Bitcoin is now harder to mine than ever before - so is it ...

06-03 10:44 - 'It's not worth it, the miners (transaction fee) on BTC is ~$4! Check out Bitcoin Cash ([link]). It's the real Bitcoin. It's meant to be used as a currency, that's why the fees are in the pennies.' by /u/coin4coin removed from /r/Bitcoin within 654-664min

'''
It's not worth it, the miners (transaction fee) on BTC is ~$4! Check out Bitcoin Cash ([link]1 ). It's the real Bitcoin. It's meant to be used as a currency, that's why the fees are in the pennies.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: coin4coin
1: bitco*n.**m
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

I hate to say it but even those old GPU miners are worth starting up to make some money no matter how much electricity you use. /r/Bitcoin

I hate to say it but even those old GPU miners are worth starting up to make some money no matter how much electricity you use. /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Why Amaury's stunt is clever, why it's a potentially recurring problem, and what can be done about it

TLDR: this isn't an Amaury problem, it's an incentive problem. If BCH splits and the ABC token retains even some residual value, then we're likely to see future "IFP splits" in other tokens and possibly BCH again.
Here's my take on The Amaury Situation.
I think he wants to get out of dealing with BCH and leading the ABC team. I think he's over it. I think he wants to go do something different.
He could quit and walk away. But why do that, when he could create a perpetual income stream for himself as well?
"Dead" coins hold value
A lot of people here seem to think the ABC split will be worthless. I disagree. It will have significant value:
Let's assume ABC is only worth $20. Even under this assumption, Amaury stands to get $10 every ten minutes in perpetuity - for doing absolutely nothing. That's $60/hr. (x 24 hours, or $1440/day) in mail money. That's a decent wage - a perpetual income stream (annuity) - with literally no work required.
But I think $20 is super low. Tokens strangely hold value long after the token appears dead. For example LTC is still worth about $50 - and that's AFTER it's champion announced it was a dead project and all the devs left (and LTC is much less scarce than BCH). FFS even BSV is worth $150 and the entire cryptosphere agrees its a scamtoken run by a con artist.
If LTC and BSV can do it, so can ABC. I predict ABC token will hold significant value.
If the ABC token can hold $50/coin, then Amaury looks to collect $150/hr. (x24 hrs - $3600/day). If it can hold $100/coin, then Amaury gets $300/hr (x24 hrs - ie $7200/day).
But even if it drops to $10/token, he still gets $720 every day.
For doing nothing.
Why is this a problem
This is a serious problem with our incentives. If he succeeds, Amaury will have piloted a repeatable exit-scam recipe for any reference implementation.
"Tired of supporting your halfass token and ragtag devs? Here's an easy escape hatch! Just create a version that pays you a nice annuity, let the token split, and retire with your annuity."
That's the problem. Amaury doesn't have to keep the ticker. He just has to successfully split the token into two tradeable tokens, and he wins his annuity.
What can be done
I'm not sure. I want Amaury to lose here. I want him to get zero annuity. I want to send a clear signal to the next Amaury that splitting the token in order to collect your annuity is a losing strategy.
But I can't see how to accomplish this.
One way would be to attack his chain through reorgs. But there is no direct incentive for miners to do this. And I don't support the notion that "bitcoin works because miners attack chains they don't support."
Another would be to try to drive the value of his token to zero. But that's basically impossible. I think it will be very hard to drive the value of his token even to $20. And at even $20 he gets a nice little annuity. Not a get rich quick scheme by any stretch, but still, it'll pay for a nice mortgage. I know I wouldn't turn down the chance to get an extra grand per day of mail money. So even at $20/token, Amaury will have demonstrated that his easy retirement plan will work. We need $2/token if we want to declare his strategy an unqualified failure. We can't.
And the problem here is that if/when BCHN (or anyone else) becomes the reference client, then its leaders will have the exact same incentive to cause a split when they're tired of managing the project and want out.
Conclusion
Amaury has surfaced a possible gaping vulnerability in the incentive system which creates a perverse incentive to continually create "IFP" type splits. This vulnerability exists in all bitcoin-like tokens. Unless we can find a way to completely block Amaury from his expected revenue stream, he will be setting a precedence that we can expect to see repeated on other tokens and possibly even on BCH again one day.
Edit: I wanted to point out that dskloet has reminded us there is a third option, and that is that instead of allowing Amaury to split the coin, we can soft-fork ABC in such a way that ABC considers the blocks to be valid, but the IFP funds are unusable. The obvious way to do this (as dskloet pointed out) is to blacklist the IFP address. But blacklisting has its own consequences. Another way to do this might be to do something like make the coins sent to that address "unmovable" so that ABC clients will see the blocks paying to IFP and therefore valid, but he can't spend the money.
Edit: to clarify
What's the difference between blacklisting and making the coins unmovable? Isn't that exactly what blacklisting is?
Blacklisting means not accepting transactions from address X.
I propose instead sending "fake coins" to address X. Like putting slugs into a coin-op machine. The machine owner can still try to spend the slugs, but nobody will take them. But the machine owner can still spend any valid tokens spent in the machine.
submitted by jessquit to btc [link] [comments]

All ideas seem to be back on the table again: miner validated tokens, shortening the blocktime etc

Bitcoin Unlimited member Andrew Stone is arguing for his proposal group for miner validated tokens again in his latest read.cash article "BCH: Looking back and Moving forward" . Now under the initiative of George Donnelly, and supported by Jonathan Toomim, there's discussion again around shortening the blocktime on Bitcoin Cash.
Not that these aspects of the protocol are sacred but these things sound an awful lot like discussion already thoroughly had in 2018. As far as I'm concerned the takeaway was pretty decisively that miner validated tokens were not worth the tradeoff and hence SLP became the main BCH tokenspecification. If we were to change course on that now that would literally set BCH back two years. The takeaway on decreasing the blocktime (for me) was that it could not meaningfully improve the user experience and that pre-consensus was the correct way address the underlying problem. Make fun of roadmaps and stable protocol for businesses all you want but I think it's pretty sad, just like with the DAA, that BCH can't move forward and instead is resolving 2017 problems for the third time.
In the spirit of the IFP I only want to add this: You know who decreased blocktimes? Zcash, and now they're number 30 on coinmarketcap.
submitted by Mr-Zwets to btc [link] [comments]

Proposal: The Sia Foundation

Vision Statement

A common sentiment is brewing online; a shared desire for the internet that might have been. After decades of corporate encroachment, you don't need to be a power user to realize that something has gone very wrong.
In the early days of the internet, the future was bright. In that future, when you sent an instant message, it traveled directly to the recipient. When you needed to pay a friend, you announced a transfer of value to their public key. When an app was missing a feature you wanted, you opened up the source code and implemented it. When you took a picture on your phone, it was immediately encrypted and backed up to storage that you controlled. In that future, people would laugh at the idea of having to authenticate themselves to some corporation before doing these things.
What did we get instead? Rather than a network of human-sized communities, we have a handful of enormous commons, each controlled by a faceless corporate entity. Hey user, want to send a message? You can, but we'll store a copy of it indefinitely, unencrypted, for our preference-learning algorithms to pore over; how else could we slap targeted ads on every piece of content you see? Want to pay a friend? You can—in our Monopoly money. Want a new feature? Submit a request to our Support Center and we'll totally maybe think about it. Want to backup a photo? You can—inside our walled garden, which only we (and the NSA, of course) can access. Just be careful what you share, because merely locking you out of your account and deleting all your data is far from the worst thing we could do.
You rationalize this: "MEGACORP would never do such a thing; it would be bad for business." But we all know, at some level, that this state of affairs, this inversion of power, is not merely "unfortunate" or "suboptimal" – No. It is degrading. Even if MEGACORP were purely benevolent, it is degrading that we must ask its permission to talk to our friends; that we must rely on it to safeguard our treasured memories; that our digital lives are completely beholden to those who seek only to extract value from us.
At the root of this issue is the centralization of data. MEGACORP can surveil you—because your emails and video chats flow through their servers. And MEGACORP can control you—because they hold your data hostage. But centralization is a solution to a technical problem: How can we make the user's data accessible from anywhere in the world, on any device? For a long time, no alternative solution to this problem was forthcoming.
Today, thanks to a confluence of established techniques and recent innovations, we have solved the accessibility problem without resorting to centralization. Hashing, encryption, and erasure encoding got us most of the way, but one barrier remained: incentives. How do you incentivize an anonymous stranger to store your data? Earlier protocols like BitTorrent worked around this limitation by relying on altruism, tit-for-tat requirements, or "points" – in other words, nothing you could pay your electric bill with. Finally, in 2009, a solution appeared: Bitcoin. Not long after, Sia was born.
Cryptography has unleashed the latent power of the internet by enabling interactions between mutually-distrustful parties. Sia harnesses this power to turn the cloud storage market into a proper marketplace, where buyers and sellers can transact directly, with no intermediaries, anywhere in the world. No more silos or walled gardens: your data is encrypted, so it can't be spied on, and it's stored on many servers, so no single entity can hold it hostage. Thanks to projects like Sia, the internet is being re-decentralized.
Sia began its life as a startup, which means it has always been subjected to two competing forces: the ideals of its founders, and the profit motive inherent to all businesses. Its founders have taken great pains to never compromise on the former, but this often threatened the company's financial viability. With the establishment of the Sia Foundation, this tension is resolved. The Foundation, freed of the obligation to generate profit, is a pure embodiment of the ideals from which Sia originally sprung.
The goals and responsibilities of the Foundation are numerous: to maintain core Sia protocols and consensus code; to support developers building on top of Sia and its protocols; to promote Sia and facilitate partnerships in other spheres and communities; to ensure that users can easily acquire and safely store siacoins; to develop network scalability solutions; to implement hardforks and lead the community through them; and much more. In a broader sense, its mission is to commoditize data storage, making it cheap, ubiquitous, and accessible to all, without compromising privacy or performance.
Sia is a perfect example of how we can achieve better living through cryptography. We now begin a new chapter in Sia's history. May our stewardship lead it into a bright future.
 

Overview

Today, we are proposing the creation of the Sia Foundation: a new non-profit entity that builds and supports distributed cloud storage infrastructure, with a specific focus on the Sia storage platform. What follows is an informal overview of the Sia Foundation, covering two major topics: how the Foundation will be funded, and what its funds will be used for.

Organizational Structure

The Sia Foundation will be structured as a non-profit entity incorporated in the United States, likely a 501(c)(3) organization or similar. The actions of the Foundation will be constrained by its charter, which formalizes the specific obligations and overall mission outlined in this document. The charter will be updated on an annual basis to reflect the current goals of the Sia community.
The organization will be operated by a board of directors, initially comprising Luke Champine as President and Eddie Wang as Chairman. Luke Champine will be leaving his position at Nebulous to work at the Foundation full-time, and will seek to divest his shares of Nebulous stock along with other potential conflicts of interest. Neither Luke nor Eddie personally own any siafunds or significant quantities of siacoin.

Funding

The primary source of funding for the Foundation will come from a new block subsidy. Following a hardfork, 30 KS per block will be allocated to the "Foundation Fund," continuing in perpetuity. The existing 30 KS per block miner reward is not affected. Additionally, one year's worth of block subsidies (approximately 1.57 GS) will be allocated to the Fund immediately upon activation of the hardfork.
As detailed below, the Foundation will provably burn any coins that it cannot meaningfully spend. As such, the 30 KS subsidy should be viewed as a maximum. This allows the Foundation to grow alongside Sia without requiring additional hardforks.
The Foundation will not be funded to any degree by the possession or sale of siafunds. Siafunds were originally introduced as a means of incentivizing growth, and we still believe in their effectiveness: a siafund holder wants to increase the amount of storage on Sia as much as possible. While the Foundation obviously wants Sia to succeed, its driving force should be its charter. Deriving significant revenue from siafunds would jeopardize the Foundation's impartiality and focus. Ultimately, we want the Foundation to act in the best interests of Sia, not in growing its own budget.

Responsibilities

The Foundation inherits a great number of responsibilities from Nebulous. Each quarter, the Foundation will publish the progress it has made over the past quarter, and list the responsibilities it intends to prioritize over the coming quarter. This will be accompanied by a financial report, detailing each area of expenditure over the past quarter, and forecasting expenditures for the coming quarter. Below, we summarize some of the myriad responsibilities towards which the Foundation is expected to allocate its resources.

