Blockchain Charts

Vertcoin and Bitcoin mining hash rate distribution (pie chart)

Vertcoin and Bitcoin mining hash rate distribution (pie chart) submitted by lacksfish to vertcoin [link] [comments]

Current Infographic Text - Please help with updates and ideas!

Here is the infographic text as it stands. There are things we need to update, and we could use a refresh. What would you like to see on the infographic? Please also refer to the infographic itself on the sidebar and comment below!
If you'd rather propose updates on the document itself, please go here. The translations are there too, but I don't think we've ever really used an infographic in another language.
Myriad A Coin For Everyone
The Most Secure, Decentralized, Fairly Distributed Coin
The Myriad Multi-PoW Blockchain uses 5 Hashing Algorithms Simultaneously
Myriad can be mined with CPUs (including Android devices!), GPUs or ASICsT
ANYONE can mine Myriad with whatever hardware they have available.
Myriad is NOT Pre-Mined
Everyone has an equal opportunity to obtain coins at the market rate = no hidden fortunes or controlling shares possessed by insiders
Each Algorithm = 20% of total hashrate = EXCEPTIONAL RESISTANCE TO 51% ATTACKS Pie Chart 1 j
51% of Single Algo Coin (eg Bitcoin) = Network Corruption :(
To execute a successful 51% attack against nearly all cryptocurrencies, an attacker only needs to coordinate 51% hashrate share of a single algorithm
Pie Chart 2
51% of Single Myriad Algo = only 11% of total hashrate :)
An attacker would need to control 51% o all 5 algorithms, or 100% of at least 3, to successfully execute a 51% attack against Myriad. Considering the diversity of hardware + miners on each algorithm, this proves exceptionally difficult to coordinate logistically, making Myriad the most 51% attack resistant coin out there.
Difficulty = Weighted per Algorithm, per Block
Miners compete equally for block rewards no matter what kind of hardware. Each algorithm creates coins at the same rate. ASICs don’t have an unfair advantage.
Myriad = Multi-PoW
Block Rewards given for contributing resources to the processing network, not for hoarding coins. Does not create systematic wealth inequality in the long term = FAIR
1 minute block processing time vs 10 minutes for Bitcoin = faster payment processing
Block reward halving every 96 weeks
Early mining period much longer than most coins = price remains intentionally low during initial distribution to allow more people to obtain coins at accessible prices
PROJECTS IN THE WORKS
New and improved wallets
Wider acceptance by merchants and much more!
For More Info, visit: www.myriadcoin.org Connect with us! (reddit snoot?) www.reddit.com/myriadcoin (facebook logo) themyriadplatform (twitter logo) @myriadcoin
submitted by keepmyshirt to myriadcoin [link] [comments]

[PAYMENTS] When will you get paid + other payment related questions

As this is really popular topic and there were many suggestions made that this should go under one topic, I have prepared this post and I kindly ask if you have any payment related questions to ask it here and not open new threads.
This is related only to sellers of hashing power, i.e. miners. You can monitor your statistics here
There are two types of wallets you can use for mining on NiceHash.
1. BTC address from NiceHash Wallet
You get this address by registering new account on NiceHash and finding Account > Wallet section.
2. BTC address from any other external wallet provider
You can use any valid BTC address.
Which wallet should you choose?
It is up to you - calculate it regarding your profitability and how often do you want to get paid.
How to know when will you get paid?
It is as simple as opening this link and entering your BTC address. Then on the right side, below the pie chart, you can find the estimated payout date and estimated payout balance. If you think there is something wrong, you can always ask and we will explain it to you. If the estimated payout time is "N/A", this means that you are currently not mining and we cannot calculate the estimated payout date.
Why has my balance dropped?
If your balance dropped in fiat value (USD, EUR,...) this is because the exchange rate BTC to fiat has dropped. Please check your BTC balance as you get paid in BTC and not USD or EUR.
Can you get paid in any other currency?
For now we only offer payouts in bitcoins. We are planning to offer alternative payouts but there is no ETA on that.
Your balance dropped to zero and you should get paid today. There is no transaction listed. What is wrong?
It takes a couple of minutes for us to process all the payments. Hence, the balance first drops to zero, after a couple of minutes transaction appears at your profile and then after couple of more minutes Blockchain confirms it. Please be patient.
Last change: 17th June 2017
submitted by NikiNiceHash to NiceHash [link] [comments]

Decred Journal — May 2018

Note: New Reddit look may not highlight links. See old look here. A copy is hosted on GitHub for better reading experience. Check it out, contains photo of the month! Also on Medium

Development

dcrd: Significant optimization in signature hash calculation, bloom filters support was removed, 2x faster startup thanks to in-memory full block index, multipeer work advancing, stronger protection against majority hashpower attacks. Additionally, code refactoring and cleanup, code and test infrastructure improvements.
In dcrd and dcrwallet developers have been experimenting with new modular dependency and versioning schemes using vgo. @orthomind is seeking feedback for his work on reproducible builds.
Decrediton: 1.2.1 bugfix release, work on SPV has started, chart additions are in progress. Further simplification of the staking process is in the pipeline (slack).
Politeia: new command line tool to interact with Politeia API, general development is ongoing. Help with testing will soon be welcome: this issue sets out a test plan, join #politeia to follow progress and participate in testing.
dcrdata: work ongoing on improved design, adding more charts and improving Insight API support.
Android: design work advancing.
Decred's own DNS seeder (dcrseeder) was released. It is written in Go and it properly supports service bit filtering, which will allow SPV nodes to find full nodes that support compact filters.
Ticket splitting service by @matheusd entered beta and demonstrated an 11-way split on mainnet. Help with testing is much appreciated, please join #ticket_splitting to participate in splits, but check this doc to learn about the risks. Reddit discussion here.
Trezor support is expected to land in their next firmware update.
Decred is now supported by Riemann, a toolbox from James Prestwich to construct transactions for many UTXO-based chains from human-readable strings.
Atomic swap with Ethereum on testnet was demonstrated at Blockspot Conference LATAM.
Two new faces were added to contributors page.
Dev activity stats for May: 238 active PRs, 195 master commits, 32,831 added and 22,280 deleted lines spread across 8 repositories. Contributions came from 4-10 developers per repository. (chart)

Network

Hashrate: rapid growth from ~4,000 TH/s at the beginning of the month to ~15,000 at the end with new all time high of 17,949. Interesting dynamic in hashrate distribution across mining pools: coinmine.pl share went down from 55% to 25% while F2Pool up from 2% to 44%. [Note: as of June 6, the hashrate continues to rise and has already passed 22,000 TH/s]
Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 91.3 DCR (+0.8), stake participation is 46.9% (+0.8%) with 3.68 million DCR locked (+0.15). Min price was 85.56. On May 11 ticket price surged to 96.99, staying elevated for longer than usual after such a pump. Locked DCR peaked at 47.17%. jet_user on reddit suggested that the DCR for these tickets likely came from a miner with significant hashrate.
Nodes: there are 226 public listening and 405 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 45% on v1.2.0 (up from 24% last month), 39% on v1.1.2, 15% on v1.1.0 and 1% running outdaded versions.

