Ugh, this is what Bitcoin’s hash rate means and why it matters

Bitcoin Mining Hash Rate Plummets To 35 EH/s, Increasing Centralization Of Bitcoin Mining

Bitcoin Mining Hash Rate Plummets To 35 EH/s, Increasing Centralization Of Bitcoin Mining

https://preview.redd.it/7qe13wsg3yz11.jpg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cdb3cb372c118e1bde3b75332739ab61ca868e21
http://genesisblocknews.com/bitcoin-mining-hash-rate-plummets-to-35-eh-s-increasing-centralization-of-bitcoin-mining/
The Bitcoin mining hash rate had been exponentially increasing from 2009 through August 2018, from MH/s, to GH/s, to TH/s, to PH/s, and now EH/s. The all-time record high for Bitcoin’s mining hash rate was 62 EH/s on 26 August 2018.
After that point the trend broke, and Bitcoin’s mining hash rate plateaued. This was due to a combination of two factors. First, the Bitcoin bear market brought Bitcoin’s price down from USD 20,000 to about USD 6,500, making mining much less profitable. Second, Bitcoin’s mining difficulty had been rapidly rising despite the bear market, as all the new hash power came online. The end result was there was no more room to profitably add hashing power to the Bitcoin network.
It was thought that Bitcoin’s support level was solidly at USD 5,800, but that paradigm broke when Bitcoin Cash forked, the Securities and Exchange Commission began to launch catastrophic civil penalties against initial coin offerings (ICOs), and the launch of physical Bitcoin futures on Bakkt was delayed. This trifecta of extremely bad news within 1 week has brought Bitcoin’s price down to USD 4,400.
This unexpected crash in Bitcoin’s price has been destructive for the mining industry. Many mining farms were right at the break even point, or perhaps even losing some money, but expecting Bitcoin to go up in the near future so they kept mining. Now Bitcoin’s hash rate has plummeted to 35 EH/s, implicitly indicating about 25 EH/s of Bitcoin mining rigs have been taken offline since they are no longer profitable due to electricity costs.
This represents billions of USD of Bitcoin mining equipment going to complete waste, since Bitcoin mining rigs have no real use besides mining Bitcoin. The events unfolding in the Bitcoin mining space could spell doom for mining rig manufacturers. Now the market for rigs is completely over-saturated, and any demand for rigs has probably dried up. Mining rig manufacturers could perhaps rectify this by rapidly developing cutting-edge technology, like what Bitmain did when they recently released 7 nm rigs.
Speaking of Bitmain, no matter how good their technology is, unless Bitcoin’s price rises soon they are going to experience their lowest sales numbers in history. There is a chance this will throttle their attempt at an initial public offering (IPO) on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, and if that IPO falls apart that will send more shockwaves through the crypto space.
On a final note, Bitcoin mining supersites that cost hundreds of millions of USD have been popping up across the globe recently, and these have been forcing personal miners out of business, since the supersites are far more cost effective per unit of hash rate. The crash in Bitcoin’s mining hash rate we are seeing right now could very possibly be individual miners collectively shutting down their rigs, leaving just the supersites. This could drastically increase the centralization of the Bitcoin mining network, and therefore increase the centralization of Bitcoin itself.
GenesisBlockNews believes it is a dangerous trend for Bitcoin’s hash rate to increasingly be in the control of a select few corporations.
submitted by turtlecane to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Why auto-checkpoints are a departure from Nakamoto consensus and a force of centralization

As a preface, I'd like to state my stance on the recent controversy. Up to this point, I have supported every change put forward by the ABC team. I view Bitcoin SV as a failed attack on the Bitcoin Cash network, and will gladly continue to support ABC and BU as driving forces in the development of the network. That is all I have to say about this.

Now I move on to my point.

If widely adopted, I consider auto-checkpoints to be the first change put forward by ABC which departs from fundamental Bitcoin rules. Just to clarify, I don't consider the current difficulty algorithm, canonical transaction ordering, OP_CHECKDATASIG, or other recent changes to be a departure from Bitcoin fundamentals. However, auto-checkpoints do make Bitcoin Cash less Bitcoin.

Auto-checkpoints violate a Bitcoin rule which is so fundamental that it is stated multiple times throughout the white paper (1): "Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will keep working on extending it". If auto-checkpoints become widely adopted, this will no longer be true. Nodes will actively reject perfectly valid chains which have greater accumulated proof-of-work, based on a first-seen rule. This is a significant departure from Nakamoto consensus, where the state of the network is settled automatically by a decision which should be based only on hash rate.

This leads to a system with strictly worse decentralization properties. If the network ever becomes split - half of all nodes consider chain 1 to be valid, while the other half considers chain 2 to be valid - the conflict will no longer be resolved automatically by hash rate. Such event is not merely theoretical; this would happen if there ever was a prolonged network split, or under a zhell attack (2). If all participants wish to continue operating as a unified network, an explicit choice will have to be made between chain 1 and chain 2 - both of which are fully valid according to consensus rules.

Under these circumstances - a very plausible scenario-, the fate of the network will no longer be decided by proof-of-work like Nakamoto consensus dictates, but rather by proof-of-authority or proof-of-social-media. This is an unnecessary centralizing force, and reduces the power of miners (proof-of-work) against those with a louder voice in the community (proof-of-authority). This is a very delicate balance we should not be fucking around with if we wish to see Bitcoin reach its full potential.

As a final remark, I would like to state that I am not a fundamentalist. I do not believe that everything in the white paper should be unquestionable. For example, I believe it's perfectly reasonable to interpret "longest chain" as "chain with greatest accumulated proof-of-work", or to interpret "one CPU - one vote" as "one KH/s - one vote", among other updates based on how our knowledge of Bitcoin has evolved since 2008. However, auto-checkpoints do not fall in this category. They are an update on the very notion of consensus via proof-of-work, leading to a strictly worse trade-off.

I invite other influential actors in the space who are concerned about this change to speak up, and to run their nodes without enabling this feature.

Update: for people who find it instructive to read Satoshi Nakamoto's thoughts, check (3) out.

---

(1) https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf (2) https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/9z1gjo/on_the_new_deep_reorg_protection/ (3) https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/9z3e0e/s_nakamoto_it_is_strictly_necessary_that_the/
submitted by er4ytyfngbdg to btc [link] [comments]

Daily analysis of cryptocurrencies 20191023(Market index 33 — Fear state)

Daily analysis of cryptocurrencies 20191023(Market index 33 — Fear state)

https://preview.redd.it/folaa2ztw9u31.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a0aaa8476acb68252087ddf0558d293b5a9a9392

Germany Warns Of Privacy Token Usage In Money Laundering And Terrorism According to Cointelegraph, the German Federal Ministry of Finance has expressed concerns about rising use of privacy tokens due to their association with criminal activities and difficulties in tracking them. Published on Oct 19, the ministry’s “First Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing National Risk Assessment” for 2018–2019 provided analysis aimed at the identification of existing and future risks in the field of anti-money laundering (AML) and terrorism financing (TF) in Germany. Among other challenges, the report examines circulation of cryptocurrencies in the darknet for criminal purposes.
State Probe Of Facebook Expands To 47 Attorneys General According to Reuters news flash, the state probe of Facebook on allegations that the company put consumer data at risk and pushed up advertising rates has expanded to attorneys general from 47 states and territories, New York Attorney General Letitia James said on Tuesday, October 22 in a statement.
Bank Of Lithuania Becomes First Market Regulator To Issue Guidelines On STOs According to coinpage, Bank of Lithuania has become the first of market regulators to issue guidelines on STOs. The new guidelines are focussed on the classification of security tokens, assessing specific cases and providing recommendations related to the issue of the security tokens and also clarify on applicable legal regulation. Furthermore, enterprises planning to use the STO method will need to comply with EU and national legislation regulating capital-raising activities.
TBCASoft, IBM And SoftBank Announced A Mobile Payment Blockchain Blockchain platform TBCASoft, technology behemoth IBM and telecommunications conglomerate SoftBank announced on Oct 22 a collaboration to adopt a cross-carrier telecommunications blockchain payment solution.

Encrypted project calendar(October 23, 2019)

MIOTA/IOTA: IOTA (MIOTA) IOTA will host a community event on October 23rd at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles with the theme “Connecting the I3 Market and Experiencing Purchase and Sales Data.” BTC/Bitcoin: The WBS World Blockchain Summit (Middle East) will be held in Dubai from October 23rd to 24th. Cardano (ADA) and 1 other: 23 October 2019 WBS Dubai “One of a kind gathering of 500+ curated & pre-qualified investors, CEOs, CIOs, CTOs, Heads of Blockchain, Chief Digital Officers CloakCoin (CLOAK): 23 October 2019 (or earlier) CloakCoin Competition “CloakCoin competition : solve the CloakCoin ENIGMA transaction, 3rd round.” Loom Network (LOOM): 23 October 2019 Singapore Meetup “Unstack the Stack Series: Loom Network” from 6:30–8:30 PM (SST). BTGS/Bitdog: ZG.COM will open the BTGS currency and coin transfer business at 14:00 on October 23, and open the BTGS/USDT transaction pair on October 23 at 18:18. Waltonchain (WTC): 23 October 2019 Transfers Suspended “$WTC deposits and withdrawals on #TaibiExchange will be suspended from 00:00 Oct 22 (UTC+8) and are estimated to resume at 15:00 Oct 23

Encrypted project calendar(October 24, 2019)

BCN/Bytecoin: Bytecoin (BCN) released the hidden amount of the Bytecoin block network on October 24. Horizen (ZEN): 24 October 2019 Weekly Insider Team updates at 3:30 PM UTC/ 11:30 AM EDT: Engineering, Node network, Product/UX, Helpdesk, Legal, BD, Marketing, CEO Closing thoughts, AMA. ANT/Aragon: Aragon (ANT) Aragon Network will hold the theme “DAO: ICO and DeFi next step” in Hong Kong on October 24th? DATA/Streamr DATAcoin: Streamr DATAcoin (DATA) Streamr Network Technology Exchange and Project Development Conference will be held in London on October 24th. Lisk (LSK): 24 October 2019 Coding Workshop — Berlin “During this workshop you will acquire the skills to create custom transactions with the Lisk Alpha SDK using Node.js.” BTU Protocol (BTU): 24 October 2019 Africa IT Expo “Our co-founder @vidal007 will be speaking at upcoming @africa_aitex [African IT Expo] held in #Rabat #Morocco on 24th of October.” Matrix AI Network (MAN): 24 October 2019 YouTube AMA YouTube AMA from 3PM, October 24 (GMT+8). Utrum (OOT): 24 October 2019 AtomicDex Listing “We are pleased to announce that Utrum coin OOT is getting listed on Komodo Platform Decentral Exchange — AtomicDEX. “

Encrypted project calendar(October 25, 2019)

ADA/Cardano: Cardano (ADA) The Ada community will host a community gathering in the Dominican Republic for the first time on October 25. Crypto.com Coin (CRO): 25 October 2019 Live AMA with CEO “Live AMA with our CEO @Kris_HK on @cryptocom’s Twitter next Friday, 25 October, 11AM HKT.” GST/GSTCOIN: GSTCOIN(GST)LBank will be online GST on October 25, 2019 at 16:00 (UTC+8), open trading pair: GST/USDT, GST/ETH.

Encrypted project calendar(October 26, 2019)

KAT/Kambria: Kambria (KAT) Kambria will host the 2019 Southern California Artificial Intelligence and Data Science Conference in Los Angeles on October 26th with IDEAS. BTC/Bitcoin: CoinAgenda Global Summit will be held in Las Vegas from October 26th to 28th Horizen (ZEN): 26 October 2019 (or earlier) ZEN 2.0.19 Upgrade Zen 2.0.19 upgrade at block #610000, which is expected around October 26.

Encrypted project calendar(October 27, 2019)

ICON (ICX): 27 October 2019 Money 20/20 USA Event Money 20/20 USA in Las Vegas from October 27–30.

Encrypted project calendar(October 28, 2019)

LTC/Litecoin: Litecoin (LTC) 2019 Litecoin Summit will be held from October 28th to October 29th in Las Vegas, USA BTC/Bitcoin: Mt.Gox changes the debt compensation plan submission deadline to October 28 ZEC/Zcash: Zcash (ZEC) will activate the Blossom Agreement on October 28th Stellar (XLM): 28 October 2019 Protocol 12 Upgrade Vote Horizon v0.22.0 has been released, which supports Protocol 12. This gives everyone ample time to prepare for the Protocol 12 upgrade vote Celsius (CEL) and 3 others: 28 October 2019 Litecoin Summit “…The Litecoin Summit offers two fun, jam-packed days with something for everyone.” XFOC (XFOC): The IDAX platform will be online XFOC and will open the XFOC/USDT trading pair at 13:00 on October 28. MEDIUM (MDM): The IDAX platform lists MDM and will open MDM/BTC trading pairs on October 28th at 15:00. ZB/ ZB Blockchain: The “2019 Hamburg Intercontinental Dialogue Conference” hosted by ZB.com will be held from October 28th to November 9th at the Four Seasons Hotel Hamburg, Germany. BQT (BQTX): 28 October 2019 Down for Maintenance BQTX.com will be down for maintenance on the 28th of October from 7 to 12am UTC.

Encrypted project calendar(October 29, 2019)

BTC/Bitcoin: The 2nd World Encryption Conference (WCC) will be held in Las Vegas from October 29th to 31st. ICON (ICX): 29 October 2019 Decentralization “As a result, the decentralization schedule of the ICON Network has been changed from September 24, 2019 to October 29, 2019.” Ark (ARK): and 10 others 29 October 2019 WCC 2019 Second annual Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Technology event, World Crypto Conference (WCC), October 29th — October 31, 2019. Insifa (ISF): 29 October 2019 Prototype Alpha “We from Insifa have decided to be more open. Our Prototype will be developed in scrum. This means new releases every two weeks.”

Encrypted project calendar(October 30, 2019)

MIOTA/IOTA: IOTA (MIOTA) IOTA will host a community event on October 30th at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles on the topic “How to store data on IOTA Tangle.” TRON (TRX): 30 October 2019 SFBW19 Afterparty “TRON Official SFBW19 Afterparty from 7–10:30 PM in San Francisco.” Horizen (ZEN): 30 October 2019 Horizen Quarterly Update Join our first Quarterly Update on October the 30th at 5 PM UTC/ 1 PM EST. Deeper look into Engineering, BD, Marketing, and more. Aeternity (AE): 30 October 2019 Hardfork “The third hardfork of the æternity Mainnet is scheduled for October 30, 2019.” Valor Token (VALOR): 30 October 2019 Transaction Fees Resume “It’s September and the SMART VALOR Platform is still waiving transaction fees for all members, until October 30th!” Aragon (ANT): 30 October 2019 Singapore Meetup “Aragon on DAOs and DeFi” from 6:30–8:30 PM. Kambria (KAT): 30 October 2019 Outliers Hashed Awards Outliers Hashed awards from October 30–31. Ethereum Classic (ETC): 30 October 2019 Cohort Demo Day “ETC Labs hosts it’s 2nd Cohort Demo Day. Learn about the companies and project being accelerated through the Ethereum Classic ecosystem.”