Maintain and enhance core Sia software

Arguably, this is the most important responsibility of the Foundation. At the heart of Sia is its consensus algorithm: regardless of other differences, all Sia software must agree upon the content and rules of the blockchain. It is therefore crucial that the algorithm be stewarded by an entity that is accountable to the community, transparent in its decision-making, and has no profit motive or other conflicts of interest.
Accordingly, Sia’s consensus functionality will no longer be directly maintained by Nebulous. Instead, the Foundation will release and maintain an implementation of a "minimal Sia full node," comprising the Sia consensus algorithm and P2P networking code. The source code will be available in a public repository, and signed binaries will be published for each release.
Other parties may use this code to provide alternative full node software. For example, Nebulous may extend the minimal full node with wallet, renter, and host functionality. The source code of any such implementation may be submitted to the Foundation for review. If the code passes review, the Foundation will provide "endorsement signatures" for the commit hash used and for binaries compiled internally by the Foundation. Specifically, these signatures assert that the Foundation believes the software contains no consensus-breaking changes or other modifications to imported Foundation code. Endorsement signatures and Foundation-compiled binaries may be displayed and distributed by the receiving party, along with an appropriate disclaimer.
A minimal full node is not terribly useful on its own; the wallet, renter, host, and other extensions are what make Sia a proper developer platform. Currently, the only implementations of these extensions are maintained by Nebulous. The Foundation will contract Nebulous to ensure that these extensions continue to receive updates and enhancements. Later on, the Foundation intends to develop its own implementations of these extensions and others. As with the minimal node software, these extensions will be open source and available in public repositories for use by any Sia node software.
With the consensus code now managed by the Foundation, the task of implementing and orchestrating hardforks becomes its responsibility as well. When the Foundation determines that a hardfork is necessary (whether through internal discussion or via community petition), a formal proposal will be drafted and submitted for public review, during which arguments for and against the proposal may be submitted to a public repository. During this time, the hardfork code will be implemented, either by Foundation employees or by external contributors working closely with the Foundation. Once the implementation is finished, final arguments will be heard. The Foundation board will then vote whether to accept or reject the proposal, and announce their decision along with appropriate justification. Assuming the proposal was accepted, the Foundation will announce the block height at which the hardfork will activate, and will subsequently release source code and signed binaries that incorporate the hardfork code.
Regardless of the Foundation's decision, it is the community that ultimately determines whether a fork is accepted or rejected – nothing can change that. Foundation node software will never automatically update, so all forks must be explicitly adopted by users. Furthermore, the Foundation will provide replay and wipeout protection for its hard forks, protecting other chains from unintended or malicious reorgs. Similarly, the Foundation will ensure that any file contracts formed prior to a fork activation will continue to be honored on both chains until they expire.
Finally, the Foundation also intends to pursue scalability solutions for the Sia blockchain. In particular, work has already begun on an implementation of Utreexo, which will greatly reduce the space requirements of fully-validating nodes (allowing a full node to be run on a smartphone) while increasing throughput and decreasing initial sync time. A hardfork implementing Utreexo will be submitted to the community as per the process detailed above.
As this is the most important responsibility of the Foundation, it will receive a significant portion of the Foundation’s budget, primarily in the form of developer salaries and contracting agreements.

Support community services

We intend to allocate 25% of the Foundation Fund towards the community. This allocation will be held and disbursed in the form of siacoins, and will pay for grants, bounties, hackathons, and other community-driven endeavours.
Any community-run service, such as a Skynet portal, explorer or web wallet, may apply to have its costs covered by the Foundation. Upon approval, the Foundation will reimburse expenses incurred by the service, subject to the exact terms agreed to. The intent of these grants is not to provide a source of income, but rather to make such services "break even" for their operators, so that members of the community can enrich the Sia ecosystem without worrying about the impact on their own finances.

Ensure easy acquisition and storage of siacoins

Most users will acquire their siacoins via an exchange. The Foundation will provide support to Sia-compatible exchanges, and pursue relevant integrations at its discretion, such as Coinbase's new Rosetta standard. The Foundation may also release DEX software that enables trading cryptocurrencies without the need for a third party. (The Foundation itself will never operate as a money transmitter.)
Increasingly, users are storing their cryptocurrency on hardware wallets. The Foundation will maintain the existing Ledger Nano S integration, and pursue further integrations at its discretion.
Of course, all hardware wallets must be paired with software running on a computer or smartphone, so the Foundation will also develop and/or maintain client-side wallet software, including both full-node wallets and "lite" wallets. Community-operated wallet services, i.e. web wallets, may be funded via grants.
Like core software maintenance, this responsibility will be funded in the form of developer salaries and contracting agreements.

Protect the ecosystem

When it comes to cryptocurrency security, patching software vulnerabilities is table stakes; there are significant legal and social threats that we must be mindful of as well. As such, the Foundation will earmark a portion of its fund to defend the community from legal action. The Foundation will also safeguard the network from 51% attacks and other threats to network security by implementing softforks and/or hardforks where necessary.
The Foundation also intends to assist in the development of a new FOSS software license, and to solicit legal memos on various Sia-related matters, such as hosting in the United States and the EU.
In a broader sense, the establishment of the Foundation makes the ecosystem more robust by transferring core development to a more neutral entity. Thanks to its funding structure, the Foundation will be immune to various forms of pressure that for-profit companies are susceptible to.

Drive adoption of Sia

Although the overriding goal of the Foundation is to make Sia the best platform it can be, all that work will be in vain if no one uses the platform. There are a number of ways the Foundation can promote Sia and get it into the hands of potential users and developers.
In-person conferences are understandably far less popular now, but the Foundation can sponsor and/or participate in virtual conferences. (In-person conferences may be held in the future, permitting circumstances.) Similarly, the Foundation will provide prizes for hackathons, which may be organized by community members, Nebulous, or the Foundation itself. Lastly, partnerships with other companies in the cryptocurrency space—or the cloud storage space—are a great way to increase awareness of Sia. To handle these responsibilities, one of the early priorities of the Foundation will be to hire a marketing director.

Fund Management

The Foundation Fund will be controlled by a multisig address. Each member of the Foundation's board will control one of the signing keys, with the signature threshold to be determined once the final composition of the board is known. (This threshold may also be increased or decreased if the number of board members changes.) Additionally, one timelocked signing key will be controlled by David Vorick. This key will act as a “dead man’s switch,” to be used in the event of an emergency that prevents Foundation board members from reaching the signature threshold. The timelock ensures that this key cannot be used unless the Foundation fails to sign a transaction for several months.
On the 1st of each month, the Foundation will use its keys to transfer all siacoins in the Fund to two new addresses. The first address will be controlled by a high-security hot wallet, and will receive approximately one month's worth of Foundation expenditures. The second address, receiving the remaining siacoins, will be a modified version of the source address: specifically, it will increase the timelock on David Vorick's signing key by one month. Any other changes to the set of signing keys, such as the arrival or departure of board members, will be incorporated into this address as well.
The Foundation Fund is allocated in SC, but many of the Foundation's expenditures must be paid in USD or other fiat currency. Accordingly, the Foundation will convert, at its discretion, a portion of its monthly withdrawals to fiat currency. We expect this conversion to be primarily facilitated by private "OTC" sales to accredited investors. The Foundation currently has no plans to speculate in cryptocurrency or other assets.
Finally, it is important that the Foundation adds value to the Sia platform well in excess of the inflation introduced by the block subsidy. For this reason, the Foundation intends to provably burn, on a quarterly basis, any coins that it cannot allocate towards any justifiable expense. In other words, coins will be burned whenever doing so provides greater value to the platform than any other use. Furthermore, the Foundation will cap its SC treasury at 5% of the total supply, and will cap its USD treasury at 4 years’ worth of predicted expenses.
 
Addendum: Hardfork Timeline
We would like to see this proposal finalized and accepted by the community no later than September 30th. A new version of siad, implementing the hardfork, will be released no later than October 15th. The hardfork will activate at block 293220, which is expected to occur around 12pm EST on January 1st, 2021.
 
Addendum: Inflation specifics
The total supply of siacoins as of January 1st, 2021 will be approximately 45.243 GS. The initial subsidy of 1.57 GS thus increases the supply by 3.47%, and the total annual inflation in 2021 will be at most 10.4% (if zero coins are burned). In 2022, total annual inflation will be at most 6.28%, and will steadily decrease in subsequent years.
 

Conclusion

We see the establishment of the Foundation as an important step in the maturation of the Sia project. It provides the ecosystem with a sustainable source of funding that can be exclusively directed towards achieving Sia's ambitious goals. Compared to other projects with far deeper pockets, Sia has always punched above its weight; once we're on equal footing, there's no telling what we'll be able to achieve.
Nevertheless, we do not propose this change lightly, and have taken pains to ensure that the Foundation will act in accordance with the ideals that this community shares. It will operate transparently, keep inflation to a minimum, and respect the user's fundamental role in decentralized systems. We hope that everyone in the community will consider this proposal carefully, and look forward to a productive discussion.
submitted by lukechampine to siacoin [link] [comments]

Paul Mampilly's Secret Portfolio Guesses?

I sat thru an hour plus long video expecting to get some new ticker symbols for Paul's secret portfolio. He said in his email that he would provide "an opportunity to get the names for the ticker symbols". I should've read that closer as that means he was not going to provide them without a catch. This is a subscription that Paul charges $5k for. While I am a subscriber to his "Profits Unlimited", and have been satisfied with the results so far, I couldn’t afford the subscription if I wanted to.
I took notes on the video and tried to get as much detail as I could (which is tough because he doesn't allow you to rewind or navigate the video in the interface he shows it on). I did research and think I found a couple, but I was hoping you guys confirm and potentially help identify any of these stocks that he personally invests in.
I tried to type up what I saw from some of these stocks…
Graphene stocks...
  1. Graphene can filter ocean water in a single use, stop rust with graphene infused paint, and can detect cancer in the human body. He mentions gains by G6, Talga Resources, and Tunghsu Optoelectronic (so it can be assumed it's not one of these). Paul predicts Graphene industry to be 13x it's size by 2027. The company he mentions is developing a graphene-based powder that can strengthen any substance. they are a mining company based in Australia. They are also developing a new graphene-powered battery which could charge a phone in 1-2 minutes and electric vehicles in 5. After researching, I believe this is FGPHF. Let me know if you think different.
  2. An offshoot of one of the largest industrial firms in Canada. Canada’s federal government is investing in it. A “tiny” company now that commissioned it’s first large-scale production facility with a production line that is 100% automated. This one I'm not sure of.
Blockchain Stocks...
  1. Blockchain stock. Soared 26,000% just for "adding blockchain to it’s name” and Paul thinks it will keep growing. I assume he is referring to the bitcoin boom in 2017. Paul states he thinks Bitcoin will hit $1mil in his lifetime. Not much detail here. Quick google search shows: Riot Blockchain, Hive Blockchain, and Long Blockchain Corp. One of these maybe?
  2. This stock is one of the leading crypto miners in the world and the company’s revenues grew 66% last year. Not much info here.
Global energy storage market…
  1. 13x growth by 2030. Paul likes an energy storage firm that is developing a new type of battery that can last 20-25 years minimum. Flow battery company with a current value of about $30 million. They’ve done a 180 and are putting everything into a niche corner of the battery market. Completed their first full battery system 2 years ago. Company plans to provide batteries for telecom towers and is expanding into China, New Zealand, and Australia.
  2. Company based out of France. A renewable powerhouse that owns over 100 power plants. Completed 7 renewable power plants last year and have another 10 in the works. Recently bought out another company operating 95 power plants and are expanding into Brazil, Mexico, Egypt, South Africa. Company has goal to increase energy output by 570% by 2023. I'm not sure about either of these companies.
Biotech..
  1. Biotech….Paul extremely bullish stating this could eleminate cancer, diabetes and other diseases in this decade. A French biopharmaceutical company with 8 cancer-killing drugs in its pipeline. Is able to take T-cells (white blood cells) and transform them into cancer killers. In a study, 30 patients with lymphoblastic leukemia were given this treatment. Within weeks, 27 of them were in remission. This company partnered with Pfizer. Worth under $1 billion and generates less than $50 billion in revenue. If one of the eight drugs in it’s pipeline reaches the commercialization phase, it will receive up to $2.8 billion from it’s partners. I believe this is Cellectis (CLLS).
  2. A leader in the use of psychoactive drugs for medical purposes. Wants to design drugs for international use. Recently brought in Canada’s top depression expert as CEO. One of it’s directors is a former law enforcement officer with 35 years experience in drug trafficking. I believe this is Champignon (SHRMF).
SPAC (Special-Purpose Acquisition Company)
  1. Innovation on how companies go public. Monopolizing one of the fastest-growing entertainment markets in the world. Currently holds 60% market share. (Could soar 30k+ percent). Not sure, perhaps PSTH?
  2. Another SPAC. A "pure play on American Infrastructure" with 90% recurring business. Again, not much information so I'm not sure on these ones.
Please let me know if you are able to find anything out and if you have opinions on any of the stocks, feel free to share em!
Tldr: I got clues on 10 stocks from an expensive subscription service I can’t afford. Any help identifying the stocks 1-10 above is much appreciated!
submitted by domyorke to investing [link] [comments]

Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?

