The Difference Between SHA-1, SHA-2 and SHA-256 Hash ...
The Difference Between SHA-1, SHA-2 and SHA-256 Hash ...
c# - When should I use SHA-1 and when should I use SHA-2 ...
What is Blockchain Technology? - Securities.io
Litecoin vs Bitcoin: The 2 Most Popular Digital Coins Compared
Bitcoin vs. Ethereum: What's the Difference?
Mining and Dogecoin - Some FAQs
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
Burstcoin (BURST): A Dark Horse That Could Become A Major Cryptocurrency, The King of Proof of Capacity
https://preview.redd.it/nt1qbc9cq4221.png?width=572&format=png&auto=webp&s=d867a4c98e7ab7e9c37c7dc23cc7fb251a5ecec7 https://cryptoiq.co/burstcoin-burst-a-dark-horse-that-could-become-a-major-cryptocurrency-the-king-of-proof-of-capacity/ Currently the cryptocurrency space is flooded with copycat coins and initial coin offering (ICO) tokens, most of which are moving steadily down the ranks on CoinMarketCap as the bear market of 2018 continues. This bear market is weeding out cryptocurrencies that have little long term potential, and cryptocurrencies that have strong communities and unique technology are rising to the top. Burstcoin (BURST) is one such cryptocurrency that is rising to the top, like cream in a glass of fresh milk. This is because the Burstcoin community is filled with diehard Cypherpunks, and BURST is the king of Proof of Capacity. Back in the middle of October 2018 BURST was at #248 on CoinMarketCap, which was before the ‘nuclear’ bear market took effect, where the support level was broken due to the Bitcoin Cash hard fork, Bakkt delaying the launch of physical Bitcoin futures, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiating its first civil enforcement penalties against ICOs. BURST has decreased in price like every other cryptocurrency, but is rising relative to other cryptocurrencies, and as of 3 December 2018 sits at #199 on CoinMarketCap with a market cap of USD 13.5 million. This increase in the price of BURST relative to other cryptocurrencies is due to Burstcoin’s unique technology. Burstcoin is the king of Proof of Capacity, a mining algorithm that uses the hard drive, versus raw computational power like with Proof of Work, and is much more energy efficient than Proof of Work. Proof of Capacity works by writing cryptographic hashes to an allotted segment of a hard drive called a plot. This plot is then read during mining to find the correct cryptographic hash, and whoever finds the cryptographic hash the fastest receives the block reward. More hard drive space dedicated to the plot equals more cryptographic hashes available, making it easier to find an answer and earn the BURST block reward. Currently 1TB generates 1-2 BURST per day, and even though this is only equivalent to about a penny, it is all profit since reading the plot file requires a negligible amount of energy, and BURST miners can use their computer for other activities without impediment. Compare this to Proof of Work, which slows down personal computers and costs more electricity than the cryptocurrency it mines. BURST is one of the only cryptocurrencies that can be profitably mined on personal computers. Further, unlike with Proof of Work where specialized mining equipment is required like application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), anyone with a computer or even mobile phone can mine BURST, and if they decide to stop mining BURST they can simply delete their plot file and use the hard drive space for other things. This is unlike ASICs, which cannot be used for anything but mining, so if someone decides to stop mining they lose all the money invested into the ASIC. The ease of mining and negligible energy usage has led to the formation of a strong BURST mining community, with over 200,000 TB securing the BURST network. This is equivalent to hundreds of thousands of personal computers. The expansive mining community gives BURST value, and some of these miners are blockchain developers, and they have been building a full suite of technology based on the Burstcoin blockchain. CloudBurst immutably stores files directly on the Burstcoin blockchain, for a small 1-time fee. Real blockchain storage is a rarity in the cryptocurrency world. The file will be stored as long as the Burstcoin blockchain exists, which is the foreseeable future and beyond considering the expansive BURST mining community. Cloudburst would be useful if you lost your computer and all of your backups in a natural disaster like a hurricane, and is a more secure solution than cloud storage like Google. Also, the Burstcoin wallet can be used to easily issue cryptocurrencies that are based off of the Burstcoin blockchain, and there is a decentralized exchange built-in to the wallet to trade these crypto assets. Cryptocurrency scalability is a problem even for major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, but Burstcoin has tackled and solved this problem with the launch of the Dymaxion. The scalability of the Dymaxion is so powerful that it can handle all the non-cash transactions in the world. This is done via the utilization of tangle-based lightning networks on top of the Burstcoin blockchain. Transactions done via the Dymaxion are instant, with no fees and practically no energy expenditure. The Dymaxion gives Burstcoin the room to grow as much as it needs to. When people look for the cryptocurrencies that will survive long term, it can be confusing due to the 2,000+ cryptocurrencies listed on CoinMarketCap. However, it is clear that cryptocurrencies with truly unique and useful technology, as well as strong communities will always be around and gain value long term relative to all the ICOs and copycats. Bitcoin is the king of SHA-256, Litecoin is the king of Scrypt, Ethereum is the king of blockchain-based dApps, Dogecoin is the king of the shibes on Reddit, Dash is the King of X11, Monero is the king of privacy coins, IOTA is the king of Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs), and Burstcoin is the king of Proof of Capacity. These kings of cryptocurrency will definitely be the winners and survivors when the fallout from the ICO apocalypse is over. This is for educational purposes only and is not investment advice. We are not paid by BURST to write this article.
While listening to the Core Devs Meeting #54 this morning, I realized that the factual trade-offs around ProgPow need to be better defined so that we can truly hear the community's take on this issue. It is a lot to put on the core team, and everyone seems to want more participation in this debate. An audit of ProgPow is necessary, but it will not lead to a decision on whether to implement it or not. In talking about the trade-offs of ProgPow until the end of such audit, let's just assume it works as expected. I'll start by saying that it has been extremely difficult and frustrating for me to understand the tradeoffs of ProgPow, despite being actively involved in the community. I can only imagine how difficult it might be for the average ETH stakeholder to have an opinion on whether ProgPow is a good idea or not. The conspiracy theories that have surfaced around ProgPow have certainly not contributed to the debate, and I'd like to take this opportunity to focus on facts, not speculation. If you just tuned in, a good place to start is the question what is ProgPow? ELI15: ProgPow is a module based on CUDA to better parallelize specific functions of Ethash on Nvidia architectures and increase computational efficiency. My back-of-the-envelope math shows that, under ProgPow, GPUs mining ProgPow-Ethash would be 1.5x more efficient than Plain-Ethash. Also, ProgPow allows the algorithm's parameters to be programmatically changed to prevent an integrated circuit (in an ASIC) to have an edge on efficiency over commodity