Litecoin Hashrate Chart CoinWarz

[ANN][ANDROID MINING][AIRDROP] NewEnglandcoin: Scrypt RandomSpike

New England
New England 6 States Songs: https://www.reddit.com/newengland/comments/er8wxd/new_england_6_states_songs/
NewEnglandcoin
Symbol: NENG
NewEnglandcoin is a clone of Bitcoin using scrypt as a proof-of-work algorithm with enhanced features to protect against 51% attack and decentralize on mining to allow diversified mining rigs across CPUs, GPUs, ASICs and Android phones.
Mining Algorithm: Scrypt with RandomSpike. RandomSpike is 3rd generation of Dynamic Difficulty (DynDiff) algorithm on top of scrypt.
1 minute block targets base difficulty reset: every 1440 blocks subsidy halves in 2.1m blocks (~ 2 to 4 years) 84,000,000,000 total maximum NENG 20000 NENG per block Pre-mine: 1% - reserved for dev fund ICO: None RPCPort: 6376 Port: 6377
NewEnglandcoin has dogecoin like supply at 84 billion maximum NENG. This huge supply insures that NENG is suitable for retail transactions and daily use. The inflation schedule of NengEnglandcoin is actually identical to that of Litecoin. Bitcoin and Litecoin are already proven to be great long term store of value. The Litecoin-like NENG inflation schedule will make NewEnglandcoin ideal for long term investment appreciation as the supply is limited and capped at a fixed number
Bitcoin Fork - Suitable for Home Hobbyists
NewEnglandcoin core wallet continues to maintain version tag of "Satoshi v0.8.7.5" because NewEnglandcoin is very much an exact clone of bitcoin plus some mining feature changes with DynDiff algorithm. NewEnglandcoin is very suitable as lite version of bitcoin for educational purpose on desktop mining, full node running and bitcoin programming using bitcoin-json APIs.
The NewEnglandcoin (NENG) mining algorithm original upgrade ideas were mainly designed for decentralization of mining rigs on scrypt, which is same algo as litecoin/dogecoin. The way it is going now is that NENG is very suitable for bitcoin/litecoin/dogecoin hobbyists who can not , will not spend huge money to run noisy ASIC/GPU mining equipments, but still want to mine NENG at home with quiet simple CPU/GPU or with a cheap ASIC like FutureBit Moonlander 2 USB or Apollo pod on solo mining setup to obtain very decent profitable results. NENG allows bitcoin litecoin hobbyists to experience full node running, solo mining, CPU/GPU/ASIC for a fun experience at home at cheap cost without breaking bank on equipment or electricity.
MIT Free Course - 23 lectures about Bitcoin, Blockchain and Finance (Fall,2018)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP63UUkfL0onkxF6MYgVa04Fn
CPU Minable Coin Because of dynamic difficulty algorithm on top of scrypt, NewEnglandcoin is CPU Minable. Users can easily set up full node for mining at Home PC or Mac using our dedicated cheetah software.
Research on the first forked 50 blocks on v1.2.0 core confirmed that ASIC/GPU miners mined 66% of 50 blocks, CPU miners mined the remaining 34%.
NENG v1.4.0 release enabled CPU mining inside android phones.
Youtube Video Tutorial
How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in Windows 10 Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdOoPvAjzlE How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in Windows 10 Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHnRJvJRzZg
How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in macOS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj7NLMeNSOQ
Decentralization and Community Driven NewEnglandcoin is a decentralized coin just like bitcoin. There is no boss on NewEnglandcoin. Nobody nor the dev owns NENG.
We know a coin is worth nothing if there is no backing from community. Therefore, we as dev do not intend to make decision on this coin solely by ourselves. It is our expectation that NewEnglandcoin community will make majority of decisions on direction of this coin from now on. We as dev merely view our-self as coin creater and technical support of this coin while providing NENG a permanent home at ShorelineCrypto Exchange.
Twitter Airdrop
Follow NENG twitter and receive 100,000 NENG on Twitter Airdrop to up to 1000 winners
Graphic Redesign Bounty
Top one award: 90.9 million NENG Top 10 Winners: 500,000 NENG / person Event Timing: March 25, 2019 - Present Event Address: NewEnglandcoin DISCORD at: https://discord.gg/UPeBwgs
Please complete above Twitter Bounty requirement first. Then follow Below Steps to qualify for the Bounty: (1) Required: submit your own designed NENG logo picture in gif, png jpg or any other common graphic file format into DISCORD "bounty-submission" board (2) Optional: submit a second graphic for logo or any other marketing purposes into "bounty-submission" board. (3) Complete below form.
Please limit your submission to no more than two total. Delete any wrongly submitted or undesired graphics in the board. Contact DISCORD u/honglu69#5911 or u/krypton#6139 if you have any issues.
Twitter Airdrop/Graphic Redesign bounty sign up: https://goo.gl/forms/L0vcwmVi8c76cR7m1
Milestones
Roadmap
NENG v1.4.0 Android Mining, randomSpike Evaluation https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/NENG_2020_Q3_report/NENG_2020_Q3_report.pdf
RandomSpike - NENG core v1.3.0 Hardfork Upgrade Proposal https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/2020Q1_Report/Scrypt_RandomSpike_NENGv1.3.0_Hardfork_Proposal.pdf
NENG Security, Decentralization & Valuation
https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/2019Q2_report/NENG_Security_Decentralization_Value.pdf
Whitepaper v1.0 https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/whitepaper_v1.0/NENG_WhitePaper.pdf
DISCORD https://discord.gg/UPeBwgs
Explorer
http://www.findblocks.com/exploreNENG http://86.100.49.209/exploreNENG http://nengexplorer.mooo.com:3001/
Step by step guide on how to setup an explorer: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/nengexplorer
Github https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin
Wallet
Android with UserLand App (arm64/armhf), Chromebook (x64/arm64/armhf): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.5
Linux Wallet (Ubuntu/Linux Mint, Debian/MX Linux, Arch/Manjaro, Fedora, openSUSE): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.3
MacOS Wallet (10.11 El Capitan or higher): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.2
Android with GNUroot on 32 bits old Phones (alpha release) wallet: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0
Windows wallet: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.3.0.1
addnode ip address for the wallet to sync faster, frequently updated conf file: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/cheetah_cpumineblob/mastenewenglandcoin.conf-example
How to Sync Full Node Desktop Wallet https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/comments/er6f0q/how_to_sync_full_node_desktop_wallet/
TWITTER https://twitter.com/newenglandcoin
REDDIT https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/
Cheetah CPU Miner Software https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/cheetah_cpuminer
Solo Mining with GPU or ASIC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52187727#msg52187727
How to Run Two Full Node in Same Desktop PC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53581449#msg53581449
ASIC/GPU Mining Pools Warning to Big ASIC Miners Due to DynDiff Algo on top of Scrypt, solo mining is recommended for ASIC/GPU miners. Further more, even for mining pools, small mining pool will generate better performance than big NENG mining pool because of new algo v1.2.x post hard fork.
The set up configuration of NENG for scrypt pool mining is same as a typical normal scrypt coin. In other word, DynDiff on Scrypt algo is backward compatible with Scrypt algo. Because ASIC/GPU miners rely on CPU miners for smooth blockchain movement, checkout bottom of "Latest News" section for A WARNING to All ASIC miners before you decide to dump big ASIC hash rate into NENG mining.
(1) Original DynDiff Warning: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48324708#msg48324708 (2) New Warning on RandomSpike Spike difficulty (244k) introduced in RandomSpike served as roadblocks to instant mining and provide security against 51% attack risk. However, this spike difficulty like a roadblock that makes big ASIC mining less profitable. In case of spike block to be mined, the spike difficulty immediately serve as base difficulty, which will block GPU/ASIC miners effectively and leave CPU cheetah solo miners dominating mining almost 100% until next base difficulty reset.
FindBlocks http://findblocks.com/
CRpool http://crpool.xyz/
Cminors' Pool http://newenglandcoin.cminors-pool.com/
SPOOL https://spools.online/
Exchange
📷
https://shorelinecrypto.com/
Features: anonymous sign up and trading. No restriction or limit on deposit or withdraw.
The trading pairs available: NewEnglandcoin (NENG) / Dogecoin (DOGE)
Trading commission: A round trip trading will incur 0.10% trading fees in average. Fees are paid only on buyer side. buy fee: 0.2% / sell fee: 0% Deposit fees: free for all coins Withdraw fees: ZERO per withdraw. Mining fees are appointed by each coin blockchain. To cover the blockchain mining fees, there is minimum balance per coin per account: * Dogecoin 2 DOGE * NewEnglandcoin 1 NENG
Latest News Aug 30, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.5 Released for Android/Chromebook Upgrade with armhf, better hardware support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg55098029#msg55098029
Aug 11, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.4 Released for Android arm64 Upgrade / Chromebook Support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54977437#msg54977437
Jul 30, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.3 Released for Linux Wallet Upgrade with 8 Distros https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54898540#msg54898540
Jul 21, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.2 Released for MacOS Upgrade with Catalina https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54839522#msg54839522
Jul 19, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.1 Released for MacOS Wallet Upgrade https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54830333#msg54830333
Jul 15, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0 Released for Android Mining, Ubuntu 20.04 support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54803639#msg54803639
Jul 11, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0 Android Mining, randomSpike Evaluation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54777222#msg54777222
Jun 27, 2020 - Pre-Announce: NENG v1.4.0 Proposal for Mobile Miner Upgrade, Android Mining Start in July 2020 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54694233#msg54694233
Jun 19, 2020 - Best Practice for Futurebit Moonlander2 USB ASIC on solo mining mode https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54645726#msg54645726
Mar 15, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG v1.3.0.1 Released for better wallet syncing https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54030923#msg54030923
Feb 23, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG Core v1.3.0 Relased, Hardfork on Mar 1 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53900926#msg53900926
Feb 1, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike Proposal Published- NENG 1.3.0 Hardfork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53735458#msg53735458
Jan 15, 2020 - NewEnglandcoin Dev Team Expanded with New Kickoff https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53617358#msg53617358
Jan 12, 2020 - Explanation of Base Diff Reset and Effect of Supply https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/comments/envmo1/explanation_of_base_diff_reset_and_effect_of/
Dec 19, 2019 - Shoreline_tradingbot version 1.0 is released https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5121953.msg53391184#msg53391184
Sept 1, 2019 - NewEnglandcoin (NENG) is Selected as Shoreline Tradingbot First Supported Coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52331201#msg52331201
Aug 15, 2019 - Mining Update on Effect of Base Difficulty Reset, GPU vs ASIC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52169572#msg52169572
Jul 7, 2019 - CPU Mining on macOS Mojave is supported under latest Cheetah_Cpuminer Release https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg51745839#msg51745839
Jun 1, 2019 - NENG Fiat project is stopped by Square, Inc https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg51312291#msg51312291
Apr 21, 2019 - NENG Fiat Project is Launched by ShorelineCrypto https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50714764#msg50714764
Apr 7, 2019 - Announcement of Fiat Project for all U.S. Residents & Mobile Miner Project Initiation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50506585#msg50506585
Apr 1, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50417196#msg50417196
Mar 27, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50332097#msg50332097
Mar 17, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50208194#msg50208194
Feb 26, 2019 - Community Project - NewEnglandcoin Graphic Redesign Bounty Initiated https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49931305#msg49931305
Feb 22, 2019 - Dev Policy on Checkpoints on NewEnglandcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49875242#msg49875242
Feb 20, 2019 - NewEnglandCoin v1.2.1 Released to Secure the Hard Kork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49831059#msg49831059
Feb 11, 2019 - NewEnglandCoin v1.2.0 Released, Anti-51% Attack, Anti-instant Mining after Hard Fork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49685389#msg49685389
Jan 13, 2019 - Cheetah_CpuMiner added support for CPU Mining on Mac https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49218760#msg49218760
Jan 12, 2019 - NENG Core v1.1.2 Released to support MacOS OSX Wallet https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49202088#msg49202088
Jan 2, 2019 - Cheetah_Cpuminer v1.1.0 is released for both Linux and Windows https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49004345#msg49004345
Dec 31, 2018 - Technical Whitepaper is Released https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48990334#msg48990334
Dec 28, 2018 - Cheetah_Cpuminer v1.0.0 is released for Linux https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48935135#msg48935135
Update on Dec 14, 2018 - NENG Blockchain Stuck Issue https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48668375#msg48668375
Nov 27, 2018 - Exclusive for PC CPU Miners - How to Steal a Block from ASIC Miners https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48258465#msg48258465
Nov 28, 2018 - How to CPU Mine a NENG block with window/linux PC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48298311#msg48298311
Nov 29, 2018 - A Warning to ASIC Miners https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48324708#msg48324708
Disclosure: Dev Team Came from ShorelineCrypto, a US based Informatics Service Business offering Fee for service for Coin Creation, Coin Exchange Listing, Blockchain Consulting, etc.
submitted by honglu69 to NewEnglandCoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin (BTC)A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