Encrypted project calendar(October 31, 2019)

Spendcoin (SPND): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) Cross Ledger Mainnet “Cross Ledger Mainnet Release and SPND Token Swap,” during October 2019. Spendcoin (SPND): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) Blkchn University Beta “Blockchain University Beta goes live,” during October 2019. Stellar (XLM): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) Minor Release “We will have 6 Minor Releases in 2019; one each in February, March, May, June, August, and October.” Bitcoin SV (BSV): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) BSV Conference Seoul No additional information. Seele (SEELE): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) Public Network Mainne launch has been moved to Oct 31 . Howdoo (UDOO): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) Howdoo Live on Huawei Howdoo begins its exciting partnership with Huawei with listing as a featured app starting in October. Chiliz (CHZ): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) App Soft Launch Soft launch of Socios App by end of October. Dent (DENT): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) Loyalty Program “Afterburner loyalty program launch for all 21,6 Million mobile #DENT users will be in October!” IceChain (ICHX): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) Wallet Release IceChain releases wallet during October. Chiliz (CHZ): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) New Partnerships New sports and new teams joining Socios (+more updates and events) will be announced in the upcoming weeks. Horizen (ZEN): 31 October 2019 Weekly Insider Team updates at 3:30 PM UTC/ 11:30 AM EDT: Engineering, Node network, Product/UX, Helpdesk, Legal, BD, Marketing, CEO Closing thoughts, AMA. PCHAIN (PI): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) New Website No additional information. IOST (IOST): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) New Game on IOST “Eternal Fafnir, a new role-playing game developed by INFUN is coming to you in Oct.” Achain (ACT): 31 October 2019 Mainnet 2.0 Launch “… The main network is officially scheduled to launch on October 31.” Mithril (MITH):31 October 2019 Burn “MITH burn will take place on 2019/10/31 2pm UTC+8. “ Aergo (AERGO): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) Aergo Lite V1.0 Release AergoLite, which brings blockchain compatibility to billions of devices using SQLite, released during October 2019. TE-FOOD (TFD): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) Complementary Product “Development of a new, complementary product with a new partner, which we hope to be launched in September-October.” Edge (DADI): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) Full Open Source Code base for the network fully open-sourced in September or October. BlockStamp (BST): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) ASIC Miner Prototype In orderr to ensure BlockStamps continued decentralization, we will release a BST ASIC miner for testing. Perlin (PERL): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) SSA Partnership “Perlin has partnered with the Singapore Shipping Association to create the International E-Registry of Ships (IERS)” Skrumble Network (SKM): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) Exchange Release “3rd dApp: Exchange Release,” during October 2019. EDC Blockchain (EDC): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) Blockchain Marketplace “As you already know, our ECRO blockchain marketplace is ready for release, and will open to the global community in October!” BlockStamp (BST): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) ASIC Miner Prototype In orderr to ensure BlockStamps continued decentralization, we will release a BST ASIC miner for testing. XinFin Network (XDCE): 31 October 2019 Homebloc Webinar “XinFin — Homebloc Webinar 2019” from 9–10 PM. Akropolis (AKRO): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) Alpha Release “Delivers the initial mainnet implementation of protocol. All building blocks will be united to one product.” Hyperion (HYN): 31 October 2019 (or earlier) Economic Model The final version of the HYN Economic Model launches in October.

Encrypted project calendar(November 1, 2019)

INS/Insolar: The Insolar (INS) Insolar wallet and the redesigned Insolar Block Explorer will be operational on November 1, 2019. VeChain (VET):”01 November 2019 BUIDLer Reunion Party BUIDLer Reunion Party in San Francisco from 8–11 PM. uPlexa (UPX): 01 November 2019 Steadfast Storm — PoS/PoW split (Utility nodes ie. master nodes) — Upcoming Anonymity Network much like TOR — Privacy-based DApps — Reduced network fees. Enjin Coin (ENJ): 01 November 2019 MFT Binding “ICYMI: On Enjin Coin’s 2nd anniversary (November 1), Enjin MFTs will be bound to hodlers’ blockchain addresses…” Auxilium (AUX):01 November 2019 AUX Interest Distribution Monthly interest distribution by Auxilium Interest Distribution Platform for coinholders. Also supports charity. Havy (HAVY):01 November 2019 Token Buyback “Havy tokens buyback, Only in 1 exchange between Idex, Mercatox & Hotbit. The exchange depends on the most lower sell wall.”

Encrypted project calendar(November 2, 2019)

Kambria (KAT): 02 November 2019 VietAI Summit 2019 Kambria joins forces with VietAI for the annual VietAI Summit, with top experts from Google Brain, NVIDIA, Kambria, VietAI, and more!

Encrypted project calendar(November 4, 2019)

Stellar (XLM): 04 November 2019 Stellar Meridian Conf. Stellar Meridian conference from Nov 4–5 in Mexico City. Cappasity (CAPP): 04 November 2019 Lisbon Web Summit Lisbon Web Summit in Lisbon, Portugal from November 4–7.

Encrypted project calendar(November 5, 2019)

Nexus (NXS): 05 November 2019 Tritium Official Release “Remember, Remember the 5th of November, the day Tritium changed Distributed Ledger. Yes, this is an official release date.” NEM (XEM): 05 November 2019 Innovation Forum — Kyiv NEM Foundation Council Member Anton Bosenko will be speaking in the upcoming International Innovation Forum in Kyiv on November 5, 2019.

Encrypted project calendar(November 6, 2019)

STEEM/Steem: The Steem (STEEM) SteemFest 4 conference will be held in Bangkok from November 6th to 10th. KIM/Kimcoin: Kimcoin (KIM) Bitfinex will be online at KIM on November 6, 2019 at 12:00 (UTC).

Encrypted project calendar(November 7, 2019)

XRP (XRP): 07 November 2019 Swell 2019 Ripple hosts Swell from November 7th — 8th in Singapore. BTC/Bitcoin: Malta The A.I. and Blockchain summit will be held in Malta from November 7th to 8th.

Encrypted project calendar(November 8, 2019)

BTC/Bitcoin: The 2nd Global Digital Mining Summit will be held in Frankfurt, Germany from October 8th to 10th. IOTX/IoTeX: IoTex (IOTX) will participate in the CES Expo on November 08

Encrypted project calendar(November 9, 2019)

CENNZ/Centrality: Centrality (CENNZ) will meet in InsurTechNZ Connect — Insurance and Blockchain on October 9th in Auckland.

Encrypted project calendar(November 11, 2019)

PAX/Paxos Standard: Paxos Standard (PAX) 2019 Singapore Financial Technology Festival will be held from November 11th to 15th, and Paxos Standard will attend the conference.

Encrypted project calendar(November 12, 2019)

BTC/Bitcoin: The CoinMarketCap Global Conference will be held at the Victoria Theatre in Singapore from November 12th to 13th
https://preview.redd.it/uvnuirkww9u31.png?width=504&format=png&auto=webp&s=737fdd29c36f554223c9e7473cf843c60fe2bb6a

Recently, bitcoin made a few attempts to gain strength above the $8,300 resistance area against the US Dollar. BTC price even spiked above the $8,350 level, but it failed to continue higher.
As a result, a swing high was formed near $8,323 and the price started a fresh decline. During the decline, there was a break below a couple of important supports near $8,100 and $8,200. Moreover, there was a break below a short term ascending channel with support near $8,240 on the hourly chart of the BTC/USD pair.
Finally, bitcoin traded below the $8,100 support area and settled below the 100 hourly simple moving average. It is now trading below the $8,000 level and a low was formed near $7,932.
Review previous articles: https://medium.com/@to.liuwen

Telegram: https://t.me/Lay126
Twitter:https://twitter.com/mianhuai8
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100022246432745
Reddi:https://www.reddit.com/useliuidaxmn
LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/liu-wei-294a12176/
submitted by liuidaxmn to u/liuidaxmn [link] [comments]

The Problem with PoW

The Problem with PoW
Miners have always had it rough..
"Frustrated Miners"

The Problem with PoW
(and what is being done to solve it)

Proof of Work (PoW) is one of the most commonly used consensus mechanisms entrusted to secure and validate many of today’s most successful cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin being one. Battle-hardened and having weathered the test of time, Bitcoin has demonstrated the undeniable strength and reliability of the PoW consensus model through sheer market saturation, and of course, its persistency.
In addition to the cost of powerful computing hardware, miners prove that they are benefiting the network by expending energy in the form of electricity, by solving and hashing away complex math problems on their computers, utilizing any suitable tools that they have at their disposal. The mathematics involved in securing proof of work revolve around unique algorithms, each with their own benefits and vulnerabilities, and can require different software/hardware to mine depending on the coin.
Because each block has a unique and entirely random hash, or “puzzle” to solve, the “work” has to be performed for each block individually and the difficulty of the problem can be increased as the speed at which blocks are solved increases.

Hashrates and Hardware Types

While proof of work is an effective means of securing a blockchain, it inherently promotes competition amongst miners seeking higher and higher hashrates due to the rewards earned by the node who wins the right to add the next block. In turn, these higher hash rates benefit the blockchain, providing better security when it’s a result of a well distributed/decentralized network of miners.
When Bitcoin first launched its genesis block, it was mined exclusively by CPUs. Over the years, various programmers and developers have devised newer, faster, and more energy efficient ways to generate higher hashrates; some by perfecting the software end of things, and others, when the incentives are great enough, create expensive specialized hardware such as ASICs (application-specific integrated circuit). With the express purpose of extracting every last bit of hashing power, efficiency being paramount, ASICs are stripped down, bare minimum, hardware representations of a specific coin’s algorithm.
This gives ASICS a massive advantage in terms of raw hashing power and also in terms of energy consumption against CPUs/GPUs, but with significant drawbacks of being very expensive to design/manufacture, translating to a high economic barrier for the casual miner. Due to the fact that they are virtual hardware representations of a single targeted algorithm, this means that if a project decides to fork and change algorithms suddenly, your powerful brand-new ASIC becomes a very expensive paperweight. The high costs in developing and manufacturing ASICs and the associated risks involved, make them unfit for mass adoption at this time.
Somewhere on the high end, in the vast hashrate expanse created between GPU and ASIC, sits the FPGA (field programmable gate array). FPGAs are basically ASICs that make some compromises with efficiency in order to have more flexibility, namely they are reprogrammable and often used in the “field” to test an algorithm before implementing it in an ASIC. As a precursor to the ASIC, FPGAs are somewhat similar to GPUs in their flexibility, but require advanced programming skills and, like ASICs, are expensive and still fairly uncommon.

2 Guys 1 ASIC

One of the issues with proof of work incentivizing the pursuit of higher hashrates is in how the network calculates block reward coinbase payouts and rewards miners based on the work that they have submitted. If a coin generated, say a block a minute, and this is a constant, then what happens if more miners jump on a network and do more work? The network cannot pay out more than 1 block reward per 1 minute, and so a difficulty mechanism is used to maintain balance. The difficulty will scale up and down in response to the overall nethash, so if many miners join the network, or extremely high hashing devices such as ASICs or FPGAs jump on, the network will respond accordingly, using the difficulty mechanism to make the problems harder, effectively giving an edge to hardware that can solve them faster, balancing the network. This not only maintains the block a minute reward but it has the added side-effect of energy requirements that scale up with network adoption.
Imagine, for example, if one miner gets on a network all alone with a CPU doing 50 MH/s and is getting all 100 coins that can possibly be paid out in a day. Then, if another miner jumps on the network with the same CPU, each miner would receive 50 coins in a day instead of 100 since they are splitting the required work evenly, despite the fact that the net electrical output has doubled along with the work. Electricity costs miner’s money and is a factor in driving up coin price along with adoption, and since more people are now mining, the coin is less centralized. Now let’s say a large corporation has found it profitable to manufacture an ASIC for this coin, knowing they will make their money back mining it or selling the units to professionals. They join the network doing 900 MH/s and will be pulling in 90 coins a day, while the two guys with their CPUs each get 5 now. Those two guys aren’t very happy, but the corporation is. Not only does this negatively affect the miners, it compromises the security of the entire network by centralizing the coin supply and hashrate, opening the doors to double spends and 51% attacks from potential malicious actors. Uncertainty of motives and questionable validity in a distributed ledger do not mix.
When technology advances in a field, it is usually applauded and welcomed with open arms, but in the world of crypto things can work quite differently. One of the glaring flaws in the current model and the advent of specialized hardware is that it’s never ending. Suppose the two men from the rather extreme example above took out a loan to get themselves that ASIC they heard about that can get them 90 coins a day? When they join the other ASIC on the network, the difficulty adjusts to keep daily payouts consistent at 100, and they will each receive only 33 coins instead of 90 since the reward is now being split three ways. Now what happens if a better ASIC is released by that corporation? Hopefully, those two guys were able to pay off their loans and sell their old ASICs before they became obsolete.
This system, as it stands now, only perpetuates a never ending hashrate arms race in which the weapons of choice are usually a combination of efficiency, economics, profitability and in some cases control.

Implications of Centralization

This brings us to another big concern with expensive specialized hardware: the risk of centralization. Because they are so expensive and inaccessible to the casual miner, ASICs and FPGAs predominantly remain limited to a select few. Centralization occurs when one small group or a single entity controls the vast majority hash power and, as a result, coin supply and is able to exert its influence to manipulate the market or in some cases, the network itself (usually the case of dishonest nodes or bad actors).
This is entirely antithetical of what cryptocurrency was born of, and since its inception many concerted efforts have been made to avoid centralization at all costs. An entity in control of a centralized coin would have the power to manipulate the price, and having a centralized hashrate would enable them to affect network usability, reliability, and even perform double spends leading to the demise of a coin, among other things.
The world of crypto is a strange new place, with rapidly growing advancements across many fields, economies, and boarders, leaving plenty of room for improvement; while it may feel like a never-ending game of catch up, there are many talented developers and programmers working around the clock to bring us all more sustainable solutions.