GPUs in the long-run. ELI5: ProgPow makes GPUs more efficient and allows Ethash to change in a way that curbs the advantage ASICs have over GPUs in the long-run. The issue(?) of decreased hashing power EF Security Lead Martin Swende said in the call today that he expects ProgPow to cut difficulty in half, which would in turn lead to lower hashing power being allocated to the network. Since Plain-Ethash would have different parameters than ProgPow-Ethash, their hashrates are not comparable in terms of security. Think of Plain-Ethash and ProgPow-Ethash as different algorithms. Still, all else equal, a 50% decrease in difficulty "doesn't sound too good" as u/Souptacular put it in the call today. That is because, even though hashrates are not comparable, the aggregate amount of electricity required to potentially attack the network is decreased, meaning, the cost of an attack might be lower post-ProgPow. However, I also recognize that there are social factors that also need to be considered in the decision of implementing ProgPow. Based on my conversations, hobbyist miners have a love/hate relationship with Ethereum. Ethash's hardness to ASIC has brought to Ethereum a lot of individual miners and small operations who, through mining pools, contribute to a large amount of the current hashrate. Competition with larger operations is lower on Ethereum than say, Zcash, given the much decreased efficiency gains when using ASICs on Ethash. This is the "love" in the sentence above. The "hate" is the realization that the network will eventually adopt PoS and that, until then, block rewards will continue to decrease. This is painful, especially at current price levels. This coalition of smaller operations believes that the adoption of ProgPow would level the playing field even further and make mining Ethash more fair. Not adopting ProgPow may lead this coalition of retail miners to leave Ethereum. This ismaybe the main reason why large mining pools like Ethermine are pro-ProgPow. The worst-outcome-possible would be for these miners to fork their coalition out of the protocol. The issue of ASIC centralization Another argument pro-ProgPow that keeps popping up is that ASICs contribute to centralization, which has been an ongoing problem for Bitcoin and many other protocols that employ algorithms that are not as hard as Ethash. u/vbuterinhas said in the past that he does not believe mining centralization concerns are as relevant to Ethash as other algos. And after surveying the Ethash ASIC market, I tend agree with him. It all seems to comes down to efficiency and the degree of centralization in the ASIC manufacturing industry. Ethash ASICs are only 2x more efficient than state-of-the-art GPUs; a much lower efficiency coefficient than SHA-256 ASICs, which are 1000x more efficient. There are now eleven different models of Ethash ASICs in the market, and three fiercely competitive manufacturers producing them (BITMAIN, Innosillicon and PandaMiner). Had BITMAIN been the only entity in the Ethash ASIC market, I would be more concerned about centralization, but that does not seem to be the case. Ultimately, we should remember that ProgPow does not eliminate existing ASICs from the market - it only makes existing GPUs more efficient on a relative basis. Also, the activation of ProgPow would not prevent these manufacturers from developing a ProgPow-compatible ASIC. The most important factor to consider right now is network security. Even more so because the PoW chain will be an integral component of the first stages of the new Serenity roadmap. PoS validators stake their funds on the PoW chain and, as such, the entire system relies on a sufficiently large number of miners to not abandon Ethereum. From my understanding, due to the use of Nvidia's CUDA, GPU miners running RX580s and RX Vegas (which are based on AMD) would not be able to mine ProgPow (please fact-check if I'm wrong). We don't know the proportion of miners running AMD versus Nvidia versus ASICs. Core developers are focusing on whether ProgPow does what it is supposed to do, hence the focus on an audit, but that might not be the right question. The way I see it, the right question should be (assuming ProgPow works): in what scenario will network security be optimized in terms of cumulative electricity expenditure allocated to Ethash? u/5chdn
Alright, I keep seeing you fucks talk about how "Bitcoin is going to make Nvidia/AMD go to the moon". I'm going to walk all you fucks through bitcoin, crypto currencies, and how they effect the GPU market. What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin is a decentralized ledger. That's pretty much it. A set number of bitcoin is generated per block, and each block is solved when a resulting hash is found for the corresponding proof of work. The difficulty is adjusted periodically based on a formula, meaning that as hash rate rises and falls, the number of bitcoins produced per day is roughly the same. What does Bitcoin have to do with AMD and Nvidia? Fucking nothing. Bitcoin is mined on proprietary hardware called Application-specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs). Neither AMD or Nvidia produce these. Why does everyone keep talking about Bitcoin and AMD then? Because they're fucking retarded and you're listening to retards. Bitcoin runs on the SHA-256 Hashing Function which people have custom hardware for. The Crypto driving GPU sales is ETHEREUM, NOT BITCOIN What the fuck is Ethereum then? Don't worry about it. It's for smug assholes who are too edgy for Bitcoin. All you need to know is it runs on a different Hashing function than Bitcoin, so if you weren't a retard you'd probably realize that the proprietary hardware I talked about earlier won't work with it. Currently Ethereum is being mined the same way Bitcoin was when it first started; on GPUs. When are you going to tell me what to buy Shut the fuck up, learn something or kill your self. How many GPUs are being used to mine currently? Currently the Ethereum Hash Rate is 73,000 GH/s. For upcoming earnings, we should instead look at the period from April to June. April 1st shows a network hash rate of 16,500 GH/s, and June 31st shows 59,200 GH/s, meaning the network hash rate increased by 42,700 GH/s for this upcoming earnings report quarter. I've linked a decent benchmark for GPU hashrate . You should notice that all of these are quoted in MH/s, versus the Network reporting in GH/s; there are ALOT of fucking GPUs running on the network. A top of the line 1080 puts out about 20-25 MH/s, a good Radeon card does about 30. As a rough estimate, lets assume that the average card mining Ethereum currently produces about 25 MH/s. 42,700GH/s / 25MH/s means that there are 1.7 MILLION more GPUs currently mining ethereum than there were at the beginning of Q1. Based on my personal observations being involved in this, AMD is actually taking a majority market share of the sold cards just due to their superior performance compared to Nvidia's 1080s, and I'd estimate that About 50-60% of the cards currently mining Ethereum are AMD Radeons. What does this all mean? AMD are selling their highest margin video cards faster than they can produce them, and at ~250$ a pop with 50%-60% market capture AMD will have sold roughly 200-300 million dollars more in video cards than they did last quarter. AMD quarterly revenue last reported was just under 1 Billion. This is a 20-30% increase in revenue from last quarter, where Ethereum Hash Rate only increased by about 10,000GH/s. Even assuming a modest 30% margin for their video cards, AMD will still have almost 60 million in unexpected earnings this quarter due to crypto mining, which translates to about .06-.1 per share in earnings. tl;dr Ethereum will make AMD beat revenue by 20-30%. BUY AMD YOU CUCKS.
