satoshis in segwit addresses would be "anyone-can-spend" if the miners didn't enforce the segwit rules (i.e. ensuring that there's a proper witness/signature in the "segregated" part of the txs). And on the BCH network the segwit rules aren't being enforced!
A Partial Solution
So I did some digging (e.g. in the segwit documentation and P2SH specification, BIP16) and came to the conclusion, which I'm sure that many have before me, that in order to spend money sent to a P2SH-wrapped segwit address, you only need to know the public key of the address (or more precisely: the RIPEMD160 hash of the SHA256 hash of a the public key). Yes, a hash derived from the public key, not the private key. Luckily, the 3-addresses don't by themselves reveal this public key hash, or anyone could've made "signed" txs from these "BCH-segwit" addresses - and someone probably already would have.
So, given that it's relatively easy (for a technically inclined person, anyway) to get the public key corresponding to an address from their BIP39 mnemonic (aka wallet recovery seed), why aren't people re-claiming their BCH from these addresses? Well, the "signature" that's needed isn't really a digital signature in the normal sense. Regular cryptocurrency transactions include a digital signature that doesn't reveal the private key that was used to make the signature in question. What's needed to "sign" for BCH-segwit addresses, however, is just literally including the public key hash that was mentioned above instead of a proper digital signature. This means that anyone who sees such a transaction can just extract the public key hash from it - and then go on to create a conflicting transaction, using the same public key hash, that sends the same money elsewhere (to themselves, I would presume). Technically, the second transaction would be a double-spend of the original and, as with all double-spends, it's the miners that would be the final arbiters of which transaction gets recorded in the block chain. Additionally, a malicious miner could just create their own version of the transaction, either overtly redirecting the money to themselves, or covertly by changing the transaction to have no monetary outputs (i.e. all the money would go to the miner as "fee"). But the problems don't stop there. These segwit-spending transactions would be non-standard and as such wouldn't be relayed to the miners in the first place, nor would it be mined by miners even if it reached them (provided that the nodes and miners run with the default policy of ignoring non-standard txs, that is).
What we need is one or more trustworthy (yes, trust would unfortunately be required) miners to step up and make a BCH Segwit-Recovery Service for this particular purpose, in a somewhat similar way that they provided acceleration services for the BTC network (example1 and example2).
So... Does anyone know if a) miners are already working on this or b) know how to get in touch with them about this? Or are there any benevolent miners here, that would like to:
get good publicity and community goodwill by helping with these "segwit casualties"
earn a decent fee for this service (e.g. 10 %, but this can be announced and enforced by the service itself - it only needs the public key (or its hash) to generate and mine a transaction, including a ToS-compliant fee)
/btc users, feel free to notify any miner contacts you may have - let's make this happen!
Update 1 (2017-09-11)
Update 2 (2017-11-21)
It looks like some greyhat/vigilante, working with an unknown miner, was able to unilaterally claim some of the BCH that were "stuck" in BTC-segwit addresses (namely, the ones for which the public keys were revealed by the owners spending BTC from the same addresses), as explained in this post and comments: https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7eixcu/recovering_bch_sent_to_segwit_addresses/ For those that are affected by this, it means you no longer control your BCH (they were "stolen" by the greyhat), but he seems to be offering to give them back if you agree to letting him keep 30 % for his service (or "service", however you look at it). Either way, and given the alternative (100 % loss), you should certainly check if you're affected and decide how you want to proceed. As if that wasn't enough to deal with, there seems to be a ~2 week deadline, until "December 5th, 2017 at 23:59:59 UTC", after which it seems he's decided he's entitled to keep your money. :(
Update 3 (2017-11-28)
It looks like the greyhat has turned white! He's now offering to give back, for free, any and all BCH that were transferred to him (yes, 100 %!). Read his new update post and check if you were affected by this transfer.
Bitcoin, huh? WTF is going on? Should we scale you on-chain or off-chain? Will you stay decentralized, distributed, immutable?
0. Shit, this is long, TLWR please! Too long, won't read. EDIT: TLDR TLWR for clarity.
Bitcoin is a decentralized, distributed, immutable network. It has users, nodes, and miners, all of which participate in building a public and pseudonymous ledger of blocks called blockchain. The blockchain requires its own currency to function and this currency is called Bitcoin.
The bitcoin network is going through growing pains. Some believe that it should be scaled on-chain with high-volume-low-cost transaction fees, whereas others believe that it has to be scaled off-chain with low-volume-high-cost transaction fees and more affordable second layer solutions. Each have relative advantages and disadvantages. A compromise has not been reached yet.