ASICs

Obelisk team posted an update. Current hashrate estimate of DCR1 is 1200 GH/s at 500 W and may still change. The chips came back at 40% the speed of the simulated results, it is still unknown why. Batch 1 units may get delayed 1-2 weeks past June 30. See discussions on decred and on siacoin.
@SiaBillionaire estimated that 7940 DCR1 units were sold in Batches 1-5, while Lynmar13 shared his projections of DCR1 profitability (reddit).
A new Chinese miner for pre-order was noticed by our Telegram group. Woodpecker WB2 specs 1.5 TH/s at 1200 W, costs 15,000 CNY (~2,340 USD) and the initial 150 units are expected to ship on Aug 15. (pow8.comtranslated)
Another new miner is iBelink DSM6T: 6 TH/s at 2100 W costing $6,300 (ibelink.co). Shipping starts from June 5. Some concerns and links were posted in these two threads.

Integrations

A new mining pool is available now: altpool.net. It uses PPLNS model and takes 1% fee.
Another infrastructure addition is tokensmart.io, a newly audited stake pool with 0.8% fee. There are a total of 14 stake pools now.
Exchange integrations:
OpenBazaar released an update that allows one to trade cryptocurrencies, including DCR.
@i2Rav from i2trading is now offering two sided OTC market liquidity on DCUSD in #trading channel.
Paytomat, payments solution for point of sale and e-commerce, integrated Decred. (missed in April issue)
CoinPayments, a payment processor supporting Decred, developed an integration with @Shopify that allows connected merchants to accept cryptocurrencies in exchange for goods.

Adoption

New merchants:
An update from VotoLegal:
michae2xl: Voto Legal: CEO Thiago Rondon of Appcívico, has already been contacted by 800 politicians and negotiations have started with four pre-candidates for the presidency (slack, source tweet)
Blockfolio rolled out Signal Beta with Decred in the list. Users who own or watch a coin will automatically receive updates pushed by project teams. Nice to see this Journal made it to the screenshot!
Placeholder Ventures announced that Decred is their first public investment. Their Investment Thesis is a clear and well researched overview of Decred. Among other great points it noted the less obvious benefit of not doing an ICO:
By choosing not to pre-sell coins to speculators, the financial rewards from Decred’s growth most favor those who work for the network.
Alex Evans, a cryptoeconomics researcher who recently joined Placeholder, posted his 13-page Decred Network Analysis.

Marketing

@Dustorf published March–April survey results (pdf). It analyzes 166 responses and has lots of interesting data. Just an example:
"I own DECRED because I saw a YouTube video with DECRED Jesus and after seeing it I was sold."
May targeted advertising report released. Reach @timhebel for full version.
PiedPiperCoin hired our advisors.
More creative promos by @jackliv3r: Contributing, Stake Now, The Splitting, Forbidden Exchange, Atomic Swaps.
Reminder: Stakey has his own Twitter account where he tweets about his antics and pours scorn on the holders of expired tickets.
"Autonomy" coin sculpture is available at sigmasixdesign.com.

Events

BitConf in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Jake Yocom-Piatt presented "Decentralized Central Banking". Note the mini stakey on one of the photos. (articletranslated, photos: 1 2 album)
Wicked Crypto Meetup in Warsaw, Poland. (video, photos: 1 2)
Decred Polska Meetup in Katowice, Poland. First known Decred Cake. (photos: 1 2)
Austin Hispanic Hackers Meetup in Austin, USA.
Consensus 2018 in New York, USA. See videos in the Media section. Select photos: booth, escort, crew, moon boots, giant stakey. Many other photos and mentions were posted on Twitter. One tweet summarized Decred pretty well:
One project that stands out at #Consensus2018 is @decredproject. Not annoying. Real tech. Humble team. #BUIDL is strong with them. (@PallerJohn)
Token Summit in New York, USA. @cburniske and @jmonegro from Placeholder talked "Governance and Cryptoeconomics" and spoke highly of Decred. (twitter coverage: 1 2, video, video (from 32 min))
Campus Party in Bahia, Brazil. João Ferreira aka @girino and Gabriel @Rhama were introducing Decred, talking about governance and teaching to perform atomic swaps. (photos)
Decred was introduced to the delegates from Shanghai's Caohejing Hi-Tech Park, organized by @ybfventures.
Second Decred meetup in Hangzhou, China. (photos)
Madison Blockchain in Madison, USA. "Lots of in-depth questions. The Q&A lasted longer than the presentation!". (photo)
Blockspot Conference Latam in Sao Paulo, Brazil. (photos: 1, 2)
Upcoming events:
There is a community initiative by @vj to organize information related to events in a repository. Jump in #event_planning channel to contribute.

Media

Decred scored B (top 3) in Weiss Ratings and A- (top 8) in Darpal Rating.
Chinese institute is developing another rating system for blockchains. First round included Decred (translated). Upon release Decred ranked 26. For context, Bitcoin ranked 13.
Articles:
Audios:
Videos:

Community Discussions

Community stats: Twitter 39,118 (+742), Reddit 8,167 (+277), Slack 5,658 (+160). Difference is between May 5 and May 31.
Reddit highlights: transparent up/down voting on Politeia, combining LN and atomic swaps, minimum viable superorganism, the controversial debate on Decred contractor model (people wondered about true motives behind the thread), tx size and fees discussion, hard moderation case, impact of ASICs on price, another "Why Decred?" thread with another excellent pitch by solar, fee analysis showing how ticket price algorithm change was controversial with ~100x cut in miner profits, impact of ticket splitting on ticket price, recommendations on promoting Decred, security against double spends and custom voting policies.
@R3VoLuT1OneR posted a preview of a proposal from his company for Decred to offer scholarships for students.
dcrtrader gained a couple of new moderators, weekly automatic threads were reconfigured to monthly and empty threads were removed. Currently most trading talk happens on #trading and some leaks to decred. A separate trading sub offers some advantages: unlimited trading talk, broad range of allowed topics, free speech and transparent moderation, in addition to standard reddit threaded discussion, permanent history and search.
Forum: potential social attacks on Decred.
Slack: the #governance channel created last month has seen many intelligent conversations on topics including: finite attention of decision makers, why stakeholders can make good decisions (opposed to a common narrative than only developers are capable of making good decisions), proposal funding and contractor pre-qualification, Cardano and Dash treasuries, quadratic voting, equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity, and much more.
One particularly important issue being discussed is the growing number of posts arguing that on-chain governance and coin voting is bad. Just a few examples from Twitter: Decred is solving an imagined problem (decent response by @jm_buirski), we convince ourselves that we need governance and ticket price algo vote was not controversial, on-chain governance hurts node operators and it is too early for it, it robs node operators of their role, crypto risks being captured by the wealthy, it is a huge threat to the whole public blockchain space, coin holders should not own the blockchain.
Some responses were posted here and here on Twitter, as well as this article by Noah Pierau.

Markets

The month of May has seen Decred earn some much deserved attention in the markets. DCR started the month around 0.009 BTC and finished around 0.0125 with interim high of 0.0165 on Bittrex. In USD terms it started around $81 and finished around $92, temporarily rising to $118. During a period in which most altcoins suffered, Decred has performed well; rising from rank #45 to #30 on Coinmarketcap.
The addition of a much awaited KRW pair on Upbit saw the price briefly double on some exchanges. This pair opens up direct DCR to fiat trading in one of the largest cryptocurrency markets in the world.
An update from @i2Rav:
We have begun trading DCR in large volume daily. The interest around DCR has really started to grow in terms of OTC quote requests. More and more customers are asking about trading it.
Like in previous month, Decred scores high by "% down from ATH" indicator being #2 on onchainfx as of June 6.

Relevant External

David Vorick (@taek) published lots of insights into the world of ASIC manufacturing (reddit). Bitmain replied.
Bitmain released an ASIC for Equihash (archived), an algorithm thought to be somewhat ASIC-resistant 2 years ago.
Three pure PoW coins were attacked this month, one attempting to be ASIC resistant. This shows the importance of Decred's PoS layer that exerts control over miners and allows Decred to welcome ASIC miners for more PoW security without sacrificing sovereignty to them.
Upbit was raided over suspected fraud and put under investigation. Following news reported no illicit activity was found and suggested and raid was premature and damaged trust in local exchanges.
Circle, the new owner of Poloniex, announced a USD-backed stablecoin and Bitmain partnership. The plan is to make USDC available as a primary market on Poloniex. More details in the FAQ.
Poloniex announced lower trading fees.
Bittrex plans to offer USD trading pairs.
@sumiflow made good progress on correcting Decred market cap on several sites:
speaking of market cap, I got it corrected on coingecko, cryptocompare, and worldcoinindex onchainfx, livecoinwatch, and cryptoindex.co said they would update it about a month ago but haven't yet I messaged coinlib.io today but haven't got a response yet coinmarketcap refused to correct it until they can verify certain funds have moved from dev wallets which is most likely forever unknowable (slack)

About This Issue

Some source links point to Slack messages. Although Slack hides history older than ~5 days, you can read individual messages if you paste the message link into chat with yourself. Digging the full conversation is hard but possible. The history of all channels bridged to Matrix is saved in Matrix. Therefore it is possible to dig history in Matrix if you know the timestamp of the first message. Slack links encode the timestamp: https://decred.slack.com/archives/C5H9Z63AA/p1525528370000062 => 1525528370 => 2018-05-05 13:52:50.
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.
Your feedback is precious. You can post on GitHub, comment on Reddit or message us in #writers_room channel.
Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee, Richard-Red, snr01 and solar.
submitted by jet_user to decred [link] [comments]

Dr Peter R. Rizun, managing editor of the first peer-reviewed cryptocurrency journal, is an important Bitcoin researcher. He has also been attacked and censored for months by Core / Blockstream / Theymos. Now, he has now been *suspended* (from *all* subreddits) by some Reddit admin(s). Why?