Bitcoin (BTC)A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
  • Bitcoin (BTC) is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that aims to function as a means of exchange that is independent of any central authority. BTC can be transferred electronically in a secure, verifiable, and immutable way.
  • Launched in 2009, BTC is the first virtual currency to solve the double-spending issue by timestamping transactions before broadcasting them to all of the nodes in the Bitcoin network. The Bitcoin Protocol offered a solution to the Byzantine Generals’ Problem with a blockchain network structure, a notion first created by Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta in 1991.
  • Bitcoin’s whitepaper was published pseudonymously in 2008 by an individual, or a group, with the pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto”, whose underlying identity has still not been verified.
  • The Bitcoin protocol uses an SHA-256d-based Proof-of-Work (PoW) algorithm to reach network consensus. Its network has a target block time of 10 minutes and a maximum supply of 21 million tokens, with a decaying token emission rate. To prevent fluctuation of the block time, the network’s block difficulty is re-adjusted through an algorithm based on the past 2016 block times.
  • With a block size limit capped at 1 megabyte, the Bitcoin Protocol has supported both the Lightning Network, a second-layer infrastructure for payment channels, and Segregated Witness, a soft-fork to increase the number of transactions on a block, as solutions to network scalability.

https://preview.redd.it/s2gmpmeze3151.png?width=256&format=png&auto=webp&s=9759910dd3c4a15b83f55b827d1899fb2fdd3de1

1. What is Bitcoin (BTC)?

  • Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that aims to function as a means of exchange and is independent of any central authority. Bitcoins are transferred electronically in a secure, verifiable, and immutable way.
  • Network validators, whom are often referred to as miners, participate in the SHA-256d-based Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism to determine the next global state of the blockchain.
  • The Bitcoin protocol has a target block time of 10 minutes, and a maximum supply of 21 million tokens. The only way new bitcoins can be produced is when a block producer generates a new valid block.
  • The protocol has a token emission rate that halves every 210,000 blocks, or approximately every 4 years.
  • Unlike public blockchain infrastructures supporting the development of decentralized applications (Ethereum), the Bitcoin protocol is primarily used only for payments, and has only very limited support for smart contract-like functionalities (Bitcoin “Script” is mostly used to create certain conditions before bitcoins are used to be spent).

2. Bitcoin’s core features

For a more beginner’s introduction to Bitcoin, please visit Binance Academy’s guide to Bitcoin.

Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) model

A UTXO transaction works like cash payment between two parties: Alice gives money to Bob and receives change (i.e., unspent amount). In comparison, blockchains like Ethereum rely on the account model.
https://preview.redd.it/t1j6anf8f3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=33bd141d8f2136a6f32739c8cdc7aae2e04cbc47

Nakamoto consensus

In the Bitcoin network, anyone can join the network and become a bookkeeping service provider i.e., a validator. All validators are allowed in the race to become the block producer for the next block, yet only the first to complete a computationally heavy task will win. This feature is called Proof of Work (PoW).
The probability of any single validator to finish the task first is equal to the percentage of the total network computation power, or hash power, the validator has. For instance, a validator with 5% of the total network computation power will have a 5% chance of completing the task first, and therefore becoming the next block producer.
Since anyone can join the race, competition is prone to increase. In the early days, Bitcoin mining was mostly done by personal computer CPUs.
As of today, Bitcoin validators, or miners, have opted for dedicated and more powerful devices such as machines based on Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (“ASIC”).
Proof of Work secures the network as block producers must have spent resources external to the network (i.e., money to pay electricity), and can provide proof to other participants that they did so.
With various miners competing for block rewards, it becomes difficult for one single malicious party to gain network majority (defined as more than 51% of the network’s hash power in the Nakamoto consensus mechanism). The ability to rearrange transactions via 51% attacks indicates another feature of the Nakamoto consensus: the finality of transactions is only probabilistic.
Once a block is produced, it is then propagated by the block producer to all other validators to check on the validity of all transactions in that block. The block producer will receive rewards in the network’s native currency (i.e., bitcoin) as all validators approve the block and update their ledgers.

The blockchain

Block production

The Bitcoin protocol utilizes the Merkle tree data structure in order to organize hashes of numerous individual transactions into each block. This concept is named after Ralph Merkle, who patented it in 1979.
With the use of a Merkle tree, though each block might contain thousands of transactions, it will have the ability to combine all of their hashes and condense them into one, allowing efficient and secure verification of this group of transactions. This single hash called is a Merkle root, which is stored in the Block Header of a block. The Block Header also stores other meta information of a block, such as a hash of the previous Block Header, which enables blocks to be associated in a chain-like structure (hence the name “blockchain”).
An illustration of block production in the Bitcoin Protocol is demonstrated below.

https://preview.redd.it/m6texxicf3151.png?width=1591&format=png&auto=webp&s=f4253304912ed8370948b9c524e08fef28f1c78d

Block time and mining difficulty

Block time is the period required to create the next block in a network. As mentioned above, the node who solves the computationally intensive task will be allowed to produce the next block. Therefore, block time is directly correlated to the amount of time it takes for a node to find a solution to the task. The Bitcoin protocol sets a target block time of 10 minutes, and attempts to achieve this by introducing a variable named mining difficulty.
Mining difficulty refers to how difficult it is for the node to solve the computationally intensive task. If the network sets a high difficulty for the task, while miners have low computational power, which is often referred to as “hashrate”, it would statistically take longer for the nodes to get an answer for the task. If the difficulty is low, but miners have rather strong computational power, statistically, some nodes will be able to solve the task quickly.
Therefore, the 10 minute target block time is achieved by constantly and automatically adjusting the mining difficulty according to how much computational power there is amongst the nodes. The average block time of the network is evaluated after a certain number of blocks, and if it is greater than the expected block time, the difficulty level will decrease; if it is less than the expected block time, the difficulty level will increase.