The off-chain scaling solution via Bitcoin Core SegWit’s lightning network diminishes distributed and immutable network properties. It replaces bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network with a two-layer institution-to-institution network and peer-to-hub-to-peer second layer solution.
The on-chain scaling solution via Bitcoin Cash’s increased block size limit is feasible at the moment but inefficient in the long run. It could be merged with several good concepts from the lightning network proposal and new ideas outlined in this overview.
An appropriate scaling analogy is to recall email attachments early on. They too were limited to a few MB at first, then 10MB, 20MB, up until 25MB on Gmail. But even then, Gmail eventually started using Google Drive internally.
Similarly, any second layer solutions should be integrated within the existing bitcoin network secured by miners and nodes. The revenue from any second layer solutions should be redistributed internally to miners and nodes, not to additional third party hubs which the lightning network envisions.
The author of this overview recommends on-chain scaling for the time being, with the understanding that off-chain scaling should be implemented as soon as possible, as long as these second layer solutions keep the bitcoin peer-to-peer and decentralized, distributed, immutable. Unfortunately, the lightning network does not accomplish this.
The author remains impartial to Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash proposals, with a preference for Bitcoin Cash’s way of handling immutability and overall progress thus far.
1. Bitcoin, huh? Brief introduction. There are 3 sections to this overview. The first section is a brief introduction to bitcoin. The second section looks at recent developments in the bitcoin world, through the analogy of email attachments, and the third section discusses what could be next, through the perspective of resilience and network security. This is just a continuation of a long, long, possibly never-ending debate that started with the release of the bitcoin whitepaper in 2008 (see https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf). The recent mess during the past few years boils down to the controversy with the block size limit and how to appropriately scale bitcoin, the keyword appropriately. Scaling bitcoin is a controversial debate with valid arguments from all sides (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy). I have researched, studied, and written this overview as objectively and as impartially as possible. By all means, this is still an opinion and everyone is advised to draw their own conclusions. My efforts are to make at least a few readers aware that ultimately there is only one team, and that team is the team bitcoin. Yes, currently though, there are factions within the team bitcoin. I hope that we can get beyond partisan fights and work together for the best bitcoin. I support all scaling proposals as long as they are the best for the given moment in time. Personally, I hate propaganda and love free speech as long as it is not derogatory and as long as it allows for constructive discussions. The goal of this overview is to explain to a novice how bitcoin network works, what has been keeping many bitcoin enthusiasts concerned, and if we can keep the bitcoin network with three main properties described as decentralized, distributed, immutable. Immutable means censorship resistant. For the distinction between decentralized and distributed, refer to Figure 1: Centralized, decentralized and distributed network models by Paul Baran (1964), which is a RAND Institute study to create a robust and nonlinear military communication network (see https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM3420.pdf). Note that for the overall network resilience and security, distributed is more desirable than decentralized, and the goal is to get as far away from central models as possible. Of course, nothing is strictly decentralized or strictly distributed and all network elements are at different levels of this spectrum. For those unaware how bitcoin works, I recommend the Bitcoin Wikipedia (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page). In short, the bitcoin network includes users which make bitcoin transactions and send them to the network memory pool called mempool, nodes which store the public and pseudonymous ledger called blockchain and which help with receiving pending transactions and updating processed transactions, thus securing the overall network, and miners which also secure the bitcoin network by mining. Mining is the process of confirming pending bitcoin transactions, clearing them from the mempool, and adding them to blocks which build up the consecutive chain of blocks on the blockchain. The blockchain is therefore a decentralized and distributed ledger built on top of bitcoin transactions, therefore impossible to exist without bitcoin. If someone claims to be working on their own blockchain without bitcoin, by the definition of the bitcoin network however, they are not talking about the actual blockchain. Instead, they intend to own a different kind of a private database made to look like the public and pseudonymous blockchain ledger. There are roughly a couple of dozen mining pools, each possibly with hundreds or thousands of miners participating in them, to several thousand nodes (see https://blockchain.info/pools and https://coin.dance/nodes). Therefore, the bitcoin network has at worst decentralized miners and at best distributed nodes. The miner and node design makes the blockchain resilient and immune to reversible changes, making it censorship resistant, thus immutable. The bitcoin blockchain avoids the previous need for a third party to trust. This is a very elegant solution to peer-to-peer financial exchange via a network that is all: decentralized, distributed, immutable. Extra features (escrow, reversibility via time-locks, and other features desirable in specific instances) can be integrated within the network or added on top of this network, however, they have not been implemented yet. Miners who participate receive mining reward consisting of newly mined bitcoins at a predetermined deflationary rate and also transaction fees from actual bitcoin transactions being processed. It is estimated that in 2022, miners will have mined more than 90% of all 21 million bitcoins ever to be mined (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply). As the mining reward from newly mined blocks diminishes to absolute zero in 2140, the network eventually needs the transaction fees to become the main component of the reward. This can happen either via high-volume-low-cost transaction fees or low-volume-high-cost transaction fees. Obviously, there is the need to address the question of fees when dealing with the dilemma how to scale bitcoin. Which type of fees would you prefer and under which circumstances? 