The Rise of FPGAs

With the recent implementation of the commonly used coding language C++, and due to their overall flexibility, FPGAs are becoming somewhat more common, especially in larger farms and in industrial setting; but they still remain primarily out of the hands of most mining enthusiasts and almost unheard of to the average hobby miner. Things appear to be changing though, one example of which I’ll discuss below, and it is thought by some, that soon we will see a day when mining with a CPU or GPU just won’t cut it any longer, and the market will be dominated by FPGAs and specialized ASICs, bringing with them efficiency gains for proof of work, while also carelessly leading us all towards the next round of spending.
A perfect real-world example of the effect specialized hardware has had on the crypto-community was recently discovered involving a fairly new project called VerusCoin and a fairly new, relatively more economically accessible FPGA. The FPGA is designed to target specific alt-coins whose algo’s do not require RAM overhead. It was discovered the company had released a new algorithm, kept secret from the public, which could effectively mine Verus at 20x the speed of GPUs, which were the next fastest hardware types mining on the Verus network.
Unfortunately this was done with a deliberately secret approach, calling the Verus algorithm “Algo1” and encouraging owners of the FPGA to never speak of the algorithm in public channels, admonishing a user when they did let the cat out of the bag. The problem with this business model is that it is parasitic in nature. In an ecosystem where advancements can benefit the entire crypto community, this sort of secret mining approach also does not support the philosophies set forth by the Bitcoin or subsequent open source and decentralization movements.
Although this was not done in the spirit of open source, it does hint to an important step in hardware innovation where we could see more efficient specialized systems within reach of the casual miner. The FPGA requires unique sets of data called a bitstream in order to be able to recognize each individual coin’s algorithm and mine them. Because it’s reprogrammable, with the support of a strong development team creating such bitstreams, the miner doesn’t end up with a brick if an algorithm changes.

All is not lost thanks to.. um.. Technology?

Shortly after discovering FPGAs on the network, the Verus developers quickly designed, tested, and implemented a new, much more complex and improved algorithm via a fork that enabled Verus to transition smoothly from VerusHash 1.0 to VerusHash 2.0 at block 310,000. Since the fork, VerusHash 2.0 has demonstrated doing exactly what it was designed for- equalizing hardware performance relative to the device being used while enabling CPUs (the most widely available “ASICs”) to mine side by side with GPUs, at a profit and it appears this will also apply to other specialized hardware. This is something no other project has been able to do until now. Rather than pursue the folly of so many other projects before it- attempting to be “ASIC proof”, Verus effectively achieved and presents to the world an entirely new model of “hardware homogeny”. As the late, great, Bruce Lee once said- “Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water.”
In the design of VerusHash 2.0, Verus has shown it doesn’t resist progress like so many other new algorithms try to do, it embraces change and adapts to it in the way that water becomes whatever vessel it inhabits. This new approach- an industry first- could very well become an industry standard and in doing so, would usher in a new age for proof of work based coins. VerusHash 2.0 has the potential to correct the single largest design flaw in the proof of work consensus mechanism- the ever expanding monetary and energy requirements that have plagued PoW based projects since the inception of the consensus mechanism. Verus also solves another major issue of coin and net hash centralization by enabling legitimate CPU mining, offering greater coin and hashrate distribution.
Digging a bit deeper it turns out the Verus development team are no rookies. The lead developer Michael F Toutonghi has spent decades in the field programming and is a former Vice President and Technical Fellow at Microsoft, recognized founder and architect of Microsoft's .Net platform, ex-Technical Fellow of Microsoft's advertising platform, ex-CTO, Parallels Corporation, and an experienced distributed computing and machine learning architect. The project he helped create employs and makes use of a diverse myriad of technologies and security features to form one of the most advanced and secure cryptocurrency to date. A brief description of what makes VerusCoin special quoted from a community member-
"Verus has a unique and new consensus algorithm called Proof of Power which is a 50% PoW/50% PoS algorithm that solves theoretical weaknesses in other PoS systems (Nothing at Stake problem for example) and is provably immune to 51% hash attacks. With this, Verus uses the new hash algorithm, VerusHash 2.0. VerusHash 2.0 is designed to better equalize mining across all hardware platforms, while favoring the latest CPUs over older types, which is also one defense against the centralizing potential of botnets. Unlike past efforts to equalize hardware hash-rates across different hardware types, VerusHash 2.0 explicitly enables CPUs to gain even more power relative to GPUs and FPGAs, enabling the most decentralizing hardware, CPUs (due to their virtually complete market penetration), to stay relevant as miners for the indefinite future. As for anonymity, Verus is not a "forced private", allowing for both transparent and shielded (private) transactions...and private messages as well"

If other projects can learn from this and adopt a similar approach or continue to innovate with new ideas, it could mean an end to all the doom and gloom predictions that CPU and GPU mining are dead, offering a much needed reprieve and an alternative to miners who have been faced with the difficult decision of either pulling the plug and shutting down shop or breaking down their rigs to sell off parts and buy new, more expensive hardware…and in so doing present an overall unprecedented level of decentralization not yet seen in cryptocurrency.
Technological advancements led us to the world of secure digital currencies and the progress being made with hardware efficiencies is indisputably beneficial to us all. ASICs and FPGAs aren’t inherently bad, and there are ways in which they could be made more affordable and available for mass distribution. More than anything, it is important that we work together as communities to find solutions that can benefit us all for the long term.

In an ever changing world where it may be easy to lose sight of the real accomplishments that brought us to this point one thing is certain, cryptocurrency is here to stay and the projects that are doing something to solve the current problems in the proof of work consensus mechanism will be the ones that lead us toward our collective vision of a better world- not just for the world of crypto but for each and every one of us.
submitted by Godballz to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

How can Bitcoin survive via hash voting and economic incentives if the world's economy is controlled and manipulated? November 15th scenario

Let's play a game for the purpose of this discussion and let's all put our tinfoil hats on. Create a folder in your mind named "possibilities" and play along, if you will.

Picture a world totally controlled by a mechanism called money that some private entities issue and manipulate. They dictate interest rates of central banks, orchestrate the economic crises, manipulate the money supply creating money out of thin air and use this air, among other things, for buying bonds and public debt and give a false sense of economic stability.

Picture an evil elite using this mechanism to buy out all the main governments, pharmaceutical companies, patent offices, education system and communication channels.
- Internet is born and frees communications, yet they do as much as possible to control ISPs, issue surveillance laws (the Five Eyes Alliance), control main media channels like Facebook and Twitter and ban dissenting opinions, and keep a firm grip on the population, giving people a false sense of freedom.

- One day Bitcoin is born. Years later, they manage to buy all the developpers under a single company and ban and smear all those who don't comply (even Gavin Andressen himself). Via shady measures like Segwit, they prevent miner voting and hijack the main representation of the Bitcoin project (BTC). Despite a successful centralization of the only tool that can free the world and make them lose their power, Mankind continues Bitcoin's open-source project (BCH), although it is only a minority chain due to media manipulation; unbeknownst to 99% of the population, when they learn about Bitcoin they believe it is their sabotaged project (BTC). They successfully handicap it and execute ridicule campaigns in mass media about its crash from 20k to 6k (which they might have also orchestrated via tools like Tether).

- The continuation of the Bitcoin project, although a minority chain, works as designed by Satoshi and keeps gaining traction and establishing itself as a working peer to peer decentralized economic system. They infiltrate the community's communication channels and manufacture dissent using sockpuppets. With the minority chain somewhat divided, the Bitcoin project has less chance of being globally adopted. Even so, they are aware sabotaging Bitcoin is easier the sooner, so they utilize false-authority characters to start trying to dictate the direction the project has to take (BSV). Could have even set up some of the characters themselves years ago (what if CSW was one of their infiltrators and had fooled Gavin with some information about Satoshi their intel had provided him for that specific purpose?).

- Aware of how Bitcoin works and their inability to hijack and sabotage the development of the project and the upgrades to its protocol this time (BCH), they begin using their money (backed by nothing, created out of thin air) to purchase computing power to now sabotage the project via hash rate come November 15th's hard fork.

Picture the following scenario come November 15th: they point a massive amount of hashpower to their controlled chain (BSV). The free people who want to continue Bitcoin's original project mine the other chain (BCH-BU/ABC/...). However, since they have unlimited paper money, theoretically could have unlimited hash power. Their attack could also be aided by BTC miners who would enjoy seeing BCH die. A great amount of hash power is pointed to both BCH chains from them so that:
- They control BSV
- There's so much hashpower in BCH-BU/ABC/... to the point of mining unprofitably unless its price pumps.

This causes people (Mankind, so to speak) who want to continue the Bitcoin project to have to mine at a loss due to the difficulty of the network (unless its price pumps greatly). How long can miners engage in this kind of war? Since the powers that be have unlimited fiat money, they can keep this operation going on forever, while people can't and would end up giving up. Big miners will not lose hundreds of thousands or millions of their own money in ideological wars - they are businesses after all.

In this world: How can Bitcoin survive?
submitted by AwakeningLogos to btc [link] [comments]

The Problem with PoW


Miners have always had it rough..
"Frustrated Miners"


The Problem with PoW
(and what is being done to solve it)

Proof of Work (PoW) is one of the most commonly used consensus mechanisms entrusted to secure and validate many of today’s most successful cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin being one. Battle-hardened and having weathered the test of time, Bitcoin has demonstrated the undeniable strength and reliability of the PoW consensus model through sheer market saturation, and of course, its persistency.
In addition to the cost of powerful computing hardware, miners prove that they are benefiting the network by expending energy in the form of electricity, by solving and hashing away complex math problems on their computers, utilizing any suitable tools that they have at their disposal. The mathematics involved in securing proof of work revolve around unique algorithms, each with their own benefits and vulnerabilities, and can require different software/hardware to mine depending on the coin.
Because each block has a unique and entirely random hash, or “puzzle” to solve, the “work” has to be performed for each block individually and the difficulty of the problem can be increased as the speed at which blocks are solved increases.
Hashrates and Hardware Types
While proof of work is an effective means of securing a blockchain, it inherently promotes competition amongst miners seeking higher and higher hashrates due to the rewards earned by the node who wins the right to add the next block. In turn, these higher hash rates benefit the blockchain, providing better security when it’s a result of a well distributed/decentralized network of miners.
When Bitcoin first launched its genesis block, it was mined exclusively by CPUs. Over the years, various programmers and developers have devised newer, faster, and more energy efficient ways to generate higher hashrates; some by perfecting the software end of things, and others, when the incentives are great enough, create expensive specialized hardware such as ASICs (application-specific integrated circuit). With the express purpose of extracting every last bit of hashing power, efficiency being paramount, ASICs are stripped down, bare minimum, hardware representations of a specific coin’s algorithm.
This gives ASICS a massive advantage in terms of raw hashing power and also in terms of energy consumption against CPUs/GPUs, but with significant drawbacks of being very expensive to design/manufacture, translating to a high economic barrier for the casual miner. Due to the fact that they are virtual hardware representations of a single targeted algorithm, this means that if a project decides to fork and change algorithms suddenly, your powerful brand-new ASIC becomes a very expensive paperweight. The high costs in developing and manufacturing ASICs and the associated risks involved, make them unfit for mass adoption at this time.
Somewhere on the high end, in the vast hashrate expanse created between GPU and ASIC, sits the FPGA (field programmable gate array). FPGAs are basically ASICs that make some compromises with efficiency in order to have more flexibility, namely they are reprogrammable and often used in the “field” to test an algorithm before implementing it in an ASIC. As a precursor to the ASIC, FPGAs are somewhat similar to GPUs in their flexibility, but require advanced programming skills and, like ASICs, are expensive and still fairly uncommon.
2 Guys 1 ASIC
One of the issues with proof of work incentivizing the pursuit of higher hashrates is in how the network calculates block reward coinbase payouts and rewards miners based on the work that they have submitted. If a coin generated, say a block a minute, and this is a constant, then what happens if more miners jump on a network and do more work? The network cannot pay out more than 1 block reward per 1 minute, and so a difficulty mechanism is used to maintain balance. The difficulty will scale up and down in response to the overall nethash, so if many miners join the network, or extremely high hashing devices such as ASICs or FPGAs jump on, the network will respond accordingly, using the difficulty mechanism to make the problems harder, effectively giving an edge to hardware that can solve them faster, balancing the network. This not only maintains the block a minute reward but it has the added side-effect of energy requirements that scale up with network adoption.
Imagine, for example, if one miner gets on a network all alone with a CPU doing 50 MH/s and is getting all 100 coins that can possibly be paid out in a day. Then, if another miner jumps on the network with the same CPU, each miner would receive 50 coins in a day instead of 100 since they are splitting the required work evenly, despite the fact that the net electrical output has doubled along with the work. Electricity costs miner’s money and is a factor in driving up coin price along with adoption, and since more people are now mining, the coin is less centralized. Now let’s say a large corporation has found it profitable to manufacture an ASIC for this coin, knowing they will make their money back mining it or selling the units to professionals. They join the network doing 900 MH/s and will be pulling in 90 coins a day, while the two guys with their CPUs each get 5 now. Those two guys aren’t very happy, but the corporation is. Not only does this negatively affect the miners, it compromises the security of the entire network by centralizing the coin supply and hashrate, opening the doors to double spends and 51% attacks from potential malicious actors. Uncertainty of motives and questionable validity in a distributed ledger do not mix.
When technology advances in a field, it is usually applauded and welcomed with open arms, but in the world of crypto things can work quite differently. One of the glaring flaws in the current model and the advent of specialized hardware is that it’s never ending. Suppose the two men from the rather extreme example above took out a loan to get themselves that ASIC they heard about that can get them 90 coins a day? When they join the other ASIC on the network, the difficulty adjusts to keep daily payouts consistent at 100, and they will each receive only 33 coins instead of 90 since the reward is now being split three ways. Now what happens if a better ASIC is released by that corporation? Hopefully, those two guys were able to pay off their loans and sell their old ASICs before they became obsolete.
This system, as it stands now, only perpetuates a never ending hashrate arms race in which the weapons of choice are usually a combination of efficiency, economics, profitability and in some cases control.
Implications of Centralization
This brings us to another big concern with expensive specialized hardware: the risk of centralization. Because they are so expensive and inaccessible to the casual miner, ASICs and FPGAs predominantly remain limited to a select few. Centralization occurs when one small group or a single entity controls the vast majority hash power and, as a result, coin supply and is able to exert its influence to manipulate the market or in some cases, the network itself (usually the case of dishonest nodes or bad actors).
This is entirely antithetical of what cryptocurrency was born of, and since its inception many concerted efforts have been made to avoid centralization at all costs. An entity in control of a centralized coin would have the power to manipulate the price, and having a centralized hashrate would enable them to affect network usability, reliability, and even perform double spends leading to the demise of a coin, among other things.
The world of crypto is a strange new place, with rapidly growing advancements across many fields, economies, and boarders, leaving plenty of room for improvement; while it may feel like a never-ending game of catch up, there are many talented developers and programmers working around the clock to bring us all more sustainable solutions.
The Rise of FPGAs
With the recent implementation of the commonly used coding language C++, and due to their overall flexibility, FPGAs are becoming somewhat more common, especially in larger farms and in industrial setting; but they still remain primarily out of the hands of most mining enthusiasts and almost unheard of to the average hobby miner. Things appear to be changing though, one example of which I’ll discuss below, and it is thought by some, that soon we will see a day when mining with a CPU or GPU just won’t cut it any longer, and the market will be dominated by FPGAs and specialized ASICs, bringing with them efficiency gains for proof of work, while also carelessly leading us all towards the next round of spending.
A perfect real-world example of the effect specialized hardware has had on the crypto-community was recently discovered involving a fairly new project called VerusCoin and a fairly new, relatively more economically accessible FPGA. The FPGA is designed to target specific alt-coins whose algo’s do not require RAM overhead. It was discovered the company had released a new algorithm, kept secret from the public, which could effectively mine Verus at 20x the speed of GPUs, which were the next fastest hardware types mining on the Verus network.
Unfortunately this was done with a deliberately secret approach, calling the Verus algorithm “Algo1” and encouraging owners of the FPGA to never speak of the algorithm in public channels, admonishing a user when they did let the cat out of the bag. The problem with this business model is that it is parasitic in nature. In an ecosystem where advancements can benefit the entire crypto community, this sort of secret mining approach also does not support the philosophies set forth by the Bitcoin or subsequent open source and decentralization movements.
Although this was not done in the spirit of open source, it does hint to an important step in hardware innovation where we could see more efficient specialized systems within reach of the casual miner. The FPGA requires unique sets of data called a bitstream in order to be able to recognize each individual coin’s algorithm and mine them. Because it’s reprogrammable, with the support of a strong development team creating such bitstreams, the miner doesn’t end up with a brick if an algorithm changes.
All is not lost thanks to.. um.. Technology?
Shortly after discovering FPGAs on the network, the Verus developers quickly designed, tested, and implemented a new, much more complex and improved algorithm via a fork that enabled Verus to transition smoothly from VerusHash 1.0 to VerusHash 2.0 at block 310,000. Since the fork, VerusHash 2.0 has demonstrated doing exactly what it was designed for- equalizing hardware performance relative to the device being used while enabling CPUs (the most widely available “ASICs”) to mine side by side with GPUs, at a profit and it appears this will also apply to other specialized hardware. This is something no other project has been able to do until now. Rather than pursue the folly of so many other projects before it- attempting to be “ASIC proof”, Verus effectively achieved and presents to the world an entirely new model of “hardware homogeny”. As the late, great, Bruce Lee once said- “Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water.”
In the design of VerusHash 2.0, Verus has shown it doesn’t resist progress like so many other new algorithms try to do, it embraces change and adapts to it in the way that water becomes whatever vessel it inhabits. This new approach- an industry first- could very well become an industry standard and in doing so, would usher in a new age for proof of work based coins. VerusHash 2.0 has the potential to correct the single largest design flaw in the proof of work consensus mechanism- the ever expanding monetary and energy requirements that have plagued PoW based projects since the inception of the consensus mechanism. Verus also solves another major issue of coin and net hash centralization by enabling legitimate CPU mining, offering greater coin and hashrate distribution.
Digging a bit deeper it turns out the Verus development team are no rookies. The lead developer Michael F Toutonghi has spent decades in the field programming and is a former Vice President and Technical Fellow at Microsoft, recognized founder and architect of Microsoft's .Net platform, ex-Technical Fellow of Microsoft's advertising platform, ex-CTO, Parallels Corporation, and an experienced distributed computing and machine learning architect. The project he helped create employs and makes use of a diverse myriad of technologies and security features to form one of the most advanced and secure cryptocurrency to date. A brief description of what makes VerusCoin special quoted from a community member-
"Verus has a unique and new consensus algorithm called Proof of Power which is a 50% PoW/50% PoS algorithm that solves theoretical weaknesses in other PoS systems (Nothing at Stake problem for example) and is provably immune to 51% hash attacks. With this, Verus uses the new hash algorithm, VerusHash 2.0. VerusHash 2.0 is designed to better equalize mining across all hardware platforms, while favoring the latest CPUs over older types, which is also one defense against the centralizing potential of botnets. Unlike past efforts to equalize hardware hash-rates across different hardware types, VerusHash 2.0 explicitly enables CPUs to gain even more power relative to GPUs and FPGAs, enabling the most decentralizing hardware, CPUs (due to their virtually complete market penetration), to stay relevant as miners for the indefinite future. As for anonymity, Verus is not a "forced private", allowing for both transparent and shielded (private) transactions...and private messages as well"
If other projects can learn from this and adopt a similar approach or continue to innovate with new ideas, it could mean an end to all the doom and gloom predictions that CPU and GPU mining are dead, offering a much needed reprieve and an alternative to miners who have been faced with the difficult decision of either pulling the plug and shutting down shop or breaking down their rigs to sell off parts and buy new, more expensive hardware…and in so doing present an overall unprecedented level of decentralization not yet seen in cryptocurrency.
Technological advancements led us to the world of secure digital currencies and the progress being made with hardware efficiencies is indisputably beneficial to us all. ASICs and FPGAs aren’t inherently bad, and there are ways in which they could be made more affordable and available for mass distribution. More than anything, it is important that we work together as communities to find solutions that can benefit us all for the long term.
In an ever changing world where it may be easy to lose sight of the real accomplishments that brought us to this point one thing is certain, cryptocurrency is here to stay and the projects that are doing something to solve the current problems in the proof of work consensus mechanism will be the ones that lead us toward our collective vision of a better world- not just for the world of crypto but for each and every one of us.
submitted by Godballz to EtherMining [link] [comments]