Dr. Peter R. Rizun is arguably one of the most serious, prominent, and promising new voices in Bitcoin research today.
He not only launched the first scientific peer-reviewed cryptocurrency journal - he has also consistently provided high-quality, serious and insightful posts, papers and presentations on reddit (in writing, at conferences, and on YouTube) covering a wide array of important topics ranging from blocksize, scaling and decentralization to networking theory, economics, and fee markets - including:
It was of course probably to be expected that such an important emerging new Bitcoin researcher would be constantly harrassed, attacked and censored by the ancien régime of Core / Blockstream / Theymos.
But now, the attacks have risen to a new level, where some Reddit admin(s) have suspended his account Peter__R.
This means that now he can't post anywhere on reddit, and people can no longer see his reddit posts simply by clicking on his user name (although his posts - many of them massively upvoted with hundreds of upvotes - are of course still available individually, via the usual search box).
Questions:
  • What Reddit admin(s) are behind this reddit-wide banishing of Peter__R?
  • What is their real agenda, and why are they aiding and abbeting the censorship imposed by Core / Blockstream / Theymos?
  • Don't they realize that in the end they will only harm reddit.com itself, by forcing the most important new Bitcoin researchers to publish their work elsewhere?
(Some have suggested that Peter__R may have forgotten to use 'np' instead of 'www' when linking to other posts on reddit - a common error which subs like /btc will conveniently catch for the poster, allowing the post to be fixed and resubmitted. If this indeed was the actual justification of the Reddit admin(s) for banning him reddit-wide, it seems like a silly technical "gotcha" - and one which could easily have been avoided if other subs would catch this error the same way /btc does. At any rate, it certainly seems counterproductive for reddit.com to ban such a prominent and serious Bitcoin contributor.)
  • Why is reddit.com willing to risk pushing serious discussion off the site, killing its reputation as a decent place to discuss Bitcoin?
  • Haven't the people attempting to silence him ever heard of the Streisand effect?
Below are some examples of the kinds of outstanding contributions made by Peter__R, which Core / Blockstream / Theymos (and apparently some Reddit admin(s)) have been desperately trying to suppress in the Bitcoin community.
Peer-Reviewed Cryptocurrency Journal
Bitcoin Peer-Reviewed Academic Journal ‘Ledger’ Launches
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-peer-reviewed-academic-journal-ledger-launches/
Blocksize as an Emergent Phenonomen
The Size of Blocks: Policy Tool or Emergent Phenomenon? [my presentation proposal for scaling bitcoin hong kong]
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3s5507/the_size_of_blocks_policy_tool_or_emergent/
Peter R's presentation is really awesome and much needed analysis of the market for blockspace and blocksize.
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3me634/peter_rs_presentation_is_really_awesome_and_much/
In case anyone missed it, Peter__R hit the nail on the head with this: "The reason we can't agree on a compromise is because the choice is binary: the limit is either used as an anti-spam measure, or as a policy tool to control fees."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xaexf/in_case_anyone_missed_it_peter_r_hit_the_nail_on/
Bigger Blocks = Higher Prices: Visualizing the 92% historical correlation [NEW ANIMATED GIF]
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nufe7/bigger_blocks_higher_prices_visualizing_the_92/
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3nudkn/bigger_blocks_higher_prices_visualizing_the_92/
Miners are commodity producers - Peter__R
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3l3g4f/miners_are_commodity_producers_peter_
Fees and Fee Markets
“A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit” — new research paper ascertains. [Plus earn $10 in bitcoin per typo found in manuscript]
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3fpuld/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/
"A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit", Peter R at Scaling Bitcoin Montreal 2015
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3mddr4/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/
An illustration of how fee revenue leads to improved network security in the absence of a block size limit.
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3qana4/an_illustration_of_how_fee_revenue_leads_to/
Greg Maxwell was wrong: Transaction fees can pay for proof-of-work security without a restrictive block size limit
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3yod27/greg_maxwell_was_wrong_transaction_fees_can_pay/
Networks and Scaling
Bitcoin's "Metcalfe's Law" relationship between market cap and the square of the number of transactions
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3x8ba9/bitcoins_metcalfes_law_relationship_between/
Market cap vs. daily transaction volume: is it reasonable to expect the market cap to continue to grow if there is no room for more transactions?
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nvkn3/market_cap_vs_daily_transaction_volume_is_it/
In my opinion the most important part of Scaling Bitcoin! (Peter R)
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3l5uh4/in_my_opinion_the_most_important_part_of_scaling/
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3l5up3/in_my_opinion_the_most_important_part_of_scaling/
Visualizing BIP101: A Payment Network for Planet Earth
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3uvaqn/visualizing_bip101_a_payment_network_for_planet/
A Payment Network for Planet Earth: Visualizing Gavin Andresen's blocksize-limit increase
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3ame17/a_payment_network_for_planet_earth_visualizing/
Is Bitcoin's block size "empirically different" or "technically the same" as Bitcoin's block reward? [animated GIF visualizing real blockchain data]
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3thu1n/is_bitcoins_block_size_empirically_different_o
New blocksize BIP: User Configurable Maximum Block Size
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hcrmn/new_blocksize_bip_user_configurable_maximum_block/
A Block Size Limit Was Never Part Of Satoshi’s Plan : Draft proposal to move the block size limit from the consensus layer to the transport layer
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3hdeqs/a_block_size_limit_was_never_part_of_satoshis/
Truth-table for the question "Will my node follow the longest chain?"
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3i5pk4/truthtable_for_the_question_will_my_node_follow/
Peter R: "In the end, I believe the production quota would fail." #ScalingBitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3koghf/peter_r_in_the_end_i_believe_the_production_quota/
Decentralized Nodes, Mining and Development
Centralization in Bitcoin: Nodes, Mining, Development
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3n3z9b/centralization_in_bitcoin_nodes_mining_development/
Deprecating Bitcoin Core: Visualizing the Emergence of a Nash Equilibrium for Protocol Development
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nhq9t/deprecating_bitcoin_core_visualizing_the/
What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations? - Peter R
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ijuw3/what_is_wrong_with_the_goal_of_decentralizing/
Potentially Unlimited, "Fractal-Like" Scaling for Bitcoin: Peter__R's "Subchains" proposal
"Reduce Orphaning Risk and Improve Zero-Confirmation Security With Subchains" — new research paper on 'weak blocks' explains
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xkok3/reduce_orphaning_risk_and_improve/
A Visual Explanation of Subchains -- an application of weak blocks to secure zero-confirmation transactions and massively scale Bitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3y76du/a_visual_explanation_of_subchains_an_application/
New Directions in Bitcoin Development
Announcing Bitcoin Unlimited.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ynoaa/announcing_bitcoin_unlimited/
"It's because most of them are NOT Bitcoin experts--and I hope the community is finally starting to recognize that" -- Peter R on specialists vs. generalists and the aptitudes of Blockstream Core developers
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xn110/its_because_most_of_them_are_not_bitcoin/
It is time to usher in a new phase of Bitcoin development - based not on crypto & hashing & networking (that stuff's already done), but based on clever refactorings of datastructures in pursuit of massive and perhaps unlimited new forms of scaling
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xpufy/it_is_time_to_usher_in_a_new_phase_of_bitcoin/
Peter__R on RBF
Peter__R on RBF: (1) Easier for scammers on Local Bitcoins (2) Merchants will be scammed, reluctant to accept Bitcoin (3) Extra work for payment processors (4) Could be the proverbial straw that broke Core's back, pushing people into XT, btcd, Unlimited and other clients that don't support RBF
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3umat8/upeter_r_on_rbf_1_easier_for_scammers_on_local/
Peter__R on Mt. Gox
Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/1zdnop/peter_rs_theory_on_the_collapse_of_mt_gox/
Censorship and Attacks by Core / Blockstream / Theymos / Reddit Admins against Peter__R
Peter__R's infographic showing the BIP 101 growth trajectory gets deleted from /bitcoin for "trolling"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uy3ea/peter_rs_infographic_showing_the_bip_101_growth/
"Scaling Bitcoin" rejected Peter R's proposal
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3takbscaling_bitcoin_rejected_peter_rs_proposal/
After censoring Mike and Gavin, BlockStream makes its first move to silence Peter R on bitcoin-dev like they did on /bitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3syb0z/after_censoring_mike_and_gavin_blockstream_makes/
Looks like the censors in /bitcoin are at it again: Peter_R post taken down within minutes
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3tvb3b/looks_like_the_censors_in_rbitcoin_are_at_it/
I've been banned for vote brigading for the animated GIF that visualized the possible future deprecation of Bitcoin Core.
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nizet/ive_been_banned_for_vote_brigading_for_the/
An example of moderator subjectivity in the interpretation of the rules at /bitcoin: animated pie chart visualizing the deprecation of Bitcoin Core
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3osthv/an_example_of_moderator_subjectivity_in_the/
"My response to Pieter Wuille on the Dev-List has once again been censored, perhaps because I spoke favourably of Bitcoin Unlimited and pointed out misunderstandings by Maxwell and Back...here it is for those who are interested" -- Peter R
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ybhdy/my_response_to_pieter_wuille_on_the_devlist_has/
To those who are interested in judging whether Peter R's paper merits inclusion in the blockchain scaling conference, here it is:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3td6b9/to_those_who_are_interested_in_judging_whethe
The real reason Peter_R talk was refused (from his previous presentation) (xpost from /btc)
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uwpvh/the_real_reason_peter_r_talk_was_refused_from_his/
[CENSORED] The Morning After the Moderation Mistake: Thoughts on Consensus and the Longest Chain
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h8o50/censored_the_morning_after_the_moderation_mistake/
Core / Blockstream cheerleader eragmus gloating over Peter__R's account getting suspended from Reddit (ie, from all subreddits) - by some Reddit admin(s)
[PSA] Uber Troll Extraordinaire, Peter__R, has been permanently suspended by Reddit
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/407j77/psa_uber_troll_extraordinaire_upeter_r_has_been/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