Burstcoin (BURST): A Dark Horse That Could Become A Major Cryptocurrency, The King of Proof of Capacity
https://preview.redd.it/3avf5qg5r4221.png?width=572&format=png&auto=webp&s=b54fac16e32a99f2eb544a5ec9f6439b2915a06d https://cryptoiq.co/burstcoin-burst-a-dark-horse-that-could-become-a-major-cryptocurrency-the-king-of-proof-of-capacity/ Currently the cryptocurrency space if flooded with copycat coins and initial coin offering (ICO) tokens, most of which are moving steadily down the ranks on CoinMarketCap as the bear market of 2018 continues. This bear market is weeding out cryptocurrencies that have little long term potential, and cryptocurrencies that have strong communities and unique technology are rising to the top. Burstcoin (BURST) is one such cryptocurrency that is rising to the top, like cream in a glass of fresh milk. This is because the Burstcoin community is filled with diehard Cypherpunks, and BURST is the king of Proof of Capacity. Back in the middle of October 2018 BURST was at #248 on CoinMarketCap, which was before the ‘nuclear’ bear market took effect, where the support level was broken due to the Bitcoin Cash hard fork, Bakkt delaying the launch of physical Bitcoin futures, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiating its first civil enforcement penalties against ICOs. BURST has decreased in price like every other cryptocurrency, but is rising relative to other cryptocurrencies, and as of 3 December 2018 sits at #199 on CoinMarketCap with a market cap of USD 13.5 million. This increase in the price of BURST relative to other cryptocurrencies is due to Burstcoin’s unique technology. Burstcoin is the king of Proof of Capacity, a mining algorithm that uses the hard drive, versus raw computational power like with Proof of Work, and is much more energy efficient than Proof of Work. Proof of Capacity works by writing cryptographic hashes to an allotted segment of a hard drive called a plot. This plot is then read during mining to find the correct cryptographic hash, and whoever finds the cryptographic hash the fastest receives the block reward. More hard drive space dedicated to the plot equals more cryptographic hashes available, making it easier to find an answer and earn the BURST block reward. Currently 1TB generates 1-2 BURST per day, and even though this is only equivalent to about a penny, it is all profit since reading the plot file requires a negligible amount of energy, and BURST miners can use their computer for other activities without impediment. Compare this to Proof of Work, which slows down personal computers and costs more electricity than the cryptocurrency it mines. BURST is one of the only cryptocurrencies that can be profitably mined on personal computers. Further, unlike with Proof of Work where specialized mining equipment is required like application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), anyone with a computer or even mobile phone can mine BURST, and if they decide to stop mining BURST they can simply delete their plot file and use the hard drive space for other things. This is unlike ASICs, which cannot be used for anything but mining, so if someone decides to stop mining they lose all the money invested into the ASIC. The ease of mining and negligible energy usage has led to the formation of a strong BURST mining community, with over 200,000 TB securing the BURST network. This is equivalent to hundreds of thousands of personal computers. The expansive mining community gives BURST value, and some of these miners are blockchain developers, and they have been building a full suite of technology based on the Burstcoin blockchain. CloudBurst immutably stores files directly on the Burstcoin blockchain, for a small 1-time fee. Real blockchain storage is a rarity in the cryptocurrency world. The file will be stored as long as the Burstcoin blockchain exists, which is the foreseeable future and beyond considering the expansive BURST mining community. Cloudburst would be useful if you lost your computer and all of your backups in a natural disaster like a hurricane, and is a more secure solution than cloud storage like Google. Also, the Burstcoin wallet can be used to easily issue cryptocurrencies that are based off of the Burstcoin blockchain, and there is a decentralized exchange built-in to the wallet to trade these crypto assets. Cryptocurrency scalability is a problem even for major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, but Burstcoin has tackled and solved this problem with the launch of the Dymaxion. The scalability of the Dymaxion is so powerful that it can handle all the non-cash transactions in the world. This is done via the utilization of tangle-based lightning networks on top of the Burstcoin blockchain. Transactions done via the Dymaxion are instant, with no fees and practically no energy expenditure. The Dymaxion gives Burstcoin the room to grow as much as it needs to. When people look for the cryptocurrencies that will survive long term, it can be confusing due to the 2,000+ cryptocurrencies listed on CoinMarketCap. However, it is clear that cryptocurrencies with truly unique and useful technology, as well as strong communities will always be around and gain value long term relative to all the ICOs and copycats. Bitcoin is the king of SHA-256, Litecoin is the king of Scrypt, Ethereum is the king of blockchain-based dApps, Dogecoin is the king of the shibes on Reddit, Dash is the King of X11, Monero is the king of privacy coins, IOTA is the king of Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs), and Burstcoin is the king of Proof of Capacity. These kings of cryptocurrency will definitely be the winners and survivors when the fallout from the ICO apocalypse is over. This is for educational purposes only and is not investment advice. We are not paid by BURST to write this article.
Q: 1) Hello, what's a better strategy for bitcoin holders if it hard forks at 75%? Is it worth holding of the coins in the minority chain? Or better selling them? Will the value of coins in the majority chain be weakened or reinforced? Thank you A: 1) BIP109 does not hard fork at 75%, it hard forks 28 days after 75% has been reached-- so when the hard fork happens, there should be almost zero hash power on the minority chain. So there will not be a minority chain. If I am wrong and blocks are created on the minority chain, people plan to get enough hash power to replace those blocks with empty blocks, so it is impossible to make any transactions on the minority chain. Q: 2) if Bitcoin split into two chains, will it cause panic in the market, then the overall market capitalization fell? A: 2) Bitcoin split into two chains accidentally in March of 2013, and there was panic selling -- the price dropped from $48 to $37 within a few hours. But the mining pools very quickly agreed on which branch of the chain they would support, the problem was resolved within a day, and a week later the price was over $60. That shows the strength of consensus and incentives-- the mining pools did what was best for Bitcoin because that is what is best for themselves in the long term. Q: 3) Now it requres 60-70G space for a full node wallet, also it takes severals days for synchronization. Technically, Is it possible in the future that a full node wallet only cost a little space and can be quickly synchronized? (Do not use light wallets and other third party wallets) A: 3) You can run a pruned node that does not store the full block chain today (I’m running six right now on inexpensive servers around the world to test some new code). It is technically possible to get fast synchronization without giving up any trust, but it would require miners do more work (they would have to compute and store and validate an “unspent transaction output committment hash” in the block chain). There are also schemes that would give you fast synchronization at a lightweight-wallet level of trust, but worked towards no trust if you were connected to the network for long enough. Some developers say that you are not really using Bitcoin unless you run a full node, but that is wrong. Bitcoin was designed so that you can make the choice of speed and convenience versus trust. You give up very, very little trust if you run a lightweight wallet that supports multisignature transactions, and I think that is what most people should be running. Q: 4) What do you think about Ethereum? Can Bitcoin achieve all the same functions claimed by Ethernet? Thank you A: 4) I think most of the interesting things you can do with Ethereum you can also do with multi-signature Bitcoin transactions. I haven’t seen a really great use of Ethereum yet, and I think there will be a big problem with Ethereum smart contracts that are designed to steal people’s money, because very few people will have the skill necessary to tell if a complicated smart contract is correct. I’m watching the rootstock.io project, which brings Ethereum contracts to Bitcoin. Q: 5) Is it possible that Nakamoto may still participate in the development of Bitcoin by a pseudonym? What is the last time he contact you? Will he be back? A: 5) Yes, it is possible. I tell reporters who ask me about Satoshi: The idea of Bitcoin is important; who invented it is an interesting mystery, but I think it should remain a mystery until whoever invented it decides to step forward. We should respect Satoshi's privacy. Q: 6) Now some government can prevent people from accessing foreign information using technical method(like the Great Firewall), people need to get across the wall first if they want to know information abroad. So technically speaking, is it possible that the government could block and damage the usage of bitcoin? If it is, is there any method to get across the wall? A: 6) If a government controls network access into and out of their country (like the Great Firewall), they could easily block connections to and from today’s Bitcoin peer-to-peer network. Connections are not encrypted in any way, and most connect to port 8333, which would be easy to block. However, blocking connections inside the country would be much harder. And it only takes one encrypted or satellite or microwave or laser connection that bypasses the firewall to get around the blockage and get blocks and transactions flowing across the border again. I think governments that decide they don’t like Bitcoin are more likely to pass laws that make it a crime to use a currency other than the official government currency to pay for things. Q: 7) You insist on hard fork at 75%, while Chinse Mining Pools insist at 90%. So it may be easier to get support from China If Classic changes to 90%. Have you ever considered to communicate with Chinese mine pool( such as convening a meeting) to reduce differences? A: 7) Yes, I was in Beijing a few weeks ago to better understand what some of the Chinese mining pools are thinking. It was a productive meeting, and I look forward to communicating more with them soon. Q: 8) How will halving and block size increasing impact the bitcoin price in your opnion? Thanks. A: 8) The price, today, is a reflection of confidence. If