10 Best BitCoin Alternatives - Profitable Cryptocurrencies ...

CoinDesk publishes article finally admits Bitcoin extensive flaws with SHA256 Proof of Work, offers Ripple like alternative.

CoinDesk publishes article finally admits Bitcoin extensive flaws with SHA256 Proof of Work, offers Ripple like alternative. submitted by _k_digi to QuarkOmega [link] [comments]

Technical: The Path to Taproot Activation

Taproot! Everybody wants to have it, somebody wants to make it, nobody knows how to get it!
(If you are asking why everybody wants it, see: Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?)
(Pedants: I mostly elide over lockin times)
Briefly, Taproot is that neat new thing that gets us:
So yes, let's activate taproot!

The SegWit Wars

The biggest problem with activating Taproot is PTSD from the previous softfork, SegWit. Pieter Wuille, one of the authors of the current Taproot proposal, has consistently held the position that he will not discuss activation, and will accept whatever activation process is imposed on Taproot. Other developers have expressed similar opinions.
So what happened with SegWit activation that was so traumatic? SegWit used the BIP9 activation method. Let's dive into BIP9!

BIP9 Miner-Activated Soft Fork

Basically, BIP9 has a bunch of parameters:
Now there are other parameters (name, starttime) but they are not anywhere near as important as the above two.
A number that is not a parameter, is 95%. Basically, activation of a BIP9 softfork is considered as actually succeeding if at least 95% of blocks in the last 2 weeks had the specified bit in the nVersion set. If less than 95% had this bit set before the timeout, then the upgrade fails and never goes into the network. This is not a parameter: it is a constant defined by BIP9, and developers using BIP9 activation cannot change this.
So, first some simple questions and their answers:

The Great Battles of the SegWit Wars

SegWit not only fixed transaction malleability, it also created a practical softforkable blocksize increase that also rebalanced weights so that the cost of spending a UTXO is about the same as the cost of creating UTXOs (and spending UTXOs is "better" since it limits the size of the UTXO set that every fullnode has to maintain).
So SegWit was written, the activation was decided to be BIP9, and then.... miner signalling stalled at below 75%.
Thus were the Great SegWit Wars started.

BIP9 Feature Hostage

If you are a miner with at least 5% global hashpower, you can hold a BIP9-activated softfork hostage.
You might even secretly want the softfork to actually push through. But you might want to extract concession from the users and the developers. Like removing the halvening. Or raising or even removing the block size caps (which helps larger miners more than smaller miners, making it easier to become a bigger fish that eats all the smaller fishes). Or whatever.
With BIP9, you can hold the softfork hostage. You just hold out and refuse to signal. You tell everyone you will signal, if and only if certain concessions are given to you.
This ability by miners to hold a feature hostage was enabled because of the miner-exit allowed by the timeout on BIP9. Prior to that, miners were considered little more than expendable security guards, paid for the risk they take to secure the network, but not special in the grand scheme of Bitcoin.

Covert ASICBoost

ASICBoost was a novel way of optimizing SHA256 mining, by taking advantage of the structure of the 80-byte header that is hashed in order to perform proof-of-work. The details of ASICBoost are out-of-scope here but you can read about it elsewhere
Here is a short summary of the two types of ASICBoost, relevant to the activation discussion.
Now, "overt" means "obvious", while "covert" means hidden. Overt ASICBoost is obvious because nVersion bits that are not currently in use for BIP9 activations are usually 0 by default, so setting those bits to 1 makes it obvious that you are doing something weird (namely, Overt ASICBoost). Covert ASICBoost is non-obvious because the order of transactions in a block are up to the miner anyway, so the miner rearranging the transactions in order to get lower power consumption is not going to be detected.
Unfortunately, while Overt ASICBoost was compatible with SegWit, Covert ASICBoost was not. This is because, pre-SegWit, only the block header Merkle tree committed to the transaction ordering. However, with SegWit, another Merkle tree exists, which commits to transaction ordering as well. Covert ASICBoost would require more computation to manipulate two Merkle trees, obviating the power benefits of Covert ASICBoost anyway.
Now, miners want to use ASICBoost (indeed, about 60->70% of current miners probably use the Overt ASICBoost nowadays; if you have a Bitcoin fullnode running you will see the logs with lots of "60 of last 100 blocks had unexpected versions" which is exactly what you would see with the nVersion manipulation that Overt ASICBoost does). But remember: ASICBoost was, at around the time, a novel improvement. Not all miners had ASICBoost hardware. Those who did, did not want it known that they had ASICBoost hardware, and wanted to do Covert ASICBoost!
But Covert ASICBoost is incompatible with SegWit, because SegWit actually has two Merkle trees of transaction data, and Covert ASICBoost works by fudging around with transaction ordering in a block, and recomputing two Merkle Trees is more expensive than recomputing just one (and loses the ASICBoost advantage).
Of course, those miners that wanted Covert ASICBoost did not want to openly admit that they had ASICBoost hardware, they wanted to keep their advantage secret because miners are strongly competitive in a very tight market. And doing ASICBoost Covertly was just the ticket, but they could not work post-SegWit.
Fortunately, due to the BIP9 activation process, they could hold SegWit hostage while covertly taking advantage of Covert ASICBoost!

UASF: BIP148 and BIP8

When the incompatibility between Covert ASICBoost and SegWit was realized, still, activation of SegWit stalled, and miners were still not openly claiming that ASICBoost was related to non-activation of SegWit.
Eventually, a new proposal was created: BIP148. With this rule, 3 months before the end of the SegWit timeout, nodes would reject blocks that did not signal SegWit. Thus, 3 months before SegWit timeout, BIP148 would force activation of SegWit.
This proposal was not accepted by Bitcoin Core, due to the shortening of the timeout (it effectively times out 3 months before the initial SegWit timeout). Instead, a fork of Bitcoin Core was created which added the patch to comply with BIP148. This was claimed as a User Activated Soft Fork, UASF, since users could freely download the alternate fork rather than sticking with the developers of Bitcoin Core.
Now, BIP148 effectively is just a BIP9 activation, except at its (earlier) timeout, the new rules would be activated anyway (instead of the BIP9-mandated behavior that the upgrade is cancelled at the end of the timeout).
BIP148 was actually inspired by the BIP8 proposal (the link here is a historical version; BIP8 has been updated recently, precisely in preparation for Taproot activation). BIP8 is basically BIP9, but at the end of timeout, the softfork is activated anyway rather than cancelled.
This removed the ability of miners to hold the softfork hostage. At best, they can delay the activation, but not stop it entirely by holding out as in BIP9.
Of course, this implies risk that not all miners have upgraded before activation, leading to possible losses for SPV users, as well as again re-pressuring miners to signal activation, possibly without the miners actually upgrading their software to properly impose the new softfork rules.

BIP91, SegWit2X, and The Aftermath

BIP148 inspired countermeasures, possibly from the Covert ASiCBoost miners, possibly from concerned users who wanted to offer concessions to miners. To this day, the common name for BIP148 - UASF - remains an emotionally-charged rallying cry for parts of the Bitcoin community.
One of these was SegWit2X. This was brokered in a deal between some Bitcoin personalities at a conference in New York, and thus part of the so-called "New York Agreement" or NYA, another emotionally-charged acronym.
The text of the NYA was basically:
  1. Set up a new activation threshold at 80% signalled at bit 4 (vs bit 1 for SegWit).
    • When this 80% signalling was reached, miners would require that bit 1 for SegWit be signalled to achive the 95% activation needed for SegWit.
  2. If the bit 4 signalling reached 80%, increase the block weight limit from the SegWit 4000000 to the SegWit2X 8000000, 6 months after bit 1 activation.
The first item above was coded in BIP91.
Unfortunately, if you read the BIP91, independently of NYA, you might come to the conclusion that BIP91 was only about lowering the threshold to 80%. In particular, BIP91 never mentions anything about the second point above, it never mentions that bit 4 80% threshold would also signal for a later hardfork increase in weight limit.
Because of this, even though there are claims that NYA (SegWit2X) reached 80% dominance, a close reading of BIP91 shows that the 80% dominance was only for SegWit activation, without necessarily a later 2x capacity hardfork (SegWit2X).
This ambiguity of bit 4 (NYA says it includes a 2x capacity hardfork, BIP91 says it does not) has continued to be a thorn in blocksize debates later. Economically speaking, Bitcoin futures between SegWit and SegWit2X showed strong economic dominance in favor of SegWit (SegWit2X futures were traded at a fraction in value of SegWit futures: I personally made a tidy but small amount of money betting against SegWit2X in the futures market), so suggesting that NYA achieved 80% dominance even in mining is laughable, but the NYA text that ties bit 4 to SegWit2X still exists.
Historically, BIP91 triggered which caused SegWit to activate before the BIP148 shorter timeout. BIP148 proponents continue to hold this day that it was the BIP148 shorter timeout and no-compromises-activate-on-August-1 that made miners flock to BIP91 as a face-saving tactic that actually removed the second clause of NYA. NYA supporters keep pointing to the bit 4 text in the NYA and the historical activation of BIP91 as a failed promise by Bitcoin developers.

Taproot Activation Proposals

There are two primary proposals I can see for Taproot activation:
  1. BIP8.
  2. Modern Softfork Activation.
We have discussed BIP8: roughly, it has bit and timeout, if 95% of miners signal bit it activates, at the end of timeout it activates. (EDIT: BIP8 has had recent updates: at the end of timeout it can now activate or fail. For the most part, in the below text "BIP8", means BIP8-and-activate-at-timeout, and "BIP9" means BIP8-and-fail-at-timeout)
So let's take a look at Modern Softfork Activation!

Modern Softfork Activation

This is a more complex activation method, composed of BIP9 and BIP8 as supcomponents.
  1. First have a 12-month BIP9 (fail at timeout).
  2. If the above fails to activate, have a 6-month discussion period during which users and developers and miners discuss whether to continue to step 3.
  3. Have a 24-month BIP8 (activate at timeout).
The total above is 42 months, if you are counting: 3.5 years worst-case activation.
The logic here is that if there are no problems, BIP9 will work just fine anyway. And if there are problems, the 6-month period should weed it out. Finally, miners cannot hold the feature hostage since the 24-month BIP8 period will exist anyway.

PSA: Being Resilient to Upgrades

Software is very birttle.
Anyone who has been using software for a long time has experienced something like this:
  1. You hear a new version of your favorite software has a nice new feature.
  2. Excited, you install the new version.
  3. You find that the new version has subtle incompatibilities with your current workflow.
  4. You are sad and downgrade to the older version.
  5. You find out that the new version has changed your files in incompatible ways that the old version cannot work with anymore.
  6. You tearfully reinstall the newer version and figure out how to get your lost productivity now that you have to adapt to a new workflow
If you are a technically-competent user, you might codify your workflow into a bunch of programs. And then you upgrade one of the external pieces of software you are using, and find that it has a subtle incompatibility with your current workflow which is based on a bunch of simple programs you wrote yourself. And if those simple programs are used as the basis of some important production system, you hve just screwed up because you upgraded software on an important production system.
And well, one of the issues with new softfork activation is that if not enough people (users and miners) upgrade to the newest Bitcoin software, the security of the new softfork rules are at risk.
Upgrading software of any kind is always a risk, and the more software you build on top of the software-being-upgraded, the greater you risk your tower of software collapsing while you change its foundations.
So if you have some complex Bitcoin-manipulating system with Bitcoin somewhere at the foundations, consider running two Bitcoin nodes:
  1. One is a "stable-version" Bitcoin node. Once it has synced, set it up to connect=x.x.x.x to the second node below (so that your ISP bandwidth is only spent on the second node). Use this node to run all your software: it's a stable version that you don't change for long periods of time. Enable txiindex, disable pruning, whatever your software needs.
  2. The other is an "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin Node. Keep its stoarge down with pruning (initially sync it off the "stable-version" node). You can't use blocksonly if your "stable-version" node needs to send transactions, but otherwise this "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node can be kept as a low-resource node, so you can run both nodes in the same machine.
When a new Bitcoin version comes up, you just upgrade the "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node. This protects you if a future softfork activates, you will only receive valid Bitcoin blocks and transactions. Since this node has nothing running on top of it, it is just a special peer of the "stable-version" node, any software incompatibilities with your system software do not exist.
Your "stable-version" Bitcoin node remains the same version until you are ready to actually upgrade this node and are prepared to rewrite most of the software you have running on top of it due to version compatibility problems.
When upgrading the "always-up-to-date", you can bring it down safely and then start it later. Your "stable-version" wil keep running, disconnected from the network, but otherwise still available for whatever queries. You do need some system to stop the "always-up-to-date" node if for any reason the "stable-version" goes down (otherwisee if the "always-up-to-date" advances its pruning window past what your "stable-version" has, the "stable-version" cannot sync afterwards), but if you are technically competent enough that you need to do this, you are technically competent enough to write such a trivial monitor program (EDIT: gmax notes you can adjust the pruning window by RPC commands to help with this as well).
This recommendation is from gmaxwell on IRC, by the way.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

the year 2020 in Bitcoin Cash so far: a detailed history

the year 2020 in Bitcoin Cash so far: a detailed history
What follows at the bottom is a four page long chronological overview of what happened in BCH in 2020 so far. To make it more digestable and fun to read I start with my narrating of the story.
My attempt was to remain as objective as possible and "let the facts speak for themselve" with everything sourced. I also link to many read.cash articles, the decision of which are the important ones to include is certainly not easy, I count on the rest of the community if I overlooked anything important.