This is a follow-up on https://old.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hqzp14/technical_the_path_to_taproot_activation/
Taproot! Everybody wants it!! But... you might ask yourself: sure, everybody else wants it, but why would I, sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, want it? Surely I can be better than everybody else because I swapped XXX fiat for Bitcoin unlike all those nocoiners?
And it is important for you to know the reasons why you, o sovereign Bitcoiner, would want Taproot activated. After all, your nodes (or the nodes your wallets use, which if you are SPV, you hopefully can pester to your wallet vendoimplementor about) need to be upgraded in order for Taproot activation to actually succeed instead of becoming a hot sticky mess.
First, let's consider some principles of Bitcoin.
I'm sure most of us here would agree that the above are very important principles of Bitcoin and that these are principles we would not be willing to remove. If anything, we would want those principles strengthened (especially the last one, financial privacy, which current Bitcoin is only sporadically strong with: you can get privacy, it just requires effort to do so).
So, how does Taproot affect those principles?

Taproot and Your /Coins

Most HODLers probably HODL their coins in singlesig addresses. Sadly, switching to Taproot would do very little for you (it gives a mild discount at spend time, at the cost of a mild increase in fee at receive time (paid by whoever sends to you, so if it's a self-send from a P2PKH or bech32 address, you pay for this); mostly a wash).
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash, so the Taproot output spends 12 bytes more; spending from a P2WPKH requires revealing a 32-byte public key later, which is not needed with Taproot, and Taproot signatures are about 9 bytes smaller than P2WPKH signatures, but the 32 bytes plus 9 bytes is divided by 4 because of the witness discount, so it saves about 11 bytes; mostly a wash, it increases blockweight by about 1 virtual byte, 4 weight for each Taproot-output-input, compared to P2WPKH-output-input).
However, as your HODLings grow in value, you might start wondering if multisignature k-of-n setups might be better for the security of your savings. And it is in multisignature that Taproot starts to give benefits!
Taproot switches to using Schnorr signing scheme. Schnorr makes key aggregation -- constructing a single public key from multiple public keys -- almost as trivial as adding numbers together. "Almost" because it involves some fairly advanced math instead of simple boring number adding, but hey when was the last time you added up your grocery list prices by hand huh?
With current P2SH and P2WSH multisignature schemes, if you have a 2-of-3 setup, then to spend, you need to provide two different signatures from two different public keys. With Taproot, you can create, using special moon math, a single public key that represents your 2-of-3 setup. Then you just put two of your devices together, have them communicate to each other (this can be done airgapped, in theory, by sending QR codes: the software to do this is not even being built yet, but that's because Taproot hasn't activated yet!), and they will make a single signature to authorize any spend from your 2-of-3 address. That's 73 witness bytes -- 18.25 virtual bytes -- of signatures you save!
And if you decide that your current setup with 1-of-1 P2PKH / P2WPKH addresses is just fine as-is: well, that's the whole point of a softfork: backwards-compatibility; you can receive from Taproot users just fine, and once your wallet is updated for Taproot-sending support, you can send to Taproot users just fine as well!
(P2WPKH and P2WSH -- SegWit v0 -- addresses start with bc1q; Taproot -- SegWit v1 --- addresses start with bc1p, in case you wanted to know the difference; in bech32 q is 0, p is 1)
Now how about HODLers who keep all, or some, of their coins on custodial services? Well, any custodial service worth its salt would be doing at least 2-of-3, or probably something even bigger, like 11-of-15. So your custodial service, if it switched to using Taproot internally, could save a lot more (imagine an 11-of-15 getting reduced from 11 signatures to just 1!), which --- we can only hope! --- should translate to lower fees and better customer service from your custodial service!
So I think we can say, very accurately, that the Bitcoin principle --- that YOU are in control of your money --- can only be helped by Taproot (if you are doing multisignature), and, because P2PKH and P2WPKH remain validly-usable addresses in a Taproot future, will not be harmed by Taproot. Its benefit to this principle might be small (it mostly only benefits multisignature users) but since it has no drawbacks with this (i.e. singlesig users can continue to use P2WPKH and P2PKH still) this is still a nice, tidy win!
(even singlesig users get a minor benefit, in that multisig users will now reduce their blockchain space footprint, so that fees can be kept low for everybody; so for example even if you have your single set of private keys engraved on titanium plates sealed in an airtight box stored in a safe buried in a desert protected by angry nomads riding giant sandworms because you're the frickin' Kwisatz Haderach, you still gain some benefit from Taproot)
And here's the important part: if P2PKH/P2WPKH is working perfectly fine with you and you decide to never use Taproot yourself, Taproot will not affect you detrimentally. First do no harm!

Taproot and Your Contracts

No one is an island, no one lives alone. Give and you shall receive. You know: by trading with other people, you can gain expertise in some obscure little necessity of the world (and greatly increase your productivity in that little field), and then trade the products of your expertise for necessities other people have created, all of you thereby gaining gains from trade.
So, contracts, which are basically enforceable agreements that facilitate trading with people who you do not personally know and therefore might not trust.
Let's start with a simple example. You want to buy some gewgaws from somebody. But you don't know them personally. The seller wants the money, you want their gewgaws, but because of the lack of trust (you don't know them!! what if they're scammers??) neither of you can benefit from gains from trade.
However, suppose both of you know of some entity that both of you trust. That entity can act as a trusted escrow. The entity provides you security: this enables the trade, allowing both of you to get gains from trade.
In Bitcoin-land, this can be implemented as a 2-of-3 multisignature. The three signatories in the multisgnature would be you, the gewgaw seller, and the escrow. You put the payment for the gewgaws into this 2-of-3 multisignature address.
Now, suppose it turns out neither of you are scammers (whaaaat!). You receive the gewgaws just fine and you're willing to pay up for them. Then you and the gewgaw seller just sign a transaction --- you and the gewgaw seller are 2, sufficient to trigger the 2-of-3 --- that spends from the 2-of-3 address to a singlesig the gewgaw seller wants (or whatever address the gewgaw seller wants).
But suppose some problem arises. The seller gave you gawgews instead of gewgaws. Or you decided to keep the gewgaws but not sign the transaction to release the funds to the seller. In either case, the escrow is notified, and if it can sign with you to refund the funds back to you (if the seller was a scammer) or it can sign with the seller to forward the funds to the seller (if you were a scammer).
Taproot helps with this: like mentioned above, it allows multisignature setups to produce only one signature, reducing blockchain space usage, and thus making contracts --- which require multiple people, by definition, you don't make contracts with yourself --- is made cheaper (which we hope enables more of these setups to happen for more gains from trade for everyone, also, moon and lambos).
(technology-wise, it's easier to make an n-of-n than a k-of-n, making a k-of-n would require a complex setup involving a long ritual with many communication rounds between the n participants, but an n-of-n can be done trivially with some moon math. You can, however, make what is effectively a 2-of-3 by using a three-branch SCRIPT: either 2-of-2 of you and seller, OR 2-of-2 of you and escrow, OR 2-of-2 of escrow and seller. Fortunately, Taproot adds a facility to embed a SCRIPT inside a public key, so you can have a 2-of-2 Taprooted address (between you and seller) with a SCRIPT branch that can instead be spent with 2-of-2 (you + escrow) OR 2-of-2 (seller + escrow), which implements the three-branched SCRIPT above. If neither of you are scammers (hopefully the common case) then you both sign using your keys and never have to contact the escrow, since you are just using the escrow public key without coordinating with them (because n-of-n is trivial but k-of-n requires setup with communication rounds), so in the "best case" where both of you are honest traders, you also get a privacy boost, in that the escrow never learns you have been trading on gewgaws, I mean ewww, gawgews are much better than gewgaws and therefore I now judge you for being a gewgaw enthusiast, you filthy gewgawer).

Taproot and Your Contracts, Part 2: Cryptographic Boogaloo

Now suppose you want to buy some data instead of things. For example, maybe you have some closed-source software in trial mode installed, and want to pay the developer for the full version. You want to pay for an activation code.
This can be done, today, by using an HTLC. The developer tells you the hash of the activation code. You pay to an HTLC, paying out to the developer if it reveals the preimage (the activation code), or refunding the money back to you after a pre-agreed timeout. If the developer claims the funds, it has to reveal the preimage, which is the activation code, and you can now activate your software. If the developer does not claim the funds by the timeout, you get refunded.
And you can do that, with HTLCs, today.
Of course, HTLCs do have problems:
Fortunately, with Schnorr (which is enabled by Taproot), we can now use the Scriptless Script constuction by Andrew Poelstra. This Scriptless Script allows a new construction, the PTLC or Pointlocked Timelocked Contract. Instead of hashes and preimages, just replace "hash" with "point" and "preimage" with "scalar".
Or as you might know them: "point" is really "public key" and "scalar" is really a "private key". What a PTLC does is that, given a particular public key, the pointlocked branch can be spent only if the spender reveals the private key of the given public key to you.
Another nice thing with PTLCs is that they are deniable. What appears onchain is just a single 2-of-2 signature between you and the developemanufacturer. It's like a magic trick. This signature has no special watermarks, it's a perfectly normal signature (the pledge). However, from this signature, plus some datta given to you by the developemanufacturer (known as the adaptor signature) you can derive the private key of a particular public key you both agree on (the turn). Anyone scraping the blockchain will just see signatures that look just like every other signature, and as long as nobody manages to hack you and get a copy of the adaptor signature or the private key, they cannot get the private key behind the public key (point) that the pointlocked branch needs (the prestige).
(Just to be clear, the public key you are getting the private key from, is distinct from the public key that the developemanufacturer will use for its funds. The activation key is different from the developer's onchain Bitcoin key, and it is the activation key whose private key you will be learning, not the developer's/manufacturer's onchain Bitcoin key).
So:
Taproot lets PTLCs exist onchain because they enable Schnorr, which is a requirement of PTLCs / Scriptless Script.
(technology-wise, take note that Scriptless Script works only for the "pointlocked" branch of the contract; you need normal Script, or a pre-signed nLockTimed transaction, for the "timelocked" branch. Since Taproot can embed a script, you can have the Taproot pubkey be a 2-of-2 to implement the Scriptless Script "pointlocked" branch, then have a hidden script that lets you recover the funds with an OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY after the timeout if the seller does not claim the funds.)

Quantum Quibbles!

Now if you were really paying attention, you might have noticed this parenthetical:
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash...)
So wait, Taproot uses raw 32-byte public keys, and not public key hashes? Isn't that more quantum-vulnerable??
Well, in theory yes. In practice, they probably are not.
It's not that hashes can be broken by quantum computes --- they're still not. Instead, you have to look at how you spend from a P2WPKH/P2PKH pay-to-public-key-hash.
When you spend from a P2PKH / P2WPKH, you have to reveal the public key. Then Bitcoin hashes it and checks if this matches with the public-key-hash, and only then actually validates the signature for that public key.
So an unconfirmed transaction, floating in the mempools of nodes globally, will show, in plain sight for everyone to see, your public key.
(public keys should be public, that's why they're called public keys, LOL)
And if quantum computers are fast enough to be of concern, then they are probably fast enough that, in the several minutes to several hours from broadcast to confirmation, they have already cracked the public key that is openly broadcast with your transaction. The owner of the quantum computer can now replace your unconfirmed transaction with one that pays the funds to itself. Even if you did not opt-in RBF, miners are still incentivized to support RBF on RBF-disabled transactions.
So the extra hash is not as significant a protection against quantum computers as you might think. Instead, the extra hash-and-compare needed is just extra validation effort.
Further, if you have ever, in the past, spent from the address, then there exists already a transaction indelibly stored on the blockchain, openly displaying the public key from which quantum computers can derive the private key. So those are still vulnerable to quantum computers.
For the most part, the cryptographers behind Taproot (and Bitcoin Core) are of the opinion that quantum computers capable of cracking Bitcoin pubkeys are unlikely to appear within a decade or two.
So:
For now, the homomorphic and linear properties of elliptic curve cryptography provide a lot of benefits --- particularly the linearity property is what enables Scriptless Script and simple multisignature (i.e. multisignatures that are just 1 signature onchain). So it might be a good idea to take advantage of them now while we are still fairly safe against quantum computers. It seems likely that quantum-safe signature schemes are nonlinear (thus losing these advantages).

Summary

I Wanna Be The Taprooter!

So, do you want to help activate Taproot? Here's what you, mister sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, can do!

But I Hate Taproot!!

That's fine!

Discussions About Taproot Activation

submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Taproot, CoinJoins, and Cross-Input Signature Aggregation

It is a very common misconception that the upcoming Taproot upgrade helps CoinJoin.
TLDR: The upcoming Taproot upgrade does not help equal-valued CoinJoin at all, though it potentially increases the privacy of other protocols, such as the Lightning Network, and escrow contract schemes.
If you want to learn more, read on!