2. WTF is going on? Recent developments. There are multiple sides to the scaling debate but to simplify it, first consider the 2 main poles. In particular, to scale bitcoin on blockchain or to scale it off it, that is the question! The first side likes the idea of bitcoin as it has been until now. It prefers on-chain scaling envisioned by the bitcoin creator or a group of creators who chose the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. It is now called Bitcoin Cash and somewhat religiously follows Satoshi’s vision from the 2008 whitepaper and their later public forum discussions (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366). Creators’ vision is good to follow but it should not be followed blindly and dogmatically when better advancements are possible, the keyword when. To alleviate concerning backlog of transactions and rising fees, Bitcoin Cash proponents implemented a simple one-line code update which increased the block size limit for blockhain blocks from 1MB block size limit to a new, larger 8MB limit. This was done through a fork on August 1, 2017, which created Bitcoin Cash, and which kept the bitcoin transaction history until then. Bitcoin Cash has observed significant increase in support, from 3% of all bitcoin miners at first to over 44% of all bitcoin miners after 3 weeks on August 22, 2017 (see http://fork.lol/pow/hashrate and http://fork.lol/pow/hashrateabs). An appropriate scaling analogy is to recall email attachments early on. They too were limited to a few MB at first, then 10MB, 20MB, up until 25MB on Gmail. But even then, Gmail eventually started using Google Drive internally. Note that Google Drive is a third party to Gmail, although yes, it is managed by the same entity. The second side argues that bitcoin cannot work with such a scaling approach of pre-meditated MB increases. Arguments against block size increases include miner and node centralization, and bandwidth limitations. These are discussed in more detail in the third section of this overview. As an example of an alternative scaling approach, proponents of off-chain scaling want to jump to the internally integrated third party right away, without any MB increase and, sadly, without any discussion. Some of these proponents called one particular implementation method SegWit, which stands for Segregated Witness, and they argue that SegWit is the only way that we can ever scale up add the extra features to the bitcoin network. This is not necessarily true because other scaling solutions are feasible, such as already functioning Bitcoin Cash, and SegWit’s proposed solution will not use internally integrated third party as shown next. Note that although not as elegant as SegWit is today, there are other possibilities to integrate some extra features without SegWit (see /Bitcoin/comments/5dt8tz/confused_is_segwit_needed_for_lightning_network). Due to the scaling controversy and the current backlog of transactions and already high fees, a third side hastily proposed a compromise to a 2MB increase in addition to the proposed SegWit implementation. They called it SegWit2x, which stands for Segregated Witness with 2MB block size limit increase. But the on-chain scaling and Bitcoin Cash proponents did not accept it due to SegWit’s design redundancy and hub centralization which are discussed next and revisited in the third section of this overview. After a few years of deadlock, that is why the first side broke free and created the Bitcoin Cash fork. The second side stuck with bitcoin as it was. In a way, they inherited the bitcoin network without any major change to public eye. This is crucial because major changes are about to happen and the original bitcoin vision, as we have known it, is truly reflected only in what some media refer to as a forked clone, Bitcoin Cash. Note that to avoid confusion, this second side is referred to as Bitcoin Core by some or Legacy Bitcoin by others, although mainstream media still refers to it simply as Bitcoin. The core of Bitcoin Core is quite hardcore though. They too rejected the proposed compromise for SegWit2x and there are clear indications that they will push to keep SegWit only, forcing the third side with SegWit2x proponents to create another fork in November 2017 or to join Bitcoin Cash. Note that to certain degree, already implemented and working Bitcoin Cash is technically superior to SegWit2x which is yet to be deployed (see /Bitcoin/comments/6v0gll/why_segwit2x_b2x_is_technically_inferior_to). Interestingly enough, those who agreed to SegWit2x have been in overwhelming majority, nearly 87% of all bitcoin miners on July 31, 2017 prior to the fork, and a little over 90% of remaining Bitcoin Core miners to date after the fork (see https://coin.dance/blocks). Despite such staggering support, another Bitcoin Core fork is anticipated later in November (see https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-is-splitting-once-again-are-you-ready) and the "Outcome #2: Segwit2x reneges on 2x or does not prioritize on-chain scaling" seems to be on track from the perspective of Bitcoin Core SegWit, publicly seen as the original Bitcoin (see https://blog.bridge21.io/before-and-after-the-great-bitcoin-fork-17d2aad5d512). The sad part is that