04-29 04:34 - 'Anyone have any good resources to understand the pros and cons between Proof of Work and Proof of Stake? Is Proof of Stake truly a practical and secure way to operate a blockchain network over the lo...' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/the420chronicler removed from /r/Bitcoin within 2066-2076min
Litecoin’s Charlie Lee claims MimbleWimble scales better than Bitcoin. A glimpse into the future for NewYorkCoin! Litecoin, Dogecoin and NYCoin are all scrypt proof-of-work ❤️ NYCoin is The Earliest Free & Lightning-Fast Cryptocurrency in Existence! Proven Blockchain Since 2014.
BSV is about Proof of Work, not just in mining, but in all aspects. Other chains want to change the rules because they know that in time they cannot compete with or outwork the true Bitcoin. BSV is the only blockchain in the arena.
Recently I was thinking about this famous quotation by Theodore Roosevelt , his "Man in the Arena" speech:
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
It makes me think of BitcoinSV. The critics are the ABC and Core losers that never put in work, never attempt, never fail, never try and try again, never fall short, but also never succeed, never triumph, and never change the world. They are the cold and timid souls on the sidelines, the ones with the NO2X hats, happy to strangle Bitcoin and destroy the original vision for a short term pump and dump narrative. They are the Chris Pacia's of the world that tell us 22MB blocks are impossible, and needle us about "6 block reorgs" even though no chain was ever more than 2 blocks behind. They make lies that big blocks will result in complete centralization and spread lies that big blocks take 41 minutes to propagate the network. They tell us about "poison blocks" and that big blocksizes are too dangerous. But BSV marches on and proves the world wrong again and again with world record 128MB blocks mined that dwarf that of any other public blockchain. Its not perfect, sometimes we fall short, sometimes we err, sometimes we fail, but we learn from those failures, and learn from our mistakes and shortcomings. And we improve, and grow, and become stronger. For there is no effort without shortcomings. There is no improvement without trial and error. And who is even competing against us? The other loser chains are afraid to compete. They are afraid to enter the arena. They cannot compete, and they never could, that is why ABC were so critical of the early stress tests done by the BSV community. The only thing they have is to criticize BSV and Craig on social media, because they are doing nothing, they do not know how to work. The only work they seem to be doing is dedicating 90% of their life to obsessing about BSV and Craig. We now know Greg Maxwell of BlockStream is contrarian__, the main defamation troll cult leader critic of Craig and BSV. When you spend all your work and time on being a critic you are not actually doing work. You are just being a critic on the sidelines, and you are not in the arena. You are attacking someone else's work because you don't know how to do real work. They are shitlord degenerate weirdos that can't even properly groom themselves, exercise, or wash their hoodies or clown shirts in a timely manner. You can smell their laziness from a mile away. The ShamBitcoins have the illusion of work, while BSV does the real work. BSV does so much work that it gets captured and stolen by the fake Bitcoin chains. They steal the network effect, they steal the market cap, they steal the brand, they steal the merchants, they steal the ticker, they steal the subreddits that people like me and others worked hard to build, they steal our following, they steal the fiat onramps and exchanges. That is all they can do. All they know how to do is steal things and then try to rest on their laurels. This is why so many of them prefer POS, so they can become the oligarchs of the system. It is the same in BTC-Core's Lightning, Jihan/ABC's Avalanche/POS plans, and ETH's plans for POS. These are all forms of POS and rent seeking, where the systems degrade into oligarchy. The oligarchs don't want to work, they don't want POW. BSV on the other hand is entirely about POW, and putting in work, in all aspects. We just march on and continue building and competing. The parasites are on our back sucking our blood and weakening us, but the honey badger continues on. The subreddit continues here, the chain continues with 128MB and 2GB in July, the building and infrastructure continues with moneybutton and unwriter's tools, and large op-return data sizes, and metanet. Parasites freak out and try to delist us because they realize the day of reckoning is approaching. They know in their gut they have stolen everything they ever had. The ShamBitcoin chains are dying, literally. When the reward halving runs out their chains will lose all of their hashing security. BSV is the only ledger that will persist because it can actually generate utility and fees on its gigantic blocksizes. The critics know they cannot compete on work, so they seek to change the rules of the game. BSV is learning to swim on its own, exercising its mining muscles. We get stronger every day. We have mined world record 128MB blocks. While the other chains mining muscles are atrophied. They couldn't mine bigger blocks if they tried. They are wearing swim floaties on their skinny arms that lose half of their air every 4 years. Core and the Blue Matt are even giving presentations about how mining is bad and we need to get rid of mining altogether because they know they have already failed. Peter Todd is advocating inflation. They have failed to put in the work needed to scale. So yes we are the ones in the arena, our faces marred with dust and sweat and blood. We are the ones working. We strive valiantly, and if we fail, at least we fail while daring greatly. At least we pushed the limits of what is possible, at least we were not cowards that lay down and give up, or try to steal others work and rest on their laurels. At least we were not just troll critics on the sideline who can only point out where the strong man stumbles. We in BSV at times may experience shortfalls, but we also are able to achieve great triumphs, for you can't have the latter without the former. So remember it is not the critics that count, and its not the trolls that count. Its us that count. We are the irate tireless minority that stands up for what is right. We are the ones that preserve Bitcoin for future generations. BSV is about changing the world, and if you want to change the world you better get off the sidelines and get in the arena.