summary & my narrating of the story:
The year started out relatively calm, with cashfusion in "the news" and an older ongoing controversy between Amaury and Roger Ver being worked out. Starting Jan 22nd all debate broke loose with the announcement of “Infrastructure Funding Plan for Bitcoin Cash” by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP. To illustrate this point 2 days later coinspice ran the title " Roger Ver Praises Vigorous Debate, [...]" and 6 days, less than a week, later Chris Pacia made a read.cash post titled "The 253rd "Thoughts on developer funding" Article" which might have been only a slight exaggeration or he might have been counting. Part of the reason of the tsunami was the lack of worked out details. By the time of Pacia's post a lot had changed: Both BU, Bitcoin Verde and a group of miners had made announcements not to go along with "the plan".
On feb 1st, the second version of the IFP was announced by Jiang Zhuoer in a post “BCH miner donation plan update”. Two weeks later on Feb 15th, the third iteration was announced by Bitcoin ABC which was to be activated by hashrate voting and on the same day Flipstarter was introduced, a sign of the search for alternative solutions. After a few more days and a few more people coming out more against the IFP (including Jonald Fyookball, Mark Lundeberg & Josh Ellithorpe), BCHN was announced on feb 20th with a formal release a week later. Also feb 27th, the DAA was brought back into the conversation by Jonathan Toomim with his " The BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm is broken. Here's how to fix it." video. By early march the IFP was effectively dead with its author Jiang Zhuoer vowing to vote against it. This became clear to everyone when ABC, a day later sudddenly shifted gears towards non-protocol, donation based funding: the IFP was dead. End march ABCs 2020 Business Plan was announced as a way to raise $3.3 million. Mid april to mid may was the high time for voluntary funding with four node implementations and General Protocols, a BCH DeFi Startup successfully raising funds.
By May 15th, the 6th HF network upgrade things had pretty much cooled down. The upgraded included nothing controversial and even saw an unexpected doubling in the unconfirmed transaction chain. June 15th a month later things started to heat up again with the BCHN announcement to remove the "poison pill" or "automatic replay protection". 8th Jul Jonathan Toomim posted "BCH protocol upgrade proposal: Use ASERT as the new DAA" which promised the solution to the long dragging DAA problem. Jul 23th however an unexpected twist occurred when Amaury Séchet posted "Announcing the Grasberg DAA" an incompatible, alternative solution. This, again, sparked a ton of debate and discussion. Grasberg lasted just two weeks from Jul 23th to Aug 6th when ABC announced its plans for the november 2020 upgrade but it had successfully united the opposition in the meanwhile. ABCs plan for november included dropping grasberg in favour of aserti3–2d and introducing IFPv4. Now we're here August 8th, the IFP which was declared dead after just over a month (Jan 22-Mar 5) is now back in full force. The rest of the history is still being written but if p2p electronic cash is to succeed in any big regard it's very thinkable that these events will get into history books.

Important resources: coinspice IFP timeline & Compiled list of BCH Miner Dev Fund posts, articles, discussions

History
Jan 13th : “Do CoinJoins Really Require Equal Transaction Amounts for Privacy? Part One: CashFusion” article by BitcoinMagazine [source]
Jan 13th : “Clearing the Way for Cooperation” Read.cash article by Amaury Séchet [source] on the controversy with Roger Ver about the amount of donations over the years
Jan 22nd : “Infrastructure Funding Plan for Bitcoin Cash” IFPv1 announced by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] IFPv1: 12.5% of BCH coinbase rewards which will last for 6 months through a Hong Kong-based corporation & to be activated on May 15th
Jan 22nd : ”Bitcoin Cash Developers React to Infrastructure Fund Announcement: Cautiously Optimistic” coinspice article including Amaury Séchet, Antony Zegers, Jonald Fyookball & Josh Ellithorpe [source]
Jan 23rd : Jiang Zhuoer reddit AMA [source] [coinspice article]
Jan 23rd : Vitalik weighs in with his take on twitter [source]
Jan 23rd :” On the infrastructure funding plan for Bitcoin Cash” article by Amaury Séchet [source] [coinspice article] in which he proposed to place control of the IFP key in his hands together with Jonald Fyookball and Antony Zegers. . A group of 7 to 12 miners, developers, and businessmen in total would get an advisory function.
Jan 24th : “Bitcoin.com's Clarifications on the Miner Development Fund“ which emphasizes, among other things, the temporary and reversible nature of the proposal [source] [coinspice article]
Jan 24th : “Little Known (But Important!) Facts About the Mining Plan” Read.cash article by Jonald Fyookball in which he defended the IFP and stressed its necessity and temporary nature.
Jan 25th : massive amounts of public debate as documented by coinspice [coinspice article] with Justin Bons, Tobias Ruck and Antony Zegers explaining their take on it.
Jan 26th : public debate continues: “Assessment and proposal re: the Bitcoin Cash infrastructure funding situation” Read.cash article by imaginary_username [source] which was noteworthy in part because the post earned over Earns $1,000+ in BCH [coinspice article] and “The Best Of Intentions: The Dev Tax Is Intended to Benefit Investors But Will Corrupt Us Instead” by Peter Rizun [source]
Jan 27th : “We are a group of miners opposing the BTC.TOP proposal, here's why” article on Read.cash [source] [reddit announcement]
Jan 27th : Bitcoin Unlimited's BUIP 143: Refuse the Coinbase Tax [source][reddit announcement]
Jan 28th : “Bitcoin Verde's Response to the Miner Sponsored Development Fund” read.cash article by Josh Green in which he explains “Bitcoin Verde will not be implementing any node validation that enforces new coinbase rules.” [source]
Jan 28th : “Update on Developer Funding” read.cash article from Bitcoin.com [source] in which they state “As it stands now, Bitcoin.com will not go through with supporting any plan unless there is more agreement in the ecosystem such that the risk of a chain split is negligible.” And that “any funding proposal must be temporary and reversible.” This announcement from bitcoin.com and their mining pool lead the anonymous opposition miners to stand down. [source]
Jan 28th : The 253rd "Thoughts on developer funding" Article – by Chris Pacia, to tackle the “serious misconceptions in the community about how software development works”. He ends on a note of support for the IFP because of lack of realistic alternatives. [source]
Feb 1st: “BCH miner donation plan update” IFPv2 announced by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] Which changes the donation mechanism so miners directly send part of their coinbase to the projects they wants to donate to. It would be activated with hashrate voting over a 3-month period with a 2/3 in favour requirement. The proposal also introduces a pilot period and a no donation option, Jiang Zhuoer also says he regards 12.% as too much.
Feb 7th: Group of BCH miners led by AsicSeer voice scepticism about the IFP during a reddit AMA [source]
Feb 15th: “On the Miner Infrastructure Funding Plan” article by Bitcoin ABC [source] In which they announce they will implement IFPv3 in their upcoming 0.21.0 release. This version has amount reduced to 5% of block reward and will go in effect with BIP 9 hashratevoting and a whitelist with different projects.
Feb 15th : “Introducing Flipstarter” [source]
Feb 16th :” Bitcoin.com’s stance on the recent block reward diversion proposals” video by Roger Ver on the Bitcoin.com Official Channel. [source] > Ver called Zhuoer’s IFP “clever” but ultimately “problematic.” [coinspice article]
Feb 16th :” BCH miner donation plan update again” read.cash article by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] In which he briefly outlines the details of IFPv3
Feb 17th : “Latest Thoughts On Infrastructure Mining Plan” post by Jonald Fyookball [source]
Feb 17th : “Regarding the Bitcoin Cash Infrastructure Funding Plan, I am certain now that it should be scrapped immediately.” tweet by Mark Lundeberg [source]
Feb 19th : “Thoughts on the IFP - A Dev Perspective“ read.cash article by Josh Ellithorpe [source]
Feb 20th : “Bitcoin Cash Node” post announcing the new node implementation [source]
Feb 20th : First “Bitcoin Cash Developer Meeting” After IFP Proposal [source]
Feb 24th : “Flipstarter 500k, 6 independent campaigns” post announcing the goal to “fund the BCH ecosystem with 6 independent campaigns and an overall 500,000 USD target” [source]
Feb 27th : BCHN Formally Released [source]
Feb 27th : “The BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm is broken. Here's how to fix it.” Video by Jonathan Toomim [source]
Mar 3th :” Bitcoin Cash Node 2020: plans for May upgrade and beyond” post by BCHN [source]
Mar 4th :”Author of the Bitcoin Cash IFP [Jiang Zhuoer] Vows to Vote Against It, Using Personal Hash in Opposition” [source]
Mar 5th :Bitcoin ABC announces their 2020 Business Plan Fundraising for later in march [source]
Mar 15th : “EatBCH campaign funded! Next: node campaigns.” campaign funded after 11 hours [source]
Mar 30th : Bitcoin ABC 2020 Business Plan [source] $3.3 Million Fundraiser [source]
Apr 17th : Five flipstarter node campaign launched. [source]
Apr 26th : BCHN flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
Apr 27th : VERDE flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
May 4th : KNUTH flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
May 7th : “BCH DeFi Startup General Protocols Raises Over $1 mil“ [source]
May 8th : BCHD flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
May 9th : Deadline for node campaigns, ABC flipstarter campaign not funded. [source]
May 14th : “With IFP Defeated, Bitcoin ABC, ViaBTC & CoinEX CEO Publicly Consider a Bitcoin Cash Foundation” [source]
May 15th : deadline for ABC fundraiser campaign, ends at 55% completed. [source]
May 15th : 6th HF network upgrade -> new opcode op_Reversebytes, increased of the chained transaction limit from 25 to 50, and the improved counting of signature operations using the new “Sigchecks” implementation [source] with the “Controversial Funding Plan Rejected by Miners” [source]
May 25th : “Announcing the SLP Foundation” [source]
Jun 15st : “BCHN lead maintainer report 2020-06-15” announcement to remove the Automatic Replay Protection (a.k.a. the Poison Pill) from BCHN in november [source]
Jun 16st : “So [BCHN] is going to fork off from BCH at the next upgrade. Same old story. […]” tweeted Vin Armani [source]
Jun 21st : “Why Automatic Replay Protection Exists” post by Shammah Chancellor [source]
Jul 7th : “The Popular Stablecoin Tether Is Now Circulating on the Bitcoin Cash Network” [source]
Jul 8th : “BCH protocol upgrade proposal: Use ASERT as the new DAA” post by Jonathan Toomim [source]
Jul 18th : “$6M Worth of Tether on the Bitcoin Cash Chain Highlights the Benefits of SLP Tokens” [source]
Jul 23th : “Announcing the Grasberg DAA” post by Amaury Séchet[source]
Jul 24th : “Thoughts on Grasberg DAA” post by Mark Lundeberg [source]
Jul 29th : CashFusion security audit has been completed [source]
Jul 31st : Electron Cash 4.1.0 release with CashFusion support [source]
4th year, august 2020 – 2021
Aug 1st : “Bitcoin Cash: Scaling the Globe“ Online conference for ForkDay Celebration [source]
Aug 2nd : >“Is there going to be a fork between ABC and BCHN?” > “IMO it is very likely. If not in November, then next May.” – Amaury Séchet
Aug 3rd : “Dark secrets of the Grasberg DAA” post by Jonathan Toomim [source]
Aug 3rd : “Joint Statement On aserti3-2d Algorithm“ post by General Protocols, including Cryptophyl, Read.cash, Software Verde & SpinBCH [source]
Aug 3rd : Knuth announces they will be implementing aserti3-2d as DAA for november. [source]
Aug 3rd : Amaury rage quit from the developer call [source]
Aug 4th : “But why do people care about compensating for historical drift? Seems like a tiny problem and if it's causing this much social discord it seems not even worth bothering to try to fix.” Tweet by Vitalik [source]
Aug 5th : “Bitcoin Cash (BCH) November 2020 Upgrade statement” signed by BCHD, electron cash, VERDE, BU members, BCHN developers, Jonathan Toomim, Mark B. Lundeberg and many others [source]
Aug 5th : “BCHN FAQ on November 2020 Bitcoin Cash network upgrade” [source]
Aug 6th : “Bitcoin ABC’s plan for the November 2020 upgrade” [source] the announcement that they will drop Grasberg in favour of aserti3–2d (ASERT) and will also include FPv4 in which 8% of the blockreward goes to ABC as development funding.
Aug 7th : “Joint Statement from BCH Miners regarding Bitcoin ABC and the November 2020 BCH Upgrade.” Read.cash article by asicseer [source] stating “Over recent months, most miners and pools have switched to BCHN, and presently operate a majority of BCH hashrate.”
Aug 7th : “Simple Ledger Protocol's Joint Statement Regarding Bitcoin ABC on BCH's November 2020 Upgrade” read.cash post by the SLP-Foundation [source]
submitted by Mr-Zwets to btc [link] [comments]