What are orphan blocks?

In a PoW blockchain network, if the block time is too low, it would increase the likelihood of nodes producingorphan blocks, for which they would receive no reward. Orphan blocks are produced by nodes who solved the task but did not broadcast their results to the whole network the quickest due to network latency.
It takes time for a message to travel through a network, and it is entirely possible for 2 nodes to complete the task and start to broadcast their results to the network at roughly the same time, while one’s messages are received by all other nodes earlier as the node has low latency.
Imagine there is a network latency of 1 minute and a target block time of 2 minutes. A node could solve the task in around 1 minute but his message would take 1 minute to reach the rest of the nodes that are still working on the solution. While his message travels through the network, all the work done by all other nodes during that 1 minute, even if these nodes also complete the task, would go to waste. In this case, 50% of the computational power contributed to the network is wasted.
The percentage of wasted computational power would proportionally decrease if the mining difficulty were higher, as it would statistically take longer for miners to complete the task. In other words, if the mining difficulty, and therefore targeted block time is low, miners with powerful and often centralized mining facilities would get a higher chance of becoming the block producer, while the participation of weaker miners would become in vain. This introduces possible centralization and weakens the overall security of the network.
However, given a limited amount of transactions that can be stored in a block, making the block time too longwould decrease the number of transactions the network can process per second, negatively affecting network scalability.

3. Bitcoin’s additional features

Segregated Witness (SegWit)

Segregated Witness, often abbreviated as SegWit, is a protocol upgrade proposal that went live in August 2017.
SegWit separates witness signatures from transaction-related data. Witness signatures in legacy Bitcoin blocks often take more than 50% of the block size. By removing witness signatures from the transaction block, this protocol upgrade effectively increases the number of transactions that can be stored in a single block, enabling the network to handle more transactions per second. As a result, SegWit increases the scalability of Nakamoto consensus-based blockchain networks like Bitcoin and Litecoin.
SegWit also makes transactions cheaper. Since transaction fees are derived from how much data is being processed by the block producer, the more transactions that can be stored in a 1MB block, the cheaper individual transactions become.
https://preview.redd.it/depya70mf3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=a6499aa2131fbf347f8ffd812930b2f7d66be48e
The legacy Bitcoin block has a block size limit of 1 megabyte, and any change on the block size would require a network hard-fork. On August 1st 2017, the first hard-fork occurred, leading to the creation of Bitcoin Cash (“BCH”), which introduced an 8 megabyte block size limit.
Conversely, Segregated Witness was a soft-fork: it never changed the transaction block size limit of the network. Instead, it added an extended block with an upper limit of 3 megabytes, which contains solely witness signatures, to the 1 megabyte block that contains only transaction data. This new block type can be processed even by nodes that have not completed the SegWit protocol upgrade.
Furthermore, the separation of witness signatures from transaction data solves the malleability issue with the original Bitcoin protocol. Without Segregated Witness, these signatures could be altered before the block is validated by miners. Indeed, alterations can be done in such a way that if the system does a mathematical check, the signature would still be valid. However, since the values in the signature are changed, the two signatures would create vastly different hash values.
For instance, if a witness signature states “6,” it has a mathematical value of 6, and would create a hash value of 12345. However, if the witness signature were changed to “06”, it would maintain a mathematical value of 6 while creating a (faulty) hash value of 67890.
Since the mathematical values are the same, the altered signature remains a valid signature. This would create a bookkeeping issue, as transactions in Nakamoto consensus-based blockchain networks are documented with these hash values, or transaction IDs. Effectively, one can alter a transaction ID to a new one, and the new ID can still be valid.
This can create many issues, as illustrated in the below example:
  1. Alice sends Bob 1 BTC, and Bob sends Merchant Carol this 1 BTC for some goods.
  2. Bob sends Carols this 1 BTC, while the transaction from Alice to Bob is not yet validated. Carol sees this incoming transaction of 1 BTC to him, and immediately ships goods to B.
  3. At the moment, the transaction from Alice to Bob is still not confirmed by the network, and Bob can change the witness signature, therefore changing this transaction ID from 12345 to 67890.
  4. Now Carol will not receive his 1 BTC, as the network looks for transaction 12345 to ensure that Bob’s wallet balance is valid.
  5. As this particular transaction ID changed from 12345 to 67890, the transaction from Bob to Carol will fail, and Bob will get his goods while still holding his BTC.
With the Segregated Witness upgrade, such instances can not happen again. This is because the witness signatures are moved outside of the transaction block into an extended block, and altering the witness signature won’t affect the transaction ID.
Since the transaction malleability issue is fixed, Segregated Witness also enables the proper functioning of second-layer scalability solutions on the Bitcoin protocol, such as the Lightning Network.

Lightning Network

Lightning Network is a second-layer micropayment solution for scalability.
Specifically, Lightning Network aims to enable near-instant and low-cost payments between merchants and customers that wish to use bitcoins.
Lightning Network was conceptualized in a whitepaper by Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja in 2015. Since then, it has been implemented by multiple companies. The most prominent of them include Blockstream, Lightning Labs, and ACINQ.
A list of curated resources relevant to Lightning Network can be found here.
In the Lightning Network, if a customer wishes to transact with a merchant, both of them need to open a payment channel, which operates off the Bitcoin blockchain (i.e., off-chain vs. on-chain). None of the transaction details from this payment channel are recorded on the blockchain, and only when the channel is closed will the end result of both party’s wallet balances be updated to the blockchain. The blockchain only serves as a settlement layer for Lightning transactions.
Since all transactions done via the payment channel are conducted independently of the Nakamoto consensus, both parties involved in transactions do not need to wait for network confirmation on transactions. Instead, transacting parties would pay transaction fees to Bitcoin miners only when they decide to close the channel.
https://preview.redd.it/cy56icarf3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=b239a63c6a87ec6cc1b18ce2cbd0355f8831c3a8
One limitation to the Lightning Network is that it requires a person to be online to receive transactions attributing towards him. Another limitation in user experience could be that one needs to lock up some funds every time he wishes to open a payment channel, and is only able to use that fund within the channel.
However, this does not mean he needs to create new channels every time he wishes to transact with a different person on the Lightning Network. If Alice wants to send money to Carol, but they do not have a payment channel open, they can ask Bob, who has payment channels open to both Alice and Carol, to help make that transaction. Alice will be able to send funds to Bob, and Bob to Carol. Hence, the number of “payment hubs” (i.e., Bob in the previous example) correlates with both the convenience and the usability of the Lightning Network for real-world applications.

Schnorr Signature upgrade proposal

Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (“ECDSA”) signatures are used to sign transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain.
https://preview.redd.it/hjeqe4l7g3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=8014fb08fe62ac4d91645499bc0c7e1c04c5d7c4
However, many developers now advocate for replacing ECDSA with Schnorr Signature. Once Schnorr Signatures are implemented, multiple parties can collaborate in producing a signature that is valid for the sum of their public keys.
This would primarily be beneficial for network scalability. When multiple addresses were to conduct transactions to a single address, each transaction would require their own signature. With Schnorr Signature, all these signatures would be combined into one. As a result, the network would be able to store more transactions in a single block.
https://preview.redd.it/axg3wayag3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=93d958fa6b0e623caa82ca71fe457b4daa88c71e
The reduced size in signatures implies a reduced cost on transaction fees. The group of senders can split the transaction fees for that one group signature, instead of paying for one personal signature individually.
Schnorr Signature also improves network privacy and token fungibility. A third-party observer will not be able to detect if a user is sending a multi-signature transaction, since the signature will be in the same format as a single-signature transaction.

4. Economics and supply distribution

The Bitcoin protocol utilizes the Nakamoto consensus, and nodes validate blocks via Proof-of-Work mining. The bitcoin token was not pre-mined, and has a maximum supply of 21 million. The initial reward for a block was 50 BTC per block. Block mining rewards halve every 210,000 blocks. Since the average time for block production on the blockchain is 10 minutes, it implies that the block reward halving events will approximately take place every 4 years.
As of May 12th 2020, the block mining rewards are 6.25 BTC per block. Transaction fees also represent a minor revenue stream for miners.
submitted by D-platform to u/D-platform [link] [comments]

Updated (Dec 2017). A collection of evidence regarding Bitcoin's takeover.