Equal-valued CoinJoins

Let's start with equal-valued CoinJoins, the type JoinMarket and Wasabi use. What happens is that some number of participants agree on some common value all of them use. With JoinMarket the taker defines this value and pays the makers to agree to it, with Wasabi the server defines a value approximately 0.1 BTC.
Then, each participant provides inputs that they unilaterally control, totaling equal or greater than the common value. Typically since each input is unilaterally controlled, each input just requires a singlesig. Each participant also provides up to two addresses they control: one of these will be paid with the common value, while the other will be used for any extra value in the inputs they provided (i.e. the change output).
The participants then make a single transaction that spends all the provided inputs and pays out to the appropriate outputs. The inputs and outputs are shuffled in some secure manner. Then the unsigned transaction is distributed back to all participants.
Finally, each participant checks that the transaction spends the inputs it provided (and more importantly does not spend any other coins it might own that it did not provide for this CoinJoin!) and that the transaction pays out to the appropriate address(es) it controls. Once they have validated the transaction, they ratify it by signing for each of the inputs it provided.
Once every participant has provided signatures for all inputs it registered, the transaction is now completely signed and the CoinJoin transaction is now validly confirmable.
CoinJoin is a very simple and direct privacy boost, it requires no SCRIPTs, needs only singlesig, etc.

Privacy

Let's say we have two participants who have agreed on a common amount of 0.1 BTC. One provides a 0.105 coin as input, the other provides a 0.114 coin as input. This results in a CoinJoin with a 0.105 coin and a 0.114 coin as input, and outputs with 0.1, 0.005, 0.014, and 0.1 BTC.
Now obviously the 0.005 output came from the 0.105 input, and the 0.014 output came from the 0.114 input.
But the two 0.1 BTC outputs cannot be correlated with either input! There is no correlating information, since either output could have come from either input. That is how common CoinJoin implementations like Wasabi and JoinMarket gain privacy.

Banning CoinJoins

Unfortunately, large-scale CoinJoins like that made by Wasabi and JoinMarket are very obvious.
All you have to do is look for a transactions where, say, more than 3 outputs are the same equal value, and the number of inputs is equal or larger than the number of equal-valued outputs. Thus, it is trivial to identify equal-valued CoinJoins made by Wasabi and JoinMarket. You can even trivially differentiate them: Wasabi equal-valued CoinJoins are going to have a hundred or more inputs, with outputs that are in units of approximately 0.1 BTC, while JoinMarket CoinJoins have equal-valued outputs of less than a dozen (between 4 to 6 usually) and with the common value varying wildly from as low as 0.001 BTC to as high as a dozen BTC or more.
This has led to a number of anti-privacy exchanges to refuse to credit custodially-held accounts if the incoming deposit is within a few hops of an equal-valued CoinJoin, usually citing concerns about regulations. Crucially, the exchange continues to hold private keys for those "banned" deposits, and can still spend them, thus this is effectively a theft. If your exchange does this to you, you should report that exchange as stealing money from its customers. Not your keys not your coins.
Thus, CoinJoins represent a privacy tradeoff:

Taproot

Let's now briefly discuss that nice new shiny thing called Taproot.
Taproot includes two components:
This has some nice properties:

Taproot DOES NOT HELP CoinJoin

So let's review!
CoinJoin:
Taproot:
There is absolutely no overlap. Taproot helps things that CoinJoin does not use. CoinJoin uses things that Taproot does not improve.

B-but They Said!!

A lot of early reporting on Taproot claimed that Taproot benefits CoinJoin.
What they are confusing is that earlier drafts of Taproot included a feature called cross-input signature aggregation.
In current Bitcoin, every input, to be spent, has to be signed individually. With cross-input signature aggregation, all inputs that support this feature are signed with a single signature that covers all those inputs. So for example if you would spend two inputs, current Bitcoin requires a signature for each input, but with cross-input signature aggregation you can sign both of them with a single signature. This works even if the inputs have different public keys: two inputs with cross-input signature aggregation effectively define a 2-of-2 public key, and you can only sign for that input if you know the private keys for both inputs, or if you are cooperatively signing with somebody who knows the private key of the other input.
This helps CoinJoin costs. Since CoinJoins will have lots of inputs (each participant will provide at least one, and probably will provide more, and larger participant sets are better for more privacy in CoinJoin), if all of them enabled cross-input signature aggregation, such large CoinJoins can have only a single signature.
This complicates the signing process for CoinJoins (the signers now have to sign cooperatively) but it can be well worth it for the reduced signature size and onchain cost.
But note that the while cross-input signature aggregation improves the cost of CoinJoins, it does not improve the privacy! Equal-valued CoinJoins are still obvious and still readily bannable by privacy-hating exchanges. It does not improve the privacy of CoinJoin. Instead, see https://old.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/gqb3udesign_for_a_coinswap_implementation_fo

Why isn't cross-input signature aggregation in?

There's some fairly complex technical reasons why cross-input signature aggregation isn't in right now in the current Taproot proposal.
The primary reason was to reduce the technical complexity of Taproot, in the hope that it would be easier to convince users to activate (while support for Taproot is quite high, developers have become wary of being hopeful that new proposals will ever activate, given the previous difficulties with SegWit).
The main technical complexity here is that it interacts with future ways to extend Bitcoin.
The rest of this writeup assumes you already know about how Bitcoin SCRIPT works. If you don't understand how Bitcoin SCRIPT works at the low-level, then the TLDR is that cross-input signature aggregation complicates how to extend Bitcoin in the future, so it was deferred to let the develoeprs think more about it.
(this is how I understand it; perhaps pwuille or ajtowns can give a better summary.)
In detail, Taproot also introduces OP_SUCCESS opcodes. If you know about the OP_NOP opcodes already defined in current Bitcoin, well, OP_SUCCESS is basically "OP_NOP done right".
Now, OP_NOP is a do-nothing operation. It can be replaced in future versions of Bitcoin by having that operation check some condition, and then fail if the condition is not satisfied. For example, both OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY and OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY were previously OP_NOP opcodes. Older nodes will see an OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY and think it does nothing, but newer nodes will check if the nLockTime field has a correct specified value, and fail if the condition is not satisfied. Since most of the nodes on the network are using much newer versions of the node software, older nodes are protected from miners who try to misspend any OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY/OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY, and those older nodes will still remain capable of synching with the rest of the network: a dedication to strict backward-compatibility necessary for a consensus system.
Softforks basically mean that a script that passes in the latest version must also be passing in all older versions. A script cannot be passing in newer versions but failing in older versions, because that would kick older nodes off the network (i.e. it would be a hardfork).
But OP_NOP is a very restricted way of adding opcodes. Opcodes that replace OP_NOP can only do one thing: check if some condition is true. They can't push new data on the stack, they can't pop items off the stack. For example, suppose instead of OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, we had added a OP_GETBLOCKHEIGHT opcode. This opcode would push the height of the blockchain on the stack. If this command replaced an older OP_NOP opcode, then a script like OP_GETBLOCKHEIGHT 650000 OP_EQUAL might pass in some future Bitcoin version, but older versions would see OP_NOP 650000 OP_EQUAL, which would fail because OP_EQUAL expects two items on the stack. So older versions will fail a SCRIPT that newer versions will pass, which is a hardfork and thus a backwards incompatibility.
OP_SUCCESS is different. Instead, old nodes, when parsing the SCRIPT, will see OP_SUCCESS, and, without executing the body, will consider the SCRIPT as passing. So, the OP_GETBLOCKHEIGHT 650000 OP_EQUAL example will now work: a future version of Bitcoin might pass it, and existing nodes that don't understand OP_GETBLOCKHEIGHT will se OP_SUCCESS 650000 OP_EQUAL, and will not execute the SCRIPT at all, instead passing it immediately. So a SCRIPT that might pass in newer versions will pass for older versions, which keeps the back-compatibility consensus that a softfork needs.
So how does OP_SUCCESS make things difficult for cross-input signatur aggregation? Well, one of the ways to ask for a signature to be verified is via the opcodes OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY. With cross-input signature aggregation, if a public key indicates it can be used for cross-input signature aggregation, instead of OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY actually requiring the signature on the stack, the stack will contain a dummy 0 value for the signature, and the public key is instead added to a "sum" public key (i.e. an n-of-n that is dynamically extended by one more pubkey for each OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY operation that executes) for the single signature that is verified later by the cross-input signature aggregation validation algorithm00.
The important part here is that the OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY has to execute, in order to add its public key to the set of public keys to be checked in the single signature.
But remember that an OP_SUCCESS prevents execution! As soon as the SCRIPT is parsed, if any opcode is OP_SUCCESS, that is considered as passing, without actually executing the SCRIPT, because the OP_SUCCESS could mean something completely different in newer versions and current versions should assume nothing about what it means. If the SCRIPT contains some OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY command in addition to an OP_SUCCESS, that command is not executed by current versions, and thus they cannot add any public keys given by OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY. Future versions also have to accept that: if they parsed an OP_SUCCESS command that has a new meaning in the future, and then execute an OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY in that SCRIPT, they cannot add the public key into the same "sum" public key that older nodes use, because older nodes cannot see them. This means that you might need more than one signature in the future, in the presence of an opcode that replaces some OP_SUCCESS.
Thus, because of the complexity of making cross-input signature aggregation work compatibly with future extensions to the protocol, cross-input signature aggregation was deferred.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

MTRG - 900K mcap - Partners with Matic for the future of DeFi

Meter Network just amnounced their partnership with Matic Network to capitalize on the budding Stablecoin industry on these emerging networks!
Read more here: https://www.meter.io/meter-matic-partnership/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=metermaticpartnership
In case you missed it, the Meter Network launched its Governance token IEO in lottery style on Gate.io at $0.5. It's back to $0.5 on the markets now from its ATH after launch at $2.78. Excellent entry price for this groundbreaker project backed by heavyweights the likes of Pantera Capital, DHVC & ecosystem partners like chainlink and more!
We all know USD Tether, no 3 in global marketshare, owns a huge 90% of all stable coins totalling 10 billion in marketcap! Like every other stablecoin out there, it is vastly centralized and the cause for much worry and doubt (esp between warring governments and institutions).
Dai, a decentralized alternative on the other hand, eats into a multimilliondollar share, but its PoS nature is also a huge cause for worry.
Now the Meter team, a distinguished team of high laurels, created the Meter token (MTR) which is a unique Proof of Work blockchain where every Meter metered out (pun intended ;) is worth & pegged to 10KW of power ensuring the stablecoin has a consistent value and with more miners and a vast network this is better stable model than fiat currencies..
The Meter (MTR) blockchain is a stablecoin asset faster than Bitcoin and Ethereum, although the team has completed an exclusive MTRG-erc20 & MTR-erc20 bridge so MTR can be intergrated into ETH defi, and similar users and holders can have the added convienence to store MTR or MTRG in their popular erc20 wallets. More of these bridges by the team will allow for MTR PoW stablecoin to be intergated into other top blockchains like Matic, Elrond and more!
(NOTE: The Meter blockchain is 100x faster than Ethereum.)
The Stablecoin market is rising fast and many in traditional finance (like JP Morgan) believe it will rival/surpass Bitcoin in marketcap and we all know Bitcoin is just getting warmed up.
It is truly unique and decentralized in its proposition, tokenomics and operations, so i won't be surprised to see more listings on cremé de la cremé exchanges very soon.
it may very well dethrone USDT, which no other stablecoin asset (centralized or otherwise) has been able to do.
MTRG's present 2.3mil marketcap is peanuts when considering this governs a stablecoin asset with all the right partnerships & a 40 mil max supply released over the next...wait for it...200 years!!!
This is early days of its ascent and popularity as the only PoW secure network surpassing bitcoin in speed and decentralization, and ofcourse Stability.
Suicide Stack : 350 mtrg
The Meter Governance token, both $MTRG and metastable (i.e.stable in relation to all currency) $MTR is available on Gate.io
https://gate.io/trade/mtrg_usdt
And these pairs are also available at MXC, and Hoo.com!
and (unofficially at Bilaxy).
https://bilaxy.com/trade/MTRG_USDT
Learn more about MTR and MTRG below.
https://www.meter.io website https://t.me/Meter_IO telegram https://discord.gg/XZgZsCn discord ‎https://twitter.com/Meter_IO twitter
submitted by koininsider to CryptoMoonShots [link] [comments]

New CryptoClickers is finally released on multiple platforms!