Digibyte and features of applying its solutions in PYRK

Digibyte and features of applying its solutions in PYRK
Hello. 👋🏻 In this post we will tell you about Digibyte and the features of applying its solutions in PYRK
❓ What is Digibyte?
Digibyte is a cryptocurrency that was created as an alternative to Bitcoin to solve its mining problems.
⚙️ Digibyte Multi-level Difficulty Adjustment
🔸 The idea of ​​a multilevel adjustment of Multishell complexity is that the algorithm can adjust the mining complexity to maintain the block creation speed. Due to the fact that the number of miners can increase or decrease, the network can be unstable, therefore Multishell corrects the difficulty of computing, and hence mining.
🔸 If the miners provide too much power for the network, the algorithm will adjust to this and increase the complexity of mining to the required level. If there is an outflow of capacities, then the algorithm will simplify mining.
💡 Digibyte Multi-Algorithm Mechanism
🔸 Digibyte Multi-Algorithm is a great solution to limit miners. Some algorithms are more complicated than their counterparts. Let's say there is a pool of miners whose ASICs are designed for a very high speed of working with SHA256. If they start mining on SHA256, they will be able to achieve only 33% of hashrate. The remaining 66% belong to two other algorithms.
✅ PYRK borrowed both of these solutions
🔹 This opens up new opportunities for PYRK. The coin will be able to efficiently provide high speed operation both at high network load and at low. Thanks to the Triple Proof-of-Work Algorithm, it is possible to mine on different algorithms. Thus, it is very unlikely for a single miner to attain 100% of the hash rate of a single algorithm.
📢 Read more about the benefits and features of PYRK, based on Digibyte at: http://pyrk.org
https://preview.redd.it/1k5fg1xsk8c51.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=6230b6cf5ad794c6187ff3f7681402544a461602
submitted by VS_community to pyrk [link] [comments]

The two problems: The tax and the entitlements

The developer tax (see below for the use of the tax word) gives us two problems, both serious, essential, you could say existential.
Too long, I don't fucking care.
The tax:
What the miners pay: Nothing, it is not a problem for them, nobody pays more, no problem for anybody.
Hash cost reduced, hash power reduced. Is it a problem? Not in itself, the block subsidy schedule was made 11 years ago, nobody knew todays coinprice at the time. It is probably good enough, however: We have more than one coin on the same equipment, the world investment in sha256 hashing special machines. The balance between the coins is important, and for that reason we can not renounce any hashpower.
And the killer: It makes the coin unsound - someone is eating from our plate, parasites sucking life energy from every user of bitcoin cash. Sound money means nobody get coins on the cheap.
Today the proposal is 5% of the subsidy and 5% of the fees. Why fees, they are hardly 2 dollars a block. Do they look to the future?
What kind of money are we talking about? After the halving, 6.25 BCH subsidy, and 5% is 0.3125 BCH per block. In fiat today 121.5 USD per block. 727 USD per hour 17460 USD per day, 532800 USD per month or 6372900 USD per year.
That was todays prices. In a year, it could easily be a million USD per month, in two years it could easily be two million USD a month.
The entitlements:
So someone has to manage this. I would guess a developer, just like everybody, will need some certainty for the salary, so a fund will be created to stack up some of it for the future. Maybe half the money each month will be accumulated. Then there is the question of what to invest in.
In four years there will be another halving, cutting the subsidy that at that point is maybe 8 million a month, in two. Will the tax be increased to 10 percent? Who will have it? The amount would cover 100 full time and part time developers, can they be crammed into the project, or is there a need to find other good purposes, retired programmers, anyone? Repairing losses for users of crashed exchanges? A Satoshi birthday celebration in Davos?
Who would manage this fund, how will they work? The answer is very simple: At first, people with good intentions. Then others who will want to join the yearly coin discussion, hotels and food events on a Caribean island. Then the general parasites. Salary. Chief Investment Executive. Bonuses. We created all this value you know, so we deserve it. Then the whole shebang will be connected near the top of the banking cartel power pyramid. How can it end otherwise? It can't.
These people, with the money and some dirty tricks, can control every developer, the press, every public voice in the blogosphere, rewrite history, block anybody in the social media, hire thousands of trolls, they can represent the coin with the bank regulators.
The tax word: It is a tax only if you regard the small world of Bitcoin Cash and the current de facto single implementation node version, Bitcoin ABC. On a higher level, the market level, because this is free market money, there is no tax, because the chain can split, directed by the market which expresses it's preference with pricing. There are also alternative coins that could work as sound money: The coin made by those who believe it can't work, and the other coin from those who believe it can work so well that it can swallow all the data on the whole internet.
See also my https://read.cash/@ErdoganTalk/the-soundness-the-essential-feature-of-the-money-that-we-want-0a10a11f
submitted by ErdoganTalk to btc [link] [comments]

Am I understanding bitcoin correctly?

I've never spent serious effort in thinking about crypto currencies in general but came across this video on how bitcoin works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC-nXj3Ng4

According to the video it seems like one of the main reasons why bitcoin guarantees a "un-manipulated" ledger is because of the security these hash functions/algorithms like sha256 offer.

Again, my understanding is still quite surface-level. But, in theory, if we had sufficient computational ability or some easy way to solve these hash functions or find alternate "transaction data" that generates the same hash, then would bitcoin effectively cease to exist? Wouldn't that mean there is no longer high confidence that the ledger is accurate?
submitted by as1729 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The miner tax is nothing, but a dressed up 51% attack

With Bitcoin Cash being a minority SHA256 hash power coin and the miner centralization in China this has been a long time coming.
I hope we can weather the attack, otherwise I think it would spell the end for mining as a way to secure crypto currencies in favour of other approaches (such as trust webs or POS).
As to the idea itself: If you believe in centralized monetary systems, just use fiat issued by central banks. They have big "dev funds" ;)
I hope Roger and Amaury realize how much damage this is doing and retract their support for this 51% attack.
I also hope "selfish" and ideologically pure miners join forces to use the 12.5% decreased earnings of the attackers to defeat them and earn more. (Attackers could use the 12.5% to mine of course, but that is also the case in a normal 51% attack)

Alternative ways to fund developers:

Programmatic protection from 51% attacks:

Allow nodes to configure certain blocks to force-orphan. This would allow users to easily orphan long forks caused by 51% attacks.
I hear Bitcoin Unlimited are big on configurability, I think they should add this option in May.
Node operators (ie. users and hodlers) are and must remain the ones in control as Satoshi wanted it.
submitted by a17c81a3 to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Groestlcoin 6th Anniversary Release

Introduction

Dear Groestlers, it goes without saying that 2020 has been a difficult time for millions of people worldwide. The groestlcoin team would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone our best to everyone coping with the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19. Let it bring out the best in us all and show that collectively, we can conquer anything.
The centralised banks and our national governments are facing unprecedented times with interest rates worldwide dropping to record lows in places. Rest assured that this can only strengthen the fundamentals of all decentralised cryptocurrencies and the vision that was seeded with Satoshi's Bitcoin whitepaper over 10 years ago. Despite everything that has been thrown at us this year, the show must go on and the team will still progress and advance to continue the momentum that we have developed over the past 6 years.
In addition to this, we'd like to remind you all that this is Groestlcoin's 6th Birthday release! In terms of price there have been some crazy highs and lows over the years (with highs of around $2.60 and lows of $0.000077!), but in terms of value– Groestlcoin just keeps getting more valuable! In these uncertain times, one thing remains clear – Groestlcoin will keep going and keep innovating regardless. On with what has been worked on and completed over the past few months.

UPDATED - Groestlcoin Core 2.18.2

This is a major release of Groestlcoin Core with many protocol level improvements and code optimizations, featuring the technical equivalent of Bitcoin v0.18.2 but with Groestlcoin-specific patches. On a general level, most of what is new is a new 'Groestlcoin-wallet' tool which is now distributed alongside Groestlcoin Core's other executables.
NOTE: The 'Account' API has been removed from this version which was typically used in some tip bots. Please ensure you check the release notes from 2.17.2 for details on replacing this functionality.

How to Upgrade?

Windows
If you are running an older version, shut it down. Wait until it has completely shut down (which might take a few minutes for older versions), then run the installer.
OSX
If you are running an older version, shut it down. Wait until it has completely shut down (which might take a few minutes for older versions), run the dmg and drag Groestlcoin Core to Applications.
Ubuntu
http://groestlcoin.org/forum/index.php?topic=441.0

Other Linux

http://groestlcoin.org/forum/index.php?topic=97.0

Download

Download the Windows Installer (64 bit) here
Download the Windows Installer (32 bit) here
Download the Windows binaries (64 bit) here
Download the Windows binaries (32 bit) here
Download the OSX Installer here
Download the OSX binaries here
Download the Linux binaries (64 bit) here
Download the Linux binaries (32 bit) here
Download the ARM Linux binaries (64 bit) here
Download the ARM Linux binaries (32 bit) here

Source

ALL NEW - Groestlcoin Moonshine iOS/Android Wallet

Built with React Native, Moonshine utilizes Electrum-GRS's JSON-RPC methods to interact with the Groestlcoin network.
GRS Moonshine's intended use is as a hot wallet. Meaning, your keys are only as safe as the device you install this wallet on. As with any hot wallet, please ensure that you keep only a small, responsible amount of Groestlcoin on it at any given time.

Features

Download

iOS
Android

Source

ALL NEW! – HODL GRS Android Wallet

HODL GRS connects directly to the Groestlcoin network using SPV mode and doesn't rely on servers that can be hacked or disabled.
HODL GRS utilizes AES hardware encryption, app sandboxing, and the latest security features to protect users from malware, browser security holes, and even physical theft. Private keys are stored only in the secure enclave of the user's phone, inaccessible to anyone other than the user.
Simplicity and ease-of-use is the core design principle of HODL GRS. A simple recovery phrase (which we call a Backup Recovery Key) is all that is needed to restore the user's wallet if they ever lose or replace their device. HODL GRS is deterministic, which means the user's balance and transaction history can be recovered just from the backup recovery key.

Features

Download

Main Release (Main Net)
Testnet Release

Source

ALL NEW! – GroestlcoinSeed Savior

Groestlcoin Seed Savior is a tool for recovering BIP39 seed phrases.
This tool is meant to help users with recovering a slightly incorrect Groestlcoin mnemonic phrase (AKA backup or seed). You can enter an existing BIP39 mnemonic and get derived addresses in various formats.
To find out if one of the suggested addresses is the right one, you can click on the suggested address to check the address' transaction history on a block explorer.

Features

Live Version (Not Recommended)

https://www.groestlcoin.org/recovery/

Download

https://github.com/Groestlcoin/mnemonic-recovery/archive/master.zip

Source

ALL NEW! – Vanity Search Vanity Address Generator

NOTE: NVidia GPU or any CPU only. AMD graphics cards will not work with this address generator.
VanitySearch is a command-line Segwit-capable vanity Groestlcoin address generator. Add unique flair when you tell people to send Groestlcoin. Alternatively, VanitySearch can be used to generate random addresses offline.
If you're tired of the random, cryptic addresses generated by regular groestlcoin clients, then VanitySearch is the right choice for you to create a more personalized address.
VanitySearch is a groestlcoin address prefix finder. If you want to generate safe private keys, use the -s option to enter your passphrase which will be used for generating a base key as for BIP38 standard (VanitySearch.exe -s "My PassPhrase" FXPref). You can also use VanitySearch.exe -ps "My PassPhrase" which will add a crypto secure seed to your passphrase.
VanitySearch may not compute a good grid size for your GPU, so try different values using -g option in order to get the best performances. If you want to use GPUs and CPUs together, you may have best performances by keeping one CPU core for handling GPU(s)/CPU exchanges (use -t option to set the number of CPU threads).