REPOSTED AS TITLE WAS INCORRECTLY PHRASED.
A month back on November 22 I posted this https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/7eszwk/links_related_to_blockstreams_takeover_of_bitcoin/
I have added a lot more links now, please give feedback on what else I could add for next time I will add (few weeks/month).
  1. The history between btc and bitcoin Archive link
yours.org link
  1. A brief and incomplete history of censorship in /Bitcoin Archive link
  2. User posts on bitcoin about 6900 BTC that theymos stole, post gets removed. Archive link
  3. Go to /noncensored_bitcoin to see posts that have been censored in /bitcoin
  4. Theymos caught red-handed - why he censors all the forums he controls, including /bitcoin Archive link
  5. User gets banned from /bitcoin for saying "A $5 fee to send $100 is absolutely ridiculous" Archive link
  6. Greg Maxwell caught using sockpuppets Archive link
  7. Wikipedia Admins: "[Gregory Maxwell of Blockstream Core] is a very dangerous individual" "has for some time been behaving very oddly and aggressively" Archive link
  8. Remember how lightening network was promised to be ready by summer 2016? https://coinjournal.net/lightning-network-should-be-ready-this-summe Archive link
  9. rBitcoin moderator confesses and comes clean that Blockstream is only trying to make a profit by exploiting Bitcoin and pushing users off chain onto sidechains Archive link
  10. "Blockstream plans to sell side chains to enterprises, charging a fixed monthly fee, taking transaction fees and even selling hardware" source- Adam Back Blockstream CEO Archive link Twitter proof Twitter Archive link
  11. September 2017 stats post of bitcoin censorship Archive link
  12. Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin. Archive link
  13. bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do" Archive link
  14. In January 2017, someone paid 0.23 cents for 1 transaction. As of December 2017, fees have peaked $40.
  15. Death threats by Bitcoin for cashing out
  16. Bitcoin is a captured system
  17. Bot attack against bitcoin was allegedly perpetrated by its own moderator and Blockstream’s Greg Maxwell
  18. Remember: Bitcoin Cash is solving a problem Core has failed to solve for 6 years. It is urgently needed as a technical solution, and has nothing to do with "Roger" or "Jihan".
  19. Bitcoin Cash has got nothing new.
  20. How the Bilderberg Group, the Federal Reserve central bank, and MasterCard took over Bitcoin BTC More evidence
  21. Even Core developers used to support 8-100MB blocks before they work for the Bankers Proof
  22. /Bitcoin loves to call Bitcoin Cash "ChinaCoin", but do they realize that over 70% of BTC hashrate comes from China?
  23. /bitcoin for years: No altcoin discussion, have a ban! /bitcoin now: use Litecoin if you actually need to transact!
  24. First, they said they want BCH on coinbase so they could dump it. Now they are crying about it because it's pumping.
  25. Luke-Jr thinks reducing the blocksize will reduce the fees..
  26. Core: Bitcoin isn't for the poor. Bitcoin Cash: we'll take them. Our fees are less than a cent. Core: BCash must die!
  27. How The Banks Bought Bitcoin. The Lightning Network
  28. Big Blocks Can Scale, But Will It Centralize Bitcoin?
  29. "Fees will drop when everyone uses Lightning Networks" is the new "Fees will drop when SegWit is activated"
  30. Adam Back let it slip he hires full-time teams of social media shills/trolls
  31. The bitcoin civil war is not about block size; it's about freedom vs. authoritarianism
  32. Why BCH is the real Bitcoin
  33. We don't need larger blocks, since lightning will come someday™, the same way we don't need cars or planes since teleporters will come someday™
  34. We don't need larger blocks, since lightning will come someday™, the same way we don't need cars or planes since teleporters will come someday™
  35. Facts about Adam Back (Bitcoin/Blockstream CEO) you heard it right, he himself thinks he is in charge of Bitcoin.
  36. A explaination why Core's vision is different from the real Bitcoin vision
  37. The dangerously shifted incentives of SegWit
  38. Lighting Network was supposed to be released in 2016
submitted by thepaip to btc [link] [comments]

The REAL problem with Litecoin (and crypto)

Hi Guys,
After witnessing a lot of shit posts with people complaining about why Charlie didnt say "this or that" about Litecoin, i wanted to break down what the REAL problem with Litecoin is.
It is you, the misinformed.
Here are a few points of discussion you should google and fully wrap your head around, before spreading more cancerous misinformed complaints:
NO COIN IS EVEN FUCKING CLOSE
A month ago, there were tons of fucktards giggling about how ETH would overtake bitcoin but just couldnt wrap their heads around this idea of network hash rate.
submitted by ASUjames to litecoin [link] [comments]

Trending Subreddits for 2017-12-24: /r/CryptoCurrency, /r/YouShouldKnow, /r/ExpectationVsReality, /r/wholesomememes, /r/badwomensanatomy

What's this? We've started displaying a small selection of trending subreddits on the front page. Trending subreddits are determined based on a variety of activity indicators (which are also limited to safe for work communities for now). Subreddits can choose to opt-out from consideration in their subreddit settings.
We hope that you discover some interesting subreddits through this. Feel free to discuss other interesting or notable subreddits in the comment thread below -- but please try to keep the discussion on the topic of subreddits to check out.

Trending Subreddits for 2017-12-24

/CryptoCurrency

A community for 4 years, 311,391 subscribers.
Cryptocurrency news and discussion.
Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum, Ripple, Monero, Dash, NEO, IOTA Lightning Network, SegWit, Augur, Steemit, privacy, ICO, block time, Proof of Work, Proof of Stake, NEM, Peercoin, Vertcoin, Iconomi, Dogecoin, Zcash, BitShares, Walton, mining, hashrate, mining difficulty, blockchain, coinbase, merkle, transaction rate, decentralized exchange, annual inflation rate, total market cap, bitcoin cash, BTC

/YouShouldKnow

A community for 8 years, 706,645 subscribers.

/ExpectationVsReality

A community for 6 years, 310,717 subscribers.
Comparison pictures and memes.

/wholesomememes

A community for 1 year, 1,073,475 subscribers.
Welcome to the wholesome side of the internet! This community is for those searching for a way to capture virtue on the internet.

/badwomensanatomy

A community for 3 years, 76,518 subscribers.
Women are made of sugar and spice and all things nice. Except their vaginas which are sqwicky and attract bears.
submitted by reddit to trendingsubreddits [link] [comments]

A collection of evidence regarding Bitcoin's problem and takeover (January 2018)

