Discussion about Primecoin and its infra. Primecoin is a very innovative cryptocurrency, being the 1st non Hash-Cash PoW crypto, naturally scarce (not artificially), with very fast confirmations (1min), elastic readjusting reward & a useful mining (byproducts are primes). Primecoin is sustainable (miners are guaranteed to have revenues), and decentralized (ASIC/FPGA are not particularly advantaged). Sidechain for decentralized data applications (e.g. Storj) currently in development.
Traditional Mining vs Green Staking: How UMI Cares for the Planet
https://preview.redd.it/fcymiab2fed51.jpg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a32e38290d6f8048ba7cc982bc2963369642eb7a Cryptocurrencies are about a major contribution to the transformation of the existing financial system. They can dramatically change the world and be of great benefit to humankind. But looking for benefits mustn't do harm to the environment. We've taken up this theme for a reason. It is indeed possible to do harm. In fact, harm is already being done. Do you want to know in what way? By traditional mining, which is necessary to maintain the Bitcoin network, and thousands of other Proof-of-Work-based cryptocurrencies. Negative impact of traditional mining In order to maintain the Bitcoin network or other PoW-based cryptocurrencies, miners have to solve complex computational math problems — by doing so they verify the authenticity of transactions and add valid ones to the blockchain. This process is dubbed mining and requires extensive computing resources. The need to compete to solve a mathematical puzzle and receive a reward makes people use more and more powerful equipment. This is how new bitcoins are generated. With the cryptocurrency boom, harmless mining on computers turned into an endless race among miners. Today miners not only buy high-performance computers. Some miners create farms consisting of energy-consuming ASIC devices while others use huge plants to mine bitcoins. A mining farm consisting of thousands of ASIC devices. Source. As you know, intensive computing power requires elevated power expenses and leads to air pollution and a waste of natural resources. This poses a serious problem. Nowadays electric power stations, which are thermal power plants (TPP), burn fossil fuel, such as coal or natural gas, to produce electricity. This process causes CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions which adversely affect the biosphere — mining contributes to the greenhouse effect which heats the planet up. This consequently causes a global warming effect with its associated impacts on the environment and may pose threats to life on the planet. What is more, every minute we are breathing the same polluted air, thereby being at risk of a bunch of diseases and complications. All these factors shorten life expectancy for us and our children. Air pollution cause a great deal of premature deaths The more carbon dioxide gets into the environment, the more harm it does. Carbon dioxide is a harmful by-product of industrial activity. The biting irony is that we use natural resources to generate these emissions, and these resources have limits too. Traditional mining significantly exacerbates the global problem and the situation has been deteriorating in recent years. The effects of carbon footprint are already being felt There are, undoubtedly, a lot of other factors that cause global environmental degradation, but the impact of mining should never be ignored. Bitcoin mining is estimated to produce as much carbon dioxide as that produced by industries of Estonia, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Jordan, or Sri Lanka. The entire bitcoin network is responsible for 22-22.9 million tons of CO2 per year — just think and try to imagine how much it is. Chinese miners represent about half (47%) of emissions. In China energy is cheap as it's produced by coal-fired thermal power plants. Once we add emissions produced by mining other cryptos, the numbers will double! Powerful mining equipment. Source. Two years ago, Nature Research journal published an article regarding Bitcoin emissions. It said: "We cannot predict the future of Bitcoin, but projected Bitcoin usage, should it follow the rate of adoption of other broadly adopted technologies, could alone produce enough CO2 emissions to push warming above 2 °C within less than three decades." Two years later, we can see the researchers' concerns had the ground — digital gold keeps to be mined with the same enthusiasm as well as the planet keeps to be polluted. "It [Bitcoin] alone could produce enough emissions to raise global temperatures as soon as 2033, " warn a group of researchers. As an alternate solution, miners are encouraged to use renewable energy (wind, solar, etc.) — which can make bitcoin mining more environmentally friendly. Unfortunately, renewable energy sources account for just a small share of global energy which makes them impossible to be used widely. Moreover, in the pursuit of profit, miners don't seem particularly eager to get rid of profitable equipment which cost them a fortune. Nonetheless, the fact that modern cryptocurrencies disapprove environment-damaging mining lets us hope for the early improvement of the situation. UMI is one of these cryptocurrencies. UMI is a green cryptocurrency based on smart contract Not all cryptocurrencies use computing power to generate new coins. For example, there are cryptocurrencies based on Proof-of-Stake (PoS) and Proof-of-Authority (PoA) technology. UMI is just like that. As a substitute for mining and to incite users, UMI uses Staking Smart Contract which allows generating new coins with no energy expenses and powerful equipment. No waste of natural resources. Staking technology is perfectly safe for the planet. This is the latest technological development loop of crypto industry. https://preview.redd.it/wpgh5cmoged51.jpg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=761dd09821e16924dfeeb7db8e65b6a66e50c5d5 UMI can be definitely called an environmentally friendly cryptocurrency as it has no negative impact on the environment. Today this is of greatest importance for all of us. UMI staking neither endangers human health nor harms the environment. In other words, we are protecting the planet and all the people that inhabit it. This is something we can be really proud of. Because the environment influences our health, and good health is the most important thing in life. As a final note, we would like to say that adhering closely to their ideology, the UMI team collaborates only with environmentally conscious partners who are concerned with the protection of the natural world. This was the main reason for choosing the ROY Club as our partner. We are certain this will be productive cooperation which will make this world a better place. Join in and invite all your friends — together we can create new UMI coins using eco-friendly staking and care for our planet! Best regards, UMI Team!
PoW or PoS: The Difference Between Mined and Non-Mined Crypto
The whole crypto world discusses how Ethereum will switch from Proof of Work to Proof of Stake now. This change can significantly affect the cryptocurrency market. What are the positive and negative sides of PoW and PoS? Cryptocurrencies can be divided into two types: those that can be mined (Bitcoin, Litecoin, Monero) and pre-mined ones (Ripple, Stellar, Cardano, EOS, NEO).
What is the big difference?
Although they differ in the method of generation, the basis of both types of crypto is the same: verification. Every transaction processed by the network must be verified by someone to ensure that virtual money has not been spent twice. Here we are talking about the difference in the verification process. Transaction groups are combined into a block; after verification, the block joins other previously confirmed blocks, and create a chain of transactions, or blockchain.
PoW: Mined Crypto
Mining is a process in which individuals, groups, or companies solve complex mathematical equations to verify transaction blocks using powerful computers. These math problems are part of the encryption process that protects transactions from cybercriminals and third party access. The first who solves the problem and signs a block of transactions receives a reward. The miner, who confirmed the block of transactions e.g. in the Bitcoin network, receives a reward in BTC.
Disadvantages of Mined Crypto
Mining can be very expensive due to the large amounts of electricity consumed. In mined crypto with less capitalization, competition is usually lower than in BTC.
BTC mining requires special ASIC chips, that are combined into huge farms. Electricity is one of the main expenses for these projects. That is why China, where electricity is relatively cheap, has become a home to four of the five largest Bitcoin mining companies in the world.
Mining farms have to spend significant money funds on new equipment, which becomes out of date very fast.
Large projects need additional cooling, as servers and graphics cards heat up to high temperatures during operations.
The Proof-of-Work model is potentially vulnerable to a 51% attack (when a group of people with 51% of the computing power gains control of the network and its participants). For popular cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin (BTC), Litecoin (LTC), and Monero (XMR) this is not a problem due to their large capitalization. However, minor cryptocurrencies with long block processing times and low daily volumes are risking a lot.
PoS: Non-Mined Crypto
At the other end of the spectrum are pre-mined cryptocurrencies such as Ripple (XRP), Stellar, Cardano, EOS, and NEO. In the PoS model, super-powered computers are not needed, and participants do not compete for the right to sign the next block. Thus, the costs of this approach are significantly lower. Transaction verification is carried out by cryptocurrency owners. The more cryptocurrencies you have, the longer you own it, the higher the probability that you will be selected to check the transaction block. Certain mechanisms are built into the system that prevents the dominance of large cryptocurrency holders over the verification process. There are many random ways to select owners who get the right to sign a transaction block. This ensures that small holders have a chance to participate in the process.
Disadvantages of Non-Mined Crypto
Despite the fact that the costs of the Proof-of-Stake method are lower, PoS has its drawbacks.
Such cryptocurrencies are not threatened by an attack of 51%, however, another trouble replaces it — a person who posses 51% of all tokens in circulation can gain control of the network and its participants. Of course, in the case of cryptocurrencies with high capitalization, the possibility of this scenario is low, but small partners may suffer from this vulnerability.
The Proof-of-Stake model also gives major owners additional votes in determining the future development of the network. Most NEO tokens) belong to several founders, for instance. This helps increase transaction speed and reduces consensus-building time, but also makes cryptocurrency too centralized. In other words, in the PoS model, large players gain significant power, which is theoretically impossible with the PoW model.
Which method is better?
Both methods have their pros and cons. Nevertheless, sooner or later, some of the largest mined currencies (e.g. BTC) will reach their token limit. At this point, they will have to switch to Proof-of-Stake. Since it significantly reduces power consumption and doesn't require powerful computers, gradually all crypto including BTC will switch to a non-mined model just like Ether did.