people think Bitcoin will be valuable in the future, they are willing to buy it and hold it. Everybody knows the halving will happen, so, theoretically, that should not affect today’s price. I believe that increasing the block size limit would be very good for the price, because Bitcoin is more valuable the more people who are able to use it. Q: 9) Technically, bitcoin should also have drawbacks. Some disadvantages may be improved in the future , while some may be difficult to improve. What are those shortcomings for bitcoin to hard to improve in your opinon? Are you an optimist thinking that all technical shortcomings are temporary, and they will all likely to be improved in the future? A: 9) Every successful technology is full of shortcomings. It is always easier to look backwards and see your mistakes. Smart engineers are very good at working around those shortcomings, and wise engineering managers know when to work around a shortcoming to remain compatible with the existing technology and when it makes sense to break compatibility because eliminating a shortcoming would have large benefits. Q: 10) If there is a kind of altcoin in the future goes beyond Bitcoin, it must has the advantage Bitcoin can not have, right? Conversely, if Bitcoin itself evolves fast, improves and adds new features, it will be difficult to be surpassed and eliminated, right? What does Bitcoin scalability and evolution capability look like? A: 10) People are funny -- I can imagine an altcoin that has no technology advantages over Bitcoin, but some people prefer it for some reason. I live in a town where a lot of people care a lot about the environment, and I could imagine them deciding to use a “GreenCoin” where all miners must be inspected regularly and must use only solar power. I think many engineers tend to over-estimate the importance of new features, and under-estimate the importance of reliability, convenience and reputation. Satoshi designed Bitcoin to be very scalable, and to be able to evolve. I think the best way for any technology to scale and evolve is competition -- make the technology open, and let companies or teams compete to build the most reliable, convienent and secure products. That looks like (and is!) a very messy, chaotic process, but it produces better results, faster, than a single person or team deciding on on approach to solving every problem. Q: 11) If R3 succeeds, will it challenge bitcoin in transnational remittances? A: 11) Maybe -- if banks involved in R3 could make it very convenient to get money into and out of their blockchain. They might not be able to do that because of regulations, though. But I don’t know much about the international remittance market and what regulations the banks will have to deal with. Q: 12) Can blockchain only be secured by mining? Some private blockchain do not have mining property, are they really blockchain? A: 12) Security is not “yes it is secure” or “no it is not secure.” Proof of work (mining) is the most secure way we know of to secure a blockchain, but there are less secure methods that can work if less security is OK. And less security is OK for some private blockchains because if somebody cheats, they can be taken to court and money can be recovered. Q: 13) Will public chain, private chain and R3 chain coexist for a long time? Or only one chain survive finally? What is the relationship among Bitcoin block chain, private chains and R3 chain , complementary or competitive? Will Bitcoin block chain eventually win? A: 13) My guess is all of the “blockchain for everything” excitement will die down in a year or two and a lot of people will be disappointed. Then a few years later there will be blockchains for everything, running quietly inside stock markets and currency exchanges and lots of other places. Some of them will use the Bitcoin blockchain, some of them won’t, and nobody besides blockchain engineers will care much. Throughout it all, I think it is most likely Bitcoin continues to grow, hopefully with less drama as it gets bigger and more mature. Q: 14) Some people think that it is difficult for the outside world to understand the technical details if lightning network is controlled by blockstream or another company, resulting in technological centralization, what’s your opinion? A: 14) I don’t worry about that, the lightning protocol is being designed in the open as an open standard. It is complicated, but not so complicated only one person or company can understand it. Q: 15) What is the procedure Bitcoin Core modify the rules? Take the 2M hard fork proposal as an example, I saw there are concerns that if one of the five core developers who have write access reject the proposal will be rejected. So If happens, does that mean the launch hard ford in July will be abandoned? What is percentage of agreement in Core developers to write code for such a major bifurcation matter like 2M hard fork? Are there any specific standards? Or the lead developer has the final decision? A: 15) That is a good question for the current active Core developers. When I was the lead developer, I would make a final decision if a decision needed to be made.
Q: What do you think about the future of increasing bitcoin block size limit? A: It will happen sooner or later -- almost everybody agrees it must happen. I am still working to make it happen sooner, because the longer it takes, the worse for Bitcoin.
Q: What decision making process you think should be used for future bitcoin development? A: For example, WuJiHan's proposition of service providers and mining pools collecting individual mineuser opinion. Or, a non-profit making standard making committee like IEEE, consists of people with enough expertise in bitcoin and economy, finance? I think we should look at how development of other very successful technologies works (like email or the http protocol). I am not an expert, but open standards and open processes for participating in creating standards that are either adopted by the market or not (like the IETF process) seem to work the best.
Q: From my experience on Reddit, people now start to understand that evil is not Blockstream/Core's intention. They simply have a very different vision on how Bitcoin network should be running and on how future development should be heading. They do whatever they can to protect their vision, even dirty tricks, because they feel they are bringing justice. Similarly, in Chinese community, we do see the same situation. Many Chinese Bitcoiners that showed strong enthusiasm in the past differ with each other. This even happens among my own real-life friends. My question is: How can we separate these two groups of people who have widely divergent visions? Bitcoin cannot proceed when carrying two totally different visions. A: I don’t know! It is always best if everybody is free to work on their own vision, but for some reason some people seem to think that the block size limit will prevent big companies from taking over Bitcoin. I think all they will accomplish is making the technology much more complicated. And big companies are much better able to deal with and control highly complicated technologies.
Q: Please share your comments on ripple, Mr. Guru. A: I haven’t paid very much attention to Ripple- the last time I looked at it was probably two years ago. Back then I thought they would have trouble with governments wanting to regulate their gateway nodes as money transmitters, but I haven’t even taken the time to see if I was right about that.
Q: Hi Gavin, I think you had a disagreement with the Nakamoto roadmap in Bitcoin design. Can you explain why? Thank you. A: I assume you mean the part where Satoshi says he doesn’t think a second implementation will ever be a good idea. I just think Satoshi was wrong about that-- if you look at very successful protocols, they all have multiple compatible implementations. We understand a lot more about what it takes to be completely compatible and have much better tools to ensure compatibility. And the fact that there now are multiple compatible implementations working on the network (btcd being probably the best example) shows both that it is possible and that the other implementations are not a menace to the network.
Q: 1) For the dispute between Core and Classic, can we refer to the theory of “Common-pool resources” (Commons) in the Western cultural tradition to understand and grasp the public and neutral property of bitcoin so at to strive for a solution which can balance interests of all parties? A: 1) Maybe. The blockchain could be considered a Commons today-- a common, limited resource. But if control of the block size limit was given to miners, then I don’t think it fits the definition any more, because miners would have the freedom to restrict its use however they saw fit, on a block-by-block basis. That is just a simple, pure market, with transaction creators on one side and miners on the other. Q: 2) For the application requring "bitcoin multi-signature script", can you recommend any programming language, libraries or tools? A: 2) BitPay has some good tools: https://github.com/bitpay/bitcore I haven’t worked on any multisignature applications since writing the low-level protocol code-- there are probably other great libraries and tools that I just don’t know about.
Q: Hello Gavin, are you now still developing Classic? Will Classic proceed? Would you give up Classic and return to Core? A: Yes, yes, and there is no “return to” -- I plan on contributing to lots of projects.
Q: 1) If there are one million entrepreneurs who require fund and asset securitization via block chain technology, is it possible? A: 1) If there are ten million investors willing to fund those entrepreneurs, sure it is possible. The technology won’t be a problem, one million is not a large number for today’s computers. Q: 2) Why can we trust Bitcoin and what are the advantages of bitcoin in online payment and settlement? Its commission fee now is not as cheap as before, besides, the time for one confirm is not fast enough. Your opinions on pros and cons of Mining and PoW? A: 2) For people in places with good-enough banking systems like the United States or China, purchasing things inside their own country, bitcoin does not have much of an advantage over existing payment systems. But if you are buying something from somebody in another country, or you live in a place where there are no good payment systems, Bitcoin works very well. Proof of work and mining is the most fair, decentralized way to distribute new coins. They are also the best way of securing the network that we know of so far. Perhaps in 30 years when essentially all of the new coins have been mined and computer scientists have thoroughly studied other ways of securing the network it might make sense for Bitcoin to start to switch to something other than mining and proof-of-work to secure the network. Q: 3) How likely the possibility of replacing the existing legal currency with virtual currency? A: 3) Very unlikely in a large country. I can imagine a small country that uses a larger country’s currency deciding to switch to a crypto currency, though.