although in their overwhelming majority, the miners who support SegWit2x would be the ones creating another Bitcoin Core SegWit2x fork or parting ways from the original Bitcoin. In a way, this is an ironic example how bitcoin’s built-in resiliency to veto changes causes majority to part away when a small minority has status quo and holds off fully-consented progress. Ultimately, this will give the minority Bitcoin Core SegWit proponents the original Bitcoin branding, perhaps to lure in large institutional investors and monetize on bitcoin’s success as we have it seen it during the past 9 years since its inception. Recall that bitcoin of today is already a decentralized, distributed, immutable network by its definition. The bitcoin network was designed to be an alternative to centralized and mutable institutions, so prevalent in modern capitalist societies. Bitcoin Core SegWit group wants to change the existing bitcoin network to a network with dominant third parties which, unlike Google Drive to Gmail, are not internal. In particular, they intend to do so via the lightning network, which is a second layer solution (2L). This particular 2L as currently designed relies on an artificial block size limit cap which creates a bottleneck in order to provide high incentives for miners to participate. It monetizes on backlog of transaction and high fees, which are allocated to miners, not any group in particular. Cheaper and more instantaneous transactions are shifted to the lightning network which is operated by hubs also earning revenue. Note that some of these hubs may choose to monitor transactions and can possibly censor who is allowed to participate in this no longer strictly peer-to-peer network. We lose the immutability and instead we have a peer-to-hub-to-peer network that is mutable and at best decentralized, and certainly not distributed (see https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800). For regular day-to-day and recurring transactions, it is not a considerable risk or inconvenience. And one could choose to use the main chain any time to bypass the lightning network and truly transact peer-to-peer. But since the main chain has an entry barrier in the form of artificially instilled high transaction fees, common people are not able to use bitcoin as we have known it until now. Peer-to-peer bitcoin becomes institution-to-institution bitcoin with peer-to-hub-to-peer 2L. To reiterate and stress, note the following lightning network design flaw again. Yes, activating SegWit and allowing 2L such as lightning allows for lower transaction fees to coexist side by side with more costly on-chain transactions. For those using this particularly prescribed 2L, the fees remain low. But since these 2L are managed by hubs, we introduce another element to trust, which is contrary to what the bitcoin network was designed to do at the first place. Over time, by the nature of the lightning network in its current design, these third party hubs grow to be centralized, just like Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover, etc. There is nothing wrong with that in general because it works just fine. But recall that bitcoin set out to create a different kind of a network. Instead of decentralized, distributed, immutable network with miners and nodes, with the lightning network we end up with at best decentralized but mutable network with hubs. Note that Bitcoin Core SegWit has a US-based organization backing it with millions of dollars (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockstream and https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/the-truth-about-who-is-behind-blockstream-and-segwit-as-the-saying-goes-follow-the-money). Their proponents are quite political and some even imply $1000 fees on the main bitcoin blockchain (see https://cointelegraph.com/news/ari-paul-tuur-demeester-look-forward-to-up-to-1k-bitcoin-fees). Contrary to them, Bitcoin Cash proponents intend to keep small fees on a scale of a few cents, which in large volume in larger blockchain blocks provide sufficient incentive for miners to participate. On the one hand, sticking to the original vision of peer-to-peer network scaled on-chain has merit and holds potential for future value. On the other hand, 2L have potential to carry leaps forward from current financial infrastructure. As mentioned earlier, 2L will allow for extra features to be integrated off-chain (e.g. escrow, reversibility via time-locks), including entirely new features such as smart contracts, decentralized applications, some of which have been pioneered and tested on another cryptocurrency network called Ethereum. But such features could be one day implemented directly on the main bitcoin blockchain without the lightning network as currently designed, or perhaps with a truly integrated 2L proposed in the third section of this overview. What makes the whole discussion even more confusing is that there are some proposals for specific 2L that would in fact increase privacy and make bitcoin transactions less pseudonymous than those on the current bitcoin blockchain now. Keep in mind that 2L are not necessarily undesirable. If they add features and keep the main network characteristics (decentralized, distributed, immutable), they should be embraced with open arms. But the lightning network as currently designed gives up immutability and hub centralization moves the network characteristic towards a decentralized rather than a distributed network. In a sense, back to the initial email attachment analogy, even Gmail stopped with attachment limit increases and started hosting large files on Google Drive internally, with an embedded link in a Gmail email to download anything larger than 25MB from Google Drive. Anticipating the same scaling decisions, the question then becomes not if but when and how such 2L should be implemented, keeping the overall network security and network characteristics in mind. If you have not gotten it yet, repeat, repeat, repeat: decentralized, distributed, immutable. Is it the right time now and is SegWit (one way, my way or highway) truly