The Argument Against Proof of Stake (PoS) by Michael Stollaire

The Argument Against Proof of Stake (PoS) by Michael Stollaire
Recently, I’ve been interviewed several times, and it’s an eventuality that the topic of how Verge stacks up against the competition in the privacy coin space comes up. The first thing I consider is the method of mining. In short, if Proof of Stake (PoS) is leveraged, that’s it for me. That asset is compromised, and most of Verge’s competition is PoS. I actually had a representative from one of Verge’s competitors tell me that PoS “is the future.” My response was that I was afraid of what the future held. Here’s why I consider PoS the death toll for a cryptocurrency: PoS uses a form of Dash’s Master Node concept. Someone has to have One-thousand (1,000) Dash coins that they “stake” by essentially putting it into a deposit box of sorts. If at any time, the deposit box does not have 1,000 coins in it, the Dash system detects this fact, and your Master Node is disabled. Well, this is a good situation if you were one of the first people involved in any PoS cryptocurrency, when coins cost $1 or less at the time or you were one of the original miners. However, what if you were not an ultra-early adopter? You are in deep trouble. Keeping with our Dash example, the current price for Dash is just over $300, so let’s use that round number in our calculations. One-thousand (1,000) Dash coins at $300 each would be $300,000. That’s right. You can have your very own Dash Master Node for the bargain price of… wait a second. The average price of a house in America is cheaper. Who can afford that?! I’ll tell you who. The one-percenters and the financial establishments that cryptocurrency was invented in January 2009 to thwart. That’s right, just like there are activist investors that buy up 10-25% of a public company’s stock so they can leverage their… you guessed it… STAKE… against the company itself, in order to control who the CEO is, who sits on the board of directors, and the general direction and activities of a company, the rich of the world can basically perform a hostile takeover of any cryptocurrency that leverages PoS for mining purposes. Here’s an example, Warren Buffett, who’s current net worth is $80.3 Billion. There are currently 4,719 Dash Master Nodes online. As we said before the approximate cost of a Dash Master Node is $300,000 each, so let’s have some math fun, shall we? $300,000 X 5,000 = $1.5 Billion. So, Mr. Buffett wakes up one day, and decides that cryptocurrency should play a minor part in his investment portfolio, and he plunks down $1.5 Billion to take over Dash. Since Verge’s other competitors that leverage PoS for mining cost significantly less, it’s that much easier for Mr. Buffett… or any wealthy individual to compromise any of them. Therefore, I would never consider investing in a PoS coin. So, we are now down to three (3) Proof of Work (PoW) assets: Verge, Monero and Bitcoin. Bitcoin is out, because of two reasons. Some might say that the hostile takeover of Bitcoin already took place, as China controls so much of Bitcoin’s PoW hash rate. Please reference the pie chart below. Bitmain’s AntPool is 22.3% of Bitcoin’s total hash rate by itself.
https://blockchain.info/pools
Also, since Bitcoin is “sort of anonymous” it cannot stack up against Verge, which is a true privacy cryptocurrency that has features now - and in the future… - that will make it the premier asset in this area. Again, in my opinion. Verge also leverages several different PoW mining algorithms to make sure that the chances are slim to none that a hash rate monopoly can take place. Transactions are faster by far, and transactions per second are twenty (20) times that of Bitcoin. The mobility feature of Verge are also secure and private, and… well, that’s it. I don’t really have to go any further, because we can logically deduce that Verge is superior to Bitcoin in several ways. Therefore, only Monero, ZCash and Verge are left. There has been several deep-dives done on Monero, as far as due diligence of their privacy and security features are concerned that bring up valid points about the lack of Monero’s privacy: http://hackingdistributed.com/2017/04/19/monero-linkability After the implementation of the much-anticipated Wraith Protocol™, most would agree that Verge is on equal-footing with Monero, regarding privacy and security features, if not slightly better, and Verge is just getting started. There’s much more to come in the near and distant future, I assure you. However, back to Monero. Another key element of an asset is whether or not it is an inflationary or deflationary currency. Bitcoin has a limit on the sheer number of coins minted, for instance, and so does Verge. They are deflationary currencies that will hold or increase their value over time. But, Monero (and PIVX) has an unlimited supply, just like fiat currencies such as the US Dollar. That means as time goes on, more and more Monero coins will be minted and its value will decrease. Right there, it’s game over, at least for me. However, I do have to point out that Verge has Toi2P “baked in” and this means that both sender and receiver IP addresses are obfuscated. Does Monero do that? No, it does not. On to ZCash. Well, it’s got its fair share of issues. Over six-hundred, it seems: https://github.com/zcash/zcash/issues However, the main issue for me is that they basically had an ICO, just like NAV and PIVX, etc. If you don’t have an issue with 20% or more of the entire supply of an asset going to line the pockets of its initial investors and team, you certainly should. Here’s how one blogger on Steemit put it: “The ZCash team decided to launch ZCash as an altcoin so they were able to fund the development: ZCash has a US-based company behind it and will tax 20% of the mining revenue during the first 4 years to pay off private investors. If ZCash were to succeed, the private investors will benefit greatly from the launch of this cryptocurrency. Although I don't like ICO's, a public coinsale (a form of crowdfunding) would have been a more fair and open way to fund development than seeking money from private investors.” Also… “Another problem with ZCash is the fact that it's brand new cryptography. Nobody can really guarantee that there aren't some bugs in the system that will make it possible to deanonymize transactions or create coins out of thin air. What's more, if coins are being created, it will not even be detectable because, unlike Monero (and Verge), you can't verify the total amount of coins in the ZCash blockchain.” Verge had no pre-mine. Verge had no ICO. The entire Verge Team is composed of pro-bono volunteers, including yours truly. That’s right. We work for free. Why? Because that’s how much sheer belief we have in Verge and we don’t have a “golden parachute” end game like those involved with ZCash. Does ZCash have a multi-algorithm mining methodology to prevent the platform being controlled by a few centralized GPU-based mining farms? No it does not. They can be taken over, just like Bitcoin. Now, there is only one coin standing: Verge. by Michael Stollaire October 31, 2017
submitted by TBISINC to TBIS [link] [comments]