Q: 1) You have always insist on larger block. Some people share the same view, they just want to increase the block size, regardless of network bandwidth restrictions in China and other developing countries. How do you see this criticism? A: 1) Most people are using Bitcoin over very limited bandwidth connections-- most people use lightweight wallets. If you run a business that needs a fast connection to the Internet, then it is not expensive to rent a server in a data center that has very good bandwidth. Even inexpensive servers have plenty of bandwidth and CPU power to keep up with much higher transaction volume. If you insist on running a full node from your home, average connection speed in China today is 3.7 megabits per second, which is almost 1,000 transactions per second. Latency through the Great Firewall is a bigger issue right now, but there are several software solutions to that problem that people (including myself) are working on right now. Q: 2) In addition, I'm curious what is your opinion on the current Bitcoin Core team? There is no doubt? If so, why not act as a Core developer contributing code in Bitcoin Core to solve these problems? A: 2) I like most of the people on the current Bitcoin Core team, they are great. But there are a couple of people on that team I don’t want to work with, so I have decided to limit the amount of time I spend with that project.
Q: 1) Hello Gavin, I would like to ask you how long since your last contribution in Bitcoin Core or others related? Expect the big influence as one of the earliest contributors, do not you think you ought to talk about the code, mostly for the coutribution of development of Bitcoin? A from pangcong: 1)The last commit in bitcoin core made by Gavin is on September 30, 2015, after that Gavin was busy with bitcoin XT and bicoin classic. His actual development in bitcoin has never stopped, these records are very clear on github, if you want to ask questions which are obvious, please investigate first. A from Gavin: 1) Also: I submitted some patches to Bitcoin Core a few days ago. Q: 2) Also, you were a neutral software engineer before, seriously committed to improving the bitcoin. But now you're playing political means to enhance your impact on the future of Bitcoin, how do you respond with it? A from KuHaiBian: 2) Now the biggest problem in Bitcoin is not block size limit, but that there is only one development team, it is as dangerous as the situation that there is only one mining pool mining bitcoin. This is the biggest problem Gavin is trying to solve. A from Gavin: 2) I just give my honest opinion, and try to do what I can to make Bitcoin more successful.
Q: There is no systematic process for Bitcoin upgrades. Is there any regulation/restriction on the power of Core devs? How do we balance the conflict between the centrilized power of the devs with interest of the community consensus? Do you think Bitcoin need to learn from R3 chains or distributed ledger systems? I.e. setting up regulations to constrain the power of the devs, so that only devs with “restricted access” can contribute, not everyone. A: Competition is the best solution. If the Core team does not make their customers happy, then they will be replaced. It might take a year or more for another team to get the reputation for high-quality code that the Core team has acquired over the years.
Q: In 2016, you propose to increase block size limit to 8M, then doubled every two years. Is it still the most promising expansion plan in your opinion now? If it is, do you think it possible that the block size reach 8GB in 2036, particularly given the network speed and bandwith in developing countries. A: I think it would be best to eliminate the block size limit entirely, and let the miners decide if they should accept or reject blocks. The miners want Bitcoin to succeed, and will not choose a size so large the network cannot handle it. I don’t know if people would agree to eliminate the limit, though. A dynamic limit that grows, but prevents an extremely large ‘attack block’ would also be a good solution. The growing-8MB idea came from the idea that it should be possible for somebody on a home Internet connection to continue to validate every single transaction. However, more research showed that the bottleneck is not the connection from the Internet to our homes (even in China there is plenty of bandwidth there) but connections across international borders. In particular, the Great Firewall can sometimes greatly restrict bandwidth to and from China.
Q: Gavin, hello! What is the reason do you think the community rejected Bitcoin XT? A: It was a mistake to try to make more changes than just simply increasing the block size limit.
Q: Now the problem of block size limit is not so serious as before when Bitoin was attacked, and the Segwit has been deployed, so what is the controversy? Why have to argue to the bitter end, must we argue until bitcoin die? Gavin, we all know your contribution to Bitcoin. But in 2015, when you said in bitcoin software development, we need a "dictator" to resolve the dispute. I think you want to be this dictator. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008810.html A: Must we argue until bitcoin die: I think is is in the nature of people to argue, so I think we will be arguing about lots of things until either we die or Bitcoin dies. I think in a few years we will look back and wonder why there was so much arguing, but I also think some good things have come from all of the argument.
Q: 1) What do you think about Ethereum? Can smart contract run based on Bitcoin? A: 1) (This question is repeated. Please see Q18-4) Q: 2) What are the problems Miners may have to face after halving in July? Thanks! A: 2) There is a small risk that the halving will make a good fraction of the miners stop mining, because they will get about half of the bitcoins they got before the halving. And that might mean blocks take longer to create, which means less space for transactions, which might mean people get frustrated and leave Bitcoin. Which could drop the price even more, causing more miners to stop mining, more frustration, and so on. Miners tell me they have already planned ahead for the halving and this will not happen, which is why I think it is a small risk and I don’t think the halving will be a big problem for most miners. Q: 3) Where can we get the whole code and code review of bitcoin? A: 3) Bitcoin Core is at: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin Bitcoin Classic: https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic btcd: https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd bitcore: https://github.com/bitpay/bitcore
With all this talk about 51% attacks, why hasn't anyone proposed a PoW puzzle that can fix this issue?
So I'm just brainstorming here. I have no deep understanding of Bitcoin's internals, but while everyone wants to find ways to voluntarily fix the 51% attack, I feel as though there has to be some protocol-level fix for this issue. From what I understand about pooled mining: Instead of individually solving the SHA-256 puzzle, the pools dole out parts of the puzzle to each miner, and collectively return the result. Even if your part of the puzzle was unnecessary, you are given a portion of the earnings for your portion of participation. This seems better than solo mining, since you're always getting regular payment proportional to your hardware's hashing rate. However, the SHA-256 PoW puzzle encourages pooling and pooling encourages centralization so we need to come up with a puzzle that can: 1) Pay miners proportionally to the amount of work their hardware does. 2) Incentivizes (or perhaps even requires) them to only pool in small groups. Can we come up with a PoW puzzle system that fits both of these criteria? Can we somehow take the network topology into account for this puzzle? Suppose the puzzle can only be done in pools, and the puzzle "knows" the size of the pool, making the difficulty proportional to the size of the pool (e.g. the larger pools have higher difficulty, while smaller pools have less difficulty). Is such a PoW puzzle possible, or is there any reason why something like this wouldn't work? I would just like to open up discussion about this issue, versus begging people to stop mining at GHash.io or BTC Guild, since this can happen again, as it did a few years ago for BTC Guild by itself.