Frequently Asked Questions

NOTICE

This post is a temporary resting place for FAQs while we wait for the release of VertDocs.

What is Vertcoin?

Vertcoin is a digital peer to peer currency focused on decentralization and ASIC resistance. Vertcoin is aiming to be easily accessible to the everyday user without extensive technical knowledge. Vertcoin has started to lower the barrier of entry with lots of video guides and the development of the One Click Miner (OCM).

Why does ASIC Resistance Matter?

ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits) are dedicated mining devices that can only mine one algorithm. Coins like Bitcoin and Litecoin both made GPU mining obsolete when SHA-256 and Scrypt ASICs were created.
ASIC Resistance and How it Makes Vertcoin Decentralized
Vertcoin believes that ASIC resistance goes hand in hand with decentralization.
ASICs are made by companies like Bitmain and almost all the original sellers of ASICs sell on a preorder basis. When pre ordering an ASIC you are buying from a limited batch that the ASIC company has produced. Often times the batch will not be fully filled and the ASIC company will often have left over ASICs. When the ASIC company has left over ASICs they will put them to work mining. Soon enough the ASIC company will have a very large amount of unsold ASICs that are mining and slowly the ASIC company starts to own a large part of the network’s hashrate. When an ASIC company(s) starts to own a large majority of the hashrate the network can become very centralized after a while.
Having your network consist of a few large companies can be very dangerous as they could eventually get 51% hashing power and 51% attack your network, destabilizing the network. When your network is made out of a lot of smaller miners, like Vertcoin, it is much harder for your network to be 51% attacked, therefore increasing network security. By having centralized hashing power your coin effectively centralizing the network as the centralized hashing power can deny transactions and stop any activity they don’t want.

What Ways is Vertcoin Superior to Litecoin and Bitcoin?

Network Difficulty Adjustments with Kimoto Gravity Well
Vertcoin uses a difficulty adjustment called Kimoto Gravity Well which adjusts the difficulty every block, whereas Bitcoin and Litecoin’s difficulty changes every 2016 blocks. By adjusting the difficulty every block Vertcoin’s block time can stay consistent by adjusting for the fluctuation in network hash rate from hash rate renting and part time miners. If a large miner switches off Bitcoin or Litecoin mining the network could be slowed to a crawl until 2016 blocks are mined and the difficulty can change to adjust for the new network hash rate. We observed this happen to Bitcoin when Bitcoin Cash became more profitable than Bitcoin and Bitcoin’s network hash rate saw a steep fall off, slowing the network to a crawl. If this was to happen with Vertcoin the difficulty would adjust after 1 block was mined, allowing Vertcoin to always be profitable to mine.
Anyone can Meaningfully help Verify Transactions
In Proof-of-Work crypto currencies miners help secure the blockchain and get rewarded with the block reward. In ASIC mineable coins like Bitcoin and Litecoin you can’t meaningfully verify transactions unless you pay 1000-2000$ for a ASIC miner. When you mine with a CPU or GPU in a ASIC mineable coin you make no meaningful impact on the network. It is like trying to break concrete with a shovel while everyone else has a jackhammer.
Simple Upgrades Aren’t Held back by 1-2 Large Miners
In ASIC market people buy ASICs in batches in a preorder. With Bitcoin ASICs there is not enough demand for ASICs so the batch often doesn’t get sold out so now the manufacturer has spare ASICs. Now that the manufacturer has spare ASICs they will often start mining with them and eventually the ASIC company has one of the highest hash rates. If the ASIC company doesn’t want a certain upgrade to go through, for example SegWit, they can vote with their hash rate to hold back the upgrade forever or at least until people who want SegWit get more hash rate.
You Have a Say in Protocol Rules and Consensus
In Bitcoin you are a passive observer because you can only issue transactions and you have no part in the process after that. In Vertcoin you can be apart of the process for deciding the ordering of transactions and deciding what transactions get into blocks.
Block Rewards and Transaction Fees are Distributed Evenly
In Bitcoin and Litecoin the block rewards and transaction fees are often given to the large miners in China due to mining centralization created by ASICs. Vertcoin distributes its mining rewards to people all around the world thanks to the mining decentralization.

When will Atomic Swaps Be Ready?

Atomic Swaps can be done in two flavors: On-chain and Off-chain (via Lightning Network). On-chain swaps were actually done already using Blocknet, you can see it in use on Youtube. We're looking into doing it again using Interledger.
However our main focus is to do off-chain Atomic Swaps using Lightning Network technology. Because it has the same benefits as Lightning transactions: No network fees and instant transactions.
For off-chain swaps we need Lightning Network to be fully operational. It's difficult to give an ETA on that since we aren't the ones developing it. U/gertjaap posted a video on the current state of the Lightning Network for Vertcoin a while ago, which you can see here.
This was actually the "bleeding edge" of Lightning Network at the time. was able to use it on VTC's main net, meaning that our blockchain is ready for the good stuff. As you can see however, it can't yet be considered production ready (most users would want a little better UX than a command line app).
Now off-chain Atomic Swaps is a technique based on the same principles as Lightning Network, but adds an extra complexity for it being across chains. So it's basically the same as a "multi hop" Lightning payment, which is not yet built by any of the implementations. They're still working hard on making the single-hop payments robust. So in order for AS to be possible, LN has to be fully operational.
A timeline cannot be given at this time, because frankly we don't know. The implementation of Lightning Network we feel has the most potential is LIT, because it supports multiple currencies in its protocol (where LND is bitcoin-only at the time and requires significant work to support other currencies, which is an essential part of being able to work across multiple blockchains).
LIT is open source and there's nothing secretive about its progress, you can see the development on Github. We even have our lead dev James Lovejoy (u/jamesl22) close to the action and contributing to it where possible (and our team as well through testing it on the Vertcoin chain).
So we're not developing LN or AS ourselves, we're just ready with our blockchain technology whenever it becomes available.
If we have any real progress that has some substance, you can expect us to let the world know. We're not interested in fluffy marketing - we post something when we achieve real progress. And we are not keeping that secret.

How do I Choose the Right Vertcoin Wallet?

Deciding what Vertcoin wallet you should choose can be a difficult process. You can choose between three different wallets: Core, Electrum and Paper. Once you decide you can use the "How to Setup Your Vertcoin Wallets" video guide to assist you.

Core

The Core wallet is the wallet that most people should use. It will store the entire blockchain (~2GB) on your computer. The Core wallet is the only wallet that fully supports P2Pool mining. You will also have to use the Core wallet if you plan to run a P2Pool node or any Vertcoin related server.

Electrum

The Electrum wallet is a light wallet for Vertcoin. You do not have to download the blockchain on your computer, but you will still have your own private keys on your computer. This is recommended for people who don't need to store Vertcoins for very long and just need a quick but secure place to store them.

Paper

The Paper wallet is as the name implies, a physical paper wallet. When generating a paper wallet you will get a pdf that will need to print out. A paper wallet is normally used for long term storage since it is the safest way to store Vertcoins. A paper wallet can also be called "cold storage." Cold storage references the storage of your coins offline, preventing you from getting hacked over the internet.

Ledger Nano S

The Ledger Nano S is a hardware wallet designed by Ledger. A hardware wallet is similar to a paper wallet since it is normally used for cold storage. The hardware wallet is on par with the security of a paper wallet while being easy to use and setup. Note: You should never mine directly to a Ledger hardware wallet.

How do I start mining Vertcoin?

We have many guides available for you to use depending on your computer specifications.
Nvidia GPUs on Windows
Nvidia GPUs on Linux
AMD GPUs on Windows WARNING: Very unprofitable, AMD optimized miner is coming very soon.

Where can I get the One Click Miner (OCM)

You can get the latest version of the One Click Miner in the Vertcoin Discord. The download is pinned to the top of the #oneclick channel.

What do all the Numbers Mean on P2Pool’s Web Interface

I've seen a lot of confusion from new miners on public p2pool nodes, so here's a primer for the most common static node page style, for first time miners: https://imgur.com/K48GmMw

Active Miners on this Node

Address - This is the list of addresses currently mining on this node. If your address does not show up here, you are not mining on this node.
Hashrate
This is a snapshot of your hashrate as seen by the node. It will fluctuate up to 15% from the hashrate you are seeing on your mining software, but will average out to match the output in your mining software.
Rejected Hashrate
This is the amount of your hashing contribution that is rejected, both in hashrate and as a percentage of your total contribution. Running your own p2pool node minimizes this number. Mining on a node that is geographically close to reduce lag also minimizes this number. Ideally you would like it to be less than 1%, but most people seem happy keeping it under 3%.
Share Difficulty
This speaks for itself, it is the difficulty of the share being currently worked on. Bigger numbers are more difficult.
Time to Share
This is how long you need to mine before you will receive any payouts, or any "predicted payout." The lower your hashrate, the higher your time to share.
Predicted Payout
This is the reward you would receive if a block was found by p2pool right now. If it reads "no shares yet" then you have not yet been mining the requisite amount of time as seen in the previous "time to share" column.

Status

Network Hashrate
This is the total hashrate of all the miners mining vertcoin everywhere, regardless of where or how.
Global Pool Hashrate
This is the total hashrate of all the miners mining vertcoin on this p2pool network, be it the first network or the second network.
Local Pool Hashrate
This is the total hashrate of all the miners mining Vertcoin on this node.
Current Block Value
This is the reward that will be given for mining the current block. The base mining reward is currently 50 VTC per block, so any small decimal over that amount is transaction fees being paid by people using the network.
Network Block Difficulty
This is the difficulty of the block being mined. The higher the number, the higher the difficulty. This number rises as the "Network Hashrate" rises, so that blocks will always be found every 2.5 minutes. Inversely, this number falls when the "Network Hashrate" lowers as well.
Expected Time to Block
This is a guess at how much time will elapse between blocks being found by this p2pool network. This guess is accurate on average, but very inaccurate in the short term. Since you only receive a payout when the network finds a block, you can think of this as "Estimated Time to Payout."