Hello guys! I am happy to say that today was an amazing release day with tons of supporting people! (Also thank you u/zenongreat for making a post about it :D)
It's been quite the stressful, but also educational and exciting journey from CryptoClickers: Legacy Edition (old version) release to remaking the game, then balancing the game, fixing tons of bugs, spending days on optimization (your CPU will be happy), and then the final release!
This game has been in development for a total of 3 years (1.5ish from each legacy and the new version). I have learned a ton and gained so much support from my amazing community and the amazing incremental_games community that all of us have formed.
Anyways let's talk about the game:
- Has a double prestige layer system (eventually three).
- Has tons of challenges/speedrun challenges.
- Two major upgrade trees.
- Lots of game modes that all bind together.
- Numbers up to the e10000s.
- Has hourly events that change everyday and runs on a weekly schedule.
- It's cross-platform, you can export and import your save on any device you may desire.
- Has a friendly Discord community
- Planning to add lots of content and improve the game along it's journey!

Here's whats going to happen in the future:
- Third Prestige (Will be a fully customizable UI such as colors, icons, prefixes, and names).
- Continuous UI updates, now I think we can all agree the UI is definitely not new user friendly. It's very clustered and messy for some people. I want to improve this in the best ways possible till it's near perfect.
- Events Updates, the current events are a bit stale, all except the Friday event will be replaced with some cool events I have planned!
- Bug fixes and balancing, please, if you find any small bug or grammar error, I would love to fix it. I want this game to be at its best state at all times!
- Possible seasonable events?
I wanted to thank everyone who has been here with me since the start of development, everyone who has contributed in any form of support, I appreciate you and everything you have done for me, the game, and the community. I appreciate all the beta testers for helping me get through the annoying bugs and balances that were made. I love all my staff, I love my community, and especially I love the Incremental Games community. I also wanted to mention that Antimatter Dimensions and Idling to rule the gods were my biggest inspirations for the game, so thanks to the devs for making their amazing games. Thank you guys and I hope you enjoy my game. I will be actively working on this!
Here are the download links:
Steam: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1313580/CryptoClickers_Crypto_Idle_Game/
iOS: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/cryptoclickers-idle-game/id1524226223
Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.CryptoGrounds.CryptoClickers2
Kartridge: https://www.kartridge.com/games/zachbc1/cryptoclickers/
Itch.io: https://cryptogrounds.itch.io/cryptoclickers
(You can also find some other cool information such as prototypes, I will be adding more here: https://cryptogroundsgames.com/ )
Also. You'll need this later: 111144333322
Spoiler: If you are interested in a small story, otherwise you can ignore!
3 years ago, this game was only a little project of mine for an AP computer science Principles project portion of the AP test. I haven’t stopped working on it since then because I knew what I have been working on and what I have been learning over the years is worth it. Over a year or 2 ago I released what is now CryptoClickers Legacy. It was a mess, it was buggy, it drained everyone’s batteries like a Bitcoin Miner, heating up peoples phones, had a crappy launch on Android and was hard to maintain the crappy code it had. I then started the new CryptoClickers which I release today. A much more optimized, balanced, and overall developed game.
Edit: I am currently working on improving the UI and adding an interactive tutorial where you complete tasks up to the first challenge
submitted by NightStormYT to incremental_games [link] [comments]

This November...

Let's set aside the tickename issue for a second and think as scientists about the upcoming experiment. Assuming there will be a split, I think it's going to be interesting. (If the split is somehow avoided, then all of the following makes no sense, of course)
I frankly think the experiment of "hashrate-funded centrally-developed Bitcoin Cash" vs "hodler-funded multi-team-developed Bitcoin Cash" is very interesting. I don't mean "centrally-developed" as an offence here, it's just a fact - ABC will be developing it.
Before you start throwing in tomatos, let's think about it.
We all have front-row seats - each gets equal amount of both coins, so either coin wins - you have your cut.
It might even be that BOTH coins will be winners, since unlike the BSV situation, this is going to be probably developed under MIT license, so either side can copy code from other side. (Unless, of course, ABC goes BSV-way and protects their code with a restrictive license, while the other side will be using MIT/BSD licenses for sure)
Let's consider both sides' pros and cons.

ABC side

I don't really like IFP, but I think what Amaury did was pretty clever and worth considering. With this plan he gets to control his coin fully and impose any rules he sees as best for his coin, be it drift correction, 6-month releases or whatever else. He believes in his power to make this coin the best, so let's see if he can.
[+] Corporations are often pretty efficient at what they do. Usually, with capitalism and democracy they will perfect their game like no one, because of competition.
[-] But this won't be exactly like capitalism, more like socialism, because ABC/Amaury will get paid no matter their performance. They will always get 8%. That makes people lazy. Why bother if you get your salary anyway?
[+] ABC has a track record of 3 years and BCH didn't die, which gives them some credit that they could do it.
[+] Amaury and ABC will get paid in their own coin, so the more valuable it is, the richer they get. (Unless they sell for USD immediately) Also, they will get close to $8 million in funding in first year alone (at the current price), which would allow him to hire, well, best of the best in their class (cryptographers, developers, etc...). Amaury knows that and he's right - developers are freaking expensive ($100,000+/year). (Well, again, assuming Amaury will be hiring...)
[-] They don't have to listen to the community, so they have no force feedback if what they do is of any value or is it a useless distraction.

BCHN + others

[+] Hodler-funded means that you don't get paid unless you promise to deliver useful value and have proven to provide value in the past. So you have to perfect your game always - that's much closer to capitalism.
[-] Very hard to raise funds. Amaury will get $8m/year while BCHN and other nodes barely managed to collect $100-200K, probably for the next year or so. Hodlers don't want to give away their money too much, because it might 10x or 20x in very short amount of time.
[+] If BCHN/other nodes do their job well and the coin value raise - their money becomes more valuable, so $100K might become $1M in a year. Assuming they haven't sold for USD. Something tells me they didn't.
[-] Grass-roots things can be short-lived. People are free to join and leave any time, so eventually you get tired of everything.

Potential problems with the experiment

  1. Tickename, obviously pretty bad issue;
  2. Reputation/community loss (BCH splitting again);
  3. Confusion for next few years about what Bitcoin Cash is (just like it was with BCH/BTC split);
  4. No replay protection (this one is nasty), so it's hard to split your money at fork time, you need to wait to get some miner dust to mix in with your coins to split them properly;
  5. Potential that one side might be without wallets at first (i.e. if all wallets and services like Fountainhead/rest.bitcoin.com, which are used by wallets, leave ABC - how would you transfer your money?) - that surely will be a blow, but it's fixable. BCH started this way too.
  6. EDIT: Merchant dis-adoption. Many will be tired of non-stop drama and leave. Maybe, stability of BCHN site will lure some back later. (comment about this)
I don't see miners as an issue (I explained why here and here)
I'm actually curious. Whether corporate efficiency (but with a bit of socialism) or grass-roots (barely with any funding in comparison) will get ahead.
Even though there is already a similar experiment going (BSV), but it's still interesting - each corporation is different and where Apple succeeded, many other phone/computer companies failed. Is listening to market critical? Remember Henry Ford: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." On the other hand we have plenty of coins with a lot of funding not even in Top 10.
Get your tickets (coins) ready, we're in for a ride!
submitted by readcash to btc [link] [comments]

[OWL WATCH] Waiting for "IOTA TIME" 20; Hans's re-defined directions for DLT

Disclaimer: This is my editing, so there could be some misunderstandings...
--------------------------------------------
wellwho오늘 오후 4:50
u/Ben Royce****how far is society2 from having something clickable powered by IOTA?
Ben Royce오늘 오후 4:51
demo of basic tech late sep/ early oct. MVP early 2021
---------------------------------------------------
HusQy
Colored coins are the most misunderstood upcoming feature of the IOTA protocol. A lot of people see them just as a competitor to ERC-20 tokens on ETH and therefore a way of tokenizing things on IOTA, but they are much more important because they enable "consensus on data".
Bob
All this stuff already works on neblio but decentralized and scaling to 3500 tps
HusQy
Neblio has 8 mb blocks with 30 seconds blocktime. This is a throughput of 8 mb / 30 seconds = 267 kb per second. Transactions are 401+ bytes which means that throughput is 267 kb / 401 bytes = 665 TPS. IOTA is faster, feeless and will get even faster with the next update ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HusQy
Which DLT would be more secure? One that is collaboratively validated by the economic actors of the world (coporations, companies, foundations, states, people) or one that is validated by an anonymous group of wealthy crypto holders?
HusQy
The problem with current DLTs is that we use protection mechanisms like Proof of Work and Proof of Stake that are inherently hard to shard. The more shards you have, the more you have to distribute your hashing power and your stake and the less secure the system becomes.
HusQy
Real world identities (i.e. all the big economic actors) however could shard into as many shards as necessary without making the system less secure. Todays DLTs waste trust in the same way as PoW wastes energy.
HusQy
Is a secure money worth anything if you can't trust the economic actors that you would buy stuff from? If you buy a car from Volkswagen and they just beat you up and throw you out of the shop after you payed then a secure money won't be useful either :P
HusQy
**I believe that if you want to make DLT work and be successful then we need to ultimately incorporate things like trust in entities into the technology.**Examples likes wirecard show that trusting a single company is problematic but trusting the economy as a whole should be at ...
**... least as secure as todays DLTs.**And as soon as you add sharding it will be orders of magnitude more secure. DLT has failed to deliver because people have tried to build a system in vacuum that completely ignores things that already exist and that you can leverage on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HusQy
Blockchain is a bit like people sitting in a room, trying to communicate through BINGO sheets. While they talk, they write down some of the things that have been said and as soon as one screams BINGO! he hands around his sheet to inform everybody about what has been said.
HusQy
If you think that this is the most efficient form of communication for people sitting in the same room and the answer to scalability is to make bigger BINGO sheets or to allow people to solve the puzzle faster then you will most probably never understand what IOTA is working on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HusQy
**Blockchain does not work with too many equally weighted validators.****If 400 validators produce a validating statement (block) at the same time then only one can survive as part of a longest chain.**IOTA is all about collaborative validation.
**Another problem of blockchain is that every transaction gets sent twice through the network. Once from the nodes to the miners and a 2nd time from the miners as part of a block.**Blockchain will therefore always only be able to use 50% of the network throughput.
And****the last problem is that you can not arbitrarily decrease the time between blocks as it breaks down if the time between blocks gets smaller than the average network delay. The idle time between blocks is precious time that could be used for processing transactions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HusQy
I am not talking about a system with a fixed number of validators but one that is completely open and permissionless where any new company can just spin up a node and take part in the network.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HusQy
Proof of Work and Proof of Stake are both centralizing sybil-protection mechanism. I don't think that Satoshi wanted 14 mining pools to run the network.
And "economic clustering" was always the "end game" of IOTA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HusQy
**Using Proof of Stake is not trustless. Proof of Stake means you trust the richest people and hope that they approve your transactions. The rich are getting richer (through your fees) and you are getting more and more dependant on them.**Is that your vision of the future?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

HusQy
Please read again exactly what I wrote. I have not spoken of introducing governance by large companies, nor have I said that IOTA should be permissioned. We aim for a network with millions or even billions of nodes.

HusQy
That can't work at all with a permissioned ledger - who should then drop off all these devices or authorize them to participate in the network? My key message was the following: Proof of Work and Proof of Stake will always be if you split them up via sharding ...

HusQy
... less secure because you simply need fewer coins or less hash power to have the majority of the votes in a shard. This is not the case with trust in society and the economy. When all companies in the world jointly secure a DLT ...

HusQy
... then these companies could install any number of servers in any number of shards without compromising security, because "trust" does not become less just because they operate several servers. First of all, that is a fact and nothing else.

HusQy
Proof of Work and Proof of Stake are contrary to the assumption of many not "trustless" but follow the maxim: "In the greed of miners we trust!" The basic assumption that the miners do not destroy the system that generates income for them is fundamental here for the ...

HusQy
... security of every DLT. I think a similar assumption would still be correct for the economy as a whole: The companies of the world (and not just the big ones) would not destroy the system with which their customers pay them. In this respect, a system would be ...

HusQy
... which is validated by society and the economy as a whole probably just as "safely" as a system which is validated by a few anonymous miners. Why a small elite of miners should be better validators than any human and ...

HusQy
... To be honest, companies in this world do not open up to me. As already written in my other thread, safe money does not bring you anything if you have to assume that Volkswagen will beat you up and throw you out of the store after you ...

HusQy
... paid for a car. The thoughts I discussed say nothing about the immediate future of IOTA (we use for Coordicide mana) but rather speak of a world where DLT has already become an integral part of our lives and we ...

HusQy
... a corresponding number of companies, non-profit organizations and people have used DLT and where such a system could be implemented. The point here is not to create a governance solution that in any way influences the development of technology ...

HusQy
... or have to give nodes their OK first, but about developing a system that enables people to freely choose the validators they trust. For example, you can also declare your grandma to be a validator when you install your node or your ...

HusQy
... local supermarket. Economic relationships in the real world usually form a close-knit network and it doesn't really matter who you follow as long as the majority is honest. I also don't understand your criticism of censorship, because something like that in IOTA ...