Deepbit pool owner pulls in $112* an hour, controls 50% of network

It's totally cool to be profitable (profit, hooray!), but it is a very scary situation to have a pool as large as Deepbit [1]: The pool owner is in a position to change the rules of Bitcoin, since none of the pooled miners can verify that he is playing by the rules of the system [2], and the pool owner is not interested in putting in any safety measures to prevent his pool from obtaining a majority [3].
Please consider patronizing other pools: based on [1], there are at least 4 pools that can provide a daily payout, some of which have lower fees than Deepbit. Also, while the MtRed pool is not large enough to provide a daily payout, please consider it as well: a little bit of patriotism couldn't hurt.
* Back of the napkin, he's pulling in $112 dollars an hour, 24/7: 3% fee * 6 blocks per hour * 1/2 hashrate * 50 BTC per block * $25 exchange rate
[1] See the hash throughput pie chart
[2] Having a majority of CPU is baaad
[3] http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=3889.msg183370#msg183370
submitted by stuhood to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Coin-a-Week: Bitcoin

This is Coin-a-Week, the laziest coin coverage yet. We reprint coin-a-day archives with minimal revision and marginalia, not because the original was spectacular, but because we have it at hand and we have plenty more where that came from.
For a behind-the-scenes view of lazy coverage, send a message to coinaday (that's me) or /coinaweek (also obviously me) or request a subscription in the comments.
[There was a reference to the dogecoin post following being caught in the filter, then:] Fixed; spam filter issue. Thanks ThePiachu !
Coin-a-Day Jan 1stWeek February 14th
Welcome to the first Coin-a-DayWeek post, as introduced yesterdayintroduced "about a week ago"(tm)! Today I'm talking about Bitcoin, since it's the foundation for everything. This gives us an opportunity to review my format: what else should I have included? This post is something of a template for how I will be covering other coins. Up next for tomorrow"in a week"(tm) is dogecoin. I have not yet decided upon the next one after that, although I have an extensive list to choose from based on just the list I started with off the top of my head and the comments from yesterday.
Summary:
• 21 million coins limit; 13,675,325 13,837,675 currently [0]
• All-time high: $1124.76 [0.1]
• Current price: ~$314 256 [0]
• Current market cap: ~$4.3 3.5 billion [0]
• Block rate (average): 10 minutes [0.2]
• Transaction rate: 58882 transactions in the last 24 hours, estimated $22.6 million [0.3] 83,982 transactions in the last 24 hours (covering about Jan 2nd), estimated ~$230 million. [0.3] (revised) 96,919 transactions in the last 24 hours (around Feb 14 2015) [0.3]
• Transaction limit (current): 7 transactions/second [0.4] (This varies based on transaction sizes but is a commonly cited estimate.) [3 transactions / second estimated at normal / current transaction sizes; I use the 7 transactions / second and "theoretical maximum" values for this series]
• Transaction cost: 0.0001 BTC standard fee (or free under certain conditions) [0.5]
• Rich list: Top 100 addresses hold 20.36%20.9% [0.6] (I know I've seen a better richlist with a pie chart but forget where)
• Exchanges: Many. [0.7] (There are also many notable direct sellers not listed on there.)
• Community: Extensive. Highest merchant adoption.
• Processing method: Proof-of-work; paid with block reward + transaction fee
• Code / Development: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin ; strong developer team and community
• Distribution method: mining
• Innovation or special value: First cryptocurrency; largest market cap
Description
Bitcoin is the gold standard of cryptocurrencies. It came first[1], it has the largest market share[0], and it has one of the highest unit prices[0]. It is the foundation upon which substantially all alt-coins have been based, so it will be described here, and referenced frequently in later articles in comparison.
Bitcoin is based upon a distributed transaction-processing system called "mining". In it, computers race to solve a problem (making a hash less than a given value[2]) which allows them to add a set of transactions to the ledger (add a "block" to the "blockchain"), and gain a reward in bitcoins.
This reward acts as the incentive for transaction processing as well as providing new bitcoins. This reward is progressively halved over time until eventually there will be 21 million bitcoins [3] There is also a transaction fee (technically optional, see reference for details) [0.5].
Transactions are a combination of inputs (which are previous unspent transaction outputs or miner rewards) and outputs. The inputs must be greater than or equal to the outputs, and the difference is the transaction fee.
Bitcoin uses "addresses" which are hashes of public keys. An input must be properly signed by the private key in order to be spent[4]. This provides the cryptographic security of the network: as long as the mathematical models and program implementations used are correct, then the system will behave as expected (money cannot be spent twice; money cannot be spent by someone who doesn't own it; etc.). This is the "trustless" and "decentralized" nature of the system: there is no central authority relied upon to validate transactions (like a payment processor). Instead, this functionality is implemented by independent 'nodes' following a public protocol and monitored by other independent sources.
For instance, if any miner were to attempt to add a block which spent bitcoins which did not exist, or for which a proper signature was not provided, other miners acting in accordance with the protocol would refuse to build upon this block and clients (wallets) would also not recognize it as valid.
Most of these features are common to the alternative coins ("altcoins") which were developed after bitcoin and are based upon it ["clonecoins"]. Its code is also the basis for many of the alt coins.
Community
Without being too inflammatory and with tongue-slightly-in-cheek, Bitcoin has developed a userbase of crazy libertarians[5] who constitute the coin's greatest strength and greatest weakness. Most of them deny the value of any alternative coin[6]. Some of them believe that bitcoin will inevitably become the global reserve currency [7].
Merchant adoption is currently the strongest of any cryptocurrency. It has grown very significantly in the past year. It varies by country, industry, and in-person versus online, but there have been many major adoptions. They use payment processors rather than accepting it directly for the most part. Rather than attempting to put a big list here we'll make today's 10,000 NYAN challenge to the reader with the best source listing all or as many merchants accepting it as possible. C'mon people, I swear I've seen this on /bitcoin before.
Footnotes
[0] http://coinmarketcap.com/
[0.1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bitcoin (Wikipedia used as a source for 'general knowledge' confirmation)
[0.2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Why_do_I_have_to_wait_10_minutes_before_I_can_spend_money_I_received.3F
[0.3] https://blockchain.info/stats https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/
[0.4] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Current_bottlenecks
[0.5] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees Transactions fees can be omitted. For most transactions, this causes a much longer time until confirmation. For a transaction less than 1000 bytes, with outputs greater than 0.01 BTC, and with a higher priority, they may be safely omit the fee.
[0.6] http://bitcoinrichlist.com/top100
[0.7] http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/#markets
[1] There were various precursors in cryptocurrencies, notably Hashcash, the proof-of-work function (not a currency as the name might imply). And there had been other digital currencies previously. But this was the first virtual currency introduced which revolved around decentralization powered by cryptography. These two aspects: decentralized exchange and a reliance upon cryptography will generally define cryptocurrencies here. "Centralized cryptocurrencies" may also be considered, but are considered atypical. [This footnote was also in the Dec 31st launch; this may be made broken into a separate topic eventually.]
[2] Requiring a hash to be less than a given value forces the solver to try many values of an otherwise irrelevant value. This requires processing time, thus "proof-of-work". The "difficulty" is a parameter which decides how small a hash must be to be accepted. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty This is called "proof-of-work" (as opposed to "proof-of-stake", a later development based on demonstrating ownership in a currency) and its purpose is to regulate the average speed of the block generation as well as provide a mechanism for determining whose block is allowed to be added to the chain.
[3] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply
[4] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction
[5] https://www.quora.com/What-does-Yishan-Wong-think-about-Dogecoin/answeYishan-Wong
[6] Based on the author's reading of /bitcoin. This may not be representative of more sane communities like Bitcointalk or the broader community.
[7] http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/speculative-attack/ http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/hyperbitcoinization/
Additional Reading
• Original whitepaper - https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
• bitcoin wiki - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page
• bitcointalk (general source) - https://bitcointalk.org/
• bitcoin.org - A general reference
/bitcoin On second thought, let's not go there. 'Tis a silly place.
Disclosure
I am unqualified.
These posts are known to the state of California to be made from products which may induce cancer under certain circumstances.
Thank you for reading, and I look forward to all discussion and critique!
[edits complaining about formatting issues removed for brevity]
submitted by coinaday to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