REPOSTED FOR MORE VISIBILITY, EDITED A FEW MISTAKES AND INCLUDED NO.1-39 also.*
On November 22th I posted this
On December 27th I posted [this](https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7mg4tm/updated_dec_2017_a_collection_of_evidence/
I have added a lot more links now, please give feedback on what else I could add for next time I will add (few weeks/month).
1 The history between btc and bitcoin
Archive link
yours.org link
2 A brief and incomplete history of censorship in /Bitcoin
Archive link
3 User posts on bitcoin about 6900 BTC that theymos stole, post gets removed.
Archive link
4 Go to /noncensored_bitcoin to see posts that have been censored in /bitcoin
5 Theymos caught red-handed - why he censors all the forums he controls, including /bitcoin
Archive link
6 User gets banned from /bitcoin for saying "A $5 fee to send $100 is absolutely ridiculous"
Archive link
7 Greg Maxwell caught using sockpuppets
Archive link
8 Wikipedia Admins: "[Gregory Maxwell of Blockstream Core] is a very dangerous individual" "has for some time been behaving very oddly and aggressively"
Archive link
9 Remember how lightening network was promised to be ready by summer 2016? https://coinjournal.net/lightning-network-should-be-ready-this-summe
Archive link
10 rBitcoin moderator confesses and comes clean that Blockstream is only trying to make a profit by exploiting Bitcoin and pushing users off chain onto sidechains
Archive link
11 "Blockstream plans to sell side chains to enterprises, charging a fixed monthly fee, taking transaction fees and even selling hardware" source- Adam Back Blockstream CEO
Archive link
Twitter proof
Twitter Archive link
12 September 2017 stats post of bitcoin censorship
Archive link
13 Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin.
Archive link
14 bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do"
Archive link
15 In January 2017, someone paid 0.23 cents for 1 transaction. As of December 2017, fees have peaked $40.
16 Told to kill yourself by Bitcoin for cashing out
17 Bitcoin is a captured system
18 Bot attack against bitcoin was allegedly perpetrated by its own moderator and Blockstream’s Greg Maxwell
19 Remember: Bitcoin Cash is solving a problem Core has failed to solve for 6 years. It is urgently needed as a technical solution, and has nothing to do with "Roger" or "Jihan".
20 Bitcoin Cash has got nothing new.
21 How the Bilderberg Group, the Federal Reserve central bank, and MasterCard took over Bitcoin BTC
More evidence
22 Even Core developers used to support 8-100MB blocks before they work for the Bankers
Proof
23 /Bitcoin loves to call Bitcoin Cash "ChinaCoin", but do they realize that over 70% of BTC hashrate comes from China?
24 /bitcoin for years: No altcoin discussion, have a ban! /bitcoin now: use Litecoin if you actually need to transact!
25 First, they said they want BCH on coinbase so they could dump it. Now they are crying about it because it's pumping.
26 Luke-Jr thinks reducing the blocksize will reduce the fees..
27 Core: Bitcoin isn't for the poor. Bitcoin Cash: we'll take them. Our fees are less than a cent. Core: BCash must die!
28 How The Banks Bought Bitcoin. The Lightning Network
29 Big Blocks Can Scale, But Will It Centralize Bitcoin?
30 "Fees will drop when everyone uses Lightning Networks" is the new "Fees will drop when SegWit is activated"
31 Adam Back let it slip he hires full-time teams of social media shills/trolls
32 The bitcoin civil war is not about block size; it's about freedom vs. authoritarianism
33 Why BCH is the real Bitcoin
34 We don't need larger blocks, since lightning will come someday™, the same way we don't need cars or planes since teleporters will come someday™
35 We don't need larger blocks, since lightning will come someday™, the same way we don't need cars or planes since teleporters will come someday™
36 Facts about Adam Back (Bitcoin/Blockstream CEO) you heard it right, he himself thinks he is in charge of Bitcoin.
37 A explaination why Core's vision is different from the real Bitcoin vision
38 The dangerously shifted incentives of SegWit
39 Lighting Network was supposed to be released in 2016
40 You can now store a year's worth of continuously full 8MB blocks for the cost of a single BTC transaction
41 They say we are trying to Kill Bitcoin. No, we are not. We are trying to save it, and make it usable for everyone, and everything. Not tomorrow. Not 6 months from now, Not 18 Months from now. NOW. That's what's going on Here.
42 Miners that want to pull out daily have to switch to BCH due to the fees
43 At $25 #BTC tx fees, if miners want to withdraw their revenue daily, they require a minimum of $140,000 worth of mining hardware to reduce the tx fee to less than 1% of their outgoings. At a $100 tx fee it requires min $560,000. Which is the centralising coin again?
44 Core developer : Bitcoin fees too high? You have invested in early tech! Have faith. Give us time.
45 A redditor even predicted the /bitcoin front page
46 Elizabeth Stark of Lightning Labs admits that a hostile actor can steal funds in LN unless you broadcast a transaction on-chain with a cryptographic proof that recovers the funds. This means LN won't work without a block size limit increase. @8min17s
47 /bitcoin is in uproar about Coinbase not implementing Segwit -> mempool mooning is single handedly Coinbase' fault. So all it takes to bring bitcoin to its knees is a single corporate entity not implementing segwit? Me thinks its not Coinbase there's something wrong with.
48 /bitcoin for years: No altcoin discussion, have a ban! /bitcoin now: use Litecoin if you actually need to transact!
49 $BCH has been attacked in every way possible since it's creation. Exchanges listing it with deceiving names and abbreviations; being dumped by bitcoin holders for over 6 months; and it still managed to close every month positively, while adding numerous new wallet/exchange pairs
50 theymos claims that the whitepaper is a historical artifact not worthy of being on the sidebar of bitcoin
51 Even a Bitcoin conference can't use Bitcoin because of it's high fees
52 185% Growth in Active Addresses for BCH in 1 month, 125% for ETH, -5% for BTC
53 Shapeshift: "Sub-$100 fees unadvisable on BTC." Core supporters: "Implement Segwit already!" Shapeshift: "We did. We're the biggest user of Segwit."
54 How btc and Bitcoin see each other
55 Man who vandalized Bitmain's office hired by Blockstream
56 Bitcoin Cash vs Bitcoin Core compared. Just the facts
57 It was obvious from the very beginning that #Bitcoin transactions were meant to be as cheap as possible. Bitcoin Core has destroyed Bitcoin's usefulness as money by creating a system where $30 fees are celebrated. - @Bitcoin
58 User explains why Core's vision is not the real Bitcoin vision
59 Fake Tweet from the president bashes BCH on /bitcoin front page. Calling it exactly what it is will get you banned.
60 A public appeal to Michael Marquardt the original Theymos.
61 Now they are angry at the CEO of Coinbase for supporting BCH. It's like you are not allowed to have your own opinion without getting attacked.
62 bitcoin user says Bitcoin should not be used as a cryptocurrency
63 The five stages of grief, transaction fees
64 A brief history of the attempted takeover of Bitcoin by BlockstreamCore/The legacy banking systems/The Powers That Be
65 Warning! Theymos admitted he 'misled millions of people' yet he wanna 'leave the text as it is' to mislead more people!
66 "Wait. What? My private keys need to be on an internet-connected computer in order to use Lightning Network?"
67 a year ago Adam Back accused u/Jacktenz of exaggerated claims about fees. The truth is the claims were understated!
68 Roger Ver was not selling explosives, he was selling firecrackers.
69 Core devs pop champaigne, and openly celebrate high fees. Now core supporters blame coinbase for high fees?
70 Now that we've had a few 8MB blocks, let's dispel this centralisation myth once and for all.
71 Reddit admin sodypop on censorship in /Bitcoin: "We generally allow moderators to run their communities how they like as long as they are within our site-wide rules and moderator guidelines." Blatant censorship, hacking, vote manipulation, and brigading are "within [Reddit's] site-wide rules".
72 Another obvious sockpuppet account being used to push Blockstream's agenda.
73 Totally organic grassroots support for the #NO2X "movement." Definitely not a purchased sockpuppet account, you guys.
74 Charlie Lee [Litecoin creator]: "I have sold and donated all my LTC [...] Litecoin has been very good for me financially, so I am well off enough that I no longer need to tie my financial success to Litecoin’s success"
75 If it’s inaccessible to the poor it’s neither radical nor revolutionary.
76 BSCoretabs shills are vandalizing Wikipedia to smear Roger Ver with false quoting, missparaphrasing and accusations.
77 Introducing dipshit extraordinaire Warren Togami, the link between Theymos and BlockStream
78 Debunking: "Blockstream is 3 or 4 developers out of hundreds of developers at Core" - Tone Vays
79 This blockchain debate is purely political and is not about scaling but about control. X-Post from /bitcoin
80 A profile to look at for more evidence
81 What exactly is Blockstream Core's excuse for causing a year of stagnation in Bitcoin with no end in sight?
82 We have a way to build bank-like services.
83 "There is a reason why things are done in a certain way in the financial system, and Bitcoin will be doing something similar"
84 Some thoughts about the possible Bitcoin Segwit, Bilderberg/AXA/BockStream/Core, In-Q-Tel, CIA connection.
85 Theymos on Bitcoin XT
86 (If this is not allowed mods, please remove this text) I cannot verify this yet, but a source has given me information about theymos. theymos is known as Michael Marquardt, from Wisconsin and is a graduate from the University of Wisconsin as a computer-science student.
submitted by thepaip to btc [link] [comments]

Market Pullback, Halved Rewards for Miners, Is the LTC Halving the End or the Beginning?

Market Pullback, Halved Rewards for Miners, Is the LTC Halving the End or the Beginning?


The mining of the block 1,680,000 at 18:16 (UTC +8) on August 5 marked the second LTC halving was successful, slashing the block rewards for miners from 25 LTC to 12.5 LTC. On the day of halving, the price of LTC once surged to $106.63 with the biggest rise of 16.4% and fell gradually after the halving.
The first halving of LTC, which was born in 2011, took place on August 28, 2015. Six months before the second halving, the market trend was roughly the same as the first halving, price surge driven by the reduction in production was more concentrated in the first few months. From February to June this year, LTC rose from 32 US dollars to the highest $145.8, an increase of 355%, leading an upward movement of the market.
Views on LTC’s trend varies
In response to the impact of this LTC halving, many insiders have expressed their views:
Bullish:
1) Production cuts will change the market supply of Litecoin. Assuming the demand growth rate remains the same, the demand could be driven higher on the wave of hypes and FOMO. Once the supply growth rate declines, the price will rise in theory.
2) When the first halving happened in 2015, the cryptocurrency sphere was in the bear market. Four years later, public recognition and technological development have been completely different, the cryptocurrency sparked a market rally, therefore, the bullish trend was expectable after the halving.
3) Bitcoin's production cut expectation may also bring in the market ahead of time, driving the LTC to continue to rise.
4) After LTC production reduction, the supply and demand greatly adjusted. Since the inflation rate has been reduced from 8% to 4%, miners and holders will be reluctant to sell, and thus, the market will remain a long-term and positive momentum.
Of course, some hold the opposite attitude:
1) The bullish has already cashed in. Looking at the halving in 2015, the market broke out three months ahead of schedule, and the unit price rose from $1.3 to the highest $8.96. Then the price fell and dropped to $2.95 on the day of the production cut. However, from the beginning of 2019, the price of LTC has increased five times. As the saying goes, "too much water drowned the miller", therefore, bearish will follow the extreme bullish.
2) Investors who have enjoyed the earnings of this LTC halving will make a plan for the halving of BTC next year. According to the law of halving starts 3-6 months ahead of the scheduled time, it is expected that more funds will be gradually shifted from Litecoin and other digital currencies to bitcoin, which may cause the price decline of BTC.
In the investment market, price rises and falls are mixed blessing, so are the digital market. It’s hopeless to realize high profits through the trick of buy-low and sell-high in digital currency trading. However, with contract trading, such as the contract series of 58COIN, investors can make profits no matter long or short the position, and gain expanded earnings by using leverages. At present, Litecoin existed in the three major contract categories of 58COIN, namely the standard contract, USDT contract, and delivery contract. Also, 58COIN covers other popular cryptocurrency contracts, providing free choices to investors.
Short-Term Earnings after Halving is Depressing
Compared with the optimistic expectations of the secondary market, Litecoin's production reduction will cause "injuries" to miners in the short term. "After halving, the overall income of the miners should be reduced by half, and the overall profit will be reduced to 10% to 30%. If the price does not rise, the mining earnings will become very pessimistic," an industry source said.
The above-mentioned person pointed out that the current miners are mainly Antminer L3+ and L3++, of which the power consumption of L3+ is 800W, daily consumption is 19.2 kWh, and the total earnings is 0.008 LTC, equivalent to about 5.7 Yuan. If the electricity cost is 0.26 Yuan on average, it will account for more than 87% of the income. After halving the output, the mined LTC will basically cover the electricity cost. L3+ may “not worth a cent” because of the decline in energy efficiency.
In the face of possible adverse effect on the miners by halving, Li Qiwei said in the recent review that some miners may turn off the machines, but the difficulty of mining will be re-adjusted in a few days and everything will back to normal. Industry insiders also reminded investors who are interested in mining that the hashrate will have new changes after the halving, and direct purchasing of coins is a more secure option.
LTC Halving Make Way for BTC Halving
Charles Li, the previous Google engineer, created Litecoin eight years ago. In principle, the production mechanism of LTC is the same as that of Bitcoin, which was then dubbed the altcoin of BTC. Compared with Bitcoin, LTC has a shorter block generation time with an average of 2.5 minutes, and a higher total supply of 84 million.
Bitcoin vs. Litecoin