CelesOS Research Institute丨DPoW consensus mechanism-combustible mining and voting
The token economy and the blockchain complement each other, while at the same time, the consensus mechanism forms the basis of the blockchain, whom constitutes the basic technical framework of the token economy. The mainstream blockchain, like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and EOS have all compromised on certain aspects of the "impossible triangle" features. https://preview.redd.it/8ocq98swpt551.png?width=554&format=png&auto=webp&s=37ab0235c07b450217e22531ad5291d5b4bcbbee Bitcoin, as a decentralized digital currency, has sacrificed performance to meet the design requirements of decentralization and security, rendering it the target of highest attacking cost among all PoW public chains. The ASIC mining machines updates continually and new versions launch, both can continuously improve the computing power of the entire network. Ethereum 2.0 will use a proof of stake (PoS) consensus mechanism. On the Ethereum network, money can be transfered and smart contracts can be operated, presenting a more complicated application scenario. However, due to its low performance, Ethereum is more prone to get congested. EOS, as a blockchain application platform, is often suspected of being centralized. EOS uses a delegated proof of stake (DPoS) consensus mechanism. Having 21 super nodes responsible for bookkeeping and block generation, the EOS main network can handle more than 4,000 TPS now. However, due to its small number of nodes, it’s one of the three major public chains that are most easily questioned by the outside world on the "decentralization" feature. An inefficient blockchain will only be a game in the laboratory, and an efficient blockchain without decentralization will only be taken advantage of by big players. New generation consensus algorithm DPoW Is there any consensus mechanism that can achieve a better balance between decentralization and efficiency, and can give miners incentives to invest in hardware resources? If we separate the two acts of "acquiring accounting rights" and "receiving block rewards", the above dilemma can be solved. By separating the above two, DPoW has finally achieved the effect of balancing efficiency and centralization. https://preview.redd.it/www3h8swpt551.png?width=731&format=png&auto=webp&s=c0bf49a42751a9501828d0294bc9280f856c441e Drawing on the design concept and operating experience of the preceding consensus mechanisms, DPoW is a new-generation consensus mechanism formed based on PoB and DPoS. Before explaining DPoW, it’s necessary to introduce PoB. PoB (Proof of Burn) is called the burning proof mechanism. (Source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn)) https://preview.redd.it/payq2duzpt551.png?width=554&format=png&auto=webp&s=4b8e9181d95d31a8d5b75a7acab27c851a4a3a4d PoB is a way to vote who has a commitment to the leadership of the network by burning tokens possessed. The greater the number of tokens burned, the higher the probability of gaining network leadership. PoB is a method of distributed consensus and an alternative method of proof-of-work mechanism. It can also be used to guide a cryptocurrency. https://preview.redd.it/4lmhs1i1qt551.png?width=554&format=png&auto=webp&s=e8c50b1638d8ec8d8a2dac2e842b50a2979984fb In the DPoW-based blockchain, the miner's mining reward is no longer a token, but a "wood" that can be burned-burning wood. Through the hash algorithm, miners use their own computing power to get the corresponding non-tradable wood after proving their workload eventually. When the wood has accumulated to a certain amount, it can be burnt in the burning site. DPoW technical solutions Voting with computing power is the biggest innovation of the present invention. It uses the proof of work of the PoW algorithm to replace the stakes as votes, yet retains the BFT-DPoS block generation mechanism. Specific steps are as follow:
POW question acquisition
Obtain the question of proof of work. The proof of work of the present invention is to perform a Hash operation on a PoW problem; the questions is:
target = hash(block_id + account) ^ difficulty
POW question answering
A mathematical hash operation of a random number (nonce) is performed on the question, and if the hash value obtained is less than a certain value, the question is answered; Question answering process:
Voting is to cast the specific answers to the question to the candidate BP. By such, it’s submitted to the blockchain and counted to the blockchain's status database; within an election period, the maximum value of the answer that each voter can calculate is N, and each answer can only be voted to one candidate BP, and the number of votes that can be cast is N. The information and process that voting requires:
Answer to the question
Voting objects (candidate BP)
Verify that the vote is valid
After verification, it will be credited to BP
4. Count the votes At the end of an election period, votes are counted and sorted top-down according to the number of votes under the name of the candidate BP. The top X candidate BPs are selected and inserted into the BP list, and the block generating order of the selected BP is written to the blockchain status database. If X is the number of BPs generated by the system, namely a multiple of 3, it will be set in the genesis block and cannot be changed.
The DPoW block generation mechanism is the same as BFT-DPoS. The elected BP negotiates a block generation ownership order based on its own network resource status. When each BP node has block generation rights, the block reward is a fixed reward for each effective irreversible block. At the same time, the blocks that have been generated use the BFT signature mechanism. After getting 2/3 BP's signature, the block will become an irreversible block. DPoW’s advantage in balance Compared with existing technical solutions, the DPoW consensus protocol has the following feature.
When the stock of burning wood is large, the nodes in the system tend to burn burning wood to vote instead of logging through computing power, which is similar to the DPoS under this situation.
When the stock of burning wood is few, the nodes in this system tend to log to obtain burning wood for voting, which is similar to PoW under this situation, presenting the feature of decentralization. In order to ensure the high-speed operation of the system and attract ticket sources, BP will maintain a stable investment in computer resources to keep the system highly efficient.
Choosing to vote by logging or burning wood depends on the nodes’ own optimal choice, resulting in constant choosing between the two consensus mechanisms of PoW and DPoS. This will make nodes tend to choose PoW when decentralization is needed, and to choose DPoS when efficiency is needed. For a system, whether it is decentralized does not depend on whether each block needs to be decentralized. The key is whether the system can provide a channel to decentralization and fair competition when needed. As long as the channel is reasonable, the system will be considered decentralized. By decoupling vote by logging and block generation, they can be done asynchronously to achieve the effects of decentralization and high efficiency. Learning and updating the preceding practices in blockchain technology, DPoW manages to achieve both decentralization and efficiency, as “having the cake and eating it”. 📷Website https://www.celesos.com/ 📷Telegram https://t.me/celeschain 📷Twitter https://twitter.com/CelesChain 📷Reddit https://www.reddit.com/useCelesOS 📷Medium https://medium.com/@celesos 📷Facebook https://www.facebook.com/CelesOS1 📷Youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1Xsd8wU957D-R8RQVZPfGA
If history is any guide, we’re not going to see ETH 2.0 until 2022 at the earliest, even if the earliest phases of “Serenity” begin getting pushed in mid-2020. ETH 2.0’s rollout breaks down into seven (7!!!) phases and brings with it the promise of staking, sharding, a new virtual machine, and more dancing badgers. (One of our analysts,Wilson Withiam, put together an excellent overview of both the ETH 2.0 and ETH 1.x roadmaps for this report. They are critical to track and understand at a high-level given how much Ethereum’s performance will affect other competitive projects and most of the DeFi and Web 3 infrastructure. So these next two sections are longer and more technical.) Here’s what you need to know about the current game plan for crypto’s largest platform. Phase 0 marks the launch of the “beacon chain”, which will serve as the backbone for a new blockchain. The beacon chain will manage network validators (large early stakers like ConsenSys) and ultimately assign validators to individual shards (slicing the new blockchain into smaller chunks is a key, difficult, controversial scaling decision that’s been made). The new chain will support Ethereum’s new proof-of-stake consensus mechanism, and offer inflation rewards with new ETH2 for those that pony up and lock 32 ETH1 tokens into an irreversible contract. That one way bridge into the new system is also contentious, but it means ETH1 supply will start getting “effectively burned”once token holder begin claiming beacon chain validator slots. Initial reports claimed Jan. 3 as a realistic launch date (lol). It will be amazing to see this launched by end of June. Phase 1 will introduce 64 individual shard chains (reduced from 1,024!!!) to the network, with the option to increase the total down the road as the design gets tested. The Ethereum elite see sharding as the “key to future scalability” as shards can parallelize transaction processing, something that could improve network performance and reduce individual validator’s costs (good for decentralization). It comes with big risk: this is still theoretical. No network the size of Ethereum has successfully sharded its blockchain. In Phase 1, shard chains will only contain simple data sets (no smart contracts or transaction executions) to test the system’s structure. As with Phase 0, the beacon chain will continue to run in parallel with ETH 1.x throughout the phase. Don’t expect Phase 1 anytime before 2021. Phase 2 marks the full launch of the ETH2 chain, allowing for on-chain contract execution and introducing the new eWASM virtual machine (dubbed EVM 2.0). At this point, existing dApps can start migrating their contracts from ETH 1.x to a specific shard (one shard per contract) in the new network. Storage rent, charging contract owners for storing data on the network (more on this below), is in the cards as well, which would require mass contract rewrites. Even though Phase 2 intends to replace the original Ethereum blockchain entirely, ETH 1.x may still live on as a shard within ETH2. (How confused are you by now? See why bitcoin will still dominate the macro narrative for a while?) A late 2021 release for Phase 2 is optimistic. Before the end of 2022 would be a win. The final four phases are less defined, and without an attached timeline: Phase 3 implements state-minimized clients (because stateless clients are just too much). Phase 4 allows for cross-shard transactions. Phase 5 improves network security and the availability of data proofs. Phase 6 introduces meta-shards, as in “shards within shards within shards,” for near-infinite scaling. If you’re scratching your head and are sadistic enough to read more, the Sharding Wiki page does note, “this may be difficult.” Scaling and compilation efficiencies aside, the most notable change in Ethereum’s metamorphosis is the transition from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake. PoW is the more battle tested security model for blockchain networks, while PoS may prove to be more efficient but with new and less obvious attack vectors. For the more technical, we recommend reading Bison Trails’ Viktor Bunin on the subject of PoS security threats. Past research has also shown PoS requires an extra layer of “trust” vs. PoW, to help nodes sync to the network. Most models share specific characteristics to address this trust issue, such as allowing for a dynamic set of validators (rotate your security), promoting token holder participation in consensus, and assessing steep penalties (slashing) for any network participant that violates the protocol guidelines. ETH 2.0 will function similarly, but may be able to learn from other PoS networks (and their R&D) as well as those come live and see real world issues. As Vitalik points out, recent research in PoS resulted in “great theoretical progress,” But... Listen, we're talking about practice. Not a game. Not a game. Not a game. We're talking about practice. Not a game….Practice? We're talking about practice, man? We're talking about practice. We're talking about practice. We ain't talking about the game. We're talking about practice, man. Vitalik was eight when this happened, so the clip might help and prove metaphoric.
2 ETH 1.x Research/Governance/Roadmap at a glance.
Ok, one more. Bear with us. Let’s reiterate, ETH 2.0 is a brand new blockchain. It’s going to be a chaotic and high-risk transition. In the meantime, the existing network needs to run existing applications (particularly financial settlements for DeFi transactions). More critical upgrades are needed in the current system. To that end, ETH 1.x devs have three goals to boost performance and reduce blockchain bloat: (1) introduce client optimizations that increase transaction capacity; (2) cap disk space requirements and prune old, memory-sucking data (so running a node is less expensive and more decentralized); and (3) upgrade the EVM to eWASM, a newer open standard for code compilers that simplifies debugging, and is also used by all the newer smart contract platforms. ETH 1.x developers have decided to split the major tasks amongst four working groups:
State Rent: Developers today incur a single payment for deploying contracts and storing data on the network. Thanks to the immutable nature of blockchains, this data occupies the disk space of node operators permanently. As the network’s state grows, so do operating costs, which is where “state rent” comes in. It makes sense to charge for ongoing storage needs since the node operators are on the hook in perpetuity. This is a big change as it could break a bunch of contracts, but also limits state growth and creates economic incentives to run a node. What happens to data that users don’t want to pay for? Boot delinquent user data off the network but keep a stub (a hash) of information on hand in case the user wants to later reinstate it.