Why is P2Pool Recommended Over Traditional Pools?

Decentralisation

P2Pool is peer to peer allowing a decentralized pool mining system. There are many nodes setup around the world that connect to each other too mine together. Many other coins have 1 very large pool that many miners connect to and sometimes the largest pool can have 51% or more of the network hash rate which makes the network vulnerable to a 51% attack. If P2Pool is the largest network then that prevents the Vertcoin network to be susceptible to a 51% attack as P2Pool is decentralized.

PPLNS Payout System

P2Pool uses a PPLNS (Pay Per Last N Shares) payout system which awards miners more the longer they mine, sort of like a loyalty system. A drawback to this system is that part time miners that aren't 24/7 won't be able to earn that much.

2 Networks

While Network 1 is catered towards 24/7 miners and people who have dedicated mining rigs, Vertcoin has a second P2Pool network where part time miners and miners under 100 MH/s can go to mine.

Mines Directly to Your Wallet

P2Pool mines directly to your wallet and cuts out the middleman. This reduces the likely hood that the pool will run away with your coins.

No Downtime

Since P2Pool is decentralized and has different nodes for you to choose from there will be no downtime because the P2Pool network does not die if one node goes down. You can setup a backup server in your miner so that you will have no downtime when mining.

Anonymity and Security

When using P2Pool you use a wallet address making your real identity anonymous, you are simply known by a random 34 letter string. Along with using a wallet address instead of a username there is no password involved P2Pool preventing the possibility of cracking your pool account (If you were on a traditional pool,) and stealing all your coins.

How do I Find a Nearby P2Pool Node

You can find the public p2pool nodes the the P2Pool Node Scanners. If you want to find a network 1 node go here. If you want to find a network 2 node go here.

How do I setup a P2Pool Node?

Linux P2Pool Setup
Windows P2Pool Setup (Text)
Windows P2Pool Setup (Video) This guide setups a network 2 node. When downloading Python download the 32bit version, not the 64bit. Downloading the 64bit version causes problems with the twisted install.
How do I setup a change my node to network 1 or network 2?
In the P2Pool startup script when you type the --network flag add vertcoin1 for network 1 and vertcoin2 for network 2 right after.

How do I Buy Vertcoin?

You can see a video guide on Youtube, "How to Buy Vertcoin with Fiat Using Bittrex and Coinbase"

How can I get help with "X problem?"

The quickest way for you to get help is for you to join the Vertcoin Discord Group. We almost always have knowledgable Vertans, whether that be developers or experienced Vertans, online to help you with whatever problems you may have.

How can I donate to the Developers?

You can donate to the dev fund at https://vertcoin.org/donate/. You can select what you want your funds to go to by donating to the corresponding address. You can also see how much funding is required and how much we have donated.

Where can I see what exchanges Vertcoin is on?

You can see what exchanges Vertcoin is listed on at CoinMarketCap. You can see what exchanges Vertcoin has applied to be on at this google docs spreadsheet.

Where can I see Vertcoin's Roadmap?

The Vertcoin developers currently have a trello board where you can see the goals and what the status of said goal is. You can also vote on what you want the Vertcoin developers to focus on next.

What is the Status of the AMD Optimized Miner?

The AMD Optimized Miner internal beta is aiming to be ready by the end of September. The AMD Optimized Miner is currently being developed by @turekaj on the Vertcoin Discord. He currently does not have a Reddit account and Discord is the only way you can contact him.

What Does Halving Mean?

Halving means that the block reward for miners will be split in half. Halving happens around every 4 years for Vertcoin or 840,000 blocks. This means around December miners will only receive 25 VTC per block instead of the current 50 VTC per block.
If you would like to add another question to this list please comment it and I will get around to adding it ASAP.
submitted by asianboygames to vertcoin [link] [comments]

IRC Log from Ravencoin Open Developer Meeting - Sept 7, 2018

Hi all
Greetings and salutations!
two is a good number for lips
sup
how do you dooski?
{|}
Jesse is not going to make it.
master
salut
so what is todays topic
Yes, who's moderating? Announcements, etc.
well i guess thats chatturgas job
but hes not here so idk
I'm a poor substitute for Jesse. I'm moderating today.
lol
Just FYI, there is a testnet5 with unique assets. Build from release_2.0.5 branch.
Are we able to connect to the testnet v5 seed nodes?
Yes. Testnet seed nodes are working now.
Yes. Testnet5 seed nodes are working now.
https://medium.com/@Tronblack/ravencoin-asset-issuance-cost-52b553c507cb
Medium
Ravencoin — Asset Issuance Cost – Tron Black – Medium
Let me start by thanking everybody in the community that has passionately contributed thoughts and ideas on the economics of asset…
looks like im compiling the binaries lol
I wrote a blog post about the pros/cons of the various burn options.
If anyone wants to weigh-in on their preference.
Because of the simplicity, I lean towards the first two options listed.
2.0.5 isn't going to be put on the webpage as an official binary release is that right?
Yes, that's right.
But, I'd encourage anyone to build it and run it on testnet5
i personally prefer the halvening option
@russkidooski With a particular floor?
yep
500->250->125
the best option isn't listed, POM
tl what's POM?
Proof of Market
ah
zaab is the author and just joined
Yes
Hi Boo and Zaab
Also "Prisoner Of her Majesty"
Sorry on vacation so not all in on this conversation but felt it was importsnt to join
Hey Zaab, welcome!
Hi all. Just observing. Hope no one minds.
Thanks for taking the time to write that article Zaab, it was very thought provoking.
Hi s&l
If anything, that was its main purpose
hello
I prepped some questions i had before i realized i could make it
great
1. Why was a burn deemed necessary at all? What is the purpose of it? 2. How/why was the number 500 chosen. Was an economic analysis ran? Or was an analyzis done on how many assests could be reasonably handled (thus needed an asset amount cap)
3. Tell me the truth, how likely are you to impliment any alternative idea. Are we wasting our time making our cases?
Shotgun!
being in favor becauseit is simplicity is not a plan for success; POM is fairly simple and will give a true market pricing
And i dont mean nust my own
Just*
any code contribution with ideas would be appreciated and tested.
That's a lot of questions.
Burning RVN helps the economics of the coin. Fewer circulating supply (more scarcity) the higher the value of the coin (assuming all else equal).
Also, there should be a cost to creating asset names in the namespace.
that is only half the economic formula
Burn is necessary because there must be a cost to consume the resources of the network.
hi bw
I didnt realize making the coin economical was one of the purposes of the coin
We could've recycled the RVN back through the miners (like fees), but the burn economics should help RVN price.
IMHO, all the well designed coins have a good economic model behind them.
Also sorry i would code it if i could but im not a programmer, if that invalidates my ideas so be it
It doesn't Zaab
recycle seems much more complex than POM
Because you tie good economics to a good mining base which is what ultimately is needed for security
It doesn't invalidate your ideas, but some of the complexities introduced with your ideas may not be feasible before Oct 1 (RC goal date).
simplicity/predictability is the guiderail here on burn vs recycle
This is deadline does not feel healthy
The ideas in POM, which I'll address in a minute also cause some issues.
launch deadline should not be more important than a successful launch design
agreed!
My preference is burn with diminishing price over time.
When creating an asset, all nodes must agree on the price, and if that changes each block (or frequently), there may be issues. The signed transaction may sit in the mempool waiting for confirmation and the "price" in RVN may change.
To me a burn has 2 purposes only. One prevent a spam attack and two for the transaction id of the burn to act as a signature of authenticity of an asset
Zaab I'll tell the truth -- we want the best solution, but for all parties including application developers. Project planners like being able to budget and whole numbers.
simple is better
fix the price daily based on an avg; could taht solve
we don't want the nightmare of eth gas
The authenticity isn't an issue, because there are other ways to handle it.
What ive proposed at its maximum only increases under 2 rvn per day. Thats well within planning limits
@twolips An average of what?
POM formula being based on an avg of max burn and daily burn numbers
@Zaab If I understood your paper correctly (not a given) then it seems like the cost went down as more assets were created. Is that the case, or did I misunderstand the chart.
that ius healthy
^^
at that point, the value of RVN will increase
As assets are created the remaining burnable rvn drops. Thus price drops
because of function not scarcity
As rvn are mined the remaining burnable rvn increases thus price increases
POM seemed to show higher burnrate, lower RVN cost (-10 RVN delta).
hi X_K
hi
You need to burn 3,600,000 rvn daily just to keep up with mining. POM will almost certainly cause price to increase
That seems backwards to me -- from an economic standpoint.
Just like crypto is deflationary, its backwarsa
Backwards
So if fewer people are creating assets, the price increases?
sdrawkcaB
Yep
blink
That seems counterintuitive to the project tho
How so
To me, price determines demand, not the other way around
Again -- that seems backwards. "Nobody is coming into our store, now we have to sell these sofas for a $1,000,000"
Thought the whole idea of rvn was asset creation
there are 2 aspects, cost of creation and value of RVN
But theres no maximim to sofas in the world you could always make more
both cause moves
Not the case with rvn
What do you all think about the 5-4-3-2-1 model?
If not many are being created, the cost of creation should be lower.
The value of RVN is closely tied to mining hash rate, but not correlated with number of asset names created.
you sell the for 1,000,000 but that is in Venezuelan bolívar
bad example
@boodog The purpose of RVN is assets. Not necessarily asset issuance.
As far as mempool blockage i envisioned something similar to mining difficulty calculation. Where it checks the previous assets created in comparison to the current one within a valid range
Tron_: thanks for clarification
I expect lots of assets to be created, but even better would be some really quality assets with real use cases and transactions on the nodes.
How many assets can the network currently handle?
More than the real world needs
More then 42million?
none compare to POM
As coded, 6000 per block for issuances.
But those issuances would squeeze out transactions.
Ok
@zabb that would mean that some transactions in the mempool would be valid and some wouldn't because they were created at different time.
42million is maximum not including sub assets or unqiue assets or reissuing
If we hit high loads, there are some scalability improvements we can make.
Ya that part of the idea isnt fully worked out but i dont know whats techicnally possible
True, as coded 42,000,000 root level assets is a max.
42MM is not accurate because as some point there is a breaking point where we price ourselves out of business
I meant if we had 42mil assets could the network support it
Lots more, sub-level assets. So a market could form under "COM" for example.
hi Skan
@twolips the question was how much can the network handle. not pricing
demand for the rare RVN will be expensive and competition will come in with a much better idea
Hi everybody
and 42MM was mention as max...not a true number
@Zaab It could issue them, but transaction volume has its limits at about 20x what Bitcoin does (sans Lightning).
Also again how did the number 500 come up? Did you do an econmic analysis or is it set based on max workload of the network
the breaking point is probably, at best, near half of that
if you haven't, you should all read zaab's proposal
options 5,4,3,2,1 can not be fairly comment ed on withot reading POM
Link please?
https://medium.com/@Zaab/ravencoin-proof-of-market-an-asset-issuance-cost-alternative-c5b6f9457acf
Medium
Ravencoin — Proof of Market: An Asset Issuance Cost Alternative
9/5/2018 — In response to “Ravencoin — Asset Issuance Cost” by Tron Black
Ty
Hitting the maximum number of asset is not nearly as worrisome nor pressing of an issue as the economic design , in my opinion
discord #burn-discussion as ongoing convo on this topic
Ive got to go, id like the 3 questions i posted earlier answered if possible. Ill be around if anyone has any questions.
POM would be more compelling if there was a (-) in there somewhere.
Depending on question 3 i will be willing to write 2 more papers
One attacking my own idea
When I foresee obstacles in the future for RVN having used the coin to it's maximum potential is very low on the list
One defending it
Bye!
Take care everyone! Thank you for all the hard work!
peace
Later Zaab
Thanks Zaab!
To hit maximum number of assets and not be able to issue anymore means that RVN worked to the highest extent
it's hard to model; it's hard to predict
but there will be no adoption if budgeting isn't easy for application developers
imo
eth gas is a nightmare
true
The NASDAQ has ~3,300 companies on it. For reference and understanding this means if the NASDAQ completely converts all its companies to RVN, the total RVN burned will be….. ~1,650,000 or roughly 22% of the total RVN mined daily (until halving). Therefore, the amount of RVN burned will unlikely have any effect on the value of RVN if the proposed system is allowed to pass.
not only market flux but the MATHS
We will never come anywhere near that if the economic design makes it unappealing to issue assets on RVN. A decay to the cost as a safeguard against having become too expensive against dollars or investment of resources to model is necessary. Making so we can issue more assets than our wildwst dreams is a much lower priority and doesn't even matter unless the rest is figured out
Resources to mine*
i stand by the halvening model with a minimum
simple and effective
what about all the other assets we want to be tokenized
The most attractive thing to big time players is security, which implies hashrate, which implies value, which implies adoption (buy pressure)..
vehicles, land deeds, gold bars....
I think halving should be a safeguard not a regular thing, so iirc the chain has ways of knowing how many assets are being issued. I say we only even trigger an upcoming happening if assets being issued grinds to a halt, indicating price issues
I'm on halvening too althought I like the 5-4-3-2-1 flavor
Otherwise whatever the burn fee is is working fine, no reason to just always half it without context
halving is a sharp cost adjustment...talk about bidgeting issues
DGW for asset? lol
POm smooths this out
@skan that would allow people to attack the network by now issuing assets. forcing a halving
no Skan it needs to be predictable to normals because planning/budgeting
not*
the worse thing we can do is design limitations into the project
As it stands it costs 18 cents to issue assets on ethereum. Say what you will about the quality or lack of features, it's still a factor that we are competing against. Obviously RVN is different because there are only so many unique asset names and it has more complex and easier to use features, so it should be more expensive. But we are already starting our nearly x100 before we even go live
twolips it's not an algorithm -- it needs to interact with buyers/users or it's worthless
Skan yeah and did you read that smart contract code?
You're getting into ???
we're UTXO
i know
i dont know algos, i know user
thats the perspective i come from
You don't have to, their browser automatically singles out the important variables for you to change
yeah user want's cheap/easy
and predictable
@Tron what is your preference?
Why is Roshii so quiet? ;)
I say we code in a burn fee halvening that only triggers itself if no assets or very few assets have been issued for an extended period of time
relaxing from a talking section
@skan again that allows the network to the attacked
In this order: 500 RVN -> 500 RVN with halvening and 125 floor -> 500 RVN with 20% drop from original price each halvening.
@skan That doesn't work
when does it half?
@Tron Thnx
skan; have you read POM, kinda does that
Every 2,100,000 blocks. Should be roughly 4 years.
I'm on (3) in tron's list but (1) is ok too
Interesting, how so?
you have to read it
POM is not that -- it would be that with a (-) somewhere..
@skan, user, or miners wouldn't accepts asset transaction into blocks. Which would trigger a halving.
What @CORbie means is that the economics of POM as written seem backwards.
@skan, I'm not saying that would happen. But it is an easy attack vector that we can avoid.
The best part about flat rate of 500 is that if it becomes an issues down the road when more variables are known, we can reevaluate changing to a cheaper model.
Why make asset name creation cheaper when lots of names are being created?
^^
i think we are redesigning an economic model, that is the beauty
sounds like a recipe for spamming the network
a spam recipe? sounds dubious.. :)
again there are 2 values; the cost of creation and the value of a RVN
Absolutely should get more expensive or stay flat with high demand, not cheaper.
the halvening model tron is talking about seems to be the simplest and most predictable
^^
There is an interesting case study with the fixed cost to create a proposal in Dash. It was 5 Dash. That was really cheap at the time (under $5). The same 5 Dash went to $8000.
yes Russ -- the thing the 5-4-3-2-1 adds is legibility/budgetability to app developers (I don't think that's a word)
They haven't changed it, but there were solutions that were built around it.
if a lot are being created, RVN is succeeding, demand increases, RVN cost per creation goes down as value increases...keeping it affordable for all that desire to tokenize assets
And, the value of a Dash proposal went way up when the masternodes were kicking out millions.
Halvening model is my preference
how are we going to vote this?
on discord?
halving on a time schedule will not give a true market value
RVN already has market value
@twolips, you are associating asset creation to rvn value increasing. It doesn't work that way. It is almost always difficulty -> value increasing
@russkidooski By writing and running code :)
frog; you seem to be speaking from a miners perspective
A vote would be interesting - not binding - but really interesting.
the devs have a preference and people will ultimately follow them
@twolips, i am speaking from the perspective that the only thing that holds value is being able to make sure that the value is secure.
the devs have a preference and people MAY follow them
the devs.. those guys..
Would be interesting but could cause community issues if not chosen by devs. I am for no voting. Write and run code.
it is a complex issue; votes should only occur after big discussion
BW agree
let's take an informal vote now
Votes are never needed.
here it is
i vote for pizza
type 1 for 500, 2 for half, 3 for 5-4-3-2-1, 4 for POM, 5 for other
go
3
which one is the 5-4-3-2-1?
i forgot
and this is why no cvote should occure
20% discount at each halving.
like half but -20% orig value
o yea i like that one
3
not famil with the plan
20% discount at each halving. 500->400->300->200->100
Unique asset issuance cost 5->4->3->2->1
russ, how well do you know POM?
Nice round numbers.
not crazy well
but enough
i need to read up on it more
POM seems backwards to me.
same
have you read the proposal?
@twolips Are you recommending POM with the economics as written, or the opposite economics?
this is all backwards
6 (-) POM
yes
well
i see 2 votes
no but it is a great starting point
you guys are so opinionated!
the variables need to be analysed
KISS 54321
ok! there's #3
any more informal non-binding votes?
Is 3 winning?
3 has 3
no other votes
the beauty is when the cost of creation goes down, say to .05 RVN, the value of RVN will be 1,000
VeronicaBOTLast Friday at 3:00 PM
exaggerated for demenstration
if cost goe to 1kRVN, the value willbe .05
^^
twolips. Are you saying that as more assets are created the price decreases?
brb
not the 'price', the cost of creation, yes
okay.
there needs to be a thorough analysis of POM
in the beginning of the #burn-discussion, there are some simple spread sheet examples
but with zaabs proposal it is backwards
how so
more assets being created > price for creation goes down
that is just asking the network to be spammed
So, that only works if the price of raven in the real world follows it. If not, the cost of creation will get lower, and people will start to be able to spam the network with assets.
^
This will make the nodes use more databasing and memory to run RVN.
This is bad ^^
and if a node isnt in sync you can get a lot of problems
this keeps the reation cost stable...great for customer acqusition
but it isnt technically feasable, we dont want the problems ethereum has
can that be cured with avging?
So because it is good for customer aqusition it is okay? Even if it is bad for the network?
daily, weekly,monthy? avgs to adjust cost of creation?
a opposed to what zaab said; each transaction, cost changes?
Lot's of talk but only 3 votes?
type 1 for 500, 2 for half, 3 for 5-4-3-2-1, 4 for POM, 5 for other
6 (-) POM
the POM seems to be a simple formula to be coded in (maybe naive)
i vote 3 if my vote counts, i feel like it has to be a set number, it would be easy to change if needed in future.
idk about network issues
@xiztak agreed
there's 4 for #3 with no other voes -- make it 5
X changing it in the future shows a centralized coin
how
who makes that decision
3 but I'm not for voting
community
and when
it's informal BW just taking temp
community is talkin about it now
and voting
for a set number
uninformed
outline for me vote 2?
haha
haha
2 is following the halvening of coinbase -- 500 250 125 to some floor
1 o 3
of course the 500 magic number is up for debate in 1,2,3..
I agree it would be good to know where 500 came from.
Meaning the thinking behind that exact number
i suggest nybody serious about the importance of this topic, to join the active convo
Maybe @Tron_ can tell a story but it's just (starting_block_reward/10) in my mind..
important to the success of all your hard work
twolips I don't know what that means -- you mean Discord or something?
as far as i know, that is the most active
or do you mean there are like 4 cats in here?
why people in Discord when we here? talk about shouting at clouds..
5000 per block so 500 per aseet creation so 10% of mined coins per block? maybe
^^
interesting
@twolips is there a floor that the cost of issuance would get to on POM?
if attacked it could be 0 or 1 then its game over
seems in the rough spreadsht examples
corbie; here once a week...startin 3 weeks ago
and it's been fun!
a lot more fun in discord
i'm hjere al week...tip ur waitresses
-_-
Is there anything more we are going to discuss?
maybe Xiz concept may fit into POM
need zaab to think about
Nothing on my agenda -- final informal vote seems to favor 5-4-3-2-1
no real support for POM (zorry zaab)
Thanks everyone!
wow, an uninformed vote...impressive
you vote?
what's your vote twolips I don't think I got it
this vote is informal, it means nothing really
^^
exactly
so you don't want to make an informal meaningless vote twolips?
i case u haven't noticed...team POM
ok!!
but (-) or no?
because as is it makes no sense as many of us have pointed out..
haha
many uninformed
..
4 cats i think u called them
I can read and do basic math..
that was just a reference to nobody being here..
write up a retort to zaabs propasal explainin (-); would love to seeit
I like the idea of using ratio of coinbase to burn to set market, just has it in wrong direction
And I'm a (3) guy so don't think we want market anyway..
POM is a self regulating federal reserve
revolutionary and RVN could intro it to the world
Thanks for the discussion everyone -- I'm signing off. Buy RVN!
hope you are all putting a lil more thought into this...could be make or break
@twolips. We are 100% putting lots of thought into this
@twolips This is something that is very important to RVN
i know...hence my passion
and I truely believe POM can be revolutionary
It could be, sure. There are lots of different good option though tbh.
bring thm up...lets out the community to work
a lot of eager minds
POM needs to be more thoroughly developed
we also need working prototypes
it started with fixed burn number and progressed
Can someone point me to a good readup on POM
bring in some thoughts
#burn-discussion on discord
i (vincent) invited you on rvntalk
We're done thank you
submitted by Chatturga to Ravencoin [link] [comments]