Features

Usage

https://github.com/Groestlcoin/VanitySearch#usage

Download

Source

ALL NEW! – Groestlcoin EasyVanity 2020

Groestlcoin EasyVanity 2020 is a windows app built from the ground-up and makes it easier than ever before to create your very own bespoke bech32 address(es) when whilst not connected to the internet.
If you're tired of the random, cryptic bech32 addresses generated by regular Groestlcoin clients, then Groestlcoin EasyVanity2020 is the right choice for you to create a more personalised bech32 address. This 2020 version uses the new VanitySearch to generate not only legacy addresses (F prefix) but also Bech32 addresses (grs1 prefix).

Features

Download

Source

Remastered! – Groestlcoin WPF Desktop Wallet (v2.19.0.18)

Groestlcoin WPF is an alternative full node client with optional lightweight 'thin-client' mode based on WPF. Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) is one of Microsoft's latest approaches to a GUI framework, used with the .NET framework. Its main advantages over the original Groestlcoin client include support for exporting blockchain.dat and including a lite wallet mode.
This wallet was previously deprecated but has been brought back to life with modern standards.

Features

Remastered Improvements

Download

Source

ALL NEW! – BIP39 Key Tool

Groestlcoin BIP39 Key Tool is a GUI interface for generating Groestlcoin public and private keys. It is a standalone tool which can be used offline.

Features

Download

Windows
Linux :
 pip3 install -r requirements.txt python3 bip39\_gui.py 

Source

ALL NEW! – Electrum Personal Server

Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server aims to make using Electrum Groestlcoin wallet more secure and more private. It makes it easy to connect your Electrum-GRS wallet to your own full node.
It is an implementation of the Electrum-grs server protocol which fulfils the specific need of using the Electrum-grs wallet backed by a full node, but without the heavyweight server backend, for a single user. It allows the user to benefit from all Groestlcoin Core's resource-saving features like pruning, blocks only and disabled txindex. All Electrum-GRS's feature-richness like hardware wallet integration, multi-signature wallets, offline signing, seed recovery phrases, coin control and so on can still be used, but connected only to the user's own full node.
Full node wallets are important in Groestlcoin because they are a big part of what makes the system be trust-less. No longer do people have to trust a financial institution like a bank or PayPal, they can run software on their own computers. If Groestlcoin is digital gold, then a full node wallet is your own personal goldsmith who checks for you that received payments are genuine.
Full node wallets are also important for privacy. Using Electrum-GRS under default configuration requires it to send (hashes of) all your Groestlcoin addresses to some server. That server can then easily spy on your transactions. Full node wallets like Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server would download the entire blockchain and scan it for the user's own addresses, and therefore don't reveal to anyone else which Groestlcoin addresses they are interested in.
Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server can also broadcast transactions through Tor which improves privacy by resisting traffic analysis for broadcasted transactions which can link the IP address of the user to the transaction. If enabled this would happen transparently whenever the user simply clicks "Send" on a transaction in Electrum-grs wallet.
Note: Currently Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server can only accept one connection at a time.

Features

Download

Windows
Linux / OSX (Instructions)

Source

UPDATED – Android Wallet 7.38.1 - Main Net + Test Net

The app allows you to send and receive Groestlcoin on your device using QR codes and URI links.
When using this app, please back up your wallet and email them to yourself! This will save your wallet in a password protected file. Then your coins can be retrieved even if you lose your phone.

Changes

Download

Main Net
Main Net (FDroid)
Test Net

Source

UPDATED – Groestlcoin Sentinel 3.5.06 (Android)

Groestlcoin Sentinel is a great solution for anyone who wants the convenience and utility of a hot wallet for receiving payments directly into their cold storage (or hardware wallets).
Sentinel accepts XPUB's, YPUB'S, ZPUB's and individual Groestlcoin address. Once added you will be able to view balances, view transactions, and (in the case of XPUB's, YPUB's and ZPUB's) deterministically generate addresses for that wallet.
Groestlcoin Sentinel is a fork of Groestlcoin Samourai Wallet with all spending and transaction building code removed.

Changes

Download

Source

UPDATED – P2Pool Test Net

Changes

Download

Pre-Hosted Testnet P2Pool is available via http://testp2pool.groestlcoin.org:21330/static/

Source

submitted by Yokomoko_Saleen to groestlcoin [link] [comments]

Miner donations will not be implemented. I will vote No in the hashrate vote.

Jiang Zhuoer, the founder of Leibite mining pool, said in a Weibo post.
It was him who first proposed the plan, and it was also him who stood up and said that he would vote against it. The taste is only known to the BCH community who has been sawing for more than a month.
Planned preform
All this has to start from January 22. On this day, Jiang Zhuoer also published the article "Infrastructure Funding Plan (IFP) for Bitcoin Cash" on Weibo and medium at the same time. In his opinion, the current BCH has a problem of developer operating funds, only A few companies donate to developers, and the other members are hitchhikers, which can be called a tragedy of the commons.
In fact, it is not just BCH. Many early projects without 1CO lack a continuous source of funds. BTC and LTC also rely on the sustainable funding of companies and individuals to donate to developers. Regarding this, Jiang Zhuoer added at the subsequent AMA held by Reddit that a few companies continued to donate, and these companies' right to speak would increase, which might affect the development in the future, which is also a major hidden danger.
So based on the consideration of stable development funds, he said that several major mining pools on BCH (BTC.TOP, Antpool, BTC.com, ViaBTC, Bitcoin.com) will implement a new donation plan that will reward BCH for block explosions. 12.5% ​​was donated to a specially established fund to support BCH infrastructure, which aims to provide sufficient funds for BCH developers. Blocks that are unwilling to participate in this donation plan will be isolated.
According to its disclosure, the donation will last 6 months and the estimated amount is about 6 million US dollars. A Hong Kong company has been set up to accept and distribute funds. At the end of the article, Jiang Zhuoer, Wu Jihan, Yang Haibo and Roger Ver were stated to be supporters of this plan.
The response was extremely intense
After the news came out, BCH communities at home and abroad had a heated discussion. There are mixed voices in China. Some people think that this is a great benefit to the BCH currency price. Some people think that this is a miner sacrificing part of their own interests to support infrastructure construction. It is a manifestation of the spirit of the community, but some people allege that this is a pumping behavior ... these are evident in the comments below Jiang Zhuo's blog post.
The foreign community, which has gathered most of the BCH developers and core personnel, is even more dramatic.
On January 23, the day after the BCH miner donation plan was issued, Amaury Séchet (@deadalnix), the chief developer of the ABC team of BCH, posted a post on read.cash [1], which is the platform for the donation plan. He said this plan It has been brewing for a long time. The operation of the team needs financial support, clarifying that this is not the so-called "compulsory miner tax". What's more notable is that he thinks that there is no problem as long as the endowment fund can be transparent, and even Mao has recommended himself that he and Jonald Fyookball, the chief developer of Electron Cash, a light wallet developed by BCH, are qualified to control the fund.
Later, the Jonald Fyookball he mentioned also posted on read.cash [2], which also said that it would be beneficial to the team and miners. I have tried many measures on development funds before, but none of them worked. One will be a short six-month trial and will be upgraded in the next BCH agreement.
However, the core people in the community took the lead to speak out in support of this, but it could not stop the tide of opposition afterwards.
In order to fight for the miners' donation, the moderators of read.cash also created a special "Debate section" [4] for the community to express their opinions.
On January 26, Peter Rizun, chief scientist of the Bitcoin Unlimited (BU) team, posted a post on it [5], explaining in detail the operation of funds in this scheme. (It is necessary to add here that the BCH network is composed of two major clients, ABC and BU, which together account for more than 95% of the 1,510 public nodes in the BCH network.)
According to his article, the 12.5% ​​block reward BCH tokens will be sent directly to the new company in Hong Kong, and the developer's operating funds will come from the funds obtained by the new company from selling these BCH tokens on the exchange.
After the mining revenue decreases, the hash rate of the network will drop by about the same percentage. Since BCH accounts for about 3% of the SHA256 hash rate, and other conditions remain unchanged, the total income of SHA256 miners will fall by ~ 0.4%. The following figure graphically shows the flow of these donated tokens: In fact, the mining The merchant lost only a small part of its profits. The group of investors who ultimately bought the BCH tokens out of the Hong Kong company. In the text, Peter Rizun pointed out that this is simply the developer service tax of BCH, and corruption will arise.
In addition, the Bitcoin protocol has been eleven years so far. At present, what BCH needs to do is how to make the protocol more stable. The role of developer should gradually fade away, and the continuous growth of users is the core. Peter Rizun even stated at the end of the article that the monopolistic miners are still trying to adopt such a plan, and the greed is obvious and disgusting, and the BU team will probably not accept this donation plan.
On the same day, BCH developer Imaginary Username posted that he believes that the development team's funds can come directly from capital investment, sponsorship, shareholder contributions and voluntary payments by miners, rather than forcing miners to pay. c After this, a BCH crowdfunding plan named Flipstarter.cash was announced online [7], and proposed other fundraising schemes other than donations from miners, and emphasized that this would be a new proposal based on voluntary.
In general, opponents of these donation programs acknowledge that developers need revenue and infrastructure needs to be maintained, but also said that if the final plan is passed, those who do not support this plan will be lonely and violate the blockchain. spirit. Whether the taxation in disguise causes corruption, whether it will be carried out for a long time, or whether it violates the spirit of blockchain decentralization is the focus of debate.
Things are still fermenting. Subsequently, Bitcoin.com also began to counter water, thinking that there is no consensus on this plan at present, and the development team needs to be clear about their use of funds. Bitcoin.com will also adopt a more prudent attitude and will not risk the risk of chain forks To support this decision.
Regenerate
In the face of various oppositions, Jiang Zhuoer released a new donation plan on February 1 [9], stating that the issue of donation ratio is in fact questionable, and reiterated that this plan will be democratic and encourage miners to perform computing power. Vote for your opinion. This plan will only be implemented if more than two-thirds of the computing power vote in favor of the donation. On February 16, Jiang Zhuoer updated the donation plan again, which reduced the original 12.5% ​​to 5%.
However, the release of the new version did not solve the doubts in the community.
In response, digital currency commentator WhalePanda tweeted that the miner's tax rate is very funny, and any block that is not donated will be blocked. This is actually a totalitarian totalitarian regime, accompanied by a 51% attack threat.
On the same day on the 16th, Roger ver, the founder of the Bitcoin.com wallet, posted a YouTube video [10]. He believed that the donation ratio was 12.5% ​​or 5% a bit random, and said "probably because of communication problems". His donation plan supporters have his name, but in fact he and Bitcoin.com do not support the plan.
In fact, aside from the question of donation ratio, it is worth considering whether this so-called hashrate voting has practical significance. According to data from BTC.com, the five mining pools of the four supporters mentioned by Jiang Zhuoer have a total BCH computing power of more than 51%, reaching 54.5%, occupying a considerable say, and it is difficult for other miners to have a real speech right.
Despite the opposition of the plan, it was still proceeding methodically.
On February 18, according to an official BitcoinABC tweet, the ABC team has added the code for the donation plan to the ABC version 0.21.0 client. At the same time, TobiasRuck and Antony Zegers of the ABC team, and the BCHD team have stated their support for the donation plan at this node.
On the one hand, there is no consensus, and on the other hand, donations need to be opened.
This self-talking attitude caused strong dissatisfaction in the community. On February 19th, Freetrader, one of the earliest developers in the BCH ecosystem, created a full node called BCH Node (BCHN) [11], This version will remove the donation plan, express protest, and then release the PGP signatures of the BCHN project supporters. The supporters gathered, including Alexander Levin Jr, CEO of Asicseer.com, Pokkst of Crescent Cash wallet, Tipbitcoin cash, bitcoincashj , Tubing host Collin Enstad and others.
Fragmentation and unification
To this point, the community split into two camps, led by the ABC team and Electron Cash wallet, BCHD, etc. to support the donation plan, and BU, BCHN, etc. formed an opposition. In fact, various disputes have already raised concerns from the domestic and foreign communities that BCH may fork again.
Fragmentation, strife ...
This softened Jiang Zhuoer's attitude in LongBit's online live broadcast, saying that at least basic community consensus must be reached before donations can begin.
Subsequently, at the second meeting of the BCH developers, Séchet of the ABC team who initially stood up to support this plan also said loosely that there are currently differences, and miners will not ignore these opinions and go their own ways. If the community becomes better, Alternatives can also be implemented.
The concessions of the Séchets became a sign of gradual strife in foreign communities. Regarding the end of the entire donation plan, it ended with a post by Jiang Zhuoer's Weibo.
In the article "Talking about the differences and recent market trends of BTC, BCH, and BSV" on March 5, Jiang Zhuoer said that due to a lot of opposition from the community, especially from major BCH supporters like Roger, the donations of miners will not be implemented. . The dispute, which lasted more than a month, finally ended with the termination of the donation plan.
In fact, the donation plan was updated many times, and the donation share easily changed without letting us see the basis for its formulation, as Roger ver said "somewhat randomly". And "voluntary and democratic" computing power voting, if someone finally voted No in the computing power vote can influence the result, which will also lead to thinking about computing power dictatorship.
submitted by FmzQuant to u/FmzQuant [link] [comments]

Goodbye, Coinbase. Hello APPC: An alternative method to purchase cryptocurrency directly from the Android "Aptoide" app store. 200 million Android users will be holding cryptocurrency by the end of this year.