Pruning: Similar goal. Pruning removes old data that is longer useful, but does so in a way that allows clients to prove past transactions. There are a couple of ways developers think this is possible (e.g. maintain a proof of deleted chain segments, which is similar to a “light client” in bitcoin that makes it possible to run a wallet on your phone), but all current strategies would cap annual “state growth” to prevent spikes in storage costs, at the expense of some new complications (e.g., dApps might be unable to access some data, and nodes might be unable to tell if data was deleted or whether it never existed in the first place).
eWASM: Like ETH 2.0, devs plan to implement eWASM on the flagship Ethereum chain. The eWASM virtual machine, a subset of the well-established WebAssembly compiler, offers improved flexibility for the introduction of “high-performance” smart contracts.
Simulation and Emulation: This group develops tools to help support and evaluate the other groups because, well, someone has to test everything.
Core developers intend to introduce most of these implementations through a series of hard forks, the latest of which activated just over a week ago (Istanbul, Dec. 7). However, Istanbul’s second phase, tentatively scheduled for Q2 next year, has Ethereans at each other’s throats. The controversy boils down to the fork’s inclusion of ProgPoW, an ASIC-resistant hashing algorithm designed to replace Ethereum’s current algo. ProgPoW aims to even the playing field for GPU miners and ward off the entrance of potential ASIC competitors. The miners like that. But many miners and investors see ProgPoW as a threat to their investments. For miners, the change would shift the power dynamic away from mining farms and render expensive, specialized mining hardware useless. Ethereum (and ERC-20) investors intent on securing their assets might balk because ASIC miners typically prop up hash rates (overall chain security) and their costs “naturally create a price-floor for ASK prices of miners’ sell-orders.” This saga is far from over. The infighting will likely continue leading up to ProgPoW’s activation date mid-next year, and presents the strongest potential for a network split since “The DAO” fork that spawned Ethereum Classic. The looming transition to ETH 2.0 (and proof-of-stake) will likely deter investor pushback, because it’s a short-term battle in a war the miners are ultimately going to lose, anyway. Unless the roadmap changes back to supporting a hybrid PoW/PoS system, of course, but... Oh my god, I’m just kidding. This section is mercifully over.
Hey shibes, I see a lot of posts about mining lately and questions about the core wallet and how to mine with it, so here are some facts! Feel free to add information to that thread or correct me if I did any mistake.
You downloaded the core wallet
Great! After a decade it probably synced and now you are wondering how to get coins? Bad news: You don't get coins by running your wallet, even running it as a full node. Check what a full node is here. Maybe you thought so, because you saw a very old screenshot of a wallet, like this (Version 1.2). This version had a "Dig" tab where you can enter your mining configuration. The current version doesn't have this anymore, probably because it doesn't make sense anymore.
You downloaded a GPU/CPU miner
Nice! You did it, even your antivirus system probably went postal and you started covering all your webcams... But here is the bad news again: Since people are using ASIC miners, you just can't compete with your CPU hardware anymore. Even with your more advanced GPU you will have a hard time. The hashrate is too high for a desktop PC to compete with them. The blocks should be mined every 1 minute (or so) and that's causing the difficulty to go up - and we are out... So definitly check what is your hashrate while you are mining, you would need about 1.5 MH/s to make 1 Doge in 24 hours!
Let us start with a quote:
"Dogecoin Core 1.8 introduces AuxPoW from block 371,337. AuxPoW is a technology which enables miners to submit work done while mining other coins, as work on the Dogecoin block chain." - langerhans
What does this mean? You could waste your hashrate only on the Dogecoin chain, probably find never a block, but when, you only receive about 10.000 Dogecoins, currently worth about $25. Or you could apply your hashrate to LTC and Doge (and probably even more) at the same time. Your change of solving the block (finding the nonce) is your hashrate divided by the hashrat in sum - and this is about the same for Doge and LTC. This means you will always want to submit your work to all chains available!
Mining solo versus pool
So let's face it - mining solo won't get you anywhere, so let's mine on a pool! If you have a really bad Hashrate, please consider that: Often you need about $1 or $2 worth of crypto to receive a payout (without fees). This means, you have to get there. With 100 MH/s on prohashing, it takes about 6 days, running 24/7 to get to that threshold. Now you can do the math... 1 MH/s = 1000 KH/s, if you are below 1 MH/s, you probably won't have fun.
Buying an ASIC
You found an old BTC USB-miner with 24 GH/s (1 GH/s = 1000 MH/s) for $80 bucks - next stop lambo!? Sorry, bad news again, this hashrate is for SHA-256! If you want to mine LTC/Doge you will need a miner using scrypt with quite lower numbers on the hashrate per second, so don't fall for that. Often when you have a big miner (= also loud), you get more Hashrate per $ spent on the miner, but most will still run on a operational loss, because the electricity is too expensive and the miners will be outdated soon again. Leading me to my next point...
You won't make money running your miner. Just do the math: What if you would have bougth a miner 1 year ago? Substract costs for electricity and then compare to: What if you just have bought coins. In most cases you would have a greater profit by just buying coins, maybe even with a "stable" coin like Doges.
Okay, this was a lot of text and you are still on the hook? Maybe you are desperated enough to invest in some cloud mining contract... But this isn't a good idea either, because most of such contracts are scams based on a ponzi scheme. You often can spot them easy, because they guarantee way to high profits, or they fake payouts that never happened, etc. Just a thought: If someone in a subway says to you: Give me $1 and lets meet in one year, right here and I give you $54,211,841, you wouldn't trust him and if some mining contract says they will give you 5% a day it is basically the same. Also rember the merged mining part. Nobody would offer you to mine Doges, they would offer you to buy a hashrate for scrypt that will apply on multiple chains.
Maybe try to mine a coin where you don't have ASICs yet, like Monero and exchange them to Doge. If somebody already tried this - feel free to add your thoughts!
Folding at Home (Doge)
Some people say folding at home (FAH - https://www.dogecoinfah.com/) still the best. I just installed the tool and it says I would make 69.852 points a day, running on medium power what equates to 8 Doges. It is easy, it was fun, but it isn't much. Thanks for reading _nformant
Bitcoin (BTC) is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that aims to function as a means of exchange that is independent of any central authority. BTC can be transferred electronically in a secure, verifiable, and immutable way.
Launched in 2009, BTC is the first virtual currency to solve the double-spending issue by timestamping transactions before broadcasting them to all of the nodes in the Bitcoin network. The Bitcoin Protocol offered a solution to the Byzantine Generals’ Problem with ablockchainnetwork structure, a notion first created byStuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta in 1991.
Bitcoin’s whitepaper was published pseudonymously in 2008 by an individual, or a group, with the pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto”, whose underlying identity has still not been verified.
The Bitcoin protocol uses an SHA-256d-based Proof-of-Work (PoW) algorithm to reach network consensus. Its network has a target block time of 10 minutes and a maximum supply of 21 million tokens, with a decaying token emission rate. To prevent fluctuation of the block time, the network’s block difficulty is re-adjusted through an algorithm based on the past 2016 block times.
With a block size limit capped at 1 megabyte, the Bitcoin Protocol has supported both the Lightning Network, a second-layer infrastructure for payment channels, and Segregated Witness, a soft-fork to increase the number of transactions on a block, as solutions to network scalability.
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that aims to function as a means of exchange and is independent of any central authority. Bitcoins are transferred electronically in a secure, verifiable, and immutable way.
Network validators, whom are often referred to as miners, participate in the SHA-256d-based Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism to determine the next global state of the blockchain.
The Bitcoin protocol has a target block time of 10 minutes, and a maximum supply of 21 million tokens. The only way new bitcoins can be produced is when a block producer generates a new valid block.
The protocol has a token emission rate that halves every 210,000 blocks, or approximately every 4 years.
Unlike public blockchain infrastructures supporting the development of decentralized applications (Ethereum), the Bitcoin protocol is primarily used only for payments, and has only very limited support for smart contract-like functionalities (Bitcoin “Script” is mostly used to create certain conditions before bitcoins are used to be spent).
In the Bitcoin network, anyone can join the network and become a bookkeeping service provider i.e., a validator. All validators are allowed in the race to become the block producer for the next block, yet only the first to complete a computationally heavy task will win. This feature is called Proof of Work (PoW). The probability of any single validator to finish the task first is equal to the percentage of the total network computation power, or hash power, the validator has. For instance, a validator with 5% of the total network computation power will have a 5% chance of completing the task first, and therefore becoming the next block producer. Since anyone can join the race, competition is prone to increase. In the early days, Bitcoin mining was mostly done by personal computer CPUs. As of today, Bitcoin validators, or miners, have opted for dedicated and more powerful devices such as machines based on Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (“ASIC”). Proof of Work secures the network as block producers must have spent resources external to the network (i.e., money to pay electricity), and can provide proof to other participants that they did so. With various miners competing for block rewards, it becomes difficult for one single malicious party to gain network majority (defined as more than 51% of the network’s hash power in the Nakamoto consensus mechanism). The ability to rearrange transactions via 51% attacks indicates another feature of the Nakamoto consensus: the finality of transactions is only probabilistic. Once a block is produced, it is then propagated by the block producer to all other validators to check on the validity of all transactions in that block. The block producer will receive rewards in the network’s native currency (i.e., bitcoin) as all validators approve the block and update their ledgers.
The Bitcoin protocol utilizes the Merkle tree data structure in order to organize hashes of numerous individual transactions into each block. This concept is named after Ralph Merkle, who patented it in 1979. With the use of a Merkle tree, though each block might contain thousands of transactions, it will have the ability to combine all of their hashes and condense them into one, allowing efficient and secure verification of this group of transactions. This single hash called is a Merkle root, which is stored in the Block Header of a block. The Block Header also stores other meta information of a block, such as a hash of the previous Block Header, which enables blocks to be associated in a chain-like structure (hence the name “blockchain”). An illustration of block production in the Bitcoin Protocol is demonstrated below. https://preview.redd.it/m6texxicf3151.png?width=1591&format=png&auto=webp&s=f4253304912ed8370948b9c524e08fef28f1c78d
Block time and mining difficulty
Block time is the period required to create the next block in a network. As mentioned above, the node who solves the computationally intensive task will be allowed to produce the next block. Therefore, block time is directly correlated to the amount of time it takes for a node to find a solution to the task. The Bitcoin protocol sets a target block time of 10 minutes, and attempts to achieve this by introducing a variable named mining difficulty. Mining difficulty refers to how difficult it is for the node to solve the computationally intensive task. If the network sets a high difficulty for the task, while miners have low computational power, which is often referred to as “hashrate”, it would statistically take longer for the nodes to get an answer for the task. If the difficulty is low, but miners have rather strong computational power, statistically, some nodes will be able to solve the task quickly. Therefore, the 10 minute target block time is achieved by constantly and automatically adjusting the mining difficulty according to how much computational power there is amongst the nodes. The average block time of the network is evaluated after a certain number of blocks, and if it is greater than the expected block time, the difficulty level will decrease; if it is less than the expected block time, the difficulty level will increase.