Are Proof of Work Blockchains like Bitcoin Cryptographically Safe Against Light-Based or Quantum Hardware?
Basically, I found on another thread here that leaked research from the Skynet project that is developing some type of Light-based hardware for blockchains aside from their blockchain chips and IoT blockchain network. Didn't see very good responses about any Photonic-based cryptography so wanted to try asking again. My questions:
People usually talk about Quantum Proof but the Field of Photonics seems to be possibly more advanced than quantum processors. Since Light-Based hardware is millions of times faster than conventional hardware, would Photonic ASICs be good at breaking public-key cryptography?
Is Ethereum or Bitcoin resistant to Photonic Proof of Work or Quantum Proof of Work given their current consensus models?
If so, what would be the ways to prevent it from happening?
Paper: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iBc9RJyuJm6cTt7XlIZM7sYXA4j7Frcm/view Project Reference: http://skynet.co/ "One of the possible research areas and implementations of Skynet is a single-node photonic RC design with the Inception core. This would enable the Skynet Core to use minimal power while processing millions of times faster than conventional hardware. One of the major problems in today’s computer science is the development of new hardware that could accelerate machine learning techniques. That hardware should be inherently fast, energy-efficient, and address information exchange bottlenecks present in now ubiquitous Von Neumann architecture. We will focus specifically on the so-called single-node photonic RC, which promises additional benefit of high-speed information processing and a solution to the high-degree network connectivity problem, based on complex nonlinear delay dynamics." Although it's really tempting please don't shill projects. There's got to be a couple cryptographers in this subreddit.
For regular Lightning Network transactions, no proof of work is being performed, no miner has to mine anything and nothing is happening in the ACTUAL Bitcoin blockchain.
Let's say you find a coffee merchant who accepts LN transactions, so you open a channel with him and fund it with $500. You're hoping to get a $5 coffee everyday for the next 100 days (forget about the fees, let's generously assume they're negligible.) After the funds have been spent up you're planning to close the channel. Question: In order for these 100 transactions to occur, how many transactions will actually be included in the Bitcoin blockchain, requiring proof of work to be done by miners? Answer: Two. Just two. One when you open the channel and one when you close the channel. For all the other transacting that is taking place, no actual Bitcoins are being moved, no actual proof of work is being performed and no miner has to do anything, at all. Literally, miners will just be on standby to open and close the channels. Another example: Let's say the demand for Bitcoin transactions in the future is 100 tx/s. Even generously assuming full segwit usage, the ACTUAL BTC BLOCKCHAIN is limited to 5 tx/s. So what percentage of the transacting taking place on the network are actual Bitcoin transactions? Answer: 5%. The other 95% of the volume would be happening OFF CHAIN, NOT being mined, NOT using proof of work, NOT detectable in the BTC blockchain. It would seem to me that the scaling roadmap of BTC is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than anything described in the white paper or any of Satoshi's writings. So for core proponents who claim Bitcoin BTC is closer to Satoshi's vision than BCH is, can you please explain to us how restricting usage of the ACTUAL blockchain in order to arbitrarily push all volume onto a proprietary second layer solution which is NOT based on proof of work, does NOT need to be mined and is NOT visible in the blockchain is what Satoshi described? Doesn't that kind of seem to be removing the very essence of what makes Bitcoin, Bitcoin!? The system is supposed to be based on proof of work, so how is doing away with proof of work, consistent with the Bitcoin system!?