Why Litecoin Is Equally Good Or Better Than Bitcoin
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4086771-litecoin-equally-good-better-bitcoin Why Litecoin Is Equally Good Or Better Than Bitcoin Certified Research Analyst, Growth, long-term horizon, Cryptocurrency Enthusiast (85 followers) Summary Both Bitcoin and Litecoin are deflationary. Litecoin payment confirmations are faster. Litecoin is more adaptive to technical up-scaling. Both coins can compliment each other. Comparing two stocks to find out the relatively better value buy is quite easy for a traditional research analyst who deals with equity market. The number of parameters available for comparison is wide and time tested, starting from a simple quarterly result's net profit to complex ones like debt equity ratio, PE, trailing EPS etc. Stocks are categorized by its market capitalization and industry to make the study more focused. But when comes to crypto world, we don't have any time tested parameters to filer out the naked ones from others which are promising and disruptive in nature. So an investor who decided to invest in crypto currencies have to overcome this black-hole by using some simple traditional techniques which requires normal IQ level only. Let us first discuss about the similarities between these two coins and then step in to future outlook of Litecoin. litecoin 1. Both Bitcoin and Litecoin are deflationary These crux behind the deflationary nature is simple defined by the demand supply logic in basic economics. The supply of both these coins will be tapered in coming years and at the same time demand will be increasing if something catastrophic is not happening in crypto space. Bitcoin will have 21 million coins in its entire life span and Litecoin will have 84 million, which is exactly 4 times that of Bitcoin. Considering the fact that in early days, people gave little importance on secure storage, millions worth coins were lost which cannot be recovered by any chance. This is the reason why both of these coins are considered deflationary in nature. The current supply of Bitcoin is nearly 16.4 million whereas Litecoin has 51.85 million coins in circulation.
"When I released Litecoin there were a lot of other cryptocurrencies that were pre-mined by founders wanted to be super rich. I preannounced Litecoin on Bitcointalk, so people could mine it from the get go. It was more widely distributed from the start than Bitcoin." Charlee Lee, Litecoin founder
Litecoin payment confirmations are faster
The block generation time of Bitcoin is 10 minutes and Litecoin is 2.5 minutes. In simple terms, it means that transactions are confirmed 4 times faster in Litecoin. The downside of smaller block generation time is, it is easy for reversal of transaction compared to a larger block. Since the value of Bitcoin is high, Litecoin's future lies in using it for small transactions as the transaction fees associated is negligible compared to Bitcoin's transactions.
Litecoin has a large economy and our technology works on Litecoin with almost no changes. We like ethereum too, but ethereum is too different from bitcoin for us to easily switch. Litecoin has the best combination of economic size and technical similarity to bitcoin. On Litecoin, transaction fees are only a few cents. This means users can comfortably load only $1 onto our network while still paying negligible fees. This is a radically lower barrier to entry compared to $100 for bitcoin. Litecoin is one hundred times better for our application today than bitcoin. Ryan X. Charles, Yours
Both coins are based on "Proof of Work" concept The coin rewarding functionality of both Bitcoin and Litecoin are based on the concept of proof of work, though their algorithms differ. Bitcoin is using SHA-256 and Litecoin is using scrypt algorithm. SHA-256 is a complex algorithm and data block processing with SHA-256 possess slower—transaction turnaround times with less room for error. Successful mining of coins using SHA-256 requires hash rates at the giga hashes per second range or higher which means miners need high performing ASIC chips. Scrypt is simpler and it is is much easier to run on GPUs, and tends to use up less energy than using SHA-256.
Future Outlook for Litecoin Litecoin is more adaptive to technical up-scaling If we compare the history and road-map of Bitcoin and Litecoin, it is evident that the later has been well ahead in adapting new improvement plans. Segwit is already activated in Litecoin without any political doldrums. The founder Charlee Lee has joined back at Litecoin foundation after his stint in coinbase. The team behind Litecoin is now working on Lightning network and adding smart contracts. Once implemented successfully, these two projects can change the future of Litecoin. Lightning Network I believe Litecoin will be the first crypto to implement lightning network which would increase the scalability of transactions. Ind is one of the implementations which is in the final stages and expected to complete in next 6 months. Once lightning network is implemented, the number of transactions per second can grow to millions. Smart Contracts The future road-map of Litecoin shows its interest in anonymous smart contracts. Smart crypt vault is one of the items on the roadmap Charlie Lee is excited about. The technology combines MAST (Merkelized abstract syntax trees) and covenants – script combinations that restrict how coins are spent. The team is expecting a positive outcome in this month on this as per Charlie's tweet. Conclusion Charlee Lee introduced Litecoin as "silver crypto currency" when Bitcoin took the name of "Crypto gold". If we understand the fundamental logic behind both the coins, we don't need rocket science knowledge or high IQ to understand the fact that Litecoin is heavily undervalued. The ideal price of Litecoin is ultimately pegged with 1/4th of Bitcoin price. This is by the simple calculation of supply of coins, 21 million vs 84 million. According to google keyword search, Litecoin is still not in limelight like Bitcoin or Ethereum. This can change in near future and both the coins can compliment each other on a long run.
"Litecoin versus Bitcoin is like Facebook versus Google Plus," says Lee. "It would be hard for Plus to overtake Facebook. But if something catastrophic happens to Bitcoin, I could see Litecoin positioned to overtake it." Charlee Lee, Litecoin founder
I am not sure how much Bitcoin is overvalued or undervalued. But I am sure that Litecoin is undervalued when compared with Bitcoin. One final question to my readers, If Visa and Mastercard can co-exit and supplement each other, why not Bitcoin and Litecoin??
“Price Is What You Pay, Value Is What You Get”~Warren Buffett
The only factor that differentiate Bitcoin with Litecoin is its popularity. But the catch up rally is awaiting and it is not so far. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article..
It is time to usher in a new phase of Bitcoin development - based not on crypto & hashing & networking (that stuff's already done), but based on clever refactorings of datastructures in pursuit of massive and perhaps unlimited new forms of scaling
Debates among devs are normal and important. Debates between programmers are the epitome of decentralized development and as such they are arguably the most important mechanism that will ensure the ongoing success of the Bitcoin (or cryptocurrencies) project. Therefore, we would be wise to encourage such debates, rather than trying to make them go away by calling them "personal attacks". In the real world, there aren't a whole lot of different ways to hammer a nail into a board or pour cement into a hole - but in the abstract world of mathematics and programming, there are many, many different ways to represent and manipulate a data structure, limited only by our imaginations, so it is actually appropriate to expect and even demand lots of jostling and critiquing from our programmers as they "try to invent a better mousetrap." In fact, this is the kind of informal jockeying and shop talk that always has gone on and always will go on among mathematicians and programmers - and quite rightly so, because it is precisely the mechanism whereby they maintain order among their ranks, by making subtle and cogent observations about who knows what. A famous example of this typical sort of jockeying and shop talk can be seen elsewhere in the ongoing debates between programmers of the "procedural" / "object-oriented" school (C/C++, Java) versus the "functional" school (Haskell, ML). It's always quite an eye-opener for a procedural programmer who's been using "loops" all their life, when they finally discover how to use an "iterator" in functional programming. They both "accomplish" the same thing of course - but in radically and subtly different ways, since an iterator in a functional language is a "first-class citizen" which can be passed around as an argument parameterizing a function, etc. - allowing much more compact and expressive (and sometimes even more efficient) code. Different Bitcoin dev skill sets are required for different stages of Bitcoin's life cycle An example of the debate between various devs can be seen here:
It is "clear that Greg Maxwell actually has a fairly superficial understanding of large swaths of computer science, information theory, physics and mathematics."- Dr. Peter Rizun (managing editor of the journal Ledger)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xok2o/it_is_clear_that_greg_maxwell_unullc_actually_has/ What Peter R is saying here is simply that a different skill set is needed to usefully contribute to Bitcoin development now that it has moved well beyond its "proof-of-concept and initial rollout" stages (hey, this thing actually works) and is now trying to move into its "massive scaling" stages (let's try to roll this thing out to millions or billions of people). Bitcoin's "proof-of-concept and initial rollout" stages Initially, during the "proof-of-concept and initial rollout" stages, the skill set that was required to be a "Bitcoin dev" merely involved knowing enough cryptography, hashing, networking, "game theory", rudimentary economics, and C/C++ programming in order to be able to understand Satoshi's original vision and implementation, doing some simple and obvious refactorings, cleanups and optimizations while respecting the overall design decisions captured in the original C/C++ code, and maintaining the brilliant "game theory" incentives baked therein - the most notable of all being of course that thing which some mathematicians have taken to calling "Nakamoto Consensus" (which could be seen as a useful emerging mathematical-historical term along the lines of Nash Equilibrium, etc.) - ie, Satoshi's brilliant cobbling-together of several existing concepts from crypto and hashing and game theory and rudimentary economics in order to provide a good-enough solution to the long-standing Byzantine Generals Problem which mathematicians and programmers had heretofore (for decades) considered to be unsolvable. In particular, during the "proof-of-concept and initial rollout" stages, the crypto and hashing stuff is all pretty much done: the elliptic-curve cryptography has been decided upon (and by the way Satoshi very carefully managed to pick one of the few elliptic curves that is NSA-proof) and the various hashing algorithms (SHA, RIPE) are actually quite old from previous work, and the recipe for combining them all together has been battle-tested and it should work fine for the next few decades or so (assuming that practical quantum computing is probably not going come along on that time scale). Similar, during the "proof-of-concept and initial rollout" stages, the networking and incentives and game theory are all pretty much done: the way the mempool gets relayed, the way miners race to solve blocks while trying to minimize orphaning, and the incentives provided currently mainly by the coinbase subsidy and to be provided much later (after more halvings and/or more increases in volume and price) mainly by transaction fees - this stuff has also been decided upon, and is working well enough (within the parameters of our existing imperfect regulatory and economic landscape and networking topology, where things such as ASIC chips, cheap electricity and cooling in China, and the Great Firewall of China have come to the fore as major factors driving decisions about who mines where). Bitcoin's "massive scaling" stages Now, as we attempt to enter the "massive scaling" stage, a different skill set is required. As I've outlined above, the crypto and the hashing and the incentives are all pretty much done now - and mining has become concentrated where it's most profitable, and we are actually starting to hit the "capacity ceiling" a few times (up till now just some spam attacks and stress tests - but soon, more worryingly, possibly even with the next few months, really hitting the capacity ceiling with "real" transactions). Early scaling debates centered around blocksize And so, for the past year, we've gone through the never-ending debates on scaling - most of them focusing up till now (perhaps rather naïvely, some have argued) on the notion of "maximum blocksize", which was set at 1 MB by Satoshi as a temporary anti-spam kludge. The smallblock proponents have been claiming that pretty much all "scaling solutions" based on simply increasing the maximum blocksize could have bad effects such as decreasing the number of nodes (decreasing this important type of decentralization) or increasing the number of orphans (decreasing profits for certain miners) - so they have been quite adamant in resisting any such proposals. Meanwhile the bigblock proponents have been claiming that increased adoption (higher price and volume) should be more than enough to eventually offset / counteract any supposed decrease in node count and miner profits that might happen immediately after bigblocks would be rolled out. For the most part, both sides appear to be arguing in good faith (with the possible exception of private companies hoping to be able to peddle future, for-profit "solutions" to the "problem" of artificially scarce level-one on-chain block space - eg, Blockstream's Lightning Network) - so the battles have raged on, the community has become divided, and investors are becoming hesitant. New approaches transcending the blocksize debates In this mathematical-historical context, it is important to understand the fundamental difference in approach taken by Peter__R. He is neither arguing for smallblocks nor for bigblocks nor for a level-2 solution. He is instead (with his recently released groundbreaking paper on Subchains - not to be confused with sidechains or treechains =) sidestepping and transcending those approaches to focus on an entirely different, heretofore largely unexplored approach to the problem - the novel concept of "nested subchains":
Now, this is a new paper, and it will still undergo a lot of peer review before we can be sure that it can deliver on what it promises. But at first glance, it is very promising - not least of all because it is attacking the whole problem of "scaling" from a new and possibly highly productive angle: not involving bigblocks or smallblocks or bolt-ons (LN) but instead examining the novel possibility of decomposing the monolithic "blocks" being appended to the "chain" into some sort of "substructures" ("subchains"), in the hopes that this may permit some sort of efficiencies and economies at the network relay level. "Substructural refactoring"-based approaches So what we are seeing here is essentially a different mathematical technique being applied, for the first time, to a different part of the problem in an attempt to provide a "massive scaling" solution for Bitcoin. (I'm not sure what to call this technique - but the name "substructural refactoring" is the first thing that comes to mind.) While there had indeed been some sporadic discussions among existing devs along the lines of "weak blocks" and "subchains", this paper from Peter R is apparently the first time that anyone has made a comprehensive attempt to tie all the ideas together in a serious presentation including, in particular, detailed analysis of how subchains would dovetail with infrastructure (bandwidth and processing) constraints and miner incentives in order for this to actually work in practice. Graphs reminiscent of elasticity and equilibrium graphs from economics For example, if you skim through the PDF you'll see the kinds of graphs you often see in economics papers involving concepts such as elasticity and equilibrium and optimization (eg, a graph where there's a "gap" between two curves which we're hoping will decrease in size, or another graph where there's a descending curve and an ascending curve which intersect at some presumably optimum point). Now, you can see from the vagueness of some my arguments and illustrations above that I am by no means an expert in the mathematics and economics involved here, but am instead merely a curious bystander with only a hobbyist's understanding of these complex subjects (although a rather mature one at that, having worked most of my long and chequered career in math and programming and finance). But I am fairly confident that what we are seeing here is the emergence of a new sort of "skill set" which will be needed from the kind of Bitcoin developers who can lead us to a successful future where millions or billions of people (and perhaps also machines) are able to transact routinely and directly on the blockchain. And if a developer like Peter R wants to direct some criticism at another developer who has failed to have these insights, I think that is a natural manifestation of human ego and competitiveness which is healthy to keep these guys on their toes. A new era of Bitcoin development The time for tweaking the crypto and hashing is long past - which means that the skills of guys like nullc and petertodd may no longer as important as they were in the past. (In fact, there are entirely other objections can be raised against Peter Todd, given his proclivity for proving that he can, at the mathematical level, break systems which actually do work "good enough" by relying on constraints imposed at the "social level" - a level which PTodd evidently does not much believe in. For the most egregious example of this, see his decision to force his Opt-In (soon to become On-By-Default) Full RBF - which breaks existing "good-enough" risk mitigation practices many business had up till now relied on to profitably use zero-conf for retail.) Likewise the skills of adam3us may also not be as important as they were in the past: he is, after all, the guy who invented ecash, so he is clearly a brilliant cryptographer and pioneer cypherpunk who laid the groundwork for what Bitcoin has become today, but it is unclear whether he now has (or ever had) the vision to appreciate how big (and fast) Bitcoin can become (at "level 1" - ie, directly on the blockchain itself). In this regard, it is important to point out the serious lack of vision and optimism on the part of nullc and petertodd and adam3us:
During the cex.io 51% mining threat a few years back, petertodd publicly declared that he was selling half his Bitcoin to buy Viacoin. As it turned out, that good ole "social pressure" (which Peter Todd doesn't believe in) actually did its magic, when the community pulled together and told cex.io to get lost - which they did, and they now have only a tiny sliver of global hashpower.