What are orphan blocks?
In a PoW blockchain network, if the block time is too low, it would increase the likelihood of nodes producingorphan blocks, for which they would receive no reward. Orphan blocks are produced by nodes who solved the task but did not broadcast their results to the whole network the quickest due to network latency. It takes time for a message to travel through a network, and it is entirely possible for 2 nodes to complete the task and start to broadcast their results to the network at roughly the same time, while one’s messages are received by all other nodes earlier as the node has low latency. Imagine there is a network latency of 1 minute and a target block time of 2 minutes. A node could solve the task in around 1 minute but his message would take 1 minute to reach the rest of the nodes that are still working on the solution. While his message travels through the network, all the work done by all other nodes during that 1 minute, even if these nodes also complete the task, would go to waste. In this case, 50% of the computational power contributed to the network is wasted. The percentage of wasted computational power would proportionally decrease if the mining difficulty were higher, as it would statistically take longer for miners to complete the task. In other words, if the mining difficulty, and therefore targeted block time is low, miners with powerful and often centralized mining facilities would get a higher chance of becoming the block producer, while the participation of weaker miners would become in vain. This introduces possible centralization and weakens the overall security of the network. However, given a limited amount of transactions that can be stored in a block, making the block time too longwould decrease the number of transactions the network can process per second, negatively affecting network scalability.
3. Bitcoin’s additional features
Segregated Witness (SegWit)
Segregated Witness, often abbreviated as SegWit, is a protocol upgrade proposal that went live in August 2017. SegWit separates witness signatures from transaction-related data. Witness signatures in legacy Bitcoin blocks often take more than 50% of the block size. By removing witness signatures from the transaction block, this protocol upgrade effectively increases the number of transactions that can be stored in a single block, enabling the network to handle more transactions per second. As a result, SegWit increases the scalability of Nakamoto consensus-based blockchain networks like Bitcoin and Litecoin. SegWit also makes transactions cheaper. Since transaction fees are derived from how much data is being processed by the block producer, the more transactions that can be stored in a 1MB block, the cheaper individual transactions become. https://preview.redd.it/depya70mf3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=a6499aa2131fbf347f8ffd812930b2f7d66be48e The legacy Bitcoin block has a block size limit of 1 megabyte, and any change on the block size would require a network hard-fork. On August 1st 2017, the first hard-fork occurred, leading to the creation of Bitcoin Cash (“BCH”), which introduced an 8 megabyte block size limit. Conversely, Segregated Witness was a soft-fork: it never changed the transaction block size limit of the network. Instead, it added an extended block with an upper limit of 3 megabytes, which contains solely witness signatures, to the 1 megabyte block that contains only transaction data. This new block type can be processed even by nodes that have not completed the SegWit protocol upgrade. Furthermore, the separation of witness signatures from transaction data solves the malleability issue with the original Bitcoin protocol. Without Segregated Witness, these signatures could be altered before the block is validated by miners. Indeed, alterations can be done in such a way that if the system does a mathematical check, the signature would still be valid. However, since the values in the signature are changed, the two signatures would create vastly different hash values. For instance, if a witness signature states “6,” it has a mathematical value of 6, and would create a hash value of 12345. However, if the witness signature were changed to “06”, it would maintain a mathematical value of 6 while creating a (faulty) hash value of 67890. Since the mathematical values are the same, the altered signature remains a valid signature. This would create a bookkeeping issue, as transactions in Nakamoto consensus-based blockchain networks are documented with these hash values, or transaction IDs. Effectively, one can alter a transaction ID to a new one, and the new ID can still be valid. This can create many issues, as illustrated in the below example:
Alice sends Bob 1 BTC, and Bob sends Merchant Carol this 1 BTC for some goods.
Bob sends Carols this 1 BTC, while the transaction from Alice to Bob is not yet validated. Carol sees this incoming transaction of 1 BTC to him, and immediately ships goods to B.
At the moment, the transaction from Alice to Bob is still not confirmed by the network, and Bob can change the witness signature, therefore changing this transaction ID from 12345 to 67890.
Now Carol will not receive his 1 BTC, as the network looks for transaction 12345 to ensure that Bob’s wallet balance is valid.
As this particular transaction ID changed from 12345 to 67890, the transaction from Bob to Carol will fail, and Bob will get his goods while still holding his BTC.
With the Segregated Witness upgrade, such instances can not happen again. This is because the witness signatures are moved outside of the transaction block into an extended block, and altering the witness signature won’t affect the transaction ID. Since the transaction malleability issue is fixed, Segregated Witness also enables the proper functioning of second-layer scalability solutions on the Bitcoin protocol, such as the Lightning Network.
Lightning Network is a second-layer micropayment solution for scalability. Specifically, Lightning Network aims to enable near-instant and low-cost payments between merchants and customers that wish to use bitcoins. Lightning Network was conceptualized in a whitepaper by Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja in 2015. Since then, it has been implemented by multiple companies. The most prominent of them include Blockstream, Lightning Labs, and ACINQ. A list of curated resources relevant to Lightning Network can be found here. In the Lightning Network, if a customer wishes to transact with a merchant, both of them need to open a payment channel, which operates off the Bitcoin blockchain (i.e., off-chain vs. on-chain). None of the transaction details from this payment channel are recorded on the blockchain, and only when the channel is closed will the end result of both party’s wallet balances be updated to the blockchain. The blockchain only serves as a settlement layer for Lightning transactions. Since all transactions done via the payment channel are conducted independently of the Nakamoto consensus, both parties involved in transactions do not need to wait for network confirmation on transactions. Instead, transacting parties would pay transaction fees to Bitcoin miners only when they decide to close the channel. https://preview.redd.it/cy56icarf3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=b239a63c6a87ec6cc1b18ce2cbd0355f8831c3a8 One limitation to the Lightning Network is that it requires a person to be online to receive transactions attributing towards him. Another limitation in user experience could be that one needs to lock up some funds every time he wishes to open a payment channel, and is only able to use that fund within the channel. However, this does not mean he needs to create new channels every time he wishes to transact with a different person on the Lightning Network. If Alice wants to send money to Carol, but they do not have a payment channel open, they can ask Bob, who has payment channels open to both Alice and Carol, to help make that transaction. Alice will be able to send funds to Bob, and Bob to Carol. Hence, the number of “payment hubs” (i.e., Bob in the previous example) correlates with both the convenience and the usability of the Lightning Network for real-world applications.
Schnorr Signature upgrade proposal
Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (“ECDSA”) signatures are used to sign transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. https://preview.redd.it/hjeqe4l7g3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=8014fb08fe62ac4d91645499bc0c7e1c04c5d7c4 However, many developers now advocate for replacing ECDSA with Schnorr Signature. Once Schnorr Signatures are implemented, multiple parties can collaborate in producing a signature that is valid for the sum of their public keys. This would primarily be beneficial for network scalability. When multiple addresses were to conduct transactions to a single address, each transaction would require their own signature. With Schnorr Signature, all these signatures would be combined into one. As a result, the network would be able to store more transactions in a single block. https://preview.redd.it/axg3wayag3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=93d958fa6b0e623caa82ca71fe457b4daa88c71e The reduced size in signatures implies a reduced cost on transaction fees. The group of senders can split the transaction fees for that one group signature, instead of paying for one personal signature individually. Schnorr Signature also improves network privacy and token fungibility. A third-party observer will not be able to detect if a user is sending a multi-signature transaction, since the signature will be in the same format as a single-signature transaction.
4. Economics and supply distribution
The Bitcoin protocol utilizes the Nakamoto consensus, and nodes validate blocks via Proof-of-Work mining. The bitcoin token was not pre-mined, and has a maximum supply of 21 million. The initial reward for a block was 50 BTC per block. Block mining rewards halve every 210,000 blocks. Since the average time for block production on the blockchain is 10 minutes, it implies that the block reward halving events will approximately take place every 4 years. As of May 12th 2020, the block mining rewards are 6.25 BTC per block. Transaction fees also represent a minor revenue stream for miners.