the best solution? Those siding away from Bitcoin Core SegWit also dislike that corporate entities behind Blockstream, the one publicly known corporate entity directly supporting SegWit, have allegedly applied for SegWit patents which may further restrict who may and who may not participate in the creation of future hubs, or how these hubs are controlled (see the alleged patent revelations, https://falkvinge.net/2017/05/01/blockstream-patents-segwit-makes-pieces-fall-place, the subsequent Twitter rebuttal Blockstream CEO, http://bitcoinist.com/adam-back-no-patents-segwit, and the subsequent legal threats to SegWit2x proponents /btc/comments/6vadfi/blockstream_threatening_legal_action_against). Regardless if the patent claims are precise or not, the fact remains that there is a corporate entity dictating and vetoing bitcoin developments. Objectively speaking, Bitcoin Core SegWit developers paid by Blockstream is a corporate takeover of the bitcoin network as we have known it. And on the topic of patents and permissionless technological innovations, what makes all of this even more complicated is that a mining improvement technology called ASICboost is allowed on Bitcoin Cash. The main entities who forked from Bitcoin Core to form Bitcoin Cash had taken advantage of patents to the ASICboost technology on the original bitcoin network prior to the fork (see https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/breaking-down-bitcoins-asicboost-scandal). This boost saved estimated 20% electricity for miners on 1MB blocks and created unfair economic advantage for this one particular party. SegWit is one way that this boost is being eliminated, through the code. Larger blocks are another way to reduce the boost advantage, via decreased rate of collisions which made this boost happen at the first place (see https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/breaking-down-bitcoins-asicboost-scandal-solutions and https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/the-relation-between-segwit-and-asicboost-covert-and-overt). Therefore, the initial Bitcoin Cash proponents argue that eliminating ASICboost through the code is no longer needed or necessary. Of course, saving any amount electricity between 0% and 20% is good for all on our planet but in reality any energy saved in a mining operation is used by the same mining operation to increase their mining capacity. In reality, there are no savings, there is just capacity redistribution. The question then becomes if it is okay that only one party currently and already holds onto this advantage, which they covertly hid for relatively long time, and which they could be using covertly on Bitcoin Cash if they desired to do so, even though it would an advantage to a smaller degree. To be fair to them, they are mining manufacturers and operators, they researched and developed the advantage from own resources, so perhaps they do indeed have the right to reap ASICboost benefits while they can. But perhaps it should happen in publicly know way, not behind closed doors, and should be temporary, with agreed patent release date. In conclusion, there is no good and no bad actor, each side is its own shade of grey. All parties have their own truth (and villainy) to certain degree. Bitcoin Cash's vision is for bitcoin to be an electronic cash platform and daily payment processor whereas Bitcoin Core SegWit seems to be drawn more to the ideas of bitcoin as an investment vehicle and a larger settlement layer with the payment processor function managed via at best decentralized third party hubs. Both can coexist, or either one can eventually prove more useful and digest the other one by taking over all use-cases. Additionally, the most popular communication channel on /bitcoin with roughly 300k subscribers censors any alternative non-Bitcoin-Core-SegWit opinions and bans people from posting their ideas to discussions (see https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43). This is because their moderators are also supported by Blockstream. Note that the author of this overview has not gotten banned from this particular subreddit (yet), but has experienced shadow-banning first hand. Shadow-banning is a form of censorship. In this particular case, their moderator robot managed by people moderators, collaboratively with the people moderators, do the following:
(1) look for "Bitcoin Cash" and other undesirable keywords,
(2) warn authors that “Bitcoin Cash” is not true bitcoin (which objectively speaking it is, and which is by no means “BCash” that Bitcoin Core SegWit proponents refer to, in a coordinated effort to further confuse public, especially since some of them have published plans to officially release another cryptocurrency called “BCash” in 2018, see https://medium.com/@freetrade68/announcing-bcash-8b938329eaeb),
(3) further warn authors that if they try to post such opinions again, they could banned permanently,
(4) tell authors to delete their already posted posts or comments,
(5) hide their post from publicly seen boards with all other posts, thus preventing it from being seeing by the other participants in this roughly 300k public forum,
This effectively silences objective opinions and creates a dangerous echo-chamber. Suppressing free speech and artificially blowing up transaction fees on Bitcoin Core SegWit is against bitcoin’s fundamental values. Therefore, instead of the original Reddit communication channel, many bitcoin enthusiasts migrated to /btc which has roughly 60k subscribers as of now, up from 20k subscribers a year ago in August 2016 (see http://redditmetrics.com/btc). Moderators there do not censor opinions and allow all polite and civil discussions about scaling, including all opinions on Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Core, etc. Looking beyond their respective leaderships and communication channels, let us review a few network fundamentals and recent developments in Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash networks. Consequently, for now, these present Bitcoin Cash with more favorable long-term prospects.