Litecoin has long been considered a “test-pillow” for Bitcoin, on which many innovative technologies are first deployed, whether being the isolation test or the lightning network, LTC always “take the lead”. Some people believe that this halving of Litecoin is a rehearsal of Bitcoin halving next year.
In short, due to the increasing correlation between digital currencies, the path of LTC and other cryptocurrencies depends a lot on Bitcoin.
Around May 20, 2020
Website: https://ww.58coin.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/coin.58COIN
Twitter: https://twitter.com/58_coin
Telegram: https://t.me/official58
submitted by 58CoinExchange to u/58CoinExchange [link] [comments]

Something is rotten in the state of DOGE mining

Shibes, something stinks in doge land. A problem in the design of dogecoin means that dishonest (or perhaps we should call them "creative") miners can take a disproportionate share of rewards, leaving everyone else to earn less than they deserve. Many of you have probably noticed that calculators estimate payouts larger than what you earn in practice (for example, dustcoin estimates ~1500DOGE/day @ 200KH/s while Non Stop Mine pays about a quarter of that rate), and most have written it off as bad luck: the blocks your pool found happened to be small, or your pool happened to be unlucky, and such is life. At least another friendly Shibe is having a better day, and it'll come around in tips anyway! Unfortunately, the truth is much darker.
The "random" DOGE rewards per block are not random. In fact, the value of each block is predetermined by a simple equation applied to the hash of the previous block. A creative miner can take advantage of this fact to mine dogecoin when the potential reward is high, and switch to litecoin when the potential reward is low. During some rounds, the reward is so small it isn't worth the electricity spent finding it; during more rounds, the reward is less than can be earned mining LTC; in a few rounds, the reward is spectacular. Honest miners mine with the expectation of earning an average of 500,000 DOGE per block, but when people are selectively mining the high-profit DOGE rounds, the average reward falls for honest miners.
So the question is: is this problem theoretical, or are honest miners really losing value to cheaters? I spent some time digging, and it appears that cheating is rampant! There are a few ways cheating can be detected.
If there is outside competition for high-value blocks, then pools should on average be finding blocks worth less than 500,000 DOGE (because some of the valuable blocks, but none of the low-value blocks, will be found by cheaters). The largest pool, Dogehouse, reports some useful averages: over all time, the pool has found 11,241 valid blocks worth 5365077071.0746 DOGE, for an average of 477,277 DOGE (including fees, which should actually raise the average above 500,000!). That's 4.5% below the expected average block value. Is it simply bad luck? No. With so many blocks found, there's about a 7% chance that the average will be above 505,000 or below 495,000; there's a <<1% chance their average will be above 510,000 or below 490,000, and effectively NO chance of seeing an average below 485,000. 477,000 is simply preposterous. Dogepool is either mind-bogglingly unlucky, or something is fishy.
Maybe Dogehouse is doing something fishy...but we can look at other pools. Dogechain's pool's all-time average block value is similar: 478847 DOGE. They're a smaller pool so the odds of this being bad luck aren't astronomical, but it's not very likely. Fast-pool's average is 477892. They're big enough that the odds are again astronomical.
And this only accounts for people cheating outside of the pools. Cheaters can operate inside our pools (more on this later)!
Maybe there's something wrong with the pools. They mostly run similar software. All their owners could be lying to us. We can check for signs of cheating independent of the pools: if more people are mining high-value blocks than low-value blocks, the hash-rate will be higher when the next block is high-value, so high-value blocks will be found faster than low-value blocks. Here's what you find if you look at 5000 recent blocks (blocks 80,001 to 85,000) and measure the average time to find a block, broken out by the block value:
I had to drop about 50 blocks which were missing good timestamps, but they're evenly distributed and shouldn't skew the averages.
The pattern is clear: the network is finding high-value blocks significantly faster than low-value blocks. Low-value rounds take as much as 10% longer than intended, and high-value rounds take around 5% less time than intended. Significant hashrate belongs to miners that cheat.
I mentioned cheaters can operate inside our pools. The payment algorithms used by most pools were carefully designed for bitcoin's (effectively) fixed block reward. They reliably protect against cheaters trying to hop in and out of pools based on short-term profitability, by making payouts solely dependent on the unknowable future (the straightforward pool payment schemes allow cheaters to look at a pool's recent history and use that to take an unfair share of its earnings; read this awesome paper for details). Since the future reward for a bitcoin pool is completely unknowable, PPLNS does not protect against a hopper who knows the future. In the case of Dogecoin, the future reward IS knowable, and PPLNS offers no protection.
Dogehouse is so big we can reasonably assume they'll find any particular block. Dogehouse is using a PPLNS target similar to an ordinary round's length. Someone who mines only during high-value rounds will, with high confidence, earn significantly more DOGE per share submitted than someone who mines Dogecoin 24/7. They also experience much lower variance in earnings.
The random block reward size needs to be removed. It's fun, but it rewards cheaters. Developing a more secure random block value selection technique is possible, but based on observations of GitHub, I do not trust the Dogecoin creator to get it right. Even subtle errors re-open the opportunity for cheating.
While I believe cheating is already unacceptably common, many will disagree until it worsens. To force the issue, I've included everything you need to join the cheaters.
Patch dogecoin/src/main.cpp:
diff --git a/src/main.cpp b/src/main.cpp index 2af23af..8c32dad 100644 --- a/src/main.cpp +++ b/src/main.cpp @@ -1794,6 +1794,8 @@ bool CBlock::ConnectBlock(CValidationState &state, CBlockIndex* pindex, CCoinsVi prevHash = pindex->pprev->GetBlockHash(); } +fprintf(stdout, "Next block value: %lld\n", GetBlockValue(pindex->nHeight, 0, GetHash())); +fflush(stdout); if (vtx[0].GetValueOut() > GetBlockValue(pindex->nHeight, nFees, prevHash)) return state.DoS(100, error("ConnectBlock() : coinbase pays too much (actual=%"PRI64d" vs limit=%"PRI64d")", vtx[0].GetValueOut(), GetBlockValue(pindex->nHeight, nFees, prevHash))); 
Perl script to control cgminer:
#!/usbin/perl use strict; use warnings; my $ltcMiner = "192.168.1.1 4029"; my $dogeMiner = "192.168.1.1 4028"; open (INSTREAM, "dogecoind|") or die; my $lastPool = 0; # LTC while (my $line = ) { if ($line =~ /Next block value: ([\d].*)/) { my $val = $1; if ($val >= 70000000000000) { # High-value DOGE round if ($lastPool == 0) { # Switch from LTC to DOGE $lastPool = 1; &onoff($dogeMiner, "en"); &onoff($ltcMiner, "dis"); } else { # Already mining DOGE } } elsif ($lastPool == 1) { # Low-value DOGE round and currently mining DOGE $lastPool = 0; print " Switching to LTC\n"; &onoff($ltcMiner, "en"); &onoff($dogeMiner, "dis"); } else { # Low-value DOGE round; already mining LTC anyway } } } close (INSTREAM); exit; sub onoff { my $miner = shift; my $enDis = shift; open (OUT1, "|nc $miner") or die $!; print OUT1 "gpu${enDis}able|0"; close (OUT1); } 
Then, simply run two instances of cgminer with separate API ports, one configured for LTC and the other configured for DOGE.
submitted by DisappointedShibe to dogemining [link] [comments]

A collection of evidence regarding Bitcoin's takeover and problems.