Canaan's new ASIC is a Pipe Dream, not an Ethereum Threat
So, yesterday Kristy-Leigh Minehan posted on Twitter that a company named Canaan announced an ASIC that is capable of 0.68W/Mhs That's 2200Mh/s running at 1500w https://twitter.com/OhGodAGirl/status/1176938519866089473 Here is a list of how it compares to other ASICs and GPUs. https://blog.miningstore.com/blog/ethereum-mining-hardware-for-2019 She used this tweet to promote the need for ProgPoW Today, I am attempting to explain that Canaan is not a threat to centralize Ethereum mining with their ASICs. First, I cannot find any information regarding Canaan announcing an Ethereum ASIC other than Kristy's twitter post There is only one article written about it and it uses Kristy's twitter post as their source. https://cryptoslate.com/ethereum-asic-dominates-gpu-performance/ Nothing on Canaan's website talks about this miner Nor does Canaan's twitter account mention anything like this. If we look closely at Kristy's twitter picture, you can see the Canaan Ethereum miner will be called the V10. I cannot find any info anywhere on this miner. You would think that if Canaan is unveiling a new product, they would be talking about it more to spread awareness and raise hype, but they aren't. I mean, they made a big to-do when they announced the A10 bitcoin miner in March, so why are they posting nothing about the V10 ethereum miner. https://twitter.com/canaanio/status/1111513725733724160 And a google search will show many many more articles written about the bitcoin A10 after its announcement. I'm not saying the announcement isn't real, just that I find it odd that the company isn't talking about it themselves. Canaan did respond to a tweet from “cryptoState”, the writer's of the article based on Kristy's tweet. Canaan replied that the v10 is not an official worldwide Canaan product. https://twitter.com/canaanio/status/1177088253431668736 and further in the cryptostate article, Canaan says “It is a little hard to explain, but those are not products designed and built by Canaan engineering. They are products sold by the domestic sales team and are not an official worldwide Canaan product,” I do not know what that means exactly. If it means it's not an official Canaan product, or that it won't be available worldwide, or what. But this is the first clue to me that it isn't anything to worry about. If it's not an official Canaan product, then it doesn't seem like it will have support from Canaan to bring it to market. It won't be marketed by Canaan, use it's supply chain, it's business resources and contacts, use it's support system, or be built by Canaan. Next, yes 0.68W/Mhs is more efficient than GPUs, but that isn't all that matters when miners choose the devices to use. What matters also is how much the machine costs. If the V10 is price too high, then it's not something to worry about. Without a price, Kristy can't claim in good faith that the V10 is something Ethereum needs to worry about and a reason ProgPoW needs to be adopted. I'm not sure how to price the thing, myself, but at current ETH prices and hashrate, it would make $2200 in 4 months. I think generally ASIC mfgs price their machines to break even in 3-4 months. So that would be the machine will cost around $2200. BUT, that's only if ONE machine is running on the network. The more machines on the network, the less profitable they are. If we look at the Avalon A1066, it's november batch costs $1390, and has a break-even time of 464 months at current bitcoin prices. So it seems to me the Canaan V10 will be quite a bit more expensive than $2200. Which doesn't make it feasible for that many people to buy. Next, there was no product on display at the New Era Mining Summit, where this product was announced. Only some graphics of numbers they claim. Nor can I find any technical documentation talking about how they plan to achieve the advertised hashrate I tweeted Kristy telling her that this seems, at best, like just an idea to me, to help them raise money and that it takes more than an idea to bring an ASIC to market. https://twitter.com/AltcoinXP/status/1177290387205054464 Kristy then blocked me on Twitter and told me to stop spreading misinformation. https://imgur.com/lWEAWbd So, now let's talk about the article I replied to her with, claiming that Canaan doesn't have enough funding for this. Granted, I said this without doing as much research as I could've, but let's see if what I said holds true. Here is the article I linked in the tweet. https://www.coindesk.com/avalon-bitcoin-miner-maker-canaan-is-plotting-another-ipo-attempt Notice the date this article was published. March 27th 2019. Notice that Avalon announce their Bitcoin A10 miner the next day. https://twitter.com/canaanio/status/1111513725733724160 Perhaps to help attract funding from new investors, which the Coindesk article says they haven't been able to bring on any new investors in a long time. I'm not going to cite the whole article here, read it for yourself, but it generally explains that Canaan is unable to attract new funding. Also, Xianfu Lui, a 17.2% shareholder in Canaan left the company in February, so I doubt he invested money into Canaan. https://www.coindesk.com/co-founder-quits-avalon-mining-chip-maker-canaan-over-differences Here are some more Coindesk articles speaking about Canaan trying to raise money. https://www.coindesk.com/huobi-plans-backdoor-ipo-attempt-in-hong-kong-document-suggests “After mining giant Bitmain’s IPO attempt in Hong Kong was allowed to expire, apparently due to reluctance from HKEX, it’s reportedly now planning to list in the U.S. Another miner manufacturer, Canaan Creative, is also reported to have already confidentially filed in the U.S. after a failed HKEX attempt. “ https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-miner-maker-canaan-confidentially-files-for-ipo-in-us-report https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-miner-canaans-ipo-likely-delayed-after-hong-kong-filing-expires “The Reuters report, citing anonymous sources, further said the HKEX and financial regulators in Hong Kong have raised questions over Canaan’s business model, given the volatile nature of cryptocurrencies. As such, the news agency said the IPO might not go ahead this year, since there have been no updates from a listing hearing with the HKEX. “ So seems to be Caanan is having a hard time finding funding for their endeavors. Pretty much every single article on Coindesk about them is about them trying to get funding and failing at it. So do they have enough money to bring the V10 to market AND bring enough V10s to be a problem? They would need to produce 45,000 units to get 50% of the Ethereum mining power. Current network is 197TH/s https://bitinfocharts.com/ethereum/ Currently Bitmain is estimated to have produced less than 20,000 units since the Antminer E3's announcement in April 2018. https://www.reddit.com/ethereum/comments/d8fuvj/an_argument_against_progpow_a_day_part_1/f1axc2c/ https://www.coindesk.com/bitmain-confirms-release-first-ever-ethereum-asic-miners Bitmain being a much larger company than Canaan, it seems unlikely they will produce 45,000 units quick enough to become a problem. Anyway, For those of you that don't know, Canaan manages the Avalon bitcoin ASICs and have done so since 2014. Canaan is fulling in charge of Avalon. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Avalon Maybe I should've said that sooner, I don't know. I'm just typing as I come up with stuff. But we can look at Avalon's bitcoin past to determine what the future ethereum miner supply might look like. Keep in mind though, this was also during a time when they were well-funded. I'm not sure what their bank account looks like now, but they have been in the red every year since their existance, so I have to assume they have less money now than when they were releasing bitcoin miners Avalon announce the A10 March 2019, and started shipping pre-orders in October 2019. If the V10 follows suit, we won't see a V10 in the hands of miners until April 2020 https://www.coindesk.com/demand-for-new-bitcoin-miners-is-again-outstripping-supply Ok, I'm done. That's all I put together and why I don't believe the Canaan ASIC that was announced is a concern warranting the immediate adoption of ProgPoW Thanks for reading.
Video card prices and cryptocurrency mining v.2: electric boogaloo
Six months ago, I put together a post on the impact of cryptocurrency mining on the prices of video cards. The hope was that supply would increase, demand would drop, and prices would return to normal. Unfortunately, prices are on the rise again. I've therefore updated and rewritten the original post to reflect a situation that affects a large number of the builders on /buildapc. So, you may have noticed a resurgence in discussion about the current hike in the price of video cards. Or you may have found the price of certain cards (especially, but not limited to, AMD's RX 570/580 and Nvidia's 1060/1070) higher than you expected. You know, I did. What's going on? In effect, cryptocurrency mining (the solving of complex mathematical problems that underlies the transactions for a given currency) continues to drive up demand for video cards, both new and used, as people invest in consumer hardware to get involved. Consequently, the availability of cards is low, and prices are high. With major retailer stock running low, it's hard to get an idea of the inflation at play. As a very general idea, here's a basic rundown of mid-tier recommended retail prices compared to current reseller prices on Amazon:
This again? Why now? Cryptocurrency prices are spiralling, and people are looking to mine whatever they can. Moreover, the nature of new cryptocurrencies encourages the purchase of consumer hardware: Bitcoin remains the largest of these currencies, but increasing concern about transaction speed and cost has recently led to a rise in alternatives. The most prominent of these is Ethereum. Ethereum is designed to be resistant to ASICs - chips designed specifically for cryptocurrency mining - which means that potential miners must stick to consumer video cards. What happens next? Anyone who can confidently predict the long term fortunes of the cryptocurrency market probably isn't browsing /buildapc threads on the prices of computer hardware. Still, eventually™ it is intended that Ethereum will switch from a proof of work (i.e. mining) to a proof of stake (based on possession of currency) system. Long story short, this will mean no more video card demand from Ethereum miners. Unfortunately, there is no fixed date for when the switch is due to occur. Not to mention that this says nothing of other coins that users may try to mine. What can I do in the meantime?
Monero Deep Dive: The Cryptocurrency To Use If You Want True Anonymity, Far More Anonymous Than Bitcoin
http://www.cypherpunklabs.com/monero-deep-dive-the-cryptocurrency-to-use-if-you-want-true-anonymity-far-more-anonymous-than-bitcoin/ In the early days of cryptocurrency Bitcoin was considered the best payment method for those who wished to stay anonymous. At the time this was true, since Bitcoin required no personal identification information while fiat payment methods like banks and PayPal required a full suite of personal identification information. However, all Bitcoin transactions in history are stored on a publicly accessible block explorer, and with the rise of blockchain forensics it is now possible to figure out who owns a Bitcoin address and what they have been doing with their Bitcoin. Although it is possible to increase Bitcoin’s anonymity by using Tor, VPNs, and CoinJoin, as will be discussed in future Cypherpunk Labs articles, Bitcoin can only be considered pseudo-anonymous rather than fully anonymous. Nicolas van Saberhagen recognized that Bitcoin lacked full anonymity, in addition to the fact that it is a slow and difficult process to change Bitcoin’s code. Saberhagen proposed to create a new cryptocurrency that was far more anonymous, in addition to correcting some other apparent deficiencies in Bitcoin, and wrote up these ideas in the CryptoNote White Paper. The first cryptocurrency to utilize the ideas in the CryptoNote White Paper was Bytecoin (BCN), which is a lesser known but still functional stealth cryptocurrency. Bitcointalk user thankful_for_today modified the code from Bytecoin and created BitMonero), but there was community criticism since not everything in the CryptoNote White Paper was adopted. This caused thankful_for_today to apparently abandon the project, but a group of users led by Johny Mnemonic quickly took over and renamed the cryptocurrency Monero (XMR). One of the most critical pieces of stealth technology that Monero uses is ring signatures. With Bitcoin a transaction is signed with a user’s private key and can be verified with the public key. With a ring signature a transaction is signed by your key as well as the public keys from several other outputs on the blockchain using a triangular distribution method. Essentially, each Monero transaction is signed by a group of keys, and it is not possible to distinguish which key the transaction originated from. This can be thought of as decentralized and trustless mixing, and ultimately ring signatures hide the destination and origin of a transaction. Eventually Monero upped the ante and implemented ring signature confidential transactions (RingCT), which uses multi-layered linkable spontaneous anonymous group signatures to hide the amount of a transaction. However, RingCT transactions required a large amount of data in order to ensure that the sum of inputs and outputs equaled zero, and bulletproofs were implemented to solve this problem. More about bulletproofs can be read in this paper. Essentially, bulletproofs helped reduce transaction size, lowering transaction fees on the Monero network, and also made it cheaper to create transactions with higher degrees of complexity. Another critical piece of technology that makes Monero anonymous is stealth addresses. The sender creates a random one-time address for every transaction on behalf of the recipient. This allows a recipient to have just one published address but all of their incoming transactions go to different addresses on the blockchain. Thanks to stealth addresses, only the sender and receiver can determine where a payment was sent, while an outside observer cannot figure that out. A Monero user can see incoming transactions with their view key, and anyone without the view key cannot see the incoming transactions to any particular address. This view key can be shared, so Monero can be considered optionally transparent, but the default is stealth. When a Monero user decides to spend their coins, the Monero in a stealth address is broken down into its components and combined with other equivalent components via ring signatures. For example, if 42.42 Monero is sent, then the coins are split into 40 + 2 + 0.4 + 0.02 and combined with other 40’s, 2’s, 0.4’s, and 0.02’s somewhere else in the blockchain. This renders outputs fundamentally indistinguishable, and Unlike Bitcoin’s CoinJoin, no participation from anyone else is needed since already present outputs are being mixed. Further, Monero tried to increase decentralization of its network by being incompatible with application specific integrated circuits (ASICs) via the CryptoNight protocol. This was originally accomplished by requiring a MB of internal memory, which was unacceptable to ASICs at the time. Also, Monero fit into the L3 cache of modern CPUs, while simultaneously being slower on GPUs, hindering the efficiency of GPU mining firms. That being said, it seems if a cryptocurrency is valuable enough then an ASIC is eventually created for it, and the Monero developers have been in a long term battle where they have to periodically change their mining protocol in order to prevent ASICs from overtaking the network. Monero is expected to release their new mining algorithm, RandomX, in October in order to stomp out the ASICs once again. It seems the Monero developers are succeeding in their fight against ASIC centralization, and generally Monero is the most profitable cryptocurrency to mine on a personal computer while it is not that profitable with ASICs. This is important because it allows regular joes to mine Monero on their personal computer, decentralizing the network hash rate, as opposed to Bitcoin which is practically impossible to mine on a personal computer and most of the hash rate is in the hands of big mining farms. Also, Monero uses dynamic block sizes, ensuring low transaction fees and fast confirmation times, as opposed to Bitcoin which often has a clogged mempool which can lead to long waits for confirmations and high transaction fees. Additionally, Monero technically has an infinite supply since the minimum block reward is 0.6 XMR, and this will be reached in 2040. This ensures that miners will always have an incentive to secure the network long term, even if transaction fees are kept as low as possible. Compare this to Bitcoin where block rewards will approach zero, which may wreck the mining community if transaction fees are not high enough. Thus, Monero’s ring signatures, RingCT, bulletproofs, and stealth addresses combine to obfuscate the sender, receiver, and amount of the transaction, and transactions are split into chunks that are indistinguishable from other transactions. This provides far more privacy than Bitcoin, since Bitcoin transactions are easily traced on a block explorer. It is clear that Monero is an excellent choice for those that want true anonymity when using cryptocurrency. That being said, it is important to use encrypted messaging as well when organizing a Monero transaction, since anonymity can be compromised if a message regarding a Monero transaction is intercepted.