(1) The stress-test and/or attack on the Bitcoin Cash mempool earlier on August 16, 2017 showed that 8MB blocks do work as intended, without catastrophic complications that Bitcoin Core proponents anticipated and from which they attempted to discourage others (see https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/uahf/#2w for the Bitcoin Cash mempool and https://core.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#2w for the Bitcoin Core mempool). Note that when compared to the Bitcoin Core mempool on their respective 2 week views, one can observe how each network handles backlogs. On the most recent 2 week graphs, the Y-scale for Bitcoin Core is 110k vs. 90k on Bitcoin Cash. In other words, at the moment, Bitcoin Cash works better than Bitcoin Core even though there is clearly not as big demand for Bitcoin Cash as there is for Bitcoin Core. The lack of demand for Bitcoin Cash is partly because Bitcoin Cash is only 3 weeks old and not many merchants have started accepting it, and only a limited number of software applications to use Bitcoin Cash has been released so far. By all means, the Bitcoin Cash stress-test and/or attack from August 16, 2017 reveals that the supply will handle the increased demand, more affordably, and at a much quicker rate.
(2) Bitcoin Cash “BCH” mining has become temporarily more profitable than mining Bitcoin Core “BTC” (see http://fork.lol). Besides temporary loss of miners, this puts Bitcoin Core in danger of permanently fleeing miners. Subsequently, mempool backlog and transaction fees are anticipated to increase further.
(3) When compared to Bitcoin Cash transaction fees at roughly $0.02, transaction fees per kB are over 800 times as expensive on Bitcoin Core, currently at over $16 (see https://cashvscore.com).
(4) Tipping service that used to work on Bitcoin Core's /Bitcoin a few years back has been revived by a new tipping service piloted on the more neutral /btc with the integration of Bitcoin Cash (see /cashtipperbot).
3. Should we scale you on-chain or off-chain? Scaling bitcoin. Let us start with the notion that we are impartial to both Bitcoin Core (small blocks, off-chain scaling only) and Bitcoin Cash (big blocks, on-chain scaling only) schools of thought. We will support any or all ideas, as long as they allow for bitcoin to grow organically and eventually succeed as a peer-to-peer network that remains decentralized, distributed, immutable. Should we have a preference in either of the proposed scaling solutions? First, let us briefly address Bitcoin Core and small blocks again. From the second section of this overview, we understand that there are proposed off-chain scaling methods via second layer solutions (2L), most notably soon-to-be implemented lightning via SegWit on Bitcoin Core. Unfortunately, the lightning network diminishes distributed and immutable network properties by replacing bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network with a two-layer institution-to-institution network and peer-to-hub-to-peer 2L. Do we need this particular 2L right now? Is its complexity truly needed? Is it not at best somewhat cumbersome (if not very redundant)? In addition to ridiculously high on-chain transaction fees illustrated in the earlier section, the lightning network code is perhaps more robust than it needs to be now, with thousands of lines of code, thus possibly opening up to new vectors for bugs or attacks (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network and https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd). Additionally, this particular 2L as currently designed unnecessarily introduces third parties, hubs, that are expected to centralize. We already have a working code that has been tested and proven to handle 8MB blocks, as seen with Bitcoin Cash on August 16, 2017 (see https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/first-8mb-bitcoin-cash-block-just-mined). At best, these third party hubs would be decentralized but they would not be distributed. And these hubs would be by no means integral to the original bitcoin network with users, nodes, and miners. To paraphrase Ocam’s razor problem solving principle, the simplest solution with the most desirable features will prevail (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor). The simplest scalability solution today is Bitcoin Cash because it updates only one line of code, which instantly increases the block size limit. This also allows other companies building on Bitcoin Cash to reduce their codes when compared to Bitcoin Core SegWit’s longer code, some even claiming ten-fold reductions (see /btc/comments/6vdm7y/ryan_x_charles_reveals_bcc_plan). The bitcoin ecosystem not only includes the network but it also includes companies building services on top of it. When these companies can reduce their vectors for bugs or attacks, the entire ecosystem is healthier and more resilient to hacking disasters. Obviously, changes to the bitcoin network code are desirable to be as few and as elegant as possible. But what are the long-term implications of doing the one-line update repeatedly? Eventually, blocks would have to reach over 500MB size if they were to process Visa-level capacity (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability). With decreasing costs of IT infrastructure, bandwidth and storage could accommodate it, but the overhead costs would increase significantly, implying miner and/or full node centralization further discussed next. To decrease this particular centralization