REPOSTED THIS FOR MORE VISIBILITY & FEW EDITS
On November 22 I posted this https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7eszwk/links_related_to_blockstreams_takeover_of_bitcoin
On December this https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7mg4tm/updated_dec_2017_a_collection_of_evidence/
On January this https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7qfw2b/a_collection_of_evidence_regarding_bitcoins/
This is March update
I will be removing duplicates and off-topic content. #34 and #74 has been changed. Please give me feed back, and also recommend a new title if you guys have any idea :)
The Bitcoin Whitepaper
PDF
1 The history between btc and bitcoin
Archive link
yours.org link
2 A brief and incomplete history of censorship in /Bitcoin
Archive link
3 User posts on bitcoin about 6900 BTC that theymos stole, post gets removed.
Archive link
4 Go to /noncensored_bitcoin to see posts that have been censored in /bitcoin
5 Theymos caught red-handed - why he censors all the forums he controls, including /bitcoin
Archive link
6 User gets banned from /bitcoin for saying "A $5 fee to send $100 is absolutely ridiculous"
Archive link
7 Greg Maxwell caught using sockpuppets
Archive link
8 [Wikipedia Admins: "[Gregory Maxwell of Blockstream Core] is a very dangerous individual" "has for some time been behaving very oddly and aggressively"](https:// np.reddit.com/btc/comments/74se80/wikipedia_admins_gregory_maxwell_of_blockstream/)
Archive link
9 Remember how lightening network was promised to be ready by summer 2016? https://coinjournal.net/lightning-network-should-be-ready-this-summe
Archive link
10 rBitcoin moderator confesses and comes clean that Blockstream is only trying to make a profit by exploiting Bitcoin and pushing users off chain onto sidechains
Archive link
11 "Blockstream plans to sell side chains to enterprises, charging a fixed monthly fee, taking transaction fees and even selling hardware" source- Adam Back Blockstream CEO
Archive link
Twitter proof
Twitter Archive link
12 September 2017 stats post of bitcoin censorship
Archive link
13 Evidence that the mods of /Bitcoin may have been involved with the hacking and vote manipulation "attack" on /Bitcoin.
Archive link
14 bitcoin mods removed top post: "The rich don't need Bitcoin. The poor do"
Archive link
15 In January 2017, someone paid 0.23 cents for 1 transaction. As of December 2017, fees have peaked $40.
16 Told to kill yourself by Bitcoin for cashing out
17 Bitcoin is a captured system
18 Bot attack against bitcoin was allegedly perpetrated by its own moderator and Blockstream’s Greg Maxwell
19 Remember: Bitcoin Cash is solving a problem Core has failed to solve for 6 years. It is urgently needed as a technical solution, and has nothing to do with "Roger" or "Jihan".
20 Bitcoin Cash has got nothing new.
21 How the Bilderberg Group, the Federal Reserve central bank, and MasterCard took over Bitcoin BTC
More evidence
22 Even Core developers used to support 8-100MB blocks before they work for the Bankers
Proof
23 /Bitcoin loves to call Bitcoin Cash "ChinaCoin", but do they realize that over 70% of BTC hashrate comes from China?
24 /bitcoin for years: No altcoin discussion, have a ban! /bitcoin now: use Litecoin if you actually need to transact!
25 First, they said they want BCH on coinbase so they could dump it. Now they are crying about it because it's pumping.
26 Luke-Jr thinks reducing the blocksize will reduce the fees..
27 Core: Bitcoin isn't for the poor. Bitcoin Cash: we'll take them. Our fees are less than a cent. Core: BCash must die!
28 How The Banks Bought Bitcoin. The Lightning Network
29 Big Blocks Can Scale, But Will It Centralize Bitcoin?
30 "Fees will drop when everyone uses Lightning Networks" is the new "Fees will drop when SegWit is activated"
31 Adam Back let it slip he hires full-time teams of social media shills/trolls
32 The bitcoin civil war is not about block size; it's about freedom vs. authoritarianism
33 Why BCH is the real Bitcoin
34 Segwit does not block ASICBoost. SlushPool supports it.
35 We don't need larger blocks, since lightning will come someday™, the same way we don't need cars or planes since teleporters will come someday™
36 Facts about Adam Back (Bitcoin/Blockstream CEO) you heard it right, he himself thinks he is in charge of Bitcoin.
37 A explaination why Core's vision is different from the real Bitcoin vision
38 The dangerously shifted incentives of SegWit
39 Lighting Network was supposed to be released in 2016
40 You can now store a year's worth of continuously full 8MB blocks for the cost of a single BTC transaction
41 They say we are trying to Kill Bitcoin. No, we are not. We are trying to save it, and make it usable for everyone, and everything. Not tomorrow. Not 6 months from now, Not 18 Months from now. NOW. That's what's going on Here.
42 Miners that want to pull out daily have to switch to BCH due to the fees
43 At $25 #BTC tx fees, if miners want to withdraw their revenue daily, they require a minimum of $140,000 worth of mining hardware to reduce the tx fee to less than 1% of their outgoings. At a $100 tx fee it requires min $560,000. Which is the centralising coin again?
44 Core developer : Bitcoin fees too high? You have invested in early tech! Have faith. Give us time.
45 A redditor even predicted the /bitcoin front page
46 Elizabeth Stark of Lightning Labs admits that a hostile actor can steal funds in LN unless you broadcast a transaction on-chain with a cryptographic proof that recovers the funds. This means LN won't work without a block size limit increase. @8min17s
47 /bitcoin is in uproar about Coinbase not implementing Segwit -> mempool mooning is single handedly Coinbase' fault. So all it takes to bring bitcoin to its knees is a single corporate entity not implementing segwit? Me thinks its not Coinbase there's something wrong with.
48 /bitcoin for years: No altcoin discussion, have a ban! /bitcoin now: use Litecoin if you actually need to transact!
49 $BCH has been attacked in every way possible since it's creation. Exchanges listing it with deceiving names and abbreviations; being dumped by bitcoin holders for over 6 months; and it still managed to close every month positively, while adding numerous new wallet/exchange pairs
50 theymos claims that the whitepaper is a historical artifact not worthy of being on the sidebar of bitcoin
51 Even a Bitcoin conference can't use Bitcoin because of it's high fees
52 185% Growth in Active Addresses for BCH in 1 month, 125% for ETH, -5% for BTC
53 Shapeshift: "Sub-$100 fees unadvisable on BTC." Core supporters: "Implement Segwit already!" Shapeshift: "We did. We're the biggest user of Segwit."
54 How btc and Bitcoin see each other
55 Man who vandalized Bitmain's office hired by Blockstream
56 Bitcoin Cash vs Bitcoin Core compared. Just the facts
57 It was obvious from the very beginning that #Bitcoin transactions were meant to be as cheap as possible. Bitcoin Core has destroyed Bitcoin's usefulness as money by creating a system where $30 fees are celebrated. - @Bitcoin
58 User explains why Core's vision is not the real Bitcoin vision
59 Fake Tweet from the president bashes BCH on /bitcoin front page. Calling it exactly what it is will get you banned.
60 A public appeal to Michael Marquardt the original Theymos.
61 Now they are angry at the CEO of Coinbase for supporting BCH. It's like you are not allowed to have your own opinion without getting attacked.
62 bitcoin user says Bitcoin should not be used as a cryptocurrency
63 The five stages of grief, transaction fees
64 A brief history of the attempted takeover of Bitcoin by BlockstreamCore/The legacy banking systems/The Powers That Be
65 Warning! Theymos admitted he 'misled millions of people' yet he wanna 'leave the text as it is' to mislead more people!
66 "Wait. What? My private keys need to be on an internet-connected computer in order to use Lightning Network?"
67 a year ago Adam Back accused u/Jacktenz of exaggerated claims about fees. The truth is the claims were understated!
68 Roger Ver was not selling explosives, he was selling firecrackers.
69 Core devs pop champaigne, and openly celebrate high fees. Now core supporters blame coinbase for high fees?
70 Now that we've had a few 8MB blocks, let's dispel this centralisation myth once and for all.
71 Reddit admin sodypop on censorship in /Bitcoin: "We generally allow moderators to run their communities how they like as long as they are within our site-wide rules and moderator guidelines." Blatant censorship, hacking, vote manipulation, and brigading are "within [Reddit's] site-wide rules".
72 Another obvious sockpuppet account being used to push Blockstream's agenda.
73 Totally organic grassroots support for the #NO2X "movement." Definitely not a purchased sockpuppet account, you guys.
74 Why Bitcoin Cash
75 If it’s inaccessible to the poor it’s neither radical nor revolutionary.
76 BSCoretabs shills are vandalizing Wikipedia to smear Roger Ver with false quoting, missparaphrasing and accusations.
77 Introducing dipshit extraordinaire Warren Togami, the link between Theymos and BlockStream
78 Debunking: "Blockstream is 3 or 4 developers out of hundreds of developers at Core" - Tone Vays
79 This blockchain debate is purely political and is not about scaling but about control. X-Post from /bitcoin
80 A profile to look at for more evidence
81 What exactly is Blockstream Core's excuse for causing a year of stagnation in Bitcoin with no end in sight?
82 We have a way to build bank-like services.
83 "There is a reason why things are done in a certain way in the financial system, and Bitcoin will be doing something similar"
84 Some thoughts about the possible Bitcoin Segwit, Bilderberg/AXA/BockStream/Core, In-Q-Tel, CIA connection.
85 Theymos on Bitcoin XT
86 (If this is not allowed mods, please remove this text) I cannot verify this yet, but a source has given me information about theymos. theymos is known as Michael Marquardt, from Wisconsin and is a graduate from the University of Wisconsin as a computer-science student.
87 A video that Blockstream does not want you to see
88 A story of how someone was brainwashed
89 Bitcoin Cash is not a scamcoin
90 What /btc is up against
91 OpenBazaar dev explains why they won't implement Lightning Network
92 An extended history of Bitcoin Cash
93 Should I trust Bitcoin Cash ? Roger Ver seems shady
94 /btc gets brigaded and blackmailed
95 Bitcoin Core talking points translated honestly
96 Possible attacks on Bitcoin. One of them did happen
97 How many people are aware that Bitcoin Cash is a manipulation made by Roger Ver, CNBC and Coinbase?
98 Why Rick Falkvinge chose Bitcoin Cash
More from Rick
99 Can Bitcoin Cash scale on-chain?
100 Are bigger blocks better for bigger miners?
101 Jonald Fyookball corrects the misinformation
102 A developer, Luke-Jr, in the Core team is crazy
Thanks to singularity87, 103 to 106. There are more in his link
103 Using the HK agreement to stall miners from adopting bitcoin classic
104 Luke-Jr would be fine with having Jihan Wu executed
105 Theymos threatens to write to the SEC
106 Matt Corallo writes to the SEC to make Core’s BTC the “official” btc.
107 Re: BCH as an altcoin
108 The difference between BTC and BCH
109 Someone asks why Bitcoin Core refuses to increase the blocksize
110 Bitcoin back then : 1, 2, 3, 4
111 More resources
submitted by thepaip to btc [link] [comments]

Doge Token : AKA the post Sporklin did not want to make.