Video card prices and Cryptocurrency mining - what's going on?
In response to calls for a post addressing current GPU trends, this summary has been written up. It is neither exhaustive nor applicable in all regions, so be sure to research your own builds thoroughly. Recently, you may have noticed discussion surrounding the current hike in the price of video cards. Or you may have found the price of certain cards (e.g. AMD's RX 570/580 and Nvidia's 1060/1070) higher than you expected. So what's going on? A sharp increase in cryptocurrency mining (the solving of complex mathematical problems that underlies the transactions for a given currency) has driven up demand for video cards, both new and used, as people invest in consumer hardware to get involved. Consequently, availability of cards is low, and prices are high. As a very general idea, here's a basic rundown of recommended retail prices compared to current reseller prices on Amazon:
Why now? There are a number of different cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin remains the largest, but increasing concern about transaction speed and cost has recently led to a rise in alternatives. The most prominent of these is Ethereum. Ethereum is designed to be resistant to ASICs - chips designed specifically for cryptocurrency mining - which means that potential miners must stick to consumer video cards. What happens next? Eventually™, it is intended that Ethereum will switch from a proof of work (i.e. mining) to a proof of stake (based on possession of currency) system. Long story short, this will mean no more video card demand from Ethereum miners. Unfortunately, there is no fixed date for when the switch is due to occur. There are rumours of plans to introduce cards aimed at cryptocurrency miners, which may help to lower prices of mainstream cards. In the meantime:
Bitcoin Gold a Shitcoin Vulnerable to Attack Despite $200 Million Market Cap
https://preview.redd.it/vddehe8qfo321.png?width=690&format=png&auto=webp&s=44a4111dddd126729769612bd27e1ebc30753e14 https://cryptoiq.co/bitcoin-gold-a-shitcoin-vulnerable-to-attack-despite-200-million-market-cap/ The War On Shitcoins Episode 1: Bitcoin Gold (BTG). The war on shitcoins is a Crypto.IQ series that targets and shoots down cryptocurrencies that are not worth investing in either due to their being scams, having serious design flaws, being centralized, or in general just being worthless copies of other cryptocurrencies. There are thousands of shitcoins that are ruining the markets, and Crypto.IQ intends to expose all of them. The crypto space needs an exorcism, and we are happy to provide it. There are more than 2,000 cryptocurrencies listed on CoinMarketCap, and Bitcoin Gold (BTG) is near the top at number 25 with a market cap of $207 million. This would seem to indicate that Bitcoin Gold is a major cryptocurrency, but it is simply a copycat of Bitcoin with one key and debilitating difference that makes it worse than Bitcoin. Bitcoin Gold is designed to block ASIC miners, leaving only GPU miners. The idea was that GPU miners would rally around Bitcoin Gold since GPU Bitcoin miners were disenfranchised by ASIC miners years ago. Ultimately, this decision to only allow GPUs resulted in such a low mining hash rate that Bitcoin Gold is vulnerable to 51 percent attacks, and a serious 51 percent attack has already happened once. Further, Bitcoin Gold has had centralization problems from the very beginning. When Bitcoin Gold launched in November 2017 the developers did a massive premine of 8,000 blocks, which yielded them about 100,000 BTG. At today’s price $12 this is $1.2 million, and when BTG’s price peaked near $500, this was $50 million. This premine is unfair to other BTG miners, traders, and investors. Supposedly, the premined BTG were placed in an “endowment,” which means the developers will receive all of that money eventually, just not all at once. There is no way to verify if this is even true, however, and the excessive 97 percent BTG price crash since January 2018 might be partially due to developers dumping their coins. A far more serious issue than the premine is BTG’s lack of network security. BTG made mining ASIC resistant by using the Equishash Proof of Work (PoW) algorithm. However, ASICs were eventually developed for Equihash since ASICs can be developed for any PoW algorithm. In May 2018 a 51 percent double spend attack occurred on the Bitcoin Gold network, and a hacker stole $18.6 million from cryptocurrency exchanges that listed BTG. This caused the developers to hard fork in order to implement a newer version of Equihash that is supposedly more ASIC resistant. Clearly, the developers did not learn their lesson that there is no ASIC-resistant PoW algorithm. If Bitcoin Gold became valuable enough, someone would produce an ASIC for it. It is unclear if Equihash ASICs were the reason for the 51 percent attack, since an attacker could literally just rent some hash rate on a cloud mining site and successfully 51 percent attack Bitcoin Gold. Currently it only takes 1.6 MH/s of rented mining power to successfully perform a double spend attack on the Bitcoin Gold network, and this costs about $1,000 per hour if the hash rate is rented from NiceHash. Effectively, Bitcoin Gold is not cryptographically secure. The original purpose of banning ASIC miners so that GPU miners could thrive ended up being a fatal flaw for Bitcoin Gold. It is ridiculous that major exchanges like Binance and Bitfinex still offer BTG trading. This is a true disservice to the users of these exchanges and is a risk for the exchanges themselves. Crypto users need to educate themselves thoroughly before buying any cryptocurrency, or they could end up buying a shitcoin like Bitcoin Gold just because it has a high ranking on CoinMarketCap. BTG has already lost 97 percent of its value since January 2018, and there is strong potential for it to become completely worthless once someone decides to rent some hash power and perform a vicious 51 percent attack.
Vertcoin was created in 2014. It is a direct hedge against long term mining consensus centralization on the Bitcoin mining network. Vertcoin achieves its mining consensus solely through Graphics Cards as they are the most abundant / widely available consensus devices that produce a reasonable amount of hashrate. This is done using a mining algorithm that deliberately geared against devices like ASICs, FPGAs and CPUs (due to botnets) making them extremely inefficient. Consensus distribution over time is the most important aspect of a blockchain and should not be taken lightly. It is critical that you understand what blockchain specifications mean/do to fully understand Vertcoin.
When users of our network send each other Vertcoin, their transactions are secured by a process called mining. Miners will compose a so-called block out of the pending transactions, and need to perform a large number of computations called hashes in order to produce the Proof-of-Work. With this Proof-of-Work, the block is accepted by the network and the transactions in it become confirmed. Mining is essentially a race. Whoever finds a valid Proof-of-Work and gets the block propagated over more than half of the Vertcoin network first, wins this race and is allowed to reward themselves with the block reward. The block reward is how new Vertcoin come in circulation. This block reward started at 50 VTC when Vertcoin was launched, and halves every four years. The current block reward is 25 VTC. Vertcoin's One Click Miner: https://github.com/vertcoin-project/One-Click-Minereleases Learn more about mining here: https://vertcoin.org/mine/ Specification List: · Launch date: Jan 11, 2014 · Proof-Of-Work (Consensus Mechanism) · Total Supply: 84,000,000 Vertcoin · Preferred Consensus Device: GPU · Mining Algorithm: Lyra2REv3 (Made by Vertcoin) · Blocktime: 2.5 minutes · SegWit: Activated · Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm: Kimoto Gravity Well (Every Block) · Block Halving: 4 year interval · Initial Block Reward: 50 coins · Current Block Reward: 25 coin More spec information can be found here: https://vertcoin.org/specs-explained/
Why Does Vertcoin Use GPUs Then?
ASIC’s (Manufactuer Monopoly) If mining were just a spade sure, use the most powerful equipment which would be an ASIC. The problem is ASICs are not widely available, and just happen to be controlled by a monopoly in China. So, you want the most widely available tool that produces a fair amount of hashrate, which currently manifests itself as a Graphics Card. CPUs would be great too but unfortunately there are viruses that take over hundreds of thousands of computers called Botnets (they’re almost as bad as ASICs).
Mining In Pools
Because mining is a race, it’s difficult for an individual miner to acquire enough computational power to win this race solo. Therefore there’s a concept called pool-mining. With pool-mining, miners cooperate in finding the correct Proof-of-Work for the block, and share the block reward based on the work contributed. The amount of work contributed is measured in so-called shares. Finding the Proof-of-Work for a share is much easier than finding it for a block, and when the cooperating miners find the Proof-of-Work for the block, they distribute the reward based on the number of shares each miner found. Vertcoin always recommends using P2Pool to keep mining as decentralized as possible. How Do I Get Started? If you want to get started mining, check out the Mine Vertcoin page.