I recently stumbled upon the "APPC", or "AppCoins" token on Binance while browsing new coin listings.
Like any half-decent cryptocurrency enthusiast, I was intrigued. "Aha! A new coin!"
I took a deep breath and prepared to take a deep dive into the bowels of the internet to figure out what APPC is all about. And by deep dive I mean I googled "AppCoins" and went to their website.
"Oh, they're trying to make a new app store. Good luck competing with Google Play and the iOS App Store!"
Given Google and Apple's combined gigantic market share of the space, I was inclined to move on to the next lucky contestant on the Wheel O' Coins. But on a whim I kept scrolling.
I thought "Wait, what? 200 million users? Over 4 billion downloads? What am I missing here?"
Apparently AppCoins isn't a token from a new startup - it's the token from Aptoide, the #1 ranked alternative to the Google Play store.
From the developer's side, the token is used as an incentive for users to download their apps. The end user is rewarded with tokens based on a unique system that determines if the user is actually trying out the app. The tokens are also used for in-app purchases. They can also be sent to and from one another.
But enough about the token value proposition. You can research it in depth yourself and buy some on Binance if you're so inclined. Whether or not you buy the coin for speculation purposes is not the purpose of this post.
So...what does this have to do with Coinbase?
Well, let's first take a quick look at the AppCoins roadmap:
By the end of this year over 200 million Aptoide users will have the ability to purchase, earn, and use AppCoins from right within the app.
To give some perspective, Coinbase has 13.3 million users as of October 26, 2017 according to an article from CNBC.
Aptoide has over 15 times the number of active users compared to Coinbase.
OK, you have my attention. Starting to sound like a shill post though. Get to the beef.
Buying cryptocurrency through Coinbase is expensive. Users are nickle-and-dimed at every opportunity:
Let's say you're not interested in buying Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum, or Litecoin.
Instead you want to convert your hard-earned $2,000 US dollars into something else like Ripple. Here's how it plays out:
Your initial deposit: $2,000 Deposit fee: $0 (ACH to receive funds in 3-5 days) through $79.80 for debit/credit card fees
Now you have $1,920.20 - $2,000 in your Coinbase USD wallet
You decide to purchase ETH with the intention of transferring it to an exchange that sells Ripple:
ETH buy order: $1,920.20 - $2,000 Transaction fee: $29.80 for ACH. Fee included in credit/debit deposit (so $79.80).
Total purchase fees from deposit to ETH acquisition: $29.80 to 79.80
EDIT: Adjusted the fee rate schedule to make them accurate. Do these fees still seem reasonable to you, even after the decrease in fees? Search Reddit for complaints about Coinbase fees and see what you find. And if you're unconcerned about the deposit transaction price, how about the speed of transaction to fee rate ratio? If we want cryptocurrency to be widely adopted then it should be friction-less.
Come on. Everyone knows that Coinbase is expensive. That's why I deposit my fiat into GDAX to buy crypto. The fees are significantly lower. Quit wasting my time.
Well, that's partially true. Anyone worth their weight in SHA256 hashes knows that GDAX is dramatically cheaper than Coinbase for depositing and purchasing BTC, BCH, LTC, and ETH.
The part that isn't true is that everyone knows that GDAX is cheaper. A more accurate statement is "every cryptocurrency enthusiast/trader knows that GDAX is cheaper". Coinbase does not advertise that GDAX has cheaper fees. There is no GDAX app for a reason - it would heavily cut into Coinbase's bottom line.
Your average crypto newbie buys their first coins through Coinbase because, let's face it, they have an app. Buying crypto on an app is something that your average person can comprehend. Apps are easy to use, trustworthy, and nearly everyone can do it regardless of their age and technical skill level.
Right, apps are easy to use. What a novel thought. You should tour the world giving Ted Talks about how easy apps are to use. Now could you PLEASE get to the point.
OK! I apologize for droning on. I'll cut right to the chase:
Instead of jumping through all the aforementioned hoops with Coinbase, you buy AppCoins from the Aptoide app store and send them directly to your favorite exchange. Then trade the AppCoins for the cryptocurrency of your choice. In theory it should be a faster and more cost-effective way to purchase cryptocurrency.
Hmmmm. OK, I'm starting to understand where you're going with this. But I'm still going to use GDAX. I'd rather buy ETH from GDAX.
Hey, to each their own. I'd rather buy coins in 30 seconds with a couple of taps on my phone and send them right to Binance.
Oh come on. Now you're just shilling. Your whole rant was just a ploy to shill this coin. I'm going to another thread.
Honestly, no. I didn't write this to shill. I guess I'm just tired of Coinbase. And I bet there are others that are less than pleased with their business model and customer service. Remember when they didn't distribute all that Bitcoin Cash?
Ugh, yes. Don't remind me about that.
Sorry! Didn't mean to upset you. I know its a sore subject.
If you read this far then congratulations, you have more patience than your average cryptocurrency trader. May your candles always be green.
Some interesting facts:
Needless to say, I think that Aptoide and AppCoins is a project to be excited about regardless of whether you're a cryptocurrency trader or completely uninvolved with the cryptocurrency space. Cryptocurrency is going mainstream this year!
To avoid confusion since Coinmarketcap has APPC listed incorrectly, here is the current accurate financial information. People are going to ask anyway so I would rather supply the correct information:
Circulating supply= 98M APPC Total supply= 246M APPC Coin Price = $2.53 ICO Price = $0.10 Market Cap (CS x P) = $247,940,000 Days on Exchange (Binance) = 7
Thank you for reading!
EDIT: Spelling
submitted by Deliverah to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

A (hopefully mathematically neutral) comparison of Lightning network fees to Bitcoin Cash on-chain fees.

A side note before I begin
For context, earlier today, sherlocoin made a post on this sub asking if Lightning Network transactions are cheaper than on-chain BCH transactions. This user also went on to complain on /bitcoin that his "real" numbers were getting downvoted
I was initially going to respond to his post, but after I typed some of my response, I realized it is relevant to a wider Bitcoin audience and the level of analysis done warranted a new post. This wound up being the longest post I've ever written, so I hope you agree.
I've placed the TL;DR at the top and bottom for the simple reason that you need to prepare your face... because it's about to get hit with a formidable wall of text.
TL;DR: While Lightning node payments themselves cost less than on-chain BCH payments, the associated overhead currently requires a LN channel to produce 16 transactions just to break-even under ideal 1sat/byte circumstances and substantially more as the fee rate goes up.
Further, the Lightning network can provide no guarantee in its current state to maintain/reduce fees to 1sat/byte.