HusQy
... is almost impossible. Each transaction confirms two other transactions which is growing exponentially. If someone wanted to ignore a transaction, he would have to ignore an exponential number of other transactions after a very short time. In contrast to blockchain ...

HusQy
... validators in IOTA do not decide what is included in the ledger, but only decide which of several double spends should be confirmed. Honest transactions are confirmed simply by having other transactions reference them ...

HusQy
... and the "validators" are not even asked. As for the "dust problem", this is indeed something that is a bigger problem for IOTA than for other DLTs because we have no fees, but it is also not an unsolvable problem. Bitcoin initially has a ...

HusQy
Solved similar problem by declaring outputs with a minimum amount of 5430 satoshis as invalid ( github.com/Bitcoin/Bitcoi…). A similar solution where an address must contain a minimum amount is also conceivable for IOTA and we are discussing ...

HusQy
... several possibilities (including compressing dust using cryptographic methods). Contrary to your assumption, checking such a minimum amount is not slow but just as fast as checking a normal transaction. And mine ...

HusQy
... In my opinion this is no problem at all for IOTA's use case. The important thing is that you can send small amounts, but after IOTA is feeless it is also okay to expect the recipients to regularly send their payments on a ...

HusQy
... merge address. The wallets already do this automatically (sweeping) and for machines it is no problem to automate this process. So far this was not a problem because the TPS were limited but with the increased TPS throughput of ...

HusQy
... Chrysalis it becomes relevant and appropriate solutions are discussed and then implemented accordingly. I think that was the most important thing first and if you have further questions just write :)

HusQy
And to be very clear! I really appreciate you and your questions and don't see this as an attack at all! People who see such questions as inappropriate criticism should really ask whether they are still objective. I have little time at the moment because ...

HusQy
... my girlfriend is on tour and has to take care of our daughter, but as soon as she is back we can discuss these things in a video. I think that the concept of including the "real world" in the concepts of DLT is really exciting and ...

HusQy
... that would certainly be exciting to discuss in a joint video. But again, that's more of a vision than a specific plan for the immediate future. This would not work with blockchain anyway but IOTA would be compatible so why not think about such things.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

HusQy
All good my big one :P But actually not that much has changed. There has always been the concept of "economic clustering" which is basically based on similar ideas. We are just now able to implement things like this for the first time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HusQy
Exactly. It would mean that addresses "cost" something but I would rather pay a few cents than fees for each transaction. And you can "take" this minimum amount with you every time you change to a new address.

HusQy
All good my big one :P But actually not that much has changed. There has always been the concept of "economic clustering" which is basically based on similar ideas. We are just now able to implement things like this for the first time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relax오늘 오전 1:17
Btw. Hans (sorry for interrupting this convo) but what make people say that IOTA is going the permissioned way because of your latest tweets? I don't get why some people are now forecasting that... Is it because of missing specs or do they just don't get the whole idea?

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:20
its bullshit u/Relaxan identity based system would still be open and permissionless where everybody can choose the actors that they deem trustworthy themselves but thats anyway just sth that would be applicable with more adoption
[오전 1:20]
for now we use mana as a predecessor to an actual reputation system

Sissors오늘 오전 1:31
If everybody has to choose actors they deem trustworthy, is it still permissionless? Probably will become a bit a semantic discussion, but still

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:34
Of course its permissionless you can follow your grandma if you want to :p

Sissors오늘 오전 1:36
Well sure you can, but you will need to follow something which has a majority of the voting power in the network. Nice that you follow your grandma, but if others dont, her opinion (or well her nodes opinion) is completely irrelevant

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:37
You would ideally follow the people that are trustworthy rather than your local drug dealers yeah

Sissors오늘 오전 1:38
And tbh, sure if you do it like that is easy. If you just make the users responsible for only connection to trustworthy nodes

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:38
And if your grandma follows her supermarket and some other people she deems trustworthy then thats fine as well
[오전 1:38]
+ you dont have just 1 actor that you follow

Sissors오늘 오전 1:38
No, you got a large list, since yo uwant to follow those which actually matter. So you jsut download a standard list from the internet

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:39
You can do that
[오전 1:39]
Is bitcoin permissionless? Should we both try to become miners?
[오전 1:41]
I mean miners that actually matter and not find a block every 10 trillion years 📷
[오전 1:42]
If you would want to become a validator then you would need to build up trust among other people - but anybody can still run a node and issue transactions unlike in hashgraph where you are not able to run your own nodes(수정됨)
[오전 1:48]
Proof of Stake is also not trustless - it just has a builtin mechanism that downloads the trusted people from the blockchain itself (the richest dudes)

Sissors오늘 오전 1:52
I think most agree it would be perfect if every person had one vote. Which is pr oblematic to implement of course. But I really wonder if the solution is to just let users decide who to trust. At the very least I expect a quite centralized network

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:53
of course even a trust based system would to a certain degree be centralized as not every person is equally trustworthy as for example a big cooperation
[오전 1:53]
but I think its gonna be less centralized than PoS or PoW
[오전 1:53]
but anyway its sth for "after coordicide"
[오전 1:54]
there are not enough trusted entities that are using DLT, yet to make such a system work reasonably well
[오전 1:54]
I think the reason why blockchain has not really started to look into these kind of concepts is because blockchain doesnt work with too many equally weighted validators
[오전 1:56]
I believe that DLT is only going to take over the world if it is actually "better" than existing systems and with better I mean cheaper, more secure and faster and PoS and PoW will have a very hard time to deliver that
[오전 1:56]
especially if you consider that its not only going to settle value transfers

Relax오늘 오전 1:57
I like this clear statements, it makes it really clear that DLT is still in its infancy

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:57
currently bank transfers are order of magnitude cheaper than BTC or ETH transactions

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:57
and we you think that people will adopt it just because its crypto then I think we are mistaken
[오전 1:57]
The tech needs to actually solve a problem
[오전 1:57]
and tbh. currently people use PayPal and other companies to settle their payments
[오전 1:58]
having a group of the top 500 companies run such a service together is already much better(수정됨)
[오전 1:58]
especially if its fast and feeless
[오전 2:02]
and the more people use it, the more decentralized it actually becomes
[오전 2:02]
because you have more trustworthy entities to choose of

Evaldas [IF]오늘 오전 2:08
"in the greed of miners we trust"


submitted by btlkhs to Iota [link] [comments]

Since they're calling for r/btc to be banned...

Maybe it's time to discuss bitcoin's history again. Credit to u/singularity87 for the original post over 3 years ago.

People should get the full story of bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs.
bitcoin, the main sub for the bitcoin community is held and run by a person who goes by the pseudonym u/theymos. Theymos not only controls bitcoin, but also bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.com. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person.
For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem (at least not an obvious one anyway) until around mid 2015. This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. Blockstream was made up of/hired many (but not all) of the main bitcoin developers. (To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid 2015 but did not become publicly active until then). A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency. There were a lot of unknowns but people seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were apparently about to release some new software called "sidechains" that could offer some benefits to the network.
Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go to btc and do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain.
Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network.
Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problem bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past.
A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making.
Various developers put forth various other proposals, including Gavin Andresen who put forth a more conservative increase that would then continue to increase over time inline with technological improvements. Some of the employees of blockstream also put forth some proposals, but all were so conservative, it would take bitcoin many decades before it could reach a scale of VISA. Even though there was significant support from the community behind Gavin's simple proposal of increasing the limit it was becoming clear certain members of the bitcoin community who were part of Blockstream were starting to become increasingly vitriolic and divisive. Gavin then teamed up with one of the other main bitcoin developers Mike Hearn and released a coded (i.e. working) version of the bitcoin software that would only activate if it was supported by a significant majority of the network. What happened next was where things really started to get weird.
After this free and open source software was released, Theymos, the person who controls all the main communication channels for the bitcoin community implemented a new moderation policy that disallowed any discussion of this new software. Specifically, if people were to discuss this software, their comments would be deleted and ultimately they would be banned temporarily or permanently. This caused chaos within the community as there was very clear support for this software at the time and it seemed our best hope for finally solving the problem and moving on. Instead a censorship campaign was started. At first it 'all' they were doing was banning and removing discussions but after a while it turned into actively manipulating the discussion. For example, if a thread was created where there was positive sentiment for increasing the transaction capacity or being negative about the moderation policies or negative about the actions of certain bitcoin developers, the mods of bitcoin would selectively change the sorting order of threads to 'controversial' so that the most support opinions would be sorted to the bottom of the thread and the most vitriolic would be sorted to the top of the thread. This was initially very transparent as it was possible to see that the most downvoted comments were at the top and some of the most upvoted were at the bottom. So they then implemented hiding the voting scores next to the users name. This made impossible to work out the sentiment of the community and when combined with selectively setting the sorting order to controversial it was possible control what information users were seeing. Also, due to the very very large number of removed comments and users it was becoming obvious the scale of censorship going on. To hide this they implemented code in their CSS for the sub that completely hid comments that they had removed so that the censorship itself was hidden. Anyone in support of scaling bitcoin were removed from the main communication channels. Theymos even proudly announced that he didn't care if he had to remove 90% of the users. He also later acknowledged that he knew he had the ability to block support of this software using the control he had over the communication channels.
While this was all going on, Blockstream and it's employees started lobbying the community by paying for conferences about scaling bitcoin, but with the very very strange rule that no decisions could be made and no complete solutions could be proposed. These conferences were likely strategically (and successfully) created to stunt support for the scaling software Gavin and Mike had released by forcing the community to take a "lets wait and see what comes from the conferences" kind of approach. Since no final solutions were allowed at these conferences, they only served to hinder and splinter the communities efforts to find a solution. As the software Gavin and Mike released called BitcoinXT gained support it started to be attacked. Users of the software were attack by DDOS. Employees of Blockstream were recommending attacks against the software, such as faking support for it, to only then drop support at the last moment to put the network in disarray. Blockstream employees were also publicly talking about suing Gavin and Mike from various different angles simply for releasing this open source software that no one was forced to run. In the end Mike Hearn decided to leave due to the way many members of the bitcoin community had treated him. This was due to the massive disinformation campaign against him on bitcoin. One of the many tactics that are used against anyone who does not support Blockstream and the bitcoin developers who work for them is that you will be targeted in a smear campaign. This has happened to a number of individuals and companies who showed support for scaling bitcoin. Theymos has threatened companies that he will ban any discussion of them on the communication channels he controls (i.e. all the main ones) for simply running software that he disagrees with (i.e. any software that scales bitcoin).
As time passed, more and more proposals were offered, all against the backdrop of ever increasing censorship in the main bitcoin communication channels. It finally come down the smallest and most conservative solution. This solution was much smaller than even the employees of Blockstream had proposed months earlier. As usual there was enormous attacks from all sides and the most vocal opponents were the employees of Blockstream. These attacks still are ongoing today. As this software started to gain support, Blockstream organised more meetings, especially with the biggest bitcoin miners and made a pact with them. They promised that they would release code that would offer an on-chain scaling solution hardfork within about 4 months, but if the miners wanted this they would have to commit to running their software and only their software. The miners agreed and the ended up not running the most conservative proposal possible. This was in February last year. There is no hardfork proposal in sight from the people who agreed to this pact and bitcoin is still stuck with the exact same transaction limit it has had since the limit was put in place about 6 years ago. Gavin has also been publicly smeared by the developers at Blockstream and a plot was made against him to have him removed from the development team. Gavin has now been, for all intents an purposes, expelled from bitcoin development. This has meant that all control of bitcoin development is in the hands of the developers working at Blockstream.
There is a new proposal that offers a market based approach to scaling bitcoin. This essentially lets the market decide. Of course, as usual there has been attacks against it, and verbal attacks from the employees of Blockstream. This has the biggest chance of gaining wide support and solving the problem for good.
To give you an idea of Blockstream; It has hired most of the main and active bitcoin developers and is now synonymous with the "Core" bitcoin development team. They AFAIK no products at all. They have received around $75m in funding. Every single thing they do is supported by theymos. They have started implementing an entirely new economic system for bitcoin against the will of it's users and have blocked any and all attempts to scaling the network in line with the original vision.
Although this comment is ridiculously long, it really only covers the tip of the iceberg. You could write a book on the last two years of bitcoin. The things that have been going on have been mind blowing. One last thing that I think is worth talking about is the u/bashco's claim of vote manipulation.
The users that the video talks about have very very large numbers of downvotes mostly due to them having a very very high chance of being astroturfers. Around about the same time last year when Blockstream came active on the scene every single bitcoin troll disappeared, and I mean literally every single one. In the years before that there were a large number of active anti-bitcoin trolls. They even have an active sub buttcoin. Up until last year you could go down to the bottom of pretty much any thread in bitcoin and see many of the usual trolls who were heavily downvoted for saying something along the lines of "bitcoin is shit", "You guys and your tulips" etc. But suddenly last year they all disappeared. Instead a new type of bitcoin user appeared. Someone who said they were fully in support of bitcoin but they just so happened to support every single thing Blockstream and its employees said and did. They had the exact same tone as the trolls who had disappeared. Their way to talking to people was aggressive, they'd call people names, they had a relatively poor understanding of how bitcoin fundamentally worked. They were extremely argumentative. These users are the majority of the list of that video. When the 10's of thousands of users were censored and expelled from bitcoin they ended up congregating in btc. The strange thing was that the users listed in that video also moved over to btc and spend all day everyday posting troll-like comments and misinformation. Naturally they get heavily downvoted by the real users in btc. They spend their time constantly causing as much drama as possible. At every opportunity they scream about "censorship" in btc while they are happy about the censorship in bitcoin. These people are astroturfers. What someone somewhere worked out, is that all you have to do to take down a community is say that you are on their side. It is an astoundingly effective form of psychological attack.
submitted by CuriousTitmouse to btc [link] [comments]