The Problem with PoW

The Problem with PoW

Miners have always had it rough..
"Frustrated Miners"


The Problem with PoW
(and what is being done to solve it)

Proof of Work (PoW) is one of the most commonly used consensus mechanisms entrusted to secure and validate many of today’s most successful cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin being one. Battle-hardened and having weathered the test of time, Bitcoin has demonstrated the undeniable strength and reliability of the PoW consensus model through sheer market saturation, and of course, its persistency.
In addition to the cost of powerful computing hardware, miners prove that they are benefiting the network by expending energy in the form of electricity, by solving and hashing away complex math problems on their computers, utilizing any suitable tools that they have at their disposal. The mathematics involved in securing proof of work revolve around unique algorithms, each with their own benefits and vulnerabilities, and can require different software/hardware to mine depending on the coin.
Because each block has a unique and entirely random hash, or “puzzle” to solve, the “work” has to be performed for each block individually and the difficulty of the problem can be increased as the speed at which blocks are solved increases.
Hashrates and Hardware Types
While proof of work is an effective means of securing a blockchain, it inherently promotes competition amongst miners seeking higher and higher hashrates due to the rewards earned by the node who wins the right to add the next block. In turn, these higher hash rates benefit the blockchain, providing better security when it’s a result of a well distributed/decentralized network of miners.
When Bitcoin first launched its genesis block, it was mined exclusively by CPUs. Over the years, various programmers and developers have devised newer, faster, and more energy efficient ways to generate higher hashrates; some by perfecting the software end of things, and others, when the incentives are great enough, create expensive specialized hardware such as ASICs (application-specific integrated circuit). With the express purpose of extracting every last bit of hashing power, efficiency being paramount, ASICs are stripped down, bare minimum, hardware representations of a specific coin’s algorithm.
This gives ASICS a massive advantage in terms of raw hashing power and also in terms of energy consumption against CPUs/GPUs, but with significant drawbacks of being very expensive to design/manufacture, translating to a high economic barrier for the casual miner. Due to the fact that they are virtual hardware representations of a single targeted algorithm, this means that if a project decides to fork and change algorithms suddenly, your powerful brand-new ASIC becomes a very expensive paperweight. The high costs in developing and manufacturing ASICs and the associated risks involved, make them unfit for mass adoption at this time.
Somewhere on the high end, in the vast hashrate expanse created between GPU and ASIC, sits the FPGA (field programmable gate array). FPGAs are basically ASICs that make some compromises with efficiency in order to have more flexibility, namely they are reprogrammable and often used in the “field” to test an algorithm before implementing it in an ASIC. As a precursor to the ASIC, FPGAs are somewhat similar to GPUs in their flexibility, but require advanced programming skills and, like ASICs, are expensive and still fairly uncommon.
2 Guys 1 ASIC
One of the issues with proof of work incentivizing the pursuit of higher hashrates is in how the network calculates block reward coinbase payouts and rewards miners based on the work that they have submitted. If a coin generated, say a block a minute, and this is a constant, then what happens if more miners jump on a network and do more work? The network cannot pay out more than 1 block reward per 1 minute, and so a difficulty mechanism is used to maintain balance. The difficulty will scale up and down in response to the overall nethash, so if many miners join the network, or extremely high hashing devices such as ASICs or FPGAs jump on, the network will respond accordingly, using the difficulty mechanism to make the problems harder, effectively giving an edge to hardware that can solve them faster, balancing the network. This not only maintains the block a minute reward but it has the added side-effect of energy requirements that scale up with network adoption.
Imagine, for example, if one miner gets on a network all alone with a CPU doing 50 MH/s and is getting all 100 coins that can possibly be paid out in a day. Then, if another miner jumps on the network with the same CPU, each miner would receive 50 coins in a day instead of 100 since they are splitting the required work evenly, despite the fact that the net electrical output has doubled along with the work. Electricity costs miner’s money and is a factor in driving up coin price along with adoption, and since more people are now mining, the coin is less centralized. Now let’s say a large corporation has found it profitable to manufacture an ASIC for this coin, knowing they will make their money back mining it or selling the units to professionals. They join the network doing 900 MH/s and will be pulling in 90 coins a day, while the two guys with their CPUs each get 5 now. Those two guys aren’t very happy, but the corporation is. Not only does this negatively affect the miners, it compromises the security of the entire network by centralizing the coin supply and hashrate, opening the doors to double spends and 51% attacks from potential malicious actors. Uncertainty of motives and questionable validity in a distributed ledger do not mix.
When technology advances in a field, it is usually applauded and welcomed with open arms, but in the world of crypto things can work quite differently. One of the glaring flaws in the current model and the advent of specialized hardware is that it’s never ending. Suppose the two men from the rather extreme example above took out a loan to get themselves that ASIC they heard about that can get them 90 coins a day? When they join the other ASIC on the network, the difficulty adjusts to keep daily payouts consistent at 100, and they will each receive only 33 coins instead of 90 since the reward is now being split three ways. Now what happens if a better ASIC is released by that corporation? Hopefully, those two guys were able to pay off their loans and sell their old ASICs before they became obsolete.
This system, as it stands now, only perpetuates a never ending hashrate arms race in which the weapons of choice are usually a combination of efficiency, economics, profitability and in some cases control.
Implications of Centralization
This brings us to another big concern with expensive specialized hardware: the risk of centralization. Because they are so expensive and inaccessible to the casual miner, ASICs and FPGAs predominantly remain limited to a select few. Centralization occurs when one small group or a single entity controls the vast majority hash power and, as a result, coin supply and is able to exert its influence to manipulate the market or in some cases, the network itself (usually the case of dishonest nodes or bad actors).
This is entirely antithetical of what cryptocurrency was born of, and since its inception many concerted efforts have been made to avoid centralization at all costs. An entity in control of a centralized coin would have the power to manipulate the price, and having a centralized hashrate would enable them to affect network usability, reliability, and even perform double spends leading to the demise of a coin, among other things.
The world of crypto is a strange new place, with rapidly growing advancements across many fields, economies, and boarders, leaving plenty of room for improvement; while it may feel like a never-ending game of catch up, there are many talented developers and programmers working around the clock to bring us all more sustainable solutions.
The Rise of FPGAs
With the recent implementation of the commonly used coding language C++, and due to their overall flexibility, FPGAs are becoming somewhat more common, especially in larger farms and in industrial setting; but they still remain primarily out of the hands of most mining enthusiasts and almost unheard of to the average hobby miner. Things appear to be changing though, one example of which I’ll discuss below, and it is thought by some, that soon we will see a day when mining with a CPU or GPU just won’t cut it any longer, and the market will be dominated by FPGAs and specialized ASICs, bringing with them efficiency gains for proof of work, while also carelessly leading us all towards the next round of spending.
A perfect real-world example of the effect specialized hardware has had on the crypto-community was recently discovered involving a fairly new project called VerusCoin and a fairly new, relatively more economically accessible FPGA. The FPGA is designed to target specific alt-coins whose algo’s do not require RAM overhead. It was discovered the company had released a new algorithm, kept secret from the public, which could effectively mine Verus at 20x the speed of GPUs, which were the next fastest hardware types mining on the Verus network.
Unfortunately this was done with a deliberately secret approach, calling the Verus algorithm “Algo1” and encouraging owners of the FPGA to never speak of the algorithm in public channels, admonishing a user when they did let the cat out of the bag. The problem with this business model is that it is parasitic in nature. In an ecosystem where advancements can benefit the entire crypto community, this sort of secret mining approach also does not support the philosophies set forth by the Bitcoin or subsequent open source and decentralization movements.
Although this was not done in the spirit of open source, it does hint to an important step in hardware innovation where we could see more efficient specialized systems within reach of the casual miner. The FPGA requires unique sets of data called a bitstream in order to be able to recognize each individual coin’s algorithm and mine them. Because it’s reprogrammable, with the support of a strong development team creating such bitstreams, the miner doesn’t end up with a brick if an algorithm changes.
All is not lost thanks to.. um.. Technology?
Shortly after discovering FPGAs on the network, the Verus developers quickly designed, tested, and implemented a new, much more complex and improved algorithm via a fork that enabled Verus to transition smoothly from VerusHash 1.0 to VerusHash 2.0 at block 310,000. Since the fork, VerusHash 2.0 has demonstrated doing exactly what it was designed for- equalizing hardware performance relative to the device being used while enabling CPUs (the most widely available “ASICs”) to mine side by side with GPUs, at a profit and it appears this will also apply to other specialized hardware. This is something no other project has been able to do until now. Rather than pursue the folly of so many other projects before it- attempting to be “ASIC proof”, Verus effectively achieved and presents to the world an entirely new model of “hardware homogeny”. As the late, great, Bruce Lee once said- “Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water.”
In the design of VerusHash 2.0, Verus has shown it doesn’t resist progress like so many other new algorithms try to do, it embraces change and adapts to it in the way that water becomes whatever vessel it inhabits. This new approach- an industry first- could very well become an industry standard and in doing so, would usher in a new age for proof of work based coins. VerusHash 2.0 has the potential to correct the single largest design flaw in the proof of work consensus mechanism- the ever expanding monetary and energy requirements that have plagued PoW based projects since the inception of the consensus mechanism. Verus also solves another major issue of coin and net hash centralization by enabling legitimate CPU mining, offering greater coin and hashrate distribution.
Digging a bit deeper it turns out the Verus development team are no rookies. The lead developer Michael F Toutonghi has spent decades in the field programming and is a former Vice President and Technical Fellow at Microsoft, recognized founder and architect of Microsoft's .Net platform, ex-Technical Fellow of Microsoft's advertising platform, ex-CTO, Parallels Corporation, and an experienced distributed computing and machine learning architect. The project he helped create employs and makes use of a diverse myriad of technologies and security features to form one of the most advanced and secure cryptocurrency to date. A brief description of what makes VerusCoin special quoted from a community member-
"Verus has a unique and new consensus algorithm called Proof of Power which is a 50% PoW/50% PoS algorithm that solves theoretical weaknesses in other PoS systems (Nothing at Stake problem for example) and is provably immune to 51% hash attacks. With this, Verus uses the new hash algorithm, VerusHash 2.0. VerusHash 2.0 is designed to better equalize mining across all hardware platforms, while favoring the latest CPUs over older types, which is also one defense against the centralizing potential of botnets. Unlike past efforts to equalize hardware hash-rates across different hardware types, VerusHash 2.0 explicitly enables CPUs to gain even more power relative to GPUs and FPGAs, enabling the most decentralizing hardware, CPUs (due to their virtually complete market penetration), to stay relevant as miners for the indefinite future. As for anonymity, Verus is not a "forced private", allowing for both transparent and shielded (private) transactions...and private messages as well"
If other projects can learn from this and adopt a similar approach or continue to innovate with new ideas, it could mean an end to all the doom and gloom predictions that CPU and GPU mining are dead, offering a much needed reprieve and an alternative to miners who have been faced with the difficult decision of either pulling the plug and shutting down shop or breaking down their rigs to sell off parts and buy new, more expensive hardware…and in so doing present an overall unprecedented level of decentralization not yet seen in cryptocurrency.
Technological advancements led us to the world of secure digital currencies and the progress being made with hardware efficiencies is indisputably beneficial to us all. ASICs and FPGAs aren’t inherently bad, and there are ways in which they could be made more affordable and available for mass distribution. More than anything, it is important that we work together as communities to find solutions that can benefit us all for the long term.
In an ever changing world where it may be easy to lose sight of the real accomplishments that brought us to this point one thing is certain, cryptocurrency is here to stay and the projects that are doing something to solve the current problems in the proof of work consensus mechanism will be the ones that lead us toward our collective vision of a better world- not just for the world of crypto but for each and every one of us.
submitted by Godballz to gpumining [link] [comments]