A few thoughts - Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Good evening! A few thoughts for dinner tonight:

The VC bubble and a domino effect of failures

The latest fad in /bitcoin is that the price of bitcoin doesn't matter. One thread was titled "Sean's Outpost can give meals whether bitcoin is worth $35 or $1200!" That's true, but bitcoin is more complicated than that one use case.
I talked about the insane amounts of venture capital being poured into the industry right now a few weeks ago. The price of bitcoin is important for these people because it affects all sorts of businesses. For example, mining businesses can't profit if there is a crash after they design their chips. Exchanges make less money if the price is lower because a lower price can't support high volume. People who build projects on top of the network and who are sitting on donations can fold. Altcoins that are promising can be forked because it is no longer profitable to mine them.
Even at higher prices, there was not enough money to go around to prevent most of the VCs from losing on their investments. The piece of the pie that the VCs can earn shrinks as the price of a bitcoin falls. These people have deep pockets, so most of them can survive a brief downturn, but as the network expands, the lower bound price that would precipitate a complete collapse is rising.
When bitcoins averaged around $50, there weren't lots of employees getting paid in bitcoins and bankers wanting returns on investment. Now that bitcoins tend to average around $600, the size of the economy has increased significantly. Previously, the price of bitcoins could have dropped to $10 and everyone could still have looked forward to a recovery. Now, the minimum price is much higher (I've said $200) where a cascading chain reaction of business failures would take out the whole industry. In the future, that minimum price will likely rise to $1000, and then to $10,000, and so on.
The price falling below $200 or whatever the minimum is doesn't itself signal anything wrong with the promise of bitcoins. Instead, the low price will cause the failure of some critical part of the infrastructure like a major exchange, which could then cause businesses that depend on the exchange to be taken out, and so on. Even if everyone who owns bitcoins believed that the technology would succeed and there were many people spending bitcoins, the businesses would all be forced into bankruptcy simply because other businesses they need to offer their services failed in a chain reaction.
This VC bubble is dangerous and the best thing that could happen right now is for the VCs to stop temporarily with their investments so that this does not happen. Otherwise, the industry will end up in a fragile state where there are startups depending on other startups that have business models depending on a base price.

The "technology adoption curve"

One of the popular graphs making the rounds nowadays is the "technology adoption lifecycle" graph at http://setandbma.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/technology-adoption.png. According to the people who agree with the theory, bitcoin is currently in the bottom of that huge valley in the middle of the chart. One writer suggested that bitcoin was somewhere near the top of the curve still, with a long ways to fall down the valley before the technology ends up as a fraction of what it was thought to become.
While this chart may be relevant to other technologies, it isn't relevant to bitcoins. The most obvious problem with trying to explain bitcoin adoption using this chart is that there have been many bubbles, but the chart only contains one bubble. It would have been possible to pull out this "technology lifecycle" chart after any bubble in the past few years and state that bitcoins were stuck in the "chasm" and will be permanently damaged. For example, someone could have drawn this graph after the period where bitcoins fell from $50 to $2 and stated that the use of the technology will never be valued at more than $20.
Another reason to ignore this chart is that many of the other technologies that are often compared against it didn't follow the chart either. Some people suggest that the Internet followed this chart, because there was a bubble in 2000 that later crashed, and that the high hopes of the Internet transforming daily life never came to be. The way I see it, the Internet has grown far beyond anything imagined in 2000. Whereas pets.com might have failed, Wal-Mart is now losing customers because Internet shopping has become so cheap that it is a bad idea to go to their stores anymore if your goal is to save money. Cell phones have made many people oblivious to the world; I recently compared what it was like to ride the bus when I went to college and what it is now like to ride the same bus system. Now, everyone on the bus is engrossed in their phones and nobody even bothers to look out the windows, and in ten years people will probably be playing video games with their friends in their glasses, oblivious to the world around them.
Bitcoins are also not "just another technology." There are some technologies like bitcoin that can completely change the world. The Internet, television, and radio were a few of them, because the way the world worked was fundamentally changed by these technologies. Most of the other technologies listed on these charts, like facebook, self-driving cars, and virtual reality are not things that fundamentally change the way the world works. The economy ticks on without being changed significantly by facebook, but any company that has no Internet connection is obsolete.