2 very good outcomes for Bitcoin Cash

Since u/ClarenceBCH only posted 2 bad possible outcomes, I'm going to post 2 good ones to restore some balance.
  1. The no-IFP coalition gets vast majority of hashrate in November. Those mining with ABC fork off onto a very small minority hashpower chain without nearly any ecosystem support. Their taxcoin is worth a fraction of BCH. Nobody gives a shit except themselves and a few pump-and-dumpers. The devs and coat-tail-riders fake rage-quit after cashing out retire or return back to Facebook, LinkedIn, AvaLabs or whatever they prefer. Some of their employees who might actually not have supported the IFP stay on and continue to apply their skills to BCH software and business development. The network effect is largely preserved and good growth and development is possible again.
  2. Miners persuade ABC to drop its splitting plans, whether directly or through on-chain signaling of their opposition to IFP. ABC issues a new client version that is IFP-free. ABC takes a minor hit on user base, but remains otherwise a viable option and continues the development plans on the roadmap together with the other clients. A large majority of the BCH community rejoices at the aversion of a potentially damaging split. The November upgrade passes smoothly and protocol devs, builders, marketers can all resume focusing on their respective work to improve the network, providing value to everyone.
Just posting this to show that good outcomes are imaginable, even achievable. It depends on everyone...
submitted by sanch_o_panza to btc [link] [comments]

Ceterum censeo: In some yet undefined future - the halving must be removed. The question is not: if, but when (and how)

Bitcoin's mining ecosystem is saturated. Period.
The ASIC race has weakened as it has moved closer to the technological limits - achieving some kind of fragile balance. The best proof of this is Bitmain's search for new areas (vide: AI research)
After more than a decade, we are smarter than Satoshi at least in one area - we have the knowledge acquired over these more than ten years ...
"Bitcoin should have had a 0.1% or 1% monetary inflation tax to pay for security." (Peter Todd): https://www.google.com/search?q=peter+todd+inflation
If someone cannot accept the inevitability of this right now - let him think if he would change his mind while he sees the consecutive halvings - after which the network hashrate drops half by half - and does not return to the previous level, ever... (I suppose we can see that process in 4 years already...)
And the trigger could be like this (of course after general consensus):
That would be an "organoleptic" determination of the optimal inflation rate for the Bitcoin network - and there is simply no better way to determine it. Just don't belive such simplification, when is hard to find an optimum for something - the ultimate solution is zero. It's not.
Remember, that Bitcoin is not an entity detached from the reality. There are various limitations, e.g. nanometer-based technological processes limitations, there is a finite amount of cheap energy that can be obtained on a global scale, etc.) Bitcoin functions in certain realities - whether we like it or not.
Sooner or later the situation described above will get us. It is worth to be prepared mentally for it - and not to start another war, but rather discuss it calmly. If, for example, 90% of the community considers that something is necessary for the development of bitcoin - such a change will take place.
For example, the theoretical exchange of ECDSA due to the threat of quantum computers - acceptance would take place at an express rate. It will be similar in this matter. Just it shouldn't be too late for corrective action.
The small inflation rate, decreasing continuosly and slowly but never to zero, and last but not least: determined by reality - seems to be the most proper measure in this case.
Ceterum censeo...
EDIT: If:
a) tx fees are able to keep miners mining - perfect
b) miners are pushed out by consecutive halvings - not perfect
What I proposed is unbiased way for checking that (bitcoin ecosystem overall health):
if(current_network_hashrate < network_hashrate_4_years_ago) {
do_something();
}
else do_nothing();
submitted by jk_14r to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Reverse Chance Me: Indian-American Male

Demographics: male, upper middle class, Asian Indian, heterosexual and cisgender, Long Island, New York, high school class of 2021
Intended Major(s): Mathematics
ACT/SAT/SAT II/PSAT: 35 (35E, 36M, 34R, 36S), 1570 (800 math, 770 english, 23/24 essay), 800 math2, 800 chem, 800 physics, 1500 (760 math, 740 english; hopefully i get national merit since I made the cut off)
UW/W GPA and Rank: 4.0UW, 103.96% weighted so far (out of 100%, APs weighted 1.08 and Honors 1.06; I'm not sure what it is out of 5 but everything's been an A or higher so far)
Coursework:
10th: AP World History (4, 99%), AP Computer Science Principles (4, 99%), AP Calculus BC (5, 97%); all other grades except Chemistry (96%) at least 97%
11th: AP Lang (5, 97%), Multivariable Calculus and Linear Algebra (through school, weighted as an AP, 98%; I get college credit from a state university for taking this), AP Physics 1 (5, 98%), AP United States History (5, 99%), AP Computer Science A (5, 100%), AP Statistics (self-studied, 5); all other grades 97% or higher
the above courses were taken through school, but I enrolled as a non-matriculated undergraduate student through the same state university that's giving me college credit for high school multi to take the following courses in Fall 2019 and Spring 2020 respectively:
"Logic, Language, and Proofs" (basically introduced me to the language of mathematics and abstract proof construction, etc.) (A+), Introduction to Real Analysis (third-year undergraduate course, probably) (A+)
12th: (incoming senior) AP Lit, Differential Equations (through school, weighted as an AP; I get college credit from a state university for taking this), AP Physics C (I don't know which yet but probably E/M), AP US Gov, AP Micro, AP Spanish Lang
the above courses are going to be taken through school, but I enrolled as a non-matriculated undergraduate student through the same state university that's giving me college credit for high school diffeq to take the following courses in Summer 2020, Fall 2020, and Spring 2021 respectively:
Applied Complex Analysis (well, I actually just finished this course, so I got an A), Advanced Linear Algebra, Analysis in Several Dimensions
like 12 APs in total by the end of senior year; I have taken the most rigorous courses available + courses at college
Awards:
AIME Qualifier (missed the USAMO cutoff by one AIME question's worth of index points, oops), HMMT/PUMaC awards
President's Volunteer Service Award, Gold (by the end of senior year, I should have lifetime ~650-675 volunteer hours): 3-time winner, 10th, 11th, and (expected) 12th
AP Scholar (I don't remember which though I have it on my application, but based on the scores I have, you can figure it out if you need to), Commended PSAT Scholar
UNSCO Qualifier, USAPhO Qualifier, USACO Silver
Regeneron Semifinalist, Scholastic Silver Writing Award (this was like 2-3 years ago, I don't remember much about it)
Essays:
they're actually coming on really good so far, not done writing though
Letters of Recommendations: my multi/diffeq teacher (really epic), my physics 1/c teacher (pretty good), my counselor (really good); additionally, I'm considering getting one from my principal (he first set me up to take the college math courses because he's an adjunct professor at the university I took courses at, so it should be cool), and a Princeton dude (see below for more explanation; he also used to mentor me before I started doing research)
Extracurriculars/Leadership Roles:
Science Olympiad (have won state medals before), Math Team (treasuresecretary 12th, top scorer in county-wide mathematics tournaments), Coding/CS Club (treasurer 11th, vice president 12th), National Honor Society, DECA (have qualified for the national-level competition, ICDC), did Model UN (but stopped after 10th, so probably won't put this on)
treasurer of our school's science research program from 2018 (personally offered this position by the director of the program) to when I graduate from high school in 2021
information technologist for a science education nonprofit
formerly unpaid teacher assistant (now paid 'intern'; my position got renamed because I've started doing more than just TAing) at a weekend mathematics enrichment program I used to attend when I was younger; I just set up and now own/manage the program's Discord as well as helped implement a grading system for the students on Google Classroom during the transition from real-life classes to online, Zoom classes due to COVID-19
CTO of a startup digital advertising business I co-founded with my friend (I personally made just under $15,000 so far, but the business's net worth is about $40,000)
in July 2018, I attended a summer program that related to computer science, electrical engineering, and informatics; we learned several skills such as programming Python (including NumPy, Matplotlib, and Pandas) in the context of physical engineering concepts and the Raspberry Pi; I engineering a program comparable to the widespread arcade game “Wheel of Fortune”
hospital volunteer (transporter, a large source of my volunteer hours)
Bitcoin/general cryptocurrency trademiner, I've set up several ASIC miners and studied their stock trends to optimize the amount of money I make from them, although I put a hold on this activity when crypto started dying again
10-year piano player (stopped in 9th grade though, but I went to state-level festivals and got perfect scores on my performances), 5-year viola player (planning to qualify for the state festival this year), JV Tennis (memes), 7-year soccer player (stopped after 9th grade, though)
also I'm probably not gonna put this on my application, but out of enjoyment, my friend and I conducted a satire analysis on our in-class chemistry performance through research, usage of spreadsheet/database applications, and Python’s machine learning modules; essentially, we collaborated on our mutual objective for his project in that we sought to “predict” when our grades would drastically fall, and a psychological explanation as to why we, somewhat academically-oriented students, tend to make the most drastic shortcomings when it comes to in-class performance ( used long short-term memory in the structures of recurrent neural networks which served as a model for Keras, a Python deep learning API, to make a grade prediction based on learning the ups and downs of our previous grades)
not sure if this counts for anything, but in May of 2012, in a Nassau County-based competition that I took against high schoolers double my age at the time, I won first place for the highest amount of problems correct so that's pretty cool I guess
finally, I've done over-the-summer online research under the guidance of a postdoctoral researcher in mathematics I got the contact of during a visit to Princeton University (did his doctoral thesis under the mentoring of Terence Tao, a world-renowned Fields Medal recipient)
Other life circumstances:
recovering narcotics addict (I had an injury while playing soccer in the spring of 9th grade and got hooked for a year after I didn't need them anymore), violent/alcohol-ridden home situation; I've had some issues with mental health in 9th and early 10th grade but I think I'm doing better now yay

I really wanna make it into some kind of Ivy/T20 kinda school, but I'm open to any suggestions as to where I stand in college admissions. Also, because I took all those college math courses, I got permission from the undergraduate director of mathematics to transfer those into credits for a bachelor's degree at that state school, so I can graduate two years early (2023 instead of 2025) if I get accepted and enroll there as a full-time student.
I'd really appreciate any help! Thanks!
submitted by mesmore to chanceme [link] [comments]

Don't blindly follow a narrative, its bad for you and its bad for crypto in general