It's easy to compare blockchain hashrates when the Proof-of-Work algorithm is the same. For example if Bitcoin has a hashrate of SHA-256 @ 40 PH/s and Bitcoin Cash has a hashrate of SHA-256 @ 2 PH/s, it's easy to see that for a given period of time the Bitcoin blockchain will have 20x (40/2) the amount of work securing it than the Bitcoin Cash blockchain. Or to say that differently, you need to wait for 20x more Bitcoin Cash confirmations before an equivalent amount of work has been done compared to the Bitcoin blockchain. So 6 Bitcoin confirmations would be roughly equivalent to 120 Bitcoin Cash confirmations in the amount of work done. However if the Proof-of-Work algorithms are different, how can we compare the hashrate? If we're comparing Bitcoin (SHA-256 @ 40 PH/s) against Litecoin (Scrypt @ 300 TH/s), the hashes aren't equal, one round of SHA-256 is not equivalent to one round of Scrypt. What we really want to know is how much energy is being consumed to provide the current hash rate. Literal energy, as in joules or kilowatt hours. It would be great if we had a universal metric across blockchains like kWh/s to measure immutability. However that's fairly hard to calculate, we need to know the average power consumption of the average device used to mine. For GPU/CPU mined Proof-of-Work algorithms this varies greatly. For ASIC mined Proof-of-Work algorithms it varies less, however it's likely that ASIC manufacturers are mining with next generation hardware long before the public is made aware of them, which we can't account for. There's no automated way to get this data and no reliable data source to scrape it from. We'd need to manually research all mining hardware and collate the data ourself. And as soon as newer mining hardware comes out our results will be outdated. Is there a simpler way to get an estimated amount of work per blockchain in a single metric we can use for comparisons? Yeah, there is, we can use NiceHash prices to estimate the cost in $ to secure a blockchain for a given timeframe. This is directly comparable across blockchains and should be directly proportionate to kWh/s, because after all, the energy needs to be paid for in $. How can we estimate this?
Get the blockchains Proof-of-Work algorithm
Lookup the average price per hash on NiceHash for this algorithm
Multiply price per hash by total hashrate per second
Now we have an estimated total Proof-of-Work metric measured in dollars per second ($/s). The $/s metric may not be that accurate. Miners will mark up the cost when reselling on NiceHash and we're making the assumption that NiceHash supply is infinite. You can't actually rent 100% of Bitcoin's hashpower from NiceHash, there isn't enough supply. However that's not really an issue for this metric, we aren't trying to calculate the theoretical cost to rent an additional 100% of the hashrate, we're trying to get a figure that allows us to compare the cost of the current total hashrate accross blockchains. Even if the exact $ value we end up with is not that accurate, it should still be proportionate to kWh/s. This means it's still an accurate metric to compare the difference in work done over a given amount of time between blockchains. So how do we compare these values between blockchains? Once we've done the above calculations and got a $/s cost for each blockchain, we just need to factor in the average block time and calculate the total $ cost for a given number of confirmations. Then see how much time is required on the other blockchain at it's $/s value to equal the total cost. So to calculate how many Litecoin confirmations are equivalent to 6 Bitcoin confirmations we would do:
Bitcoin (SHA-256 @ 40 PH/s) or ($100/s)
Litecoin (Scrypt @ 300 TH/s) or ($10/s)
Bitcoin's average block time is 10 minutes (600 seconds)
6 Bitcoin confirmations on average is 60 minutes (3,600 seconds)
Bitcoin's total $ cost for 6 confirmations is ($100 * 3,600 seconds) $360,000
At Litecoin's hashrate of $10/s it would take ($360,000 / $10) 36,000 seconds (10 hours) to complete an equivalent amount of work
Litecoin's average block time is 2.5 minutes (150 seconds)
The amount of Litecoin blocks expected over this period of time is (36,000 seconds / 150 seconds) 240 blocks.
Therefore we can say that 240 Litecoin confirmations are roughly equal to 6 Bitcoin confirmations in total amount of work done.
$/s doesn't mean what it sounds like it means.
The $/s values should not be taken as literal costs. For example:
Bitcoin's total $ cost for 6 confirmations is ($100 * 3,600 seconds) $360,000
This is does not mean you could do a 51% attack on Bitcoin and roll back 6 blocks for a cost of $360,000. An attack like that would be much more expensive. The $/s value is a metric to compare the amount of work at the current hashrate between blockchains. It is not the same as the cost to add hashrate to the network. When adding hashrate to a network the cost will not scale linearly with hashrate. It will jump suddenly at certain intervals. For example, once you've used up the available hashrate on NiceHash you need to add the costs of purchasing ASICs, then once you've bought all the ASICs in the world, you'd need to add the costs of fabricating your own chips to keep increasing hashrate.