Vertcoin just forked to Lyra2REv3 and we are currently working on Verthash
Verthash is and was under development before we decided to hard fork to Lyra2REv3. While Verthash would’ve resulted in the same effect for ASICs (making them useless for mining Vertcoin), the timeline was incompatible with the desire to get rid of ASICs quickly. Verthash is still under development and tries to address the outsourcability problem. Verthash is an I/O bound algorithm that uses the blockchain data as input to the hashing algorithm. It therefore requires miners to have all the blockchain data available to them, which is currently about 4 GB of data. By making this mining data mandatory, it will become harder for auto profit switching miners — like the ones that rent out their GPU to Nicehash — because they will need to keep a full node running while mining other algorithms for the moment Verthash becomes more profitable — the data needs to be available immediately since updating it can take a while. Over the past month, we have successfully developed a first implementation of Verthash in the Vertcoin Core code base. Within the development team we have run a few nodes on Testnet to test the functionality — and everything seems to work properly. The next step is to build out the GPU miners for AMD and Nvidia. This is a NOETA at the moment, since we’re waiting on GPU developers which are in high demand. Once the miners are ready, we’ll be releasing the Vertcoin 0.15 beta that hardforks the testnet together with the miners for the community to have a testrun. Given the structural difference between Lyra2RE and Verthash, we’ll have to run the testnet for a longer period than we did with the Lyra2REv3 hard fork. We’ll have to make sure the system is reliable before hardforking our mainnet. So the timeline will be longer than with the Lyra2REv3 hard fork. Some people in the community have voiced concerns about the fact that Verthash development is not being done “out in the open”, i.e.: the code commits are not visible on Github. The main two reasons for us to keep our cards to our chest at this stage are: (1) only when the entire system including miners has been coded up can we be sure the system works, we don’t want to release preliminary stuff that doesn’t work or isn’t secure. Also (2) we don’t want to give hardware manufacturers or mining outsourcing platforms a head start on trying to defeat the mechanisms we’ve put in place.
I interlaced everything between Vitalik and Tuur to make it easier to read.
1/ People often ask me why I’m so “against” Ethereum. Why do I go out of my way to point out flaws or make analogies that put it in a bad light?
2/ First, ETH’s architecture & culture is opposite that of Bitcoin, and yet claims to offer same solutions: decentralization, immutability, SoV, asset issuance, smart contracts, … Second, ETH is considered a crypto ‘blue chip’, thus colors perception of uninformed newcomers.
Agree! I personally find Ethereum culture far saner, though I am a bit biased :)
3/ I've followed Ethereum since 2014 & feel a responsibility to share my concerns. IMO contrary to its marketing, ETH is at best a science experiment. It’s now valued at $13B, which I think is still too high.
Not an argument
4/ I agree with Ethereum developer Vlad Zamfir that it’s not money, not safe, and not scalable. https://twitter.com/VladZamfistatus/838006311598030848 … @VladZamfir Eth isn't money, so there is no monetary policy. There is currently fixed block issuance with an exponential difficulty increase (the bomb).
I'm pretty sure Vlad would say the exact same thing about Bitcoin
5/ To me the first red flag came up when in our weekly hangout we asked the ETH founders about to how they were going to scale the network. (We’re now 4.5 years later, and sharding is still a pipe dream.)
The core principles have been known for years, the core design for nearly a year, and details for months, with implementations on the way. So sharding is definitely not at the pipe dream stage at this point.
6/ Despite strong optimism that on-chain scaling of Ethereum was around the corner (just another engineering job), this promise hasn’t been delivered on to date.
Sure, sharding is not yet finished. Though more incremental stuff has been going well, eg. uncle rates are at near record lows despite very high chain usage.
7/ Recently, a team of reputable developers decided to peer review a widely anticipated Casper / sharding white paper, concluding that it does not live up to its own claims.
Unmerciful peer review of Vlad Zamfir & co's white paper to scale Ethereum: "the authors do NOT prove that the CBC Casper family of protocols is Byzantine fault tolerant in either practice or theory".
8/ On the 2nd layer front, devs are now trying to scale Ethereum via scale via state channels (ETH’s version of Lightning), but it is unclear whether main-chain issued ERC20 type tokens will be portable to this environment.
Umm... you can definitely use Raiden with arbitrary ERC20s. That's why the interface currently uses WETH (the ERC20-fied version of ether) and not ETH
9/ Compare this to how the Bitcoin Lightning Network project evolved:
elizabeth stark @starkness: For lnd: First public code released: January 2016 Alpha: January 2017 Beta: March 2018…
10/ Bitcoin’s Lightning Network is now live, and is growing at rapid clip.
Jameson Lopp @lopp: Lightning Network: January 2018 vs December 2018
Sure, though as far as I understand there's still a low probability of finding routes for nontrivial amounts, and there's capital lockup griefing vectors, and privacy issues.... FWIW I personally never thought lightning is unworkable, it's just a design that inherently runs into ten thousand small issues that will likely take a very long time to get past.
11/ In 2017, more Ethereum scaling buzz was created, this time the panacea was “Plasma”.
12/ However, upon closer examination it was the recycling of some stale ideas, and the project went nowhere:
Peter Todd @peterktodd These ideas were all considered in the Treechains design process, and ultimately rejected as insecure.
Just because Peter Todd rejected something as "insecure" doesn't mean that it is. In general, the ethereum research community is quite convinced that the fundamental Plasma design is fine, and as far as I understand there are formal proofs on the way. The only insecurity that can't be avoided is mass exit vulns, and channel-based systems have those too.
13/ The elephant in the room is the transition to proof-of-stake, an “environmentally friendly” way to secure the chain. (If this was the plan all along, why create a proof-of-work chain first?)
@TuurDemeester "Changing from proof of work to proof of stake changes the economics of the system, all the rules change and it will impact everything."
Umm... we created a proof of work chain first because we did not have a satisfactory proof of stake algo initially?
14/ For the uninitiated, here’s a good write-up that highlights some of the fundamental design problems of proof-of-stake. Like I said, this is science experiment territory.
Yes, we know about weak subjectivity, see https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity/. It's really not that bad, especially given that users need to update their clients once in a while anyway, oh and by the way even if the weak subjectivity assumption is broken an attacker still needs to gather up that pile of old keys making up 51% of the stake. And also to defend against that there's Universal Hash Time.
16/ Keep in mind that Proof of Stake (PoS) is not a new concept at all. Proof-of-Work actually was one of the big innovations that made Bitcoin possible, after PoS was deemed impractical because of censorship vulnerability.
Oh I definitely agree that proof of work was superior for bootstrap, and I liked it back then especially because it actually managed to be reasonably egalitarian around 2009-2012 before ASICs fully took over. But at the present time it doesn't really have that nice attribute.
17/ Over the years, this has become a pattern in Ethereum’s culture: recycling old ideas while not properly referring to past research and having poor peer review standards. This is not how science progresses.Tuur Demeester added,
I try to credit people whenever I can; half my blog and ethresear.ch posts have a "special thanks" section right at the top. Sometimes we end up re-inventing stuff, and sometimes we end up hearing about stuff, forgetting it, and later re-inventing it; that's life as an autodidact. And if you feel you've been unfairly not credited for something, always feel free to comment, people have done this and I've edited.
18/ One of my big concerns is that sophistry and marketing hype is a serious part of Ethereum’s success so far, and that overly inflated expectations have lead to an inflated market cap.
Ok, go on.
19/ Let’s illustrate with an example.
20/ A few days ago, I shared a critical tweet that made the argument that Ethereum’s value proposition is in essence utopian.
@TuurDemeester Ethereum-ism sounds a bit like Marxism to me:
What works today (PoW) is 'just a phase', the ideal & unproven future is to come: Proof-of-Stake.…
22/ My first point, about Ethereum developers rejecting Proof-of-Work, has been illustrated many times over By Vitalik and others. (See earlier in this tweetstorm for more about how PoS is unproven.)
Vitalik Non-giver of Ether @VitalikButerin: I don't believe in proof of work!
See above for links as to why I think proof of stake is great.
23/ My second point addresses Ethereum’s romance with the vague and dangerous notion of ‘social consensus’, where disruptive hard-forks are used to ‘upgrade’ or ‘optimize’ the system, which inevitably leads to increased centralization. More here:
See my rebuttal to Tuur's rebuttal :)
24/ My third point addresses PoS’ promise of perpetual income to ETHizens. Vitalik is no stranger to embracing free lunch ideas, e.g. during his 2014 ETH announcement speech, where he described a coin with a 20% inflation tax as having “no cost” to users.
Yeah, I haven't really emphasized perpetual income to stakers as a selling point in years. I actually favor rewards being as low as possible while still being high enough for security.
25/ In his response to my tweet, Vitalik adopted my format to “play the same game” in criticizing Bitcoin. My criticisms weren't addressed, and his response was riddled with errors. Yet his followers gave it +1,000 upvotes!
Vitalik Non-giver of Ether @VitalikButerin: - What works today (L1) is just a phase, ideal and unproven future (usable L2) is to come - Utopian concept of progress: we're already so confident we're finished we ain't needin no hard forks…
Ok, let's hear about what the errors are...
26/ Rebuttal: - BTC layer 1 is not “just a phase”, it always will be its definitive bedrock for transaction settlement. - Soft forking digital protocols has been the norm for over 3 decades—hard-forks are the deviation! - Satoshi never suggested hyperbitcoinization as a goal.
Sure, but (i) the use of layer 1 for consumer payments is definitely, in bitcoin ideology, "just a phase", (ii) I don't think you can make analogies between consensus protocols and other kinds of protocols, and between soft forking consensus protocols and protocol changes in other protocols, that easily, (iii) plenty of people do believe that hyperbitcoinization as a goal. Oh by the way: https://twitter.com/tuurdemeestestatus/545993119599460353
27/ This kind of sophistry is exhausting and completely counter-productive, but it can be very convincing for an uninformed retail public.
Ok, go on.
28/ Let me share a few more inconvenient truths.
29/ In order to “guarantee” the transition to PoS’ utopia of perpetual income (staking coins earns interest), a “difficulty bomb” was embedded in the protocol, which supposedly would force miners to accept the transition.
The intended goal of the difficulty bomb was to prevent the protocol from ossifying, by ensuring that it has to hard fork eventually to reset the difficulty bomb, at which point the status quo bias in favor of not changing other protocol rules at the same time would be weaker. Though forcing a switch to PoS was definitely a key goal.