Let's Begin With An Ideal World
Lightning network fees themselves are indeed cheaper than Bitcoin Cash fees, but in order to get to a state where a Lightning network fee can be made, you are required to open a channel, and to get to a state where those funds are spendable, you must close that channel.
On the Bitcoin network, the minimum accepted fee is 1sat/byte so for now, we'll assume that ideal scenario of 1sat/byte. We'll also assume the open and close is sent as a simple native Segwit transaction with a weighted size of 141 bytes. Because we have to both open and close, this 141 byte fee will be incurred twice. The total fee for an ideal open/close transaction is 1.8¢
For comparison, a simple transaction on the BCH network requires 226 bytes one time. The minimum fee accepted next-block is 1sat/byte. At the time of writing an ideal BCH transaction fee costs ~ 0.11¢
This means that under idealized circumstances, you must currently make at least 16 transactions on a LN channel to break-even with fees
Compounding Factors
Our world is not ideal, so below I've listed compounding factors, common arguments, an assessment, and whether the problem is solvable.
Problem 1: Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash prices are asymmetrical.
Common arguments:
BTC: If Bitcoin Cash had the same price, the fees would be far higher
Yes, this is true. If Bitcoin Cash had the same market price as Bitcoin, our ideal scenario changes substantially. An open and close on Bitcoin still costs 1.8¢ while a simple Bitcoin Cash transaction now costs 1.4¢. The break-even point for a Lightning Channel is now only 2 transactions.
Is this problem solvable?
Absolutely.
Bitcoin Cash has already proposed a reduction in fees to 1sat for every 10 bytes, and that amount can be made lower by later proposals. While there is no substantial pressure to implement this now, if Bitcoin Cash had the same usage as Bitcoin currently does, it is far more likely to be implemented. If implemented at the first proposed reduction rate, under ideal circumstances, a Lightning Channel would need to produce around 13 transactions for the new break even.
But couldn't Bitcoin reduce fees similarly
The answer there is really tricky. If you reduce on-chain fees, you reduce the incentive to use the Lightning Network as the network becomes more hospitable to micropaments. This would likely increase the typical mempool state and decrease the Lightning Channel count some. The upside is that when the mempool saturates with low transaction fees, users are then re-incentivized to use the lightning network after the lowes fees are saturated with transactions. This should, in theory, produce some level of a transaction fee floor which is probably higher on average than 0.1 sat/byte on the BTC network.
Problem 2: This isn't an ideal world, we can't assume 1sat/byte fees
Common arguments:
BCH: If you tried to open a channel at peak fees, you could pay $50 each way
BTC: LN wasn't implemented which is why the fees are low now
Both sides have points here. It's true that if the mempool was in the same state as it was in December of 2017, that a user could have potentially been incentivized to pay an open and close channel fee of up to 1000 sat/byte to be accepted in a reasonable time-frame.
With that being said, two factors have resulted in a reduced mempool size of Bitcoin: Increased Segwit and Lightning Network Usage, and an overall cooling of the market.
I'm not going to speculate as to what percentage of which is due to each factor. Instead, I'm going to simply analyze mempool statistics for the last few months where both factors are present.
Let's get an idea of current typical Bitcoin network usage fees by asking Johoe quick what the mempool looks like.
For the last few months, the bitcoin mempool has followed almost the exact same pattern. Highest usage happens between 10AM and 3PM EST with a peak around noon. Weekly, usage usually peaks on Tuesday or Wednesday with enough activity to fill blocks with at least minimum fee transactions M-F during the noted hours and usually just shy of block-filling capacity on Sat and Sun.
These observations can be additionally evidenced by transaction counts on bitinfocharts. It's also easier to visualize on bitinfocharts over a longer time-frame.
Opening a channel
Under pre-planned circumstances, you can offload channel creation to off-peak hours and maintain a 1sat/byte rate. The primary issue arises in situations where either 1) LN payments are accepted and you had little prior knowledge, or 2) You had a previous LN pathway to a known payment processor and one or more previously known intermediaries are offline or otherwise unresponsive causing the payment to fail.
Your options are:
A) Create a new LN channel on-the-spot where you're likely to incur current peak fee rates of 5-20sat/byte.
B) Create an on-chain payment this time and open a LN channel when fees are more reasonable.
C) Use an alternate currency for the transaction.
There is a fundamental divide among the status of C. Some people view Bitcoin as (primarily) a storage of value, and thus as long as there are some available onramps and offramps, the currency will hold value. There are other people who believe that fungibility is what gives cryptocurrency it's value and that option C would fundamentally undermine the value of the currency.
I don't mean to dismiss either argument, but option C opens a can of worms that alone can fill economic textbooks. For the sake of simplicity, we will throw out option C as a possibility and save that debate for another day. We will simply require that payment is made in crypto.
With option B, you would absolutely need to pay the peak rate (likely higher) for a single transaction as a Point-of-Sale scenario with a full mempool would likely require at least one confirm and both parties would want that as soon as possible after payment. It would not be unlikely to pay 20-40 sat/byte on a single transaction and then pay 1sat/byte for an open and close to enable LN payments later. Even in the low end, the total cost is 20¢ for on-chain + open + close.
With present-day-statistics, your LN would have to do 182 transactions to make up for the one peak on-chain transaction you were forced to do.
With option A, you still require one confirm. Let's also give the additional leeway that in this scenario you have time to sit and wait a couple of blocks for your confirm before you order / pay. You can thus pay peak rates alone and not peak + ensure next block rates. This will most likely be in the 5-20 sat/byte range. With 5sat/byte open and 1sat/byte close, your LN would have to do 50 transactions to break even
In closing, fees are incurred by the funding channel, so there could be scenarios where the receiving party is incentivized to close in order to spend outputs and the software automatically calculates fees based on current rates. If this is the case, the receiving party could incur a higher-than-planned fee to the funding party.
With that being said, any software that allows the funding party to set the fee beforehand would avoid unplanned fees, so we'll assume low fees for closing.
Is this problem solvable?
It depends.
In order to avoid the peak-fee open/close ratio problem, the Bitcoin network either needs to have much higher LN / Segwit utilization, or increase on-chain capacity. If it gets to a point where transactions stack up, users will be required to pay more than 1sat/byte per transaction and should expect as much.
Current Bitcoin network utilization is close enough to 100% to fill blocks during peak times. I also did an export of the data available at Blockchair.com for the last 3000 blocks which is approximately the last 3 weeks of data. According to their block-weight statistics, The average Bitcoin block is 65.95% full. This means that on-chain, Bitcoin can only increase in transaction volume by around 50% and all other scaling must happen via increased Segwit and LN use.
Problem 3: You don't fully control your LN channel states.
Common arguments:
BCH: You can get into a scenario where you don't have output capacity and need to open a new channel.
BCH: A hostile actor can cause you to lose funds during a high-fee situation where a close is forced.
BTC: You can easily re-load your channel by pushing outbound to inbound.
BCH: You can't control whether nodes you connect to are online or offline.
There's a lot to digest here, but LN is essentially a 2-way contract between 2 parties. Not only does the drafting party pay the fees as of right now, but connected 3rd-parties can affect the state of this contract. There are some interesting scenarios that develop because of it and you aren't always in full control of what side.
Lack of outbound capacity
First, it's true that if you run out of outbound capacity, you either need to reload or create a new channel. This could potentially require 0, 1, or 2 additional on-chain transactions.
If a network loop exists between a low-outbound-capacity channel and yourself, you could push transactional capacity through the loop back to the output you wish to spend to. This would require 0 on-chain transactions and would only cost 1 (relatively negligible) LN fee charge. For all intents and purposes... this is actually kind of a cool scenario.
If no network loop exists from you-to-you, things get more complex. I've seen proposals like using Bitrefill to push capacity back to your node. In order to do this, you would have an account with them and they would lend custodial support based on your account. While people opting for trustless money would take issue in 3rd party custodians, I don't think this alone is a horrible solution to the LN outbound capacity problem... Although it depends on the fee that bitrefill charges to maintain an account and account charges could negate the effectiveness of using the LN. Still, we will assume this is a 0 on-chain scenario and would only cost 1 LN fee which remains relatively negligible.
If no network loop exists from you and you don't have a refill service set up, you'll need at least one on-chain payment to another LN entity in exchange for them to push LN capacity to you. Let's assume ideal fee rates. If this is the case, your refill would require an additional 7 transactions for that channel's new break-even. Multiply that by number of sat/byte if you have to pay more.
Opening a new channel is the last possibility and we go back to the dynamics of 13 transactions per LN channel in the ideal scenario.
Hostile actors
There are some potential attack vectors previously proposed. Most of these are theoretical and/or require high fee scenarios to come about. I think that everyone should be wary of them, however I'm going to ignore most of them again for the sake of succinctness.
This is not to be dismissive... it's just because my post length has already bored most casual readers half to death and I don't want to be responsible for finishing the job.
Pushing outbound to inbound
While I've discussed scenarios for this push above, there are some strange scenarios that arise where pushing outbound to inbound is not possible and even some scenarios where a 3rd party drains your outbound capacity before you can spend it.
A while back I did a testnet simulation to prove that this scenario can and will happen it was a post response that happened 2 weeks after the initial post so it flew heavily under the radar, but the proof is there.
The moral of this story is in some scenarios, you can't count on loaded network capacity to be there by the time you want to spend it.
Online vs Offline Nodes
We can't even be sure that a given computer is online to sign a channel open or push capacity until we try. Offline nodes provide a brick-wall in the pathfinding algorithm so an alternate route must be found. If we have enough channel connectivity to be statistically sure we can route around this issue, we're in good shape. If not, we're going to have issues.
Is this problem solvable?
Only if the Lightning network can provide an (effectively) infinite amount of capacity... but...
Problem 4: Lightning Network is not infinite.
Common arguments:
BTC: Lightning network can scale infinitely so there's no problem.
Unfortunately, LN is not infinitely scalable. In fact, finding a pathway from one node to another is roughly the same problem as the traveling salesman problem. Dijkstra's algorithm which is a problem that diverges polynomially. The most efficient proposals have a difficulty bound by O(n^2).
Note - in the above I confused the complexity of the traveling salesman problem with Dijkstra when they do not have the same bound. With that being said, the complexity of the LN will still diverge with size
In lay terms, what that means is every time you double the size of the Lightning Network, finding an indirect LN pathway becomes 4 times as difficult and data intensive. This means that for every doubling, the amount of traffic resulting from a single request also quadruples.
You can potentially temporarily mitigate traffic by bounding the number of hops taken, but that would encourage a greater channel-per-user ratio.
For a famous example... the game "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" postulates that Kevin Bacon can be connected by co-stars to any movie by 6 degrees of separation. If the game is reduced to "4 degrees of Kevin Bacon," users of this network would still want as many connections to be made, so they'd be incentivized to hire Kevin Bacon to star in everything. You'd start to see ridiculous mash-ups and reboots just to get more connectivity... Just imagine hearing Coming soon - Kevin Bacon and Adam Sandlar star in "Billy Madison 2: Replace the face."
Is this problem solvable?
Signs point to no.
So technically, if the average computational power and network connectivity can handle the problem (the number of Lightning network channels needed to connect the world)2 in a trivial amount of time, Lightning Network is effectively infinite as the upper bound of a non-infinite earth would limit time-frames to those that are computationally feasible.
With that being said, BTC has discussed Lightning dev comments before that estimated a cap of 10,000 - 1,000,000 channels before problems are encountered which is far less than the required "number of channels needed to connect the world" level.
In fact SHA256 is a newer NP-hard problem than the traveling saleseman problem. That means that statistically, and based on the amount of review that has been given to each problem, it is more likely that SHA256 - the algorithm that lends security to all of bitcoin - is cracked before the traveling salesman problem is. Notions that "a dedicated dev team can suddenly solve this problem, while not technically impossible, border on statistically absurd.
Edit - While the case isn't quite as bad as the traveling salesman problem, the problem will still diverge with size and finding a more efficient algorithm is nearly as unlikely.
This upper bound shows that we cannot count on infinite scalability or connectivity for the lightning network. Thus, there will always be on-chain fee pressure and it will rise as the LN reaches it's computational upper-bound.
Because you can't count on channel states, the on-chain fee pressure will cause typical sat/byte fees to raise. The higher this rate, the more transactions you have to make for a Lightning payment open/close operation to pay for itself.
This is, of course unless it is substantially reworked or substituted for a O(log(n))-or-better solution.
Finally, I'd like to add, creating an on-chain transaction is a set non-recursive, non looping function - effectively O(1), sending this transaction over a peer-to-peer network is bounded by O(log(n)) and accepting payment is, again, O(1). This means that (as far as I can tell) on-chain transactions (very likely) scale more effectively than Lightning Network in its current state.
Additional notes:
My computational difficulty assumptions were based on a generalized, but similar problem set for both LN and on-chain instances. I may have overlooked additional steps needed for the specific implementation, and I may have overlooked reasons a problem is a simplified version requiring reduced computational difficulty.
I would appreciate review and comment on my assumptions for computational difficulty and will happily correct said assumptions if reasonable evidence is given that a problem doesn't adhere to listed computational difficulty.
TL;DR: While Lightning node payments themselves cost less than on-chain BCH payments, the associated overhead currently requires a LN channel to produce 16 transactions just to break-even under ideal 1sat/byte circumstances and substantially more as the fee rate goes up.
Further, the Lightning network can provide no guarantee in its current state to maintain/reduce fees to 1sat/byte.
submitted by CaptainPatent to btc [link] [comments]

Will BCH reach an all-time low exchange rate versus BTC in the next few months?

So BCH has been falling gradually again since last April's pump, but recently also breached a moving trendline that established the 2 lows after the bottom during Dec 2018. Let's see a few stats that make me believe BCH will reach an all-time low versus BTC.
(Source: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-cash/#charts )
I checked the top 10 exchanges accounting for almost 60% of BCH's volume:
Excluding maybe OKEx all of these exchanges are known to fake their entire volume. Additionally, if we take out the 1st 2 exchanges we are down by 30% of the volume, in comparison, no exchange on BTC has more than a couple of % by market share.
Another metric to watch is the number of transactions:
(Source: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin%20cash-transactions.html )
This has risen to around 50k in the last few months, in comparison BCH usually did between 5k and 15k a few months ago. Sadly more than 50% of the transactions are known to be produced by a single address that still does this activity, you can watch it here: https://explorer.bitcoin.com/bch/address/1b1itzeSKYEKhdcthUSnNJ47Fx2U8Zwwn
This means that "normal" transactions are not much more in numbers compared to the highs of some previous months.
Hashrate:
(Source: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-bch.html )
BCH is constantly keeping a non-relevant hashrate in terms of the total SHA256 hashrate mining on the open market. Its current hashrate is down almost 50% from 1 year ago (~3.8E to 2E) and it also only accounts for 2.9% of BTC's entire hashrate currently. This is critical in terms of chain security especially since BCH's halving will come sooner compared to BTC's halving, mining block rewards will be less profitable if prices don't recover.
In comparison, BTC has reached ATH in hashrate recently while still nowhere near ATH in price.
Holders:
Bitmain (previously led by Jihan) has been known to accumulate near 1 million BCH. According to more recent numbers (and rumors), this holding has since become less, while Bitmain has fired almost all of their BCH developers and assigned Jihan a different role in the company.
This still leaves a less pro-BCH Bitmain with a few hundred thousand BCH while the coin is becoming less liquid and less secure. A potential selling pressure coupled with the miner's selling pressure can make BCH fall way more.
Currently, BCH only offers an alternative scaling solution to BTC without an existing network effect or a community that is backing the network with usage:
Metrics show either a decline in most places or simply no impactful growth. There is nothing pointing at an actual rebound in long-term declining trend for the project that could lead to any sort of flippening.
If you check the below 2 charts you will see that even though avg BTC transaction fees were on the rise from May this year BCH hardly got plus activity on its chain even though people here believe that users will migrate from BTC to BCH in case of high fees.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactionfees-btc-bch.html#6m
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-bch.html#6m
Note that the entity "spamming" the BCH chain started working from mid-April meaning that most extra transactions in May are coming from it.
TLDR
BCH general trend isn't turning upwards. Since BCH is against BTC on the market, if BTC rises in some of the important metrics BCH will fall.
submitted by aeroFurious to btc [link] [comments]

Proof of Failure - "I'll get you next time Salty Roger" :-)

"actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea"
Just under 7 days ago I posted the following SHA256 hash to both the BSV blockchain and BAB blockchain.
I actually posted at 2019-06-16 20:00:00 but it took some minutes (as you'll see I predicted) to appear in the next block of the aforementioned blockchains, thus remaining a permanent immutable record.
memo.sv post Block Time: 2019-06-16 20:38:22 Block Number: 587160
memo.cash post Block Time: 2019-06-16 20:29:44 Block Number: 587318
This is verifiable proof that I held the plaintext to make this hash on that date. The hash as you can see is which is a SHA256:-
52f42a5a4c073a2a14ed76e5a1d356c4586e6f2dea2a91d9a3dcf5f57799442e
Just after posting to the blockchain this hash, I sent private messages to 3 members of this subreddit with the following text, and thus this is the reason why I am now forced to reveal the hash, as I expect them to take my words seriously.
It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things (as all I did is cryptographically proven) that I did this, however I wanted to so I would be forced to reveal the plaintext within 7 days. I won't name them, but if they want to confirm that they did indeed receive this message then I'll leave that up to them.
Hi guys. Look I am doing something kinda funny here, but for now needs to be secret. Here is a SHA256 hash, write it down!
"52f42a5a4c073a2a14ed76e5a1d356c4586e6f2dea2a91d9a3dcf5f57799442e"
If I don't reveal what plaintext is the source of this hash within the next 7 days then it means I am a fraud, and I am not to be trusted and I request I am permabanned from the subreddit, and all communications with me should cease.
This hash has been published on both the BSV & BAB blockchains as a memo message, as proof it wasn't created after the time it appears in the blockchains, and proof of immutability of content.
You can see it here (BSV):- https://memo.sv/profile/1gr5whAEV4ffA6df71JTdQ7gSNQWTkgnm Or here (BAB):- https://memo.cash/profile/1gr5whAEV4ffA6df71JTdQ7gSNQWTkgnm
And timestamp will be a few seconds or minutes after timestamp below, as and when message gets confirmed in next block on each respective chain. PoW!
If I happen to be banned from reddit in the meantime don't worry as hash reveal will take place on these memo channels within 7 days.
If this works you're all gonna LOL real hard cause it will cause one big massive social media shitstorm! And we all know the only way to destroy a PoSM shitcoin like BAB is with social media!
Cheers fellas! jim-btc 2019-06-16T20:00:00Z End of message.
I actually sent it to them as an image
This is all those 3 members have seen, and all 3 have confirmed, one with "I'll be watching" another with a "LOL" type response and another with a rather concerned "what's this?" type response. I gave them no further information - so now all reading this post know exactly the same about this all as they do - which is basically nothing, other than this hash 52f42a5a4c073a2a14ed76e5a1d356c4586e6f2dea2a91d9a3dcf5f57799442e must be something interesting.
So what was the plaintext behind this hash? What does it have to do with Salty Roger?
Well I'm gonna take some inspiration from Dr. Craig S. Wright here to add some tension... I still have a few hours to reveal the plain-text, which is in fact a computer program. We shall all see.
UPDATE
OK here it is: https://gofile.io/?c=FsGtJD
Go check that SHA256 hash.
Here's the code:
#!/usbin/env python # bab-destroy.py # Should work in Python2.7 & Python 3.x # Author: jim-btc # If you change any character in this code (including newlines so careful # Windows users - it will fail to reproduce the excercise! # This is BAB Destroy. Some code designed to make Salty Roger Ver, head of # Bitcoin Cash (BAB) look very stupid and get owned by cryptohashes once again. # # The BABies (that's users of said coin) seem to spout the mantra "Code is Law" # so I thought what better way to own them all than by using some code to do # it! # Purpose of this program is to generate a fake (unspendable) Bitcoin address # and to hash various messages. Hash for this program (hence the entire process # in the pwnage of Salty Roger will be published on both the Bitcoin Cash (BAB) # and Bitcoin (BSV) blockchains as "proof-of-LOL" so what I am doing here can # easily be verified as non-illegal and non-fraudulent *after the event* by # simply running this code and verifying all messages/hashes produced - to # replay the sequence of events as it were. # # A non-spendable address is used to demonstrate even if Roger was dumb enough # to send BTC that it is the equivalent of burning money - i.e. nobody can # benefit. Also for any legal eagles reading allow me introduce some Latin: # "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea". Interesting case study to be made # perhaps regarding blockchains as immutable evidence. # The idea is the following happens:- # # 1) Hash of this program code is published on BAB & BSV blockchains to proove # timestamp that this effort was started, using memo.cash / memo.sv # # 2) A few community memebers from Bitcoin (BSV) subreddit are sent a hashed # message stating that there is a hash on BAB/BSV blockchain and if I don't # reveal how to make it within 7 days then I am a fraud, a scammer and should # be removed from the community - this is to ensure nobody can claim the # argument "jim-btc was just testing to see if Roger would pay" and to # ensure revealing of this code regardless of the outcome. # # 3) Roger recieves a message from me basically stating "Pay me 1BTC and I will # stop attacking your coin and community and work for you attacking BSV". # # 4) Roger publishes this message on /btc (or /npc as it's better called) # and tries to state that jim-btc is a scammer, and possibly that this is # a scam/community atack by the entire community of BSV. The idea is that # Roger basically publisizes this for maximum effect so when the truth is # revealed his own publicity owns him. An alternative (but very unlikely) is # that Roger sends 1BTC to the address - where I then publish this entire # message chain to prove (once again) that Roger is an idiot and has no # problem employing sockpuppets for nefarious purposes and has just burned 1BTC # for his very silly efforts! Remember if he sends any funds there - I cannot # spend it as you see that the public address has no corresponding private key. # (it's a fake address). # # 5) Bonus LOLpoints will be rewarded if this news makes it to Roger's Twitter # account and/or his news.bitcoin.com website as some sort of proof that # "criminal blackmailers are attempting to destroy BAB" or the now famous # classic quote they use "It's an attack" as they keep needing to invent a # common external enemy like Orwell's 1984 as some way for cohesion in their # destroyed and rotten "community". It is expected that as Salty Roger loves to # play victim he shall play victim to maximum effect. Let's hope so! # # 6) Program code is revealed. Orignal hash on BAB/BSV blockchains is shown as # matching the hash of the program code. Roger looks dumb, all BABies are # awakened as to just how easy it is to attack a PoSM (Proof of Social Media) # shitcoin such as Bitcoin Cash (BAB). The crypto world laughs, lawyers debate # the legality of this all - everyone is confused but most agree Roger has once # again proved he knows nothing about crypto and is easily spoofed. # # People read this program code and these comments and find out just how bad # things are with BABcoin. They sell the idea of "decentralized development" # when in reality Amaury Sachet (ABC node developer) bans Andrew Stone, LEAD # developer of Bitcoin Unlimited from any meetings. It also encourages BABies # to look at the ideas floating around in the dev community - such as spending # funding money on developer get-togethers when clearly the fundraising they # are doing is supposed to be paying for developers to develop. People are # encouraged to look into the transparency of all fundraising and realise that # this is not a sustainable model for a anti-business coin such as BAB. # # Once again I'd ask people to seriously debate the difference and the # narrative:- # # "Satosh added checkpoints to Bitcoins source code - checkpoints are OK" # -- the BAB narrative # # The reality:- # These checkpoints were added days/weeks/months after the blocks were mined # for pretty obvious reasons. # Amaury Sachet (shitlord dictator of ABC) added them within ~10 minutes of # blocks being mined and colluded with exchanges to use this special software # within minutes. That is not fair competition, this is not PoW. That is a PoSM # shitcoin and shall be destroyed - only way to do it is with social media! # # This program is dedicated to unwriter and Craig S. Wright (Satoshi Nakamoto). # # Read unwriters phenomenal message to all devs:- # # https://medium.com/@_unwritethe-resolution-of-the-bitcoin # -cash-experiment-52b86d8cd187 # # OK - let's get started... # # These are the only 3 functions we need to import. from binascii import hexlify from hashlib import sha256 from os import path BASE_58_ALPHABET = '123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz' # First let's make a public key based on some text, unless we manage to break # cryptography we will have no way of knowing the private key for this message # thus any coins sent here are effectivley burned (unspendable). # This message will give us fake address 1MCpARZExPsW5EmBMEYj2NoyUxaoWyZt8N BITCOIN_PUBKEY_MESSAGE = b'Roger Ver is an idiot, jim-btc owns him!' MESSAGE_TO_ROGER = '''Hey Roger. You see I am attacking BCH continuously. If you want me to stop (and switch teams and work for you guys attacking BSV) then I will accept the job. I can be paid a salary of 1 BTC to this address to get started:- {} Don\'t try and share this message and slander me cause I will just deny it. I am a lot cleverer than you guys - admit it! Not interested in further communications, except confirmation, and I shall not respond. Payment to the aforementioned address is the acceptance of hiring me - not negotiable. End of message.''' MEMO_SV = 'https://memo.sv/profile/1gr5whAEV4ffA6df71JTdQ7gSNQWTkgnm' MEMO_BAB = 'https://memo.cash/profile/1gr5whAEV4ffA6df71JTdQ7gSNQWTkgnm' MESSAGE_TO_FOLKS = '''Hi guys. Look I am doing something kinda funny here, but for now needs to be secret. Here is a SHA256 hash, write it down! "{}" If I don't reveal what plaintext is the source of this hash within the next 7 days then it means I am a fraud, and I am not to be trusted and I request I am permabanned from the subreddit, and all communications with me should cease. This hash has been published on both the BSV & BAB blockchains as a memo message, as proof it wasn't created after the time it appears in the blockchains, and proof of immutability of content. You can see it here (BSV):- {} Or here (BAB):- {} And timestamp will be a few seconds or minutes after timestamp below, as and when message gets confirmed in next block on each respective chain. PoW! If I happen to be banned from reddit in the meantime don\'t worry as hash reveal will take place on these memo channels within 7 days. If this works you\'re all gonna LOL real hard cause it will cause one big massive social media shitstorm! And we all know the only way to destroy a PoSM shitcoin like BAB is with social media! Cheers fellas! jim-btc 2019-06-16T20:00:00Z End of message.''' SEPERATOR = '*' * 80 WARNING_ADDR = '''WARNING: Hey if you are running this code to prove the hashes, DO NOT SEND ANY BSV/BTC/BAB to the address! I cannot spend it as I don\'t have the private key and it\'s impossible to find it - you will just be burning your crypto!''' def make_bitcoin_address(pubkey_hash): with_network_byte = b'\x00' + pubkey_hash full_checksum = sha256(sha256(with_network_byte).digest()).hexdigest() checksum = full_checksum[:4 * 2] address_hex = hexlify(with_network_byte).decode() + checksum b58_string = '' # Get the number of leading zeros leading_zeros = len(address_hex) - len(address_hex.lstrip('0')) # Convert hex to decimal address_int = int(address_hex, 16) # Append digits to the start of string while address_int > 0: digit = address_int % 58 digit_char = BASE_58_ALPHABET[digit] b58_string = digit_char + b58_string address_int //= 58 # Add '1' for each 2 leading zeros ones = leading_zeros // 2 for one in range(ones): b58_string = '1' + b58_string return b58_string def main(): # We'll use first 160 bits of sha256 of message - doesn't really matter! # as long as we have 160 bits like RIPEMD-160 pubkey_hash = sha256(BITCOIN_PUBKEY_MESSAGE).digest()[:160 // 8] # If you wanna test the function then follow this blog post # https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/how-to-create-a-bitcoin-wallet-address # -from-a-private-key-eca3ddd9c05f/ # and hardcode it as:- # pubkey_hash = b'E23`\n\x968K\xb8\[email protected]\t\x84\x11z\xc8M~\x8b' # and you will get result '17JsmEygbbEUEpvt4PFtYaTeSqfb9ki1F1' as per blog fake_bitcoin_address = make_bitcoin_address(pubkey_hash) source_code = path.abspath(path.realpath(__file__)) hash_of_this_source_code = sha256() # We'll hash this source code. Hashing this is proof of the entire # operation! and allows anybody to see what was done, when, and why. with open(source_code, 'rb') as _: hash_of_this_source_code.update(_.read()) source_hash = hash_of_this_source_code.hexdigest() # We now input the hashes etc... into the messages, print them on screen # for easy copy pasta! message_to_folks_with_hash = MESSAGE_TO_FOLKS.format(source_hash, MEMO_SV, MEMO_BAB) message_to_roger = MESSAGE_TO_ROGER.format(fake_bitcoin_address) print(SEPERATOR) print(message_to_folks_with_hash) print(SEPERATOR) print(message_to_roger) print(SEPERATOR) print(WARNING_ADDR) if __name__ == "__main__": main() 
This is what output looks like if you run it (you'll see it hashes itself but you can do sha256sum on the program file if you want)
******************************************************************************** Hi guys. Look I am doing something kinda funny here, but for now needs to be secret. Here is a SHA256 hash, write it down! "52f42a5a4c073a2a14ed76e5a1d356c4586e6f2dea2a91d9a3dcf5f57799442e" If I don't reveal what plaintext is the source of this hash within the next 7 days then it means I am a fraud, and I am not to be trusted and I request I am permabanned from the subreddit, and all communications with me should cease. This hash has been published on both the BSV & BAB blockchains as a memo message, as proof it wasn't created after the time it appears in the blockchains, and proof of immutability of content. You can see it here (BSV):- https://memo.sv/profile/1gr5whAEV4ffA6df71JTdQ7gSNQWTkgnm Or here (BAB):- https://memo.cash/profile/1gr5whAEV4ffA6df71JTdQ7gSNQWTkgnm And timestamp will be a few seconds or minutes after timestamp below, as and when message gets confirmed in next block on each respective chain. PoW! If I happen to be banned from reddit in the meantime don't worry as hash reveal will take place on these memo channels within 7 days. If this works you're all gonna LOL real hard cause it will cause one big massive social media shitstorm! And we all know the only way to destroy a PoSM shitcoin like BAB is with social media! Cheers fellas! jim-btc 2019-06-16T20:00:00Z End of message. ******************************************************************************** Hey Roger. You see I am attacking BCH continuously. If you want me to stop (and switch teams and work for you guys attacking BSV) then I will accept the job. I can be paid a salary of 1 BTC to this address to get started:- 1MCpARZExPsW5EmBMEYj2NoyUxaoWyZt8N Don't try and share this message and slander me cause I will just deny it. I am a lot cleverer than you guys - admit it! Not interested in further communications, except confirmation, and I shall not respond. Payment to the aforementioned address is the acceptance of hiring me - not negotiable. End of message. ******************************************************************************** WARNING: Hey if you are running this code to prove the hashes, DO NOT SEND ANY BSV/BTC/BAB to the address! I cannot spend it as I don't have the private key and it's impossible to find it - you will just be burning your crypto! 
Any technical questions / comments feel free to ask below.
submitted by jim-btc to bitcoincashSV [link] [comments]