I mostly lurk around here but I see a pattern repeating over and over again here and in multiple communities so I have to post. I'm just posting this here because I appreciate the fact that this sub is a place of free speech and maybe something productive can come out from this post, while bitcoin is just fucking censorship, memes and moon/lambo posts. If you don't agree, write in the comments why, instead of downvoting. You don't have to upvote either, but when you downvote you are killing the opportunity to have discussion. If you downvote or comment that I'm wrong without providing any counterpoints you are no better than the BTC maxis you despise.
In various communities I see a narrative being used to bring people in and making them follow something without thinking for themselves. In crypto I see this mostly in BTC vs BCH tribalistic arguments:
- BTC community: "Everything that is not BTC is shitcoin." or more recently as stated by adam on twitter, "Everything that is not BTC is a ponzi scheme, even ETH.", "what is ETH supply?", and even that they are doing this for "altruistic" reasons, to "protect" the newcomers. Very convenient for them that they are protecting the newcomers by having them buy their bags
- BCH community: "BTC maxis are dumb", "just increase block size and you will have truly p2p electronic cash", "It is just that simple, there are no trade offs", "if you don't agree with me you are a BTC maxi", "BCH is satoshi's vision for p2p electronic cash"
It is not exclusive to crypto but also politics, and you see this over and over again on twitter and on reddit.
My point is, that narratives are created so people don't have to think, they just choose a narrative that is easy to follow and makes sense for them, and stick with it. And people keep repeating these narratives to bring other people in, maybe by ignorance, because they truly believe it without questioning, or maybe by self interest, because they want to shill you their bags.
Because this is BCH community, and because bitcoin is censored, so I can't post there about the problems in the BTC narrative (some of which are IMO correctly identified by BCH community), I will stick with the narrative I see in the BCH community.
The culprit of this post was firstly this post by user u/scotty321 "The BTC Paradox: “A 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own node!” “Okay, then what?” “Poor people won’t be able to use the network!”". You will see many posts of this kind being made by u/Egon_1 also. Then you have also this comment in that thread by u/fuck_____________1 saying that people that want to run their own nodes are retarded and that there is no reason to want to do that. "Just trust block explorer websites". And the post and comment were highly upvoted. Really? You really think that there is no problem in having just a few nodes on the network? And that the only thing that secures the network are miners?
As stated by user u/co1nsurf3r in that thread:
While I don't think that everybody needs to run a node, a full node does publish blocks it considers valid to other nodes. This does not amount to much if you only consider a single node in the network, but many "honest" full nodes in the network will reduce the probability of a valid block being withheld from the network by a collusion of "hostile" node operators.
But surely this will not get attention here, and will be downvoted by those people that promote the narrative that there is no trade off in increasing the blocksize and the people that don't see it are retarded or are btc maxis.
The only narrative I stick to and have been for many years now is that cryptocurrency takes power from the government and gives power to the individual, so you are not restricted to your economy as you can participate in the global economy. There is also the narrative of banking the bankless, which I hope will come true, but it is not a use case we are seeing right now.
Some people would argue that removing power from gov's is a bad thing, but you can't deny the fact that gov's can't control crypto (at least we would want them not to).
But, if you really want the individuals to remain in control of their money and transact with anyone in the world, the network needs to be very resistant to any kind of attacks. How can you have p2p electronic cash if your network just has a handful couple of nodes and the chinese gov can locate them and just block communication to them? I'm not saying that this is BCH case, I'm just refuting the fact that there is no value in running your own node. If you are relying on block explorers, the gov can just block the communication to the block explorer websites. Then what? Who will you trust to get chain information? The nodes needs to be decentralized so if you take one node down, many more can appear so it is hard to censor and you don't have few points of failure.
Right now BTC is focusing on that use case of being difficult to censor. But with that comes the problem that is very expensive to transact on the network, which breaks the purpose of anyone being able to participate. Obviously I do think that is also a major problem, and lightning network is awful right now and probably still years away of being usable, if it ever will. The best solution is up for debate, but thinking that you just have to increase the blocksize and there is no trade off is just naive or misleading. BCH is doing a good thing in trying to come with a solution that is inclusive and promotes cheap and fast transactions, but also don't forget centralization is a major concern and nothing to just shrug off.
Saying that "a 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own" and that because of that "Poor people won’t be able to use the network" is a misrepresentation designed to promote a narrative. Because 1MB is not to allow "poor" people to run their node, it is to facilitate as many people to run a node to promote decentralization and avoid censorship.
Also an elephant in the room that you will not see being discussed in either BTC or BCH communities is that mining pools are heavily centralized. And I'm not talking about miners being mostly in china, but also that big pools control a lot of hashing power both in BTC and BCH, and that is terrible for the purpose of crypto.
Other projects are trying to solve that. Will they be successful? I don't know, I hope so, because I don't buy into any narrative. There are many challenges and I want to see crypto succeed as a whole. As always guys, DYOR and always question if you are not blindly following a narrative. I'm sure I will be called BTC maxi but maybe some people will find value in this. Don't trust guys that are always posting silly "gocha's" against the other "tribe".
EDIT: User u/ShadowOfHarbringer has pointed me to some threads that this has been discussed in the past and I will just put my take on them here for visibility, as I will be using this thread as a reference in future discussions I engage:
When there was only 2 nodes in the network, adding a third node increased redundancy and resiliency of the network as a whole in a significant way. When there is thousands of nodes in the network, adding yet another node only marginally increase the redundancy and resiliency of the network. So the question then becomes a matter of personal judgement of how much that added redundancy and resiliency is worth. For the absolutist, it is absolutely worth it and everyone on this planet should do their part.
What is the magical number of nodes that makes it counterproductive to add new nodes? Did he do any math? Does BCH achieve this holy grail safe number of nodes? Guess what, nobody knows at what number of nodes is starts to be marginally irrelevant to add new nodes. Even BTC today could still not have enough nodes to be safe. If you can't know for sure that you are safe, it is better to try to be safer than sorry. Thousands of nodes is still not enough, as I said, it is much cheaper to run a full node as it is to mine. If it costs millions in hash power to do a 51% attack on the block generation it means nothing if it costs less than $10k to run more nodes than there are in total in the network and cause havoc and slowing people from using the network. Or using bot farms to DDoS the 1000s of nodes in the network. Not all attacks are monetarily motivated. When you have governments with billions of dollars at their disposal and something that could threat their power they could do anything they could to stop people from using it, and the cheapest it is to do so the better
You should run a full node if you're a big business with e.g. >$100k/month in volume, or if you run a service that requires high fraud resistance and validation certainty for payments sent your way (e.g. an exchange). For most other users of Bitcoin, there's no good reason to run a full node unless you reel like it.
Shouldn't individuals benefit from fraud resistance too? Why just businesses?
Personally, I think it's a good idea to make sure that people can easily run a full node because they feel like it, and that it's desirable to keep full node resource requirements reasonable for an enthusiast/hobbyist whenever possible. This might seem to be at odds with the concept of making a worldwide digital cash system in which all transactions are validated by everybody, but after having done the math and some of the code myself, I believe that we should be able to have our cake and eat it too.
This is recurrent argument, but also no math provided, "just trust me I did the math"
The biggest reason individuals may want to run their own node is to increase their privacy. SPV wallets rely on others (nodes or ElectronX servers) who may learn their addresses.
It is a reason and valid one but not the biggest reason
If you do it for fun and experimental it good. If you do it for extra privacy it's ok. If you do it to help the network don't. You are just slowing down miners and exchanges.
Yes it will slow down the network, but that shows how people just don't get the the trade off they are doing
I will just copy/paste what Satoshi Nakamoto said in his own words. "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server."
Another "it is all or nothing argument" and quoting satoshi to try and prove their point. Just because every user doesn't need to be also a full node doesn't mean that there aren't serious risks for having few nodes
For this to have any importance in practice, all of the miners, all of the exchanges, all of the explorers and all of the economic nodes should go rogue all at once. Collude to change consensus. If you have a node you can detect this. It doesn't do much, because such a scenario is impossible in practice.
Not true because as I said, you can DDoS the current nodes or run more malicious nodes than that there currently are, because is cheap to do so
Non-mining nodes don't contribute to adding data to the blockchain ledger, but they do play a part in propagating transactions that aren't yet in blocks (the mempool). Bitcoin client implementations can have different validations for transactions they see outside of blocks and transactions they see inside of blocks; this allows for "soft forks" to add new types of transactions without completely breaking older clients (while a transaction is in the mempool, a node receiving a transaction that's a new/unknown type could drop it as not a valid transaction (not propagate it to its peers), but if that same transaction ends up in a block and that node receives the block, they accept the block (and the transaction in it) as valid (and therefore don't get left behind on the blockchain and become a fork). The participation in the mempool is a sort of "herd immunity" protection for the network, and it was a key talking point for the "User Activated Soft Fork" (UASF) around the time the Segregated Witness feature was trying to be added in. If a certain percentage of nodes updated their software to not propagate certain types of transactions (or not communicate with certain types of nodes), then they can control what gets into a block (someone wanting to get that sort of transaction into a block would need to communicate directly to a mining node, or communicate only through nodes that weren't blocking that sort of transaction) if a certain threshold of nodes adheres to those same validation rules. It's less specific than the influence on the blockchain data that mining nodes have, but it's definitely not nothing.
The first reasonable comment in that thread but is deep down there with only 1 upvote
The addition of non-mining nodes does not add to the efficiency of the network, but actually takes away from it because of the latency issue.
That is true and is actually a trade off you are making, sacrificing security to have scalability
The addition of non-mining nodes has little to no effect on security, since you only need to destroy mining ones to take down the network
It is true that if you destroy mining nodes you take down the network from producing new blocks (temporarily), even if you have a lot of non mining nodes. But, it still better than if you take down the mining nodes who are also the only full nodes. If the miners are not the only full nodes, at least you still have full nodes with the blockchain data so new miners can download it and join. If all the miners are also the full nodes and you take them down, where will you get all the past blockchain data to start mining again? Just pray that the miners that were taken down come back online at some point in the future?
The real limiting factor is ISP's: Imagine a situation where one service provider defrauds 4000 different nodes. Did the excessive amount of nodes help at all, when they have all been defrauded by the same service provider? If there are only 30 ISP's in the world, how many nodes do we REALLY need?
You cant defraud if the connection is encrypted. Use TOR for example, it is hard for ISP's to know what you are doing.
Satoshi specifically said in the white paper that after a certain point, number of nodes needed plateaus, meaning after a certain point, adding more nodes is actually counterintuitive, which we also demonstrated. (the latency issue). So, we have adequately demonstrated why running non-mining nodes does not add additional value or security to the network.
Again, what is the number of nodes that makes it counterproductive? Did he do any math?
There's also the matter of economically significant nodes and the role they play in consensus. Sure, nobody cares about your average joe's "full node" where he is "keeping his own ledger to keep the miners honest", as it has no significance to the economy and the miners couldn't give a damn about it. However, if say some major exchanges got together to protest a miner activated fork, they would have some protest power against that fork because many people use their service. Of course, there still needs to be miners running on said "protest fork" to keep the chain running, but miners do follow the money and if they got caught mining a fork that none of the major exchanges were trading, they could be coaxed over to said "protest fork".
In consensus, what matters about nodes is only the number, economical power of the node doesn't mean nothing, the protocol doesn't see the net worth of the individual or organization running that node.
Running a full node that is not mining and not involved is spending or receiving payments is of very little use. It helps to make sure network traffic is broadcast, and is another copy of the blockchain, but that is all (and is probably not needed in a healthy coin with many other nodes)
He gets it right (broadcasting transaction and keeping a copy of the blockchain) but he dismisses the importance of it
submitted by r0bo7 to btc [link] [comments]

IS BITCOIN (BTC) MINING WORTH IT JULY 2019?? -💰PROFITABLE ... Is BITCOIN MINING Profitable RIGHT NOW In Mid 2019? - YouTube Is Bitcoin Mining Profitable RIGHT NOW In Early 2020 ... Is Mining Bitcoin Still Profitable in 2020? - YouTube Should You Buy A USB Bitcoin Miner In 2019?

Today, the bitcoin mining difficulty has squeezed individual miners from the market (despite the high value of a single coin) and the scene is dominated by mining syndicates, which see ... Bitcoin miners on Tuesday transfered nearly 3,000 bitcoin, worth around $28 million, directly into exchange wallets. Several thousand others were likely moved via over-the-counter (OTC) deals. Bitcoin mining profitability calculators . Once you’ve figured out some of your costs and mining rig options, you can use a calculator to determine whether or not Bitcoin mining is worth it for you. 99Bitcoins and CryptoCompare both have great calculators for you to use. If you find that you won’t be profitable mining Bitcoin, don’t fret. Bitcoin mining began as a well paid hobby for early adopters who had the chance to earn 50 BTC every 10 minutes, mining from their bedrooms. Successfully mining just one Bitcoin block, and holding onto it since 2010 would mean you have $450,000 worth of bitcoin in your wallet in 2020. Bitcoin miners use high-powered computers to solve complex computational math problems, and the whole process is called the “Proof-of-Work” consensus algorithm. The result of this endeavor is two folded – miners “create” new bitcoins, and they also help verify each transaction, keeping the payment network secure and trustworthy.

[index] [17402] [21618] [10405] [6345] [20666] [21709] [9159] [33056] [19558] [2879]

IS BITCOIN (BTC) MINING WORTH IT JULY 2019?? -💰PROFITABLE ...

Is mining Bitcoin BTC still profitable in 2020? Let's review mining profitability, Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin SV. Block reward halving, network diffi... Is Bitcoin BTC mining worth it in August 2019? Is it profitable to start a bitcoin mining farm or buy bitcoin mining hardware. In this mini video I will thro... TIMESTAMPS: Antminer S9: 6:03 Antminer S17: 10:17 Articles and hashtags referenced:#bitcoinnews #bitcoinmining #BitcoinBillionaire GET A Chance To WIN $100 B... Is Bitcoin BTC mining worth it july 2019? Is it profitable to buy bitcoin mining hardware and start a bitcoin mining farm setup in 2019? Does Bitmain antmine... WANT FREE STOCK FAST? CLICK LINK And CLICK "SIGN UP NOW"! 💲💲💲 http://join.robinhood.com/jareds7 ALL VIDEOS ARE ONLY REPRESENTATIVE OF MY OPINION. ONLY INVEST...

#