When Bitcoin was first starting, around 5-6 years ago, adam3us didn't believe in it - and thus he failed to become an early adopter. Evidently even though he was able to invent much of the crypto that underlies it, he was perhaps too much of a perfectionist and/or pessimist to believe that the economics and game-theory incentives would be "good enough" for the thing to actually work in real life. So now he's probably playing catchup: drawing a salary in fiat from the backers of Blockstream, and trying to come up with a bolt-on level-2 solution with a cool name (Lightning Network), which many people are unconvinced would even work.
nullc, as Peter R has stated, does indeed turn out to have a rather "superficial" understanding of many of the fields related to Bitcoin. While he is of course quite good at the C/C++ and game theory required to maintain Bitcoin "as it was" during its "proof-of-concept and initial rollout" stages, he apparently is totally lacking in the kind of vision and imagination and know-how needed in other emerging areas of mathematics and programming and economics which will be needed to usher Bitcoin into its "massive scaling" stages. This is not to disparage his contributions, which have been significant. But the kind of tunnel-vision and divisiveness he has displayed - where it's either my way or the highway - is probably not the kind of thing which will help Bitcoin transcend its current scaling debates based on smallblocks versus bigblocks plus Lightning Network. All of those approaches may be dead-ends, and entirely new and fresh perspectives may be required now.
gavinandresen, while being a pragmatist in favor of rolling out bigblocks as soon as needed to avoid the system clogging up and dying, is also a visionary who is able to understand many of these newer approaches - in fact, he has been involved in several approaches dealing with novel ways of building and relaying blocks, such as IBLT (Inverted Bloom Lookup Tables) and Weak Blocks (which is part of Peter R's Subchains proposal), and he was involved as a reviewer on Peter R's current paper.
I would also like to mention (in this discussion of skill sets and overall mathematical perspectives) the brilliant work of Pieter Wuille on Segregated Witness. Somewhat similar to Peter R's new work on Subchains, Pieter Wuille's work on Segregated Witness attempts to perform subtle reorganizations and optimizations at a "substructural" level, splitting or "factoring" a block's "merkle tree" quite neatly into two separate subtrees at the top level: one top-level subtree containing the "witness" (ie, the validation info or signature for the block), and the other top-level subtree containing the rest of the data (who sent how much to whom) - which provides very natural, straightforward methods of "pruning" the data to be stored on certain types of nodes (since you can drop all the "witness" or validation data and just keep the data on who sent what to whom), while also supporting a "refutational" style of Fraud Proofs which reduces the amount of data needed to relay on the network (by transmitting information which "proves a negative" rather than information which "proves a positive"). I have written up an appreciation of this work in more detail elsewhere.
TL;DR: Times are a-changin'. The old dev skill sets for Bitcoin's early years (crypto, hashing, networking) are becoming less important, while new dev skill sets are becoming more important (such as something one might call "substructural refactoring"). We should encourage competition as new devs emerge who have these new skill sets, because they may be the way out of the "dead end" of the blocksize-based approaches to scaling, opening up massive and perhaps unlimited new forms of "fractal-like" scaling instead.
Quark doing well in comparison to other alt coins in this article!
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2013/12/how-do-bitcoin-alternatives-stack-up/ Quote: Quarkcoin In concept, Quarkcoin (or Quark) is close to Litecoin. It has faster transaction times than Bitcoin (typically a few minutes versus an hour). Its security algorithms are much more advanced than Bitcoin and this means that normal PCs can be competitive in mining coins. Miners who buy expensive high speed machines for Quarkcoin will have much less of an advantage than those doing the same for Bitcoin. Does encryption matter? The new cryptocurrencies discussed here are based on Bitcoin but all have added tweaks which may make them better technologies in the longer term. For now Bitcoin is by far the biggest with about $US12 billion value which is some 16 times bigger than its nearest rival Litecoin. Bitcoin is also a proven technology that has withstood the acid test of many hacking attacks. In the long-term, a concern is the weakness of the SHA-2 encryption algorithm which is the basis of all cryptocurrencies above, with the exception of Quarkcoin. For now it appears impossible to crack but who knows what the amazing computer power of security agencies can do now, and what commodity computers will do in five years time. Quarkcoin may be the better long-term bet with its superior security algorithms and faster transaction times.
Doge is up? Why not use Doge to secure more Doge so you can Doge while you Doge while spending Doge?
Seeing all these posts about spending some Doge while it's on its way to the moon, and I totally agree. So why not spend some on some more possible rocket fuel for launch? It seems like a great idea to use this price bump to get some more hash rate aimed at generating buy pressure on Doge long term. I tried looking for any other vendors that were currently accepting Doge straight up, but could only find the two so if anyone else knows more off hand please comment! GAWMiners Have a few different options, like a SHA-256 miner to just straight up mine bitcoin, versus a few other miners that appear to be primarily Scrypt. Appears to be a set it and forget it type set up where you pick the Hashlet based on the pool you want it to mine on. They have a more enthusiast version that apparently lets you set more functions, but it's more expensive. Everything SEEMS to pay out in Bitcoin, so would only require setting up some sort of auto-sell script, or just do it manually every day or so. DrDoge Has a few miner projects that aren't very far away from finishing, but the most comparable to the Hashlet setup would be the Dogehash thing. Full disclosure, I bought a couple of MH a few days ago before the uptick because I thought it was a good idea. These guys seem to have been around the community a decent amount, pay out directly in Doge, and only seem to take Doge as their primary payment method. Seems like it would be a bit easier since it would be doing the conversion for you, on the negative side it seems to be slightly more expensive per MH. Either way, I think either of these companies is probably reputable enough to give a whirl and I think this could be a great way to help keep that rocket moving in the coming weeks and months.
Producing SHA-1 collisions is not that easy. It seems reasonable that the attack with has been described on SHA-1 really works with an average cost of 2 61, much faster than the generic birthday attack (which is in 2 80), but still quite difficult (doable, but expensive).. That being said, we do not really know what makes hash functions resistant (see for instance this answer for a detailed ... Algorithm SHA-256 Cryptocurrencies work on a consensus algorithm (proof type) that lets those using the network reach an agreement about which transactions can be trusted.Different cryptocurrencies use different proof types with the most widely-used being Proof of Work (PoW). Almost all the bitcoin ASIC chips generally can only be used for bitcoin mining and are tailored for the bitcoin mining algorithm (SHA-256). Other non-bitcoin specific ASIC chips are used for the mining of different cryptocurrencies based on their various mining algorithms such as Ethereum (Ethash algorithm), Litecoin (Scrypt) and Dash (X11). Many consider Bitcoin’s SHA-256 algorithm more complex than Litecoin’s Scrypt, which therefore allows for a higher degree of parallel processing. Bitcoin miners have built sophisticated methods to mine bitcoins at a highly efficient rate. The most dominant method uses ASICs–Application-Specific Integrated Circuits. SHA-1 is a 160-bit hash. SHA-2 is actually a “family” of hashes and comes in a variety of lengths, the most popular being 256-bit. The variety of SHA-2 hashes can lead to a bit of confusion, as websites and authors express them differently. If you see “SHA-2,” “SHA-256” or “SHA-256 bit,” those names are referring to the same thing.
Bitcoin Vault Desktop Wallet Tutorial - English - YouTube
Here is a detailed walkthrough of why the strength of the hash function used to sign the certificates is very important and why SHA-1 is being phased out in ... 👇🏻Support the channel by using my affiliate links below👇🏻 Exchanges I'm using: Coinbase FIAT https://www.coinbase.com/join/59398125002bcc03276297d6 Bin... Bitcoin and Ethereum are the 2 largest cryptocurrencies by market cap for the most part of the last few years. Many people try to compare them but most of th... Roger Ver debates two blockstream and bitcoin core supporters at the Huobi Carnival in Korea. Remember to subscribe and hit the bell "" icon to get notifications: https://www.youtube.com ... Start trading Bitcoin and cryptocurrency here: http://bit.ly/2Vptr2X Bitcoin is the first decentralized digital currency. All Bitcoin transactions are docume...