Debunking myths about mining and GPUs

E: Going to bed, will contribute more tomorrow. Thanks for the discussion!
Myth: Mining is more stressful than gaming. Fact: It depends. During the old days, this was plausible, because older GPUs (Pre-polaris) are/were bottlenecked by core clock when mining the most profitable coins. Thus, miners overclocked and overvolted these cards quite frequently, especially with cheap electricity. This meant that those cards were often run hot, pushing the limits and stressing VRM and fans quite a lot. Nowadays, ethash (Ethereum) is the most profitable algorithm for AMD cards 99% of the time, and newer GPUs (Polaris) are limited by memory bandwidth and latency. Miners can underclock core to the low 1100MHz range before seeing performance drop. To save power, miners who know what they are doing also undervolt, since it is no longer necessary to sustain a high core clock. Thus, it is quite feasible to run polaris cards below 70C at a reasonable fan speed. However, dual mining (mining more than one coin at once) does increase power consumption by up to 20%, and there are also idiots who run their polaris cards OCd while mining. With the exception of a few idiots, miners treat their Polaris GPUs pretty much the same; that is, running underclocked and undervolted 24/7 with a memory strap mod and mem OC. On the other hand, former gaming cards are highly variable in use cases. Some gamers leave their cards at stock settings, some undervolt, and some OC and/or overvolt. Most of the time, these cards are thermal cycled far more often than mining cards, which is known to weaken solder. Another thing to consider is that manufacturers have learned (somewhat) from their mistakes of putting shit tier fans in GPUs, and many fans on modern GPUs are ball bearing and/or swappable. Even some budget cards, such as MSI Armor, use decent ball bearing fans. Bottom line: the risk of buying mined Polaris cards is not as high as the risk of buying older mined cards. I would not be against buying mined polaris cards, but it's not necessarily better than buying a gamer's card instead. At the end of the day, it depends more on how the owner treated it than what they used it for.
Myth: GPUs are obsolete because of FPGAs and ASICs Fact: Mostly false. Older algorithms such as scrypt and SHA256 (lite/doge/feathebitcoin etc) are no longer feasible to mine with GPUs, but there have been multiple algorithms since then that are built to deter ASICs; most of the time it is done by making it memory-hard because designing an ASIC with high memory throughput is considerably more expensive to design and manufacture. Many devs prefer their blockchain to be ASIC resistant to avoid the concentration of power problem that Bitcoin is having nowadays, where a giant, near-monopolistic ASIC manufacturer (Bitmain) is causing a lot of (subjective) controversy. Blockchains based on ethash (Ethereum and its forks), equihash (Zcash and its forks) and cryptonight (Monero and forks) are some examples, but there are scores of other shitcoins and a few other algos that are GPU dominant. It is almost impossible that there will be another ASIC takeover, which is what was responsible for the stop in GPU demand in the bitcoin and litecoin days. Bottom line: ASICs no longer threaten GPU miners, or the demand for GPUs
Myth: Ethereum switching to Proof of Stake will kill mining soon Fact: Doomsayers have been preaching about proof of stake since late 2015. It has always been "coming soon." The fact is, the Ethereum roadmap goes from proof of work (mining) -> Casper (mining + PoS) -> Metropolis (PoS). Currently, the release date of Casper is not even announced yet, nor is it being tested in a (public) testnet. Proof of Stake might one day take over, but mining is here to stay for a while yet. Another thing to consider is that there are tons of other GPU mineable blockchains, and although Ethereum is biggest, it is certainly feasible that mining stays profitable even after Ethereum goes PoS (if it ever does). However, it is possible that profits will be low enough to discourage new miners. Bottom line: It's very unlikely. E: I screwed up the roadmap; here is a better source than me with some interesting information: https://www.ethnews.com/ethereums-vitalik-buterin-gives-keynote-on-metropolis
Myth: The current Ethereum demand spike is a bubble Opinion: Honestly, I don't know. I would not be surprised if stricter regulations on ICOs come sooner or later, which would fuck with Ether prices. There is also the inherent volatility of cryptocurrencies. However, it is also possible that blockchain technology continues to gain traction; that is, the price could just as easily go up as go down. Although it's fun to read about other people's opinions, only time-travelling wizards can tell you when it will become economical again to upgrade your poor HD5770. Bottom line: No one knows.
Myth: Miners will "steal" all the RX Vegas Fact: Only a reckless miner would buy Vegas on release, since mining performance is not known. In fact, it is possible that it can't mine at all (or at some stupidly low speed) until devs add support to existing miners. It would be even more reckless than gamers who buy without seeing benchmarks, since at least gamers can expect the games to actually run. It's also not necessarily the case that Vega will be good once miners do add support. Maybe there will be enough reckless miners to affect supply, maybe not. Of course, it is possible that miners will deplete the supply after it is demonstrated that Vega is good for mining. Bottom line: Most miners won't preorder, but it's possible that a significant number will. E: Important to remember that even if mining demand isn't high, doesn't mean that supply will be plentiful.
Myth: Nvidia cards SUCK at mining Fact: Mostly false. They USED to suck in the old pre-Maxwell days, but now they are actually more efficient at mining Ethereum and Zcash compared to AMD cards, even after both cards are undervolted. The flipside is that they (used to) cost more for the equivalent hashrate. For reference, my old 5xRX470 rig drew just under 800W when mining ETH only and hashed at 150MH/s. My current 6xGTX1060 rig draws just over half of that (<450W) and hashes at about 135MH/s. Certainly not as good in raw performance, but they are viable nonetheless, especially given the AMD GPU shortage. In fact, Nvidia cards (1060 and especially 1070) are becoming scarce as well. Bottom line: Nvidia is still the underdog when it comes to mining, but far from irrelevant nowadays.
Myth: 4GB cards will be obsolete for mining soon Fact: FALSE. The Ethereum DAG is not even 3GB yet, and won't be for a few months. The recent reports of 4GB Polaris cards slowing down soon due to DAG size is caused by limited TLB capacity, not VRAM restrictions. Polaris cards will still be able to mine ETH forks such as Expanse and UBIQ without diminished speed, and even if they are used to mine ETH, it is not that much of a performance hit at first. It would certainly not make polaris useless or undesirable for mining anytime soon. Tahiti GPUs already suffer from this issue and Hawaii is the most resistant to this issue. Have not benched Nvidia at a later epoch.
Myth: Creating miner-bashing posts on Reddit will help alleviate the GPU supply problem Fact: False, you are simply giving cryptocurrencies and mining more exposure to the general public, increasing demand.
Myth: Mining-specific GPUs will solve the shortage problems Opinion: There's not enough info to tell yet, but I am a skeptic for the following reasons. First, no display limits the resale value of the card for obvious reasons. IMO, the whole point of crypto mining from a profitability standpoint is to have a hedge against coin volatility (hardware is still worth something if the coin crashes). Otherwise it is much less effort to just buy and hold the coin. If the hardware is useless without demand from other (significant) sources, then it doesn't make much sense to buy it unless the price is extremely low. I'm sure that cost-downing the PCB and warranty will make for a cheap card, but it has to be extremely cheap and plentiful in supply, or else miners will buy whatever they can get. I could envision "failed" chips (not meeting spec of consumer editions) being stuck in miner cards, but I doubt there are enough to meet demand without ramping up production as a whole, which carries its own risks. I guess that it would help a little, but probably not solve the problems. Alternatively, since modern GPUs are bottlenecked by RAM when mining, it might be enticing to miners to have the fastest (GDDR5) RAM on the market (probably the 9gbps chips from the 1060 6G 9gbps edition, although I don't have one to test). However, my previous points still apply; buying such a card without display outputs carries a big risk. Bottom line: It's not a great idea, unless they are super cheap or use really good RAM.
Hope this helped; if you have any further questions I will try to answer them. I'm both a gamer and miner who uses both AMD and Nvidia roughly equally and don't favor one group over another. I've mined and gamed on all high end AMD GPUs since Tahiti (except Tonga) and all Pascal cards except 1050ti.
submitted by key_smash to Amd [link] [comments]

Blockchain/Bitcoin for beginners 9: Bitcoin difficulty, target, BITS - all you need to know How to Verify a Bitcoin address generated by Bitaddress ... Why ILCoin is the Best Crypto ? Hack bitcoin! Theory and practice! The program For searching for private keys Valentine's Day Giveaway - Preminecoin (PMC)

AltCoins.com is a site for Bitcoin alternatives. Find out more about alternate cryptocurrencies, real alternatives to Bitcoin. This site contains useful information about every alt coin such as client download locations, mining guide, exchange info and more. Use this site to get familiar with live bitcoin alternatives. Use alt coins, mine and exchange them. Keep the alternate chains alive ... See what SHA 256 coins to mine and view their most profitable mining pools by checking the pool fee, payment scheme or minimum payout. Alternative 2020 Article 7 Bitcoin Exchange To Buy, Sell, Invest And Make Money With Bitcoin And Etherum. For those still interested in Digital Currency, also known as Cryptocurrency [ Wikipedia ], here are 10 alternative digital coins. They are easier to mine, however, the down side is these companies might cease to exist if their popularity wanes. Which is the biggest alternative digital ... HamRadioCoin (HAM) SHA256-based alternative cryptocoin 28 Jul 2014. HamRadioCoin, or HAM, is a project dedicated to creating an alternative way to spread the word about the Ham Radio community. Our top priorities are to help new merchants become established, and to introduce new ham radio enthusiasts by using a dedicated crypto-currency! HAM was also created to establish a communication hub ... sha256 bitcoin. share follow edited Jun 8 '11 at 1:07. Alexandre H. Tremblay. asked Jun 8 '11 at 1:02. Alexandre H. Tremblay Alexandre H. Tremblay. 2,427 6 6 gold badges 28 28 silver badges 42 42 bronze badges. add a comment 3 Answers Active Oldest Votes. 4. It sounds right, there is a script in javascript that do calculate the hash but I do not fully understand it so I don't know, maybe ...

[index] [18302] [28691] [31312] [10703] [16362] [22725] [25552] [28576] [30077] [36338]

Blockchain/Bitcoin for beginners 9: Bitcoin difficulty, target, BITS - all you need to know

SHA: Secure Hashing Algorithm ... Live Bitcoin Trading With Crypto Trading Robot DeriBot on Deribit DeriBot Alternative channel 932 watching. Live now; Crypto Mining Difficulty 101 - Everything ... The Crypto Dad goes through the steps involved in verifying the webpage at https://bitaddress.org Bitaddress.org is a website that allows you to generate a u... #ILCOIN is a modern alternative to Bitcoin developed by R&G GmbH, using SHA-256 encryption technology. #ILCOIN is not dependent on the present banking system. It has its own independent value ... Bitcoin mining is legal and is accomplished by running SHA256 double round hash verification processes in order to validate Bitcoin transactions and provide the requisite security for the public ... Scrypt and SHA-256 algorithms are supported, so it can mine bitcoin, litecoin, novacoin, ppcoin, feathercoin and other alternative coins. ARM Miner is suitable for solo and pool mining thank u ...

#