AMA Recap: DBCrypto and 8BTC

AMA Recap: DBCrypto and 8BTC
AMA Recap: DBCrypto and 8BTC
by bloXroute Team (Original post here)
https://preview.redd.it/wofpz6u4s4m21.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=130a488552c9485affdc14a08f8f8a49c6b48cb8
This past month the bloXroute team participated in 2 AMA’s. Our Co-Founder Professor Emin Gün Sirer synced up with our Chinese-speaking community on the 8BTC Forum, and our Co-Founder and Chief Architect Professor Aleksandar Kuzmanovic, Strategy & Operations Manager Eleni Steinman, and Marketing Associate Brooke Walter connected with blockchain enthusiasts on the DBCrypto Telegram group.
There were many great questions asked so we wanted to share our answers with the rest of our community on Medium. For some of the questions, we expanded upon our answers and edited for clarity and brevity.
The questions are organized into four sections: Tech, BLXR, General, and the Blockchain Ecosystem.

Tech

Can someone explain the “magic gateways” a little more? Is this patented and closed source tech?
  • “Magic gateway” is a small piece of code that sits on a machine running a blockchain node with one side speaking the blockchain “language” with the node, and on the other side speaking bloXroute “language” with our Relays. It also shrinks blocks from the nodes to the Relays, propagates transactions etc. Yes this has been patented for a simple reason — the work was initially done at a University, hence we had to license (our own work) from the University. That’s how it works. While we patented the system, we are going to open source the Gateways.
When will the source code be released?
  • The source code for the Gateway software will become available from Day 1, i.e., as soon as we start testing with miners. The source code for the rest of the system, i.e., Relays, will become available soon after.
From reading the whitepaper it seems as though on-boarding bloXroute can take a bottom up approach. I.e. it sounds like crypto miners can start using the bloXroute network right away, without needing to integrate software into the bloXroute servers or get any approval from the developers of the crypto project? Is this right?
  • That’s right! Any miner can start using bloXroute on its own without any approval. We will provide open source code that miners download, we call magic gateways, that is run on the same machine they mine on. Miners send blocks to the gateway like they would any other peer node. And that’s it. Since bloXroute BN lets you hear about and send blocks faster, miners who use it are obviously at an advantage.
Will the blockchain be able to test bloXroute’s net neutrality? If yes, how? Will bloXroute’s net neutrality testing ability be on the developer or miner level?
  • Certainly! Net neutrality is at the heart of bloXroute, and something I am personally passionate about. Net neutrality mechanisms (please see the WP for details) will be enabled from day one. Everyone, including miners and developers, will be able to test, in real time, bloXroute’s network and its behavior.
How can bloXroute be decentralized and trustless? Does it rely on servers? If we can’t find a better way to solve block propagation problems other than bloXroute, then obviously nodes (especially mining nodes)have to completely rely on bloXroute. If bloXroute has any problems, the whole network will be at risk.
  • Excellent question that gets to the heart of bloXroute’s core contribution. bloXroute is a unique solution that is *centralized yet trustless*. It consists of a network of servers operated very efficiently by a centralized entity — this is how it achieves its high performance. At the same time, the technology is constructed such that these servers *cannot* misbehave. They cannot discriminate on the basis of transaction content, and they cannot selectively censor. So, the overall network is efficient because it’s centralized, like Akamai’s content distribution network, and it’s also trustless, like Bitcoin’s underlying network. Also, by open-sourcing our entire codebase (once the system reaches some maturity) we enable everyone to run a backup network to take over in case bloXroute is shut down by any means, preventing it from becoming a single-point-of-failure.
Also, I remember that ‘bloXroute will keep neutrality by encrypting blocks’, but what if somebody uses bloXroute to send spam? Will it be a problem?
  • Indeed, we have implemented various measures to handle the spam issue. In particular, the bloXroute network keeps and propagates provenance information, allowing the system to limit the traffic a node sends based on their usage of the system. Keep in mind that all large networks, whether it’s Google’s, Facebook’s or Akamai’s, are under constant spam attacks. We use well-established techniques from that domain to ensure that spammers can be efficiently identified and limited.
What is a sufficient number of servers?
  • Our V1 is going to have around 15 servers on 5 continents, roughly. Blockchain traffic currently isn’t particularly large. We hope to change that!
Is it advantageous for miners to be in relative close proximity to a BloXroute server?
  • Yes. But the difference is very small. A really dramatic difference will be between bloXroute-enabled vs. non-bloXroute enabled miners.
Could you elaborate on the servers a bit more? I heard Uri talking about utilizing trusted organisations to do this. I know my concern is that this may create some level of centralised power.
  • We are fully aware of this concern. This is why we are making sure to utilize a large number of independent providers. This is creating a lot of operational issues on our end (because different providers use different software environments) but this is a top priority for us.
How quickly will idle backup networks be operational/online in the case of a main bloxroute network fatal failure? Does this backup network set-up require some work/adjustments on the client/nodes side?
  • The backup will be automatic, such that the effects of a possible failure on the mainnet is minimized. Given that the process will be automatic, no adjustments will be needed on the client side.
Have you established an “ideal” number of independent providers to reduce such concerns? Or is this something still being established?
  • There’s no magic number, the more the better!
I assume having servers in different geographical regions is important. The EU for example could outlaw BloXroute servers. I assume it would be way too expensive for a regular person to setup a BloXroute server?
  • I am hopeful the EU would not do that! :) But the point is that even in absence of servers in a particular region, things can still work pretty well for users in that region.
If that was the case, will they be disadvantaged as the message will need to be relayed further?
  • Necessarily so. But the system would still be operational, and would be able to operate at a fairly high TPS rate.
From both a tech and adoption level, what are some of the biggest difficulties bloXroute faces?
  • Technical difficulties are present on a daily basis, but we are coping with them. As a technical person, I simply know we will resolve them all. I am also convinced that a number of blockchain communities will adopt our system. But if you ask what a bigger challenge is, I think adoption.

BLXR

Does bloXroute have native tokens? If yes, when will the tokens be released? Is it an ERC20 token? Will it be listed on exchanges? What can the tokens do on your network?
  • Yes, bloXroute will have BLXR tokens, which will be listed on exchanges. The BLXR tokens are security tokens that entitle the holder to a share of the revenues of the company. Of every future dollar that bloXroute makes, a proportion goes into a pot, and this pot is divided among the BLXR holders. Think of it as instant, auditable dividends in perpetuity. And BLXR tokens thus act like a fund, where the fund’s contents change over time to track whichever coins are using bloXroute more. If BCH miners use bloXroute, BLXR will have more BCH in it; if ETH adopts bloXroute, then it’ll swing towards ETH, etc. So the tokens can serve as a blanket bet on adoption and use of cryptocurrencies, kind of like how Akamai was a play on Internet content being in demand. I will leave it up to the company to announce its projected dates. I’m focusing mainly on the technology behind the scenes.
Is it correct that you plan to go down the STO path or simply the security token path and the BLXR will be a security token?
  • Yes, BLXR is a security token. The good thing is that we’re clear about this from the very beginning. Hence we were able to cope with regulations on time.
When do you plan to do the STO?
  • Our team of lawyers is working very closely with the SEC to take all of the required steps to ensure everything we do is in compliance with regulations. We hope to have all necessary approvals for an STO in Q3 / Q4 2019.
That’s really great that you’ve been working with the SEC. Does that mean you plan to sell the BLXR token to American citizens?
  • We hope that to do as wide of a sale as possible, so not just Americans.
How does this work? What jurisdiction have you chosen to setup this token etc? Or is this all still being figured out?
  • It has to do with the regulation you file under. Some regulations require that you only raise from accredited investors and others let you raise from anyone.
Will accredited investors only be able to participate in the the BLXR token sale or is there a plan to try an include non-accredited investors as well?
  • The plan is to make it as wide of a sale as regulation allows. We (our lawyers) are working hard so it’s not just accredited investors.
You have recently changed your BLXR security token from 50% revenue reserve model to 100% revenue direct dividend model. How direct will it be? In what time frame or frequency will BLXR token holders will receive their pro rata share of collected revenues to their wallets?
  • 100% of the fees associated with the cryptocurrencies using bloXroute’s BDN become immediately available for withdrawal by BLXR token holders. Right now the plan is for a calculation to run once every 24-hours to update what we call an “Owner balance” — this is how much crypto is available for withdrawal for a given BLXR holder based on their pro-rata share. To withdraw one’s dividends, a BLXR holder must provide a wallet address in the same currency as the crypto they wish to withdraw. The owner balance will then instantly update to reflect this outflow.
How will bloXroute operations be covered in this new direct dividend model?
  • In the new model 100% of the revenues will go to token holders. bloXroute, as a token holder, can use the revenues it receives for its ownership portion to fund operations.
With BLXR being an ERC-20 token, does Bloxroute plan to set up the benefits of the token (accumulation of relative % of fees for projects using the network) so that it can be accumulated by the owner whilst also possibly locking BLXR in a MarkerDao CDP?
  • Dividends will accumulate in a reserve account and be available for withdraw. Our current plan is for Owner Balances to be updated every 24 hours. BLXR holders can transfer their dividends to their wallets and use them as they wish. :)