30/ Of course, nothing came of this, because anything in the ETH protocol can be hard-forked away. Another broken promise.
33/ The modular approach to Bitcoin seems to be much better at compartmentalizing risk, and thus reducing attack surfaces. I’ve written about modular scaling here...
To be fair, risk is reduced because Bitcoin does less.
34/ Another huge issue that Ethereum has is with scaling. By putting “everything on the blockchain” (which stores everything forever) and dubbing it “the world computer”, you are going to end up with a very slow and clogged up system.
We never advocated "putting everything on the blockchain". The phrase "world computer" was never meant to be interpreted as "everyone's personal desktop", but rather as a common platform specifically for the parts of applications that require consensus on shared state. As evidence of this, notice how Whisper and Swarm were part of the vision as complements to Ethereum right from the start.
35/ By now the Ethereum bloat is so bad that cheaply running an individual node is practically impossible for a lay person. ETH developers are also imploring people to not deploy more smart contract apps on its blockchain.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: But... deploying d-apps on the "Ethereum Virtual Machine" is exactly what everyone was encouraged to do for the past 4 years. Looks like on-chain scaling wasn't such a great idea after all.
Umm.... I just spun up a node from scratch last week. On a consumer laptop.
36/ As a result, and despite the claims that running a node in “warp” mode is easy and as good as a full node, Ethereum is becoming increasingly centralized.
37/ Another hollow claim: in 2016, Ethereum was promoted as being censorship resistant…
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Pre TheDAO #Ethereum presentation: "uncensorable, code is law, bottom up". http://ow.ly/qW49302Pp92
Yes, the DAO fork did violate the notion of absolute immutability. However, the "forking the DAO will lead to doom and gloom" crowd was very wrong in one key way: it did NOT work as a precedent justifying all sorts of further state interventions. The community clearly drew a line in the sand by firmly rejecting EIP 867, and EIP 999 seems to now also be going nowhere. So it seems like there's some evidence that the social contract of "moderately but not infinitely strong immutability" actually can be stable.
38/ Yet later that year, after only 6% of ETH holders had cast a vote, ETH core devs decided to endorse a hard-fork that clawed back the funds from a smart contract that held 4.5% of all ETH in circulation. More here: ...
Hudson Jameson @hudsonjameson: The "semi-closed" Ethereum 1.x meeting from last Friday was an experiment. The All Core Dev meeting this Friday will be recorded as usual.
Suppose I were to tomorrow sign up to work directly for Kim Jong Un. What concretely would happen to the Ethereum protocol? I suspect very little; I am mostly involved in the Serenity work, and the other researchers have proven very capable of both pushing the spec forward even without me and catching any mistakes with my work. So I don't think any argument involving me applies. And we ended up deciding not to do more semi-closed meetings.
40/ Another red flag to me is the apparent lack of relevant expertise in the ETH development community. (Check the responses…)
I personally am confident in the talents of our core researchers, and our community of academic partners. Most recently the latter group includes people from Starkware, Stanford CBR, IC3, and other groups.
I have no idea who described Lucius Meredith's work as being important for the Serenity roadmap.... oh and by the way, RChain is NOT an "Ethereum scaling company"
42/ Perhaps the recently added Gandalf of Ethereum, with his “Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians” [sic] can save the day, but imo that seems unlikely...
Honestly, I don't see why Ethereum Gandalf needs to save the day, because I don't see what is in danger and needs to be saved...
43/ This is becoming a long tweetstorm, so let’s wrap up with a few closing comments.
44/ Do I have a conflict of interest? ETH is a publicly available asset with no real barriers to entry, so I could easily get a stake. Also, having met Vitalik & other ETH founders several times in 2013-’14, it would have been doable for me to become part of the in-crowd.
Agree there. And BTW I generally think financial conflicts of interest are somewhat overrated; social conflicts/tribal biases are the bigger problem much of the time. Though those two kinds of misalignments do frequently overlap and reinforce each other so they're difficult to fully disentangle.
45/ Actually, I was initially excited about Ethereum’s smart contract work - this was before one of its many pivots.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Ethereum is probably the first programming language I will teach myself - who wouldn't want the ability to program smart BTC contracts?
Ethereum was never about "smart BTC contracts"..... even "Ethereum as a Mastercoin-style meta-protocol" was intended to be built on top of Primecoin.
46/ Also, I have done my share of soul searching about whether I could be suffering from survivor’s bias.
47/ Here’s why Ethereum is dubious to me: rather than creating an open source project & testnet to work on these interesting computer science problems, its founders instead did a securities offering, involving many thousands of clueless retail investors.
48/ Investing in the Ethereum ICO was akin to buying shares in a startup that had “invent time travel” as part of its business plan. Imo it was a reckless security offering, and it set the tone for the terrible capital misallocation of the 2017 ICO boom.
Nothing in the ethereum roadmap requires time-travel-like technical advancements or anything remotely close to that. Proof: we basically have all the fundamental technical advancements we need at this point.
49/ In my view, Ethereum is the Yahoo of our day - an unscalable “blue chip” cryptocurrency:
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: 1/ The DotCom bubble shows that the market isn't very good at valuing early stage technology. I'll use Google vs. Yahoo to illustrate.
New Cryptocurrency Announced at Secret Hacking Conference in Chicago
Associated Press | November 23, 2032 | 11:27 PM | CHICAGO Several members of the local DEF CON 312 chapter have quietly unveiled the all-new cryptocurrency THOT at this year’s THOTCON, the 23-year-old hacking conference hosted annually at an undisclosed location within the Chicago Metropolitan Area. While THOTCON is traditionally a platform for the exploration of cutting-edge security issues, the timing of the cryptocurrency’s announcement appears to have been heavily influenced by the collapse of the American economy and the continued embargo against the State of Texas. “They’re all interested in financial security,” Nick Percoco, a THOTCON organizer, said when questioned about this year’s attendees. “It’s a little unusual, but with a big recession looming and a potential retaliatory strike from the Union State, I don’t really blame them.” Originally created by a team of students from the McCormick School of Engineering and named in honour of the main Chicago Area Code (THree-One-Two), THOT is already widely (and unofficially) exchanged throughout Northwestern University’s student body. One of the cryptocurrency’s co-founders, Isaac Jacobs, explained during the conference that THOT “is an open source blockchain-based cryptocurrency that prioritizes privacy and decentralization above all else.” THOT borrows characteristics from existing blockchain platforms such as Monero and Ethereum. Like the former, it uses an obfuscated public ledger that prevents observers from identifying the source, amount, or destination of the transaction and combines this feature with stealth addresses, ring signatures, and a coinjoin scheme to pool currency, adding additional layers of opaqueness for each individual transaction. While THOT is a pure cryptocurrency (unlike Ethereum, which is both distributed computing platform and operating system), it has a 3.5% inflation cap relying on scaling difficulty in proof of work and uses an internal transaction fee system to allocate resources across the network and reduce spam. THOT uses the Data and Intelligence Corporation’s proprietary method of verification, including a Proof of Work mechanism to issue new tokens, incentivizing miners to secure the network and validate transactions while reducing the advantage of specialized ASICs in mining and keeping the currency decentralized. “Beyond just a tradeable cryptocurrency, THOTs can act as a stake used to insure financial instruments on the blockchain,” Jacobs stated, when asked about the applications of the new monetary device. “For example, self-executing smart contracts will require a certain amount of THOTs to be sent along as crypto tokens to encourage a given transaction’s inclusion by miners in the blockchain. For any corporations that choose to adopt THOT, execution of instruments would instead result in a dividend paid in cryptocurrency to those processing it, founded on the contract's value. THOT would also be used for data royalties, encouraging third parties to adopt a stake in THOT to insure the security and validity of the instrument.” Jacobs was quick to point out that this architecture incentivizes expenditure of THOT to boost the processing of transactions, encouraging circulation of the currency. THOT is currently the preferred medium of exchange between participants (and is likely to remain so while THOTCON continues), but its wider impact beyond its initial early adopters is undetermined at this time.
Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today. During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it) In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited. For more threads like this see UASF
CGMiner ist der populärste GPU / FPGA / ASIC Miner. CGminer ist ein in C geschriebener Open-Source-GPU-Miner, der für verschiedene Plattformen wie Windows, Linux und OS X verfügbar ist. Etwas, das es extrem populär macht, ist die Tatsache, dass es auf dem ursprünglichen Code Cpu Miner basiert. CGMiner bietet Funktionen für Übertaktung, Überwachung, Lüftergeschwindigkeit und Remote ... Antminer S9 ist der leistungsstärkste Bitcoin-Miner der Welt. Er ist kleiner als viele andere tragbare Auslegerboxen. Der Antminer S9 hat einen ähnlichen Formfaktor wie der sehr beliebte Antminer S7. Der einzige mit dem Antminer S9 verbundene Unterschied besteht darin, dass er dreimal mehr Leistung als der Antminer S7 hat und eine doppelte Effizienz aufweist. Jeder Antminer S9 verfügt über ... Bitcoin mining passes the block header data through the SHA-256 algorithm twice (SHA-256d). Proof-of-work. Bitcoin uses a Proof of Work function based on the earlier work of hashcash. A miner cannot create a new block without finding a valid proof-of-work hash for the block header they are hashing. ASIC vs CPU mining . An ASIC Bitcoin miner is designed exclusively for the purpose of mining bitcoin. Though significantly more expensive to purchase, they are far more powerful (higher hash rate) and electricity-efficient than CPUs and GPUs (graphics cards) – used for mining in the early days of bitcoin – and even FPGAs (field programmable gate arrays), which were, in 2011, the most ... Lyra2REv2 is a proof-of-work algorithm which is written by the Vertcoin's team and for Vertcoin (VTC) cryptocurrency. Lyra2REv2 is a chain based and it contains a series of different hash functions. Review of algorithm, miners, Lyra2REv2 coins list.
bitcoin miner, bitcoin gpu, cuda bitcoin miner, python opencl bitcoin miner, bitcoin miner software, bitcoin miner virus, bitcoin miner download, bitcoin miner windows, online bitcoin miner, Check out more videos: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... Learn more about mining: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... EVERYONE loved this video: ... Cryptocurrency mining is still profitable, however, profitability with mining varies BIG TIME depending on your mining hardware used! Subscribe to VoskCoin -... Lets tear down this $20,000 ASIC Miner and discuss just what exactly is an Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) crypto miner and what are the top c... For more info about Bitcoin wallet card, litecoin wallet card, kindly visit internet site here: http://www.cryptocoinwalletcards.com/ Tags: asic bitcoin mine...