risk, which some consider undesirable and others consider irrelevant, built-in and integrated 2L could keep the block size at a reasonably small-yet-still-large limit. At the first sight, these 2L would remedy the risk of centralization by creating their own centralization incentive. At the closer look and Ocam’s razor principle again, these 2L do not have to become revenue-seeking third party hubs as designed with the current lightning network. They can be integrated into the current bitcoin network with at worst decentralized miners and at best distributed nodes. Recall that miners will eventually need to supplement their diminishing mining reward from new blocks. Additionally, as of today, the nodes have no built-in economic incentive to run other than securing the network and keeping the network’s overall value at its current level. Therefore, if new 2L were to be developed, they should be designed in a similar way like the lightning network, with the difference that the transaction processing revenue would not go to third party hubs but to the already integrated miners and nodes. In other words, why do we need extra hubs if we have miners and nodes already? Let us consider the good elements from the lightning network, forget the unnecessary hubs, and focus on integrating the hubs’ responsibilities to already existing miner and node protocols. Why would we add extra elements to the system that already functions with the minimum number of elements possible? Hence, 2L are not necessarily undesirable as long as they do not unnecessarily introduce third party hubs. Lastly, let us discuss partial on-chain scaling with the overall goal of network security. The network security we seek is the immutability and resilience via distributed elements within otherwise decentralized and distributed network. It is not inconceivable to scale bitcoin with bigger blocks as needed, when needed, to a certain degree. The thought process is the following:
(1) Block size limit:
We need some upper limit to avoid bloating the network with spam transactions. Okay, that makes sense. Now, what should this limit be? If we agree to disagree with small block size limit stuck at 1MB, and if we are fine with flexible block size limit increases (inspired by mining difficulty readjustments but on a longer time scale) or big block propositions (to be increased incrementally), what is holding us off next?
(2) Miner centralization:
Bigger blocks mean that more data will be transferred on the bitcoin network. Consequently, more bandwidth and data storage will be required. This will create decentralized miners instead of distributed ones. Yes, that is true. And it has already happened, due to the economy of scale, in particular the efficiency of grouping multiple miners in centralized facilities, and the creation of mining pools collectively and virtually connecting groups of miners not physically present in the same facility. These facilities tend to have huge overhead costs and the data storage and bandwidth increase costs are negligible in this context. The individual miners participating in mining pools will quite likely notice somewhat higher operational costs but allowing for additional revenue from integrated 2L described earlier will give them economic incentive to remain actively participating. Note that mining was never supposed to be strictly distributed and it was always at worst decentralized, as defined in the first section of this overview. To assure at best a distributed network, we have nodes.
(3) Node centralization:
Bigger blocks mean that more data will be transferred on the bitcoin network. Consequently, more bandwidth and data storage will be required. This will create decentralized nodes instead of distributed ones. Again, recall that we have a spectrum of decentralized and distributed networks in mind, not their absolutes. The concern about the node centralization (and the subsequent shift from distributed to decentralized network property) is valid if we only follow on-chain scaling to inconsiderate MB values. If addressed with the proposed integrated 2L that provides previously unseen economic incentives to participate in the network, this concern is less serious. Furthermore, other methods to reduce bandwidth and storage needs can be used. A popular proposal is block pruning, which keeps only the most recent 550 blocks, and eventually deletes any older blocks (see https://news.bitcoin.com/pros-and-cons-on-bitcoin-block-pruning). Block pruning addresses storage needs and makes sure that not all nodes participating in the bitcoin network have to store all transactions that have ever been recorded on the blockchain. Some nodes storing all transactions are still necessary and they are called full nodes. Block pruning does not eliminate full nodes but it does indeed provide an economic incentive for the reduction and centralization (i.e. saving on storage costs). If addressed with the proposed integrated 2L that provides previously unseen economic incentives to participate in the network, this concern is less serious. In other words, properly designed 2L should provide economic incentives for all nodes (full and pruned) to remain active and distributed. As of now, only miners earn revenue for participating. The lightning network proposes extra revenue for hubs. Instead, miner revenue could increase by processing 2L transactions as well, and full nodes could have an economic incentive as well. To mine, relatively high startup costs is necessary in order to get