These metrics are measuring "work done", not security.
More "work done" doesn't necessarily mean "more security". For example take the following two blockchains:
Bitcoin Cash (SHA-256 @ 2 PH/s) or ($5/s)
Zcash (Equihash @ 4 GH/s) or ($3/s)
Bitcoin Cash has a higher $/s value than Zcash so we can deduce it has more "work done" over a given timeframe than Zcash. More kWh/s are required to secure it's blockchain. However does that really mean it's safer? Zcash is the dominant blockchain for it's Proof-of-Work algorithm (Equihash). Whereas Bitcoin Cash isn't, it uses the same algorithm as Bitcoin. In fact just 5% of Bitcoin's hashrate is equivalent to all of Bitcoin Cash's hashrate. This means the cost of a 51% attack against Bitcoin Cash could actually be much lower than a 51% attack against Zcash, even though you need to aquire more kWh/s of work, the cost to aquire those kWh/s will likely be lower. To attack Bitcoin Cash you don't need to acquire any hardware, you just need to convince 5% of the Bitcoin hashrate to lend their SHA-256 hashpower to you. To attack Zcash, you would likely need to fabricate your own Equihash ASICs, as almost all the Equihash mining hardware in the world is already securing Zcash.
Accurately calculating security is much more complicated.
These metrics give a good estimated value to compare the hashrate accross different Proof-of-Work blockchains. However to calculate if a payment can be considered "finalised" involves many more variables. You should factor in:
Is this cryptocurrency the dominant cryptocurrency for it's Proof-of-Work algorithm?
What is the market cap of this cryptocurrency?
What is the daily trading volume of this cryptocurrency?
What is the $ value of this transaction?
If the cryptocurrency doesn't dominate the Proof-of-Work it can be attacked more cheaply. If the market cap or trading volume is really low, an attacker may crash the price of the currency before they can successfully double spend it and make a profit. Although that's more relevant in the context of exchanges rather than individuals accepting payments. If the value of the transaction is low enough, it may cost more to double spend than an attacker would profit from the double spend. Ultimately, once the cost of a double spend becomes higher than an attacker can expect to profit from the double spend, that is when a payment can probably be considered "finalised".
Proof-of-Work, or PoW, is the original consensus algorithm in a Blockchain network. In Blockchain, this algorithm is used to confirm transactions and produce new blocks to the chain.With PoW, miners compete against each other to complete transactions on the network and get rewarded. Blockchain do Bitcoin – Ao final do bloco, além do hash é adicionado um Nonce, o qual é a solução para o algorítmo Proof of Work.. A implementação do PoW exige que o minerador procure por um valor desse nonce que, adicionada aos dados do bloco e ao mempool (que contém as novas transações), gere um hash com uma determinada quantidade de zeros no seu início. Bitcoin uses the Hashcash proof of work system. One application of this idea is using Hashcash as a method to preventing email spam, requiring a proof of work on the email's contents (including the To address), on every email. Legitimate emails will be able to do the work to generate the proof easily (not much work is required for a single email), but mass spam emailers will have difficulty ... Im Jahr 2009 führte Bitcoin eine innovative Methode ein, um Proof of Work als Konsensalgorithmus zu verwenden, der zur Validierung von Transaktionen und zur Übertragung neuer Blöcke an die Blockchain verwendet wird. Dieser hat sich schließlich zu einem weit verbreiteten Konsensverfahren in vielen verschiedenen Kryptowährungen entwickelt. Bitcoin: The World's First Proof of Work Blockchain. Finally, on or about October 31, 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto published the Bitcoin whitepaper. Nakamoto was clear that proof of work was a key element of the Bitcoin protocol: We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based ...
#blockchain #ProofOfwork #PoW Proof of Work, the first consensus algorithm ever implemented in cryptocurrency. Learn about Proof of Work and how it differs from Proof of Stake and other c... Blockchain - Proof of work Watch more videos at https://www.tutorialspoint.com/videotutorials/index.htm Lecture By: Mr. Parth Joshi, Tutorials Point India Pr... Bitcoin Protocol Paper Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UieiMU-ImvI&list=PLQVvvaa0QuDcq2QME4pfeh0cE71mkb_qz&feature=share All Bitcoin Videos Playlist... In bitcoin, we refer to those that validate transactions and create bitcoin as ‘miners’. In Blockchain and cryptocurrency, “miners” rely on computers and code as tools, and use electricity ...