Unbelievable deals on PS4s

Newegg has unbelievable deals on Playstation 4s right now. If you pay with bitcoins, you can buy one for $319.99, almost 30% below market rate. These are brand new and sealed, and it's likely that Sony will not lower prices to this rate for at least a year or 1.5 years. If you want to make quick money, you can buy a PS4 and then undercut sellers on Craigslist to pocket 50 bucks. For some reason, the market of these bitcoin-discounted PS4s and the dollar-denominated PS4s is decoupled and there is significant profit to be made.
I was trying to figure out what the catch is with these consoles yesterday. Newegg must be losing money on these, because they have a limit of 1 per customer. If they were earning money, there would be no reason to have such a limit. If they were simply offering a loss leader to get people to shop at Newegg or to upsell accessories, then they would offer the same price or close to it in dollars.
Therefore, there are three possibilities for this pricing. The first is that Newegg is being killed by so many transaction fees that they can actually afford to discount the PS4s to this insane price rather than give most of their profits to banks. The second is that bitcoins are priced low, and the company is gambling on a 30% loss now to gain more when this panic subsides. The final reason is that they simply want to promote bitcoins as a currency because in the long-run, the money they can save from transaction fees if bitcoin were the world currency far outweighs the losses they are taking on these items now.
I will take a risky position and say that #2 has played a role in this sale. If a company were looking to promote bitcoin adoption, and hold some percentage of assets in bitcoins, then the best time to do it would be when prices are very low. They can sell thousands of these consoles and take $30k in losses, but they end up with 1000 bitcoins in return. In the process, there are a certain number of people who bought accessories that are very profitable, there are new customers who will now return to Newegg in the future, the price of bitcoins is likely to rise eventually, and they have encouraged people who otherwise would never have bought bitcoins to do so, so that the transaction fees they pay in the future are more likely to be lower. Someone in the accounting department was tasked with adding together all these probabilities and came up with how much they can discount the units to make a profit in the long term.

How long a transaction takes

I read an article this morning where someone mentioned that the average time a person needs to wait for a transaction to process is five minutes. The number is derived from the incorrect assumption that blocks occur every ten minutes, so if you picked a random point between these ten minute intervals many times, it would be, on average, five minutes away from the next block.
Some people also state that it takes ten minutes to process a transaction, which, again, is inaccurate. What's alarming is that journalists for big-name newspapers spread false information to the public when they publish articles about the supposed "10-minute confirmation time."
Hashing for the bitcoin network is independent. If people have been hashing for 60 minutes without finding a block, there is no greater chance of finding a block in the next minute than there was 60 minutes ago. Therefore, one cannot say that blocks occur "ten minutes apart," because that isn't always true. Having done lots of work on a block does not mean that the next block is any more likely to be found sooner.
The time until the next block can be calculated using an exponential distribution. If the hashrate has not increased or decreased since the last difficulty change, publishing a transaction right now means you can expect for it to be confirmed in about 6.9 minutes, not 5 or 10 minutes. This calculation does not make intuitive sense, but results from the random nature of independent hashing. This is good news for those who mistakenly believe that it will average 10 minutes for a merchant to receive a transaction.

Other

submitted by quintin3265 to BitcoinThoughts [link] [comments]

New Features @ pi.uk.com/bitcoin

Just wanted to let you guys about some stuff i've been working on.
It appears there has been no significant chain forks to date. The longest chain being just two blocks
P.S Thank you to whoever donated.
submitted by zootreeves to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin: Hash rate and price analysis Bitcoin Hash Rate Hits Record Average High Defying BTC Price Bears Bitcoin Hash Rate Hits New All-Time High as Miners Shun Price Drop Binance Pool Poised to Grab More Bitcoin Hash Rate in Russia and Central Asia Ultimate Bitcoin Halving / Halvening Overview

Use Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Send real money quickly to anywhere in the world, basically for free. Learn More Total Hash Rate (TH/s) The estimated number of terahashes per second the bitcoin network is performing in the last 24 hours. 30 Days 60 Days 180 Days 1 Year 3 Years All Time Raw Values 7 Day Average 30 Day Average Bitcoin history for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019. Bitcoin price chart since 2009 to 2019. The historical data and rates of BTC Transactions Block Size Sent from addresses Difficulty Hashrate Price in USD Mining Profitability Sent in USD Avg. Transaction Fee Median Transaction Fee Block Time Market Capitalization Avg. Transaction Value Median Transaction Value Tweets Active Addresses Top100ToTotal Fee in Reward Bitcoin Average hashrate (hash/s) per day chart. Transactions Block Size Sent from addresses Difficulty Hashrate Price in USD Mining Profitability Sent in USD Avg. Transaction Fee Median Transaction Fee Block Time Market Capitalization Avg. Transaction Value Median Transaction Value Tweets GTrends Active Addresses Top100ToTotal Fee in Reward

[index] [8596] [25587] [26935] [9478] [25582] [23463] [719] [9927] [24389] [13837]

Bitcoin: Hash rate and price analysis

Last time bitcoin hash rate took a nosedive to a new low, bitcoin price turned bullish. This is what btc price charts tell us! #Bitcoin #btc Headlines: https... Bitcoin’s current inflation rate (pre-halving) is 3.6% per year. However, the May 2020 halving will reduce the rate of inflation to just 1.8%. At the time of video release, the average miner ... GET OUT OF THE MARKET! YOU'RE BEING PLAYED!! Rich Dad Poor Dad Author Robert Kiyosaki and Bitcoin - Duration: 36:53. Digital Asset News 187,153 views Join my Woo Woo Crypto Patreon https://www.patreon.com/jsnip4/memberships https://twitter.com/glassnode/status/1256946723915784198 https://twitter.com/realis... Bitcoin 7-day average hash rate 1-year chart. Source: BlockchainHash rate is an estimate of how much computing power miners are devoting to processing Bitcoin transactions. A higher average ...

Flag Counter