the most up to date mining hardware and proper cooling equipment. These have to be maintained and periodically upgraded. To run a full node, one needs only stable bandwidth and a sufficiently large storage, which can be expanded as needed, when needed. To run a full node, one needs only stable bandwidth and relatively small storage, which does not need to be expanded. Keeping the distributed characteristic in mind, it would be much more secure for the bitcoin network if one could earn bitcoin by simply running a node, full or pruned. This could be integrated with a simple code change requiring each node to own a bitcoin address to which miners would send a fraction of processed transaction fees. Of course, pruned nodes would collectively receive the least transaction fee revenue (e.g. 10%), full nodes would collectively receive relatively larger transaction fee revenue (e.g. 20%), whereas mining facilities or mining pools would individually receive the largest transaction fee revenue (e.g. 70%) in addition to the full mining reward from newly mined blocks (i.e. 100%). This would assure that all nodes would remain relatively distributed. Hence, block pruning is a feasible solution. However, in order to start pruning, one would have to have the full blockchain to begin with. As currently designed, downloading blockchain for the first time also audits previous blocks for accuracy, this can take days depending on one’s bandwidth. This online method is the only way to distribute the bitcoin blockchain and the bitcoin network so far. When the size of blockchain becomes a concern, a simpler distribution idea should be implemented offline. Consider distributions of Linux-based operating systems on USBs. Similarly, the full bitcoin blockchain up to a certain point can be distributed via easy-to-mail USBs. Note that even if we were to get the blockchain in bulk on such a USB, some form of a block audit would have to happen nevertheless. A new form of checkpoint hashes could be added to the bitcoin code. For instance, each 2016 blocks (whenever the difficulty readjusts), all IDs from previous 2015 blocks would be hashed and recorded. That way, with our particular offline blockchain distribution, the first time user would have to audit only the key 2016th blocks, designed to occur on average once in roughly 2 weeks. This would significantly reduce bandwidth concerns for the auditing process because only each 2016th block would have to be uploaded online to be audited. Overall, we are able to scale the bitcoin network via initial on-chain scaling approaches supplemented with off-chain scaling approaches. This upgrades the current network to a pruned peer-to-peer network with integrated 2L managed by miners and nodes who assure that the bitcoin network stays decentralized, distributed, immutable.
Note that the author u/bit-architect appreciates any Bitcoin Cash donations on Reddit directly or on bitcoin addresses 178ZTiot2QVVKjru2f9MpzyeYawP81vaXi bitcoincash:qp7uqpv2tsftrdmu6e8qglwr2r38u4twlq3f7a48uq (Bitcoin Cash) and 1GqcFi4Cs1LVAxLxD3XMbJZbmjxD8SYY8S (Bitcoin Core).
Mining the Bitcoin is profitable as long as the mining operation continues to expand and maximize efficiency. There are over 10,000’s miners in our network and we invite you today to benefit from our expertise so you can start earning Bitcoin on a daily basis and even get rewarded with Bitcoins when referring other people to join the network. Step 3 - Join a Bitcoin Mining Pool. Once you're ready to mine bitcoins then we recommend joining a Bitcoin mining pool. Bitcoin mining pools are groups of Bitcoin miners working together to solve a block and share in its rewards. Without a Bitcoin mining pool, you might mine bitcoins for over a year and never earn any bitcoins. This article will help you to discover various bitcoin mining pools around the world that are free to join. With the recent mass adoption of bitcoin and the skyrocketing of its value, there is a need to know where you can invest and earn bitcoin. I would just suggest you to drop this idea because there are no such legit sites that mine something free for you. There will be many sites around you that claims - they will mine eth ,btc ,zec and bla bla coins for you that even for free.Just thi... Slush Pool is the first publicly available mining pool, first annouced in 2010 under the name Bitcoin Pooled Mining Server. Slush Pool allows users to mine BTC and ZEC. Bitcoin can be mined for a 2% fee, while ZEC is mined for free. The pool shares the transaction fees earned with miners. Unique Voting System – Our pool stays politically neutral.
New bitcoin mining website 2020, bitcoin mining website 2020. site link. https://zee.gl/kniF86A Top high paying 100% trusted bitcoin cloud mining websites links. After completing the process, in order to receive your free Bitcoin, you will have to Wait 30 Minutes . 5. In just a 30 minutes you will receive your free Bitcoin in your wallet. Learn how to add Bitcoin, LItecoin or Ethereum to a mining pool with daily earnings. Get free access to our mining pools and start earning! You can register here for a limited time: https ... Stop using that miner clients what more than 50% will be sent to pool miner servers. With this Bitcoin Mining Software you will get 100% from your mining process. How does this free Bitcoin Mining ... After completing the process, in order to receive your free Bitcoin, you will have to Wait 30 Minutes . 5. In just a 30 minutes you will receive your free Bitcoin in your wallet.