General

I understand that one of the benefits of bloxroute for the ecosystem is users will have a much lower fee to pay for their transactions. Will users be able to get this much-lower-fee benefit from bloxroute only through wallet(s) they use by choosing to pay a *tiny* fee to bloxroute instead of a *large* fee to miners or can they also get that benefit in some other way?
  • To start, users can use bloXroute immediately as the first 100 TPS are always free. Only after 100 TPS can a user choose to pay bloXroute a tiny fee to reduce her overall fee (albeit a user would only choose to pay bloXroute if this is true). All users benefit from bloXroute on day one as the first 100 TPS are always free. Users do not have to use wallets that partner with bloXroute to take advantage of the fee reduction service, but it’ll certainly be the most streamlined method. Any user that knows bloXroute’s public address can include in their transaction an additional output that pays bloXroute’s public address to reduce her overall fee.
Typically, how many X tps improvement should we see for the various major blockchains that bloXroute will target?
  • We are targeting approximately 3,000 TPS for Bitcoin and Ethereum.
In terms of technology, what is bloXroute’s core competitiveness? How many people are on your team?
  • Our core competencies are as follows: (1) we have some of the world’s foremost experts on blockchain and network scaling, (2) we have innovated across all aspects of the emerging blockchain stack in the past and bring that experience to bear on the chain scaling problem, and (3) we are the first group to identify Layer-0 as a scalability bottleneck, the first to apply network neutrality techniques to blockchains, and thus the group with the most extensive track record on how to build efficient and trustless systems. The team is just over 20 employees, it is hard to keep track now because, in addition to our headquarters in Chicago, we also have a satellite office in Tel Aviv, Israel and two need employees start this week. We are currently building our platform. Though the core of the platform has been in operation for 2.5 years already on the BTC and BCH networks, we are extending it to other systems, e.g. ETH, and adding new features.
How does bloXroute’s solution work on different blockchain networks?
  • bloXroute’s solution has been operating continuously for the last 2.5 years. In that time frame, it has been deployed on Bitcoin (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH). It has ferried every transaction and every block found in that time frame. To this, we recently added the ability to support Ethereum. And we recently announced a partnership with a large miner. In all of these cases, bloXroute provides an additional fast-path to existing coins for the delivery of financial data, just like Akamai added a fast path for the delivery of regular content on the Internet. It’s optional, opt-in, and completely voluntary. It’s just a faster way to deliver blocks and transactions. In return for ferrying this financial data, bloXroute collects transaction fees, and BLXR tokens receive these collected feeds.
With bloXroute already forming a partnerships with mining companies, do you plan to establish more relationships with similar organisations? If so, given the obvious concerns about the environmental impact of traditional mining, does bloXroute aim to establish/support relationships with mining companies who utilise renewable and sustainable energy?
  • We hope to establish relationships with all miners :) In regards to environmental concerns, our BDN actually helps miners more efficiently utilize their power consumption. Since miners hear about blocks sooner, they can immediately start mining the next block, and thus more efficiently utilizing their resources.
When will you start v1 testing with miners?
  • Early to mid March.
Will the v1 testing be predefined (for preselected miners/mining pools) or it will be possible to join the testing on the go? How can a miner apply for the testing?
  • Yes, the V1 testing will happen with a predefined group of miners. If you’d like to join, please send me an email ([[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])) and I’ll follow up.
Will the v1 testing be with one or with multiple blockchains? Will there be BTC and/or ETH miners in the v1 test pool?
  • It will be with multiple blockchains and yes, we connect with both BTC and ETH (and BCH) miners in V1.
Will bloXroute produce better results (TPS) for PoW or for PoS consensus protocols?
  • We are currently working with PoW and we are seeing some great results (still can’t share publicly). We should definitely see a comparable performance with PoS, but we currently have no empirical data.
Are there any difficulties you faced trying to convince major blockchains like btc, eth etc to increase block size?
  • We view ourselves as providers of networking that removes the scalability bottleneck. It is up to each community to take advantage of that efficiency how they see fit. That said, we already know some communities want scale. For example BCH has 32 MB blocks because after 32MB the thing breaks (i.e. they hit the scalability bottleneck). With bloXroute, I’d expect them to increase their blocksize.
Which pipelines of blockchains likely to come on board 1st on bloXroute in 2019?
  • In V1 we will provide support for BTC, ETH, and BCH. We are talking to many other blockchain communities, and will provide an open API allowing any blockchain to use bloXroute.
If 10% of the blockchain miners/pool have 10% of the hash power (which results in approximately a 10% probability of mining a block) and they start using bloxroute while the other 90% of miners/hash power do not use bloxroute yet (gradual deployment), how does the usage of bloxroute benefit the 10% of miners vs. the other 90%?
  • Good question. The benefits for early-adopting miners start to kick in immediately. In your example, the probability of the 10% of miners that use bloXroute increases above 10% the probability to win a mining round. This is because they “waste” (much) less time on mining blocks that will not eventually get “on chain”.
Does the TPS order of improvement through bloxroute depend on the network size and distribution of nodes (decentralization level) of particular blockchain?
  • It necessarily does. The larger and more decentralized a network is, the TPS rate decreases. The big difference is that without bloXroute, the TPS decreases exponentially, i.e., very quickly. With bloXroute, we are seeing sublinear, i.e., marginal, degradation in TPS as the network size increases.
Are you partnering already with some wallets? If yes, with which ones? If not, is it too early to disclose?
  • Our first goal is to gain adoption. Once we have adoption, we plan on working with wallets to add in an option to streamline the process of including a bloXroute fee. We expect wallets to include such a fee to have an advantage because it offers their users lower overall fees compared to competitors. It would be up to the wallet to decide to show an “bloXroute transaction” feature or simply show lower fees. That said, we are very well connected to some of the most successful wallets in the crypto ecosystem, and have already discussed the matter with some of them.
Do you foresee users migrating to wallets that partner with bloXroute from the ones that don’t?
  • Users do not have to use wallets that partner with bloXroute to take advantage of the fee reduction service, but it’ll certainly be the most streamlined method. Any user that knows bloXroute’s public address can include in their transaction an additional output that pays bloXroute’s public address to reduce her overall fee. Our first goal is to gain adoption. Once we have adoption, we plan on working with wallets to add in an option to streamline the process of including a bloXroute fee. We expect wallets to include such a fee to have an advantage because it offers their users lower overall fees compared to competitors. It would be up to the wallet to decide to show an “bloXroute transaction” feature or simply show lower fees.
Will it be easy for a wallet to integrate bloXroute or it will require deeper dive?
  • Integration with wallets should be equally straightforward, from the technical point of view. We plan to actively work with open-sourced wallets to help them implement the change. The change includes a UI update to prompt the user and ask if they want to use bloXroute or not, and if they do, update the transaction to commit a tiny fee to a publicly-known bloXroute address.
Are you on track with your roadmap?
  • We are only a few weeks behind on our roadmap (we wanted to do our miner test for end of Feb and now it is early march) but I think for the tech world that’s still pretty good!
Did crypto winter changed your roadmap in certain aspects?
  • The crypto winter I think actually helped us. We are a free service to make miners more money. That has to be appealing in this environment.
When will the Proof of Concept be released?
  • The PoC should come at a similar time like V1, maybe a couple of weeks later, we’ll see.
What is the biggest challenge you’ve encountered after starting the company? What has helped you overcome challenges and stick to your goals?
  • Biggest challenge we have faced is finding talented individuals who understand this technology. The area is brand new, and it’s difficult to find qualified engineers, builders, and business folks. What makes me really motivated every morning is looking at the world and noticing just how antiquated our current systems are, how much they operate based on trust, and how much better they would be if they were open to all and auditable by anyone.
The white paper doesn’t give a full description of bloXroute’s tech, instead it gives a very simple explanation. Do you have concrete plans on how your project will be applied?
  • Our technology has been in operation for 2.5 years. Writing a whitepaper is a difficult task, trying to make a complex technology accessible to the masses. That said, I am pretty sure that we covered the core of our plans, and we have more papers in the pipeline describing the operation of the system for an academic audience. [Check out our resources page for detailed explanations about our technology]

Blockchain Ecosystem

People are talking a lot about Layer-2 scaling solutions in recent years. Compared with layer-0, will layer-2 be a better scaling choice? Or does it depend on different scenarios?
  • When it comes to scaling, there is no “one good layer to scale.” To reach really large numbers of transactions per second, one needs to tackle the bottlenecks at all levels. And Layer-2 cannot actually be made secure unless Layer-1 has enough space to on-board new users, as well as settle the transactions from existing channels. This all cannot be done at 3 tps. To support 1,000,000 tps and above, the underlying chain has to offer high throughput. So it’s absolutely essential to examine Layer-0 solutions.
You said currently there’s no crypto that can be truly decentralized. You also believe PoS is better than PoW. Does that mean that you think bitcoin is not decentralized? What’s the problem with bitcoin’s PoW mechanism?
  • Bitcoin’s blockchain today is created by around 19 mining entities. Some of these are pools, but nevertheless, these are individuals that came together and are operating in unison towards a common aim — they may not have corporate paperwork filed, but they are indistinguishable from any other corporate entity at this point. Just 4 of these command the majority of the hashpower. That’s it, the sum total of Bitcoin’s decentralization. EOS has 21 block producers. Ethereum has 11 miners now, and will reach around 60 with Casper. These are all tiny numbers. The big elephant in the room that no one dares to talk about is precisely how centralized most coins are today.
Do you find there is enough awareness about the block propagation as one of the major (if not the major) scalability bottlenecks within the crypto community/blockchains?
  • The short answer is no. Many people have heard about scalability being a hot topic in crypto/blockchain, but almost no one knows exactly what or where the bottleneck is. That’s why one of the most important parts of telling our story is educating at the same time. The blockchain community has many different types of people with varying levels of knowledge, so it’s a balance to develop a voice that speaks to everyone. In response to this challenge we have developed an educational Youtube series where we give detailed explanations about topics in crypto and blockchain. We hope it will provide tools to have more technical understanding and meaningful conversations about our product and the ecosystem in general.
During the BCH Hash War there was a block propagation bottleneck real case scenario on the mainnet when BSV tried to mine large blocks — something like 40MB and later 64 MB, but at both trials they failed on block propagation as it took too long and forks occurred. The large blocks were orphaned so the experiment clearly failed. As bloXroute’s focus is on this exact scalability bottleneck, block propagation, you came out as a *winner* from the hash war according to Professor Sirer. Have you experienced some benefits of being a winner, such as a larger awareness and interest in your project within the crypto and blockchain community?
  • We are having a lot of communication and open discussion with a lot of blockchain projects out there. We did indeed notice an increased interest after the events that you mention above.
What if industrial giants launched their own public chains one after another, what do you think the community should do?
  • This is exactly what we are going to see, with Facebook leading the way. I’m not too worried about these corporate approaches. While these companies have immense resources, they are starting quite late and do not have the kinds of thought leadership we possess on building peer-to-peer systems. All of these big behemoths are experts at building centralized client-server systems, which are the exact antithesis of what we are building with cryptocurrencies. So I don’t think we should be worried or do much: let them build out, welcome their efforts, and treat them the same way we treat every other altcoin. They will play a big role in onboarding new users into crypto, and they will help make the space more healthy and exciting for all of us.
What different scaling challenges are Ethereum and Bitcoin facing now? What do you think of these challenges?
  • The scaling problems faced by these two systems are slightly different. Bitcoin is a payments system. As such, it is concerned primarily with point-to-point value transfers. And it is facing a basic capacity problem: if everyone in Venezuela were to switch to Bitcoin today, every adult would get to transact only once per month! That’s clearly nowhere near the dream that has been sold to the masses. And it’s not clear what Layer-2 can achieve, because its capacity depends on the emergent network. At the moment, most attempts to send $1000 over LN fail. The challenge in Bitcoin and similar systems is to retain the security of the underlying protocol, avoid forks, and at the same time, increase the number of transactions per second. Naive attempts to do this, for instance, by arbitrarily increasing the block size to really large numbers, are not a good idea. We have seen that BSV is going down this route, and it is leading to excess centralization. bloXroute can help avoid centralization, and help drive protocol scales up by orders of magnitude. The challenges faced by Ethereum are slightly different. The interactions with smart-contracts tend to be multi-point to multi-point, that is, they involve multiple parties. So we see a different, more difficult problem emerge. And Ethereum is driving its network to its limits at the moment. The Ethereum mining network is beginning to show signs of centralization. ETH’s current set of block size and block frequency parameters are a little bit aggressive, and we are seeing signs that would indicate an advantage for mining centralization. bloXroute can help reverse this process and enable the protocol to be driven even more aggressively.
Ethereum researchers claim that their sidechain snark handles 17,000 TPS, do you think we can achieve higher capacity while the network is absolutely safe?
  • We can, and need to, achieve far higher numbers if the blockchain revolution is going to be anywhere near as big as it can be. If IoT devices go online, we will need 1M tps. On the other hand, I’m highly skeptical of all performance claims. BTC achieves around 4tps today, while ETH achieves 15 on a good day. Achieving 100–500, sustained in the real world, is actually very difficult. Any time I hear a number in excess of 10,000 tps, and the technology involved still uses LevelDB, I know that the numbers are obtained in laboratory conditions. That said, I believe this announcement was referring to a sidechain with a small number of trusted peers. In such a setting, sure, one can do anything because the trustlessness is not an issue. I’m concerned about public blockchains, where the nodes do not and cannot trust each other. We can only get to 10,000tps and above by re-thinking Layer-1, as we are doing with Avalanche, and re-doing Layer-0, as we are doing with bloXroute.
Thank you again to everyone who participated ! If you have more questions for our team, feel free to ask us on the bloXroute Telegram channel or ourReddit page.
— — —
We’re always looking for good people!
If you’re equally excited to solve the scalability bottleneck for all blockchains, consider joining our team! We are always looking for passionate partners to help us on this important journey. Check out our available positions to work with us in our Chicago offices.
Learn more
submitted by brooke_bloXroute to bloXrouteLabs [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Hash Rate Tag Hits New Record 8 Days From Halving Bitcoin hashrate- 0 to 100 quintillion in 10 years ... Cryptocurrency Day Trading - BitcoinCash The Forkning Following Bitcoin’s Hash Rate Network Difficulty Is About to Set a New What Does Hashrate Mean?  Hashrate Mining Explained

Generally speaking, as hash rate increase, so does Bitcoin’s mining difficulty, but that’s a topic for another day. Published August 5, 2019 — 14:00 UTC Matthew Beedham Taking raw network hash rate as a measure of security, Bitcoin reaching a new difficulty ATH lends further credence to the bull-market argument. The mining death spiral did occur at a time when BTC reached a 2018 low of $3,100. With, price and technical fundamentals moving in the same trajectory, more big-money players might be incentivized to buy bitcoin further diving up its value. Bitcoin ... Bitcoin’s hash rate has been in the news. In mid-September, the most popular cryptocurrency on Earth reached a huge milestone by surpassing a hash rate of over 100 quintillion hashes per second ... Bitcoin Block Rewards and Bitcoin Mining. Strictly speaking, ... which is currently set at 6.25 Bitcoin (BTC). Mining Difficulty. A consistent factor that affects how long it takes to mine one Bitcoin is what is referred to as the network’s hashing difficulty algorithm, which is designed to self-adjust in order to maintain a consistent 10-minute block verification time. Bitcoin mining is an ... Bitcoin miners update the Bitcoin ledger (i.e., add new blocks of transactions to the ledger) by operating costly, specialized hardware and consuming large amounts of energy. By doing so, miners perform transaction settlement and secure the ledger. As such, Bitcoin mining is a foundational component of the network and Bitcoin as an asset ...

[index] [9400] [51063] [12294] [27452] [22795] [28328] [14769] [34136] [35909] [21320]

Bitcoin Hash Rate Tag Hits New Record 8 Days From Halving

This usually relates to the difficulty of generating a new hash address, also known as mining. This is a variable that the Bitcoin system is using to keep the growth of new Bitcoins on a ... Hash rate is used as the speed indicator of a machine that mines Bitcoin on the Blockchain. The higher the hashrate number on a machine, the faster it will solve complex equations and find blocks ... After the mid-March price crash led to a brief exodus of miners operating older hardware, the Bitcoin ( BTC ) hash rate posted a new all-time high (ATH) of more than 142 exahashes per second (EX/s ... #Mining #BitCoin #Cryptocurrency Visuals by https://visualdon.uk/ Check out there work, it's radical. Track - Depression Drive - Fla.mingo Welcome to the 17th episode of CCMDL , Feburary 17 2020 ... 01:18 Market Update 02:18 BTC Difficulty and Hash Rate Drop 05:01 Satoshi Nakomoto Won't Sell Bitcoin 07:28 eToro Market Analysis 10:59 Paxful in India 13:36 IOST NFT Collectibles and Mystery Box ...

#