At times Twitter is not the platform that allows the proper conveyance of engagement, 280 characters is generally not enough; especially for myself. Given the topic here I ask that you allow me the grace of a proper platform in order to do this in a manner that leaves little question to intention.
I want to preface this given rarely do I have to do these in public. Myself, the Dogecoin Core Developers believe that the space is wonderful, diverse, creative, and engaging across the several thousands of assets that exist. It is neither my intention nor our intention to prohibit, attack, dissuade or otherwise disincline something from existing in the space. However every now and again projects do pop up that seem to want their "upstart" in the space to begin with attacking Dogecoin. As a community driven asset with deeply communal ties to the entire space there are moments where even we pause and ask for clarity. This can help to gauge intentions, cause and more than once has led to showing someone as a "bad actor" in the space. We have spent over half a decade working with the Doge/Dogecoin branding, there are many assets with the name which we believe only helps to engage further people into cryptocurrency.
So Doge Token.
Technology
DogeCoin is technologically behind
However, it’s core technology has not been upgraded much, and it has not been updated in well over a year latest releases from 2015.
Github can be hard to manage, and understand. What I fail to fathom is how you missed that we have had 7 releases since 2015. Dogecoin Releases. Further for the coming 1.14 release there was active and ongoing communal interaction and input along the way as Dogecoin is a social consensus asset not just network/chain consensus based. Path to 1.14 Which for noting puts our public start into 1.14 barely a year beyond the 1.10 DogeParty release. (Which happened in 2016, where you state nothing has been done since 2015.)
Further as is shown there in the above posting 1.16-dev shows work. 1.17-dev Shows work as of 11 days ago even as we are waiting on final push for 1.14. This all counters your claim that there has been no releases, that nothing has been upgraded much.
If you would care to explain why your white paper states otherwise I would be willing to listen, especially given as it is rather public what we are doing, when we are doing it, and further more who is doing what. We are community based, and there are comments on both @dogecoin along with @dogecoin_devs both have been active in keeping communities updated. I sourced most of the postings for the large post from reddit, and that is only half of the updates. We have also spent time among the telegram communities, slack, discord, Steam communities, IRC communities across a span of multiple languages no less interacting, updating, and engaging with users.
Rolling back into the initial statement, "Dogecoin is technologically behind". I am curious where you see this, personally. This was gone into recently, by someone else who screamed the same things. Reality of Dogecoin Perhaps you missed this as well?
Doge Token lives on the Stellar blockchain
Stellar is the one of the fastest growing and largest blockchain platforms out there.
Stellar nodes/validators 43 have uptime in the past 24 hours.
Dogecoin Nodes This private node saw 420 other ones in 24 hours. (There are other versions listed there, they are forked coins that did not change the basis so appear on our node relay maps.) Nevermind what our public nodes see daily.
Do not take this as a hit to Stellar, it has been around since July 2014. It is old in the space which is amazing it has lasted given how many projects die. However stating that it is one of the fastest growing and largest blockchains, is a bit of a stretch. It is a rather creative stretch in reality. I understand they function differently than Dogecoin in their handling, still "largest blockchain platforms out there"; just to note.
ETH 6439 July 2015
BCH 786 BTCU 698 August 2017 / January 2016
BSV 485 November 2018
I got fairly far down the list on CMC and to continue seemed overly harsh as the trend continued.
Constant updates and support further improve the Stellar blockchain platform.
Factual they also do micro releases (small tweak releases) and they do master branch implementation and developmental work. A bit different than many things in the space.
Shibe loves Stellar.
It is a bit mutual. Dogecoin is such an interesting blockchain and serious project, that peek the advisors we have ties, old ones. Even as Stellar grew over the years more than a few of their services did drops to Dogecoin just due to the history between the assets. OneCred rip now This was one of the early services for Stellar.
PoW vs Green Tech
DogeCoin: Much Hash, Such Work
Even though DogeCoin has many orders of magnitude fewer transactions and smaller transactional value, it now exceeds over 20TH/s in terms of hashrate.
You are not wrong, in fact the other day we were one of the tops for hashrate in the entire space. It has been a long while since we were near 20TH/s though hashrate 9/22/2017 was the last time we were under 20TH/s. Just as a note, more transactions does not mean more energy spent as the energy spent is per block which contains multiple transactions.
The amount of electricity wasted to power stagnant technology negatively impacts the environment
You seem to have missed that Dogecoin is AuxPoW, this means that Dogecoin mining is a byproduct of Litecoin mining. Which is why our hashrates are generally close. This also takes the energy "waste" down to running a node, which most networks in the space have. Deciding it is wasteful simply for your narrative in Dogecoin's case; seems short sighted and a bit targeted.
and reduces mining rewards.
Given there is a very low energy cost via AuxPoW, there is not a reduction in mining rewards. Further given Dogecoin entered the "legacy" mining period we are beyond halvening, we are forever to the 10k block rewards which facilitate ongoing transactional functionality. Transaction fees, along with block rewards go to the miners; there is no reduction to the mining rewards for the miners.
Despite all this waste
Given the network is rather efficient, I do not understand the implication of waste.
DogeCoin is still theoretically much less secure than Stellar.
Based around what theoretical reference? Dogecoin is five and a half years old, in actual reality of functional existence ..Dogecoin has not had an attack that in any manner made the blockchain less secure. Further more blockchain audits, independent security reviews, network health reviews tend to be part of the listing process for the higher level compliant functioning exchanges. To date we have yet to fail one, shutter or even has a questionable passing.
You state Dogecoin is insecure in theory.. Did you miss that Dogecoin follows Bitcoin's upstream? The codebase is public, if you wish to state we are insecure I will ask you for the proof of your claims, it is a rather grave implication to make without cause. I assume you have found something everyone else has missed, care to share?
Doge Token: Such Green, Much token
Transparency and Safety
DogeCoin: Much scam, Such Sad
Remember the days of tipbots. Yes? Well we’re sure things didn’t end very well for the most avid tippers.
Pardon? I ask this honestly as we have had multiple tipbots ongoing for multiple platforms; with no issues in assorted communities that have had no issues. Surely you are aware that the tipbots, are external, third party offerings; they are unattached and uninvolved in the actual Dogecoin project. I state this because you seem to be of the mind that because something happened externally, on third party offerings, by third party developers; that it somehow reflects on Dogecoin itself.
Applications built on DogeCoin are often closed source and non-contract enforced.
Discord - Frog's
Discord - BA
Discord - BitsBot
Discord - MSFT
Twitter - Beir's
Twitter - TipDoge
Reddit - Dogetipbot - Mohland - Redacted code
Reddit - Dogetipbot - Mohland - Redacted code
Reddit - AltcoinTip -Vindimy
Reddit - SoDogeTip
IRC - Doger - One of the longest running tipbots in the space.
IRC - Doger Soak
IRC- NRP
Slack - Val
Telegram - Peakshift
These are just the ones off the top of my head.
We only mourn for the nice shibes who were victimized by these viles scammers.
Broad statements are made here in relation to all the tipbots. The one that did have issues, you seem to have missed was not actually tied to the project. Further more it was not just a tipbot that was impacted but an entire company. DogeTipBot.
Doge Token: Such Clear, Much Trust
Doge Token cannot be attacked with 51% attack and this makes us invulnerable.
You are correct, it does not take a 51% attack to take Doge Token down. It takes sadly removing two nodes from the Stellar network down to take everything, in the fullest down. Due to their more centralized nature of issuance, and operation the base network under Doge Token is publicly known to have several issues. Recently Stellar had a review by an external third party. Stellar security which goes on to detail several known issues in relation to the base functionality methods of Stellar. Understanding that on the base, anyone can claim anything noting that David himself came out to reply seems important. Further adding to this is just what KAIST is along with why it is important to note that it was not just random people making these claims.
Stellar exploit allowed 2.2bn Lumens to be created 2017. This was an onchain direct exploit.
Ongoing issues with Stellar, one which related to SDEX where Doge Token exists bug reporting.
Stellar Dex had an issue disclosed, which rather went interestingly.
Now the very important distinction here, what I have listed above are on chain issues, they are flaws exploits, problems related to the base code of functionality of Stellar itself; not third party issues. They are also public knowledge to be issues do please do not assume I am taking a swing at their project.
In the interest of disclosure there have been third party troubles relating to Stellar as well.
There was the BlackWallet hack Jan 2018 hack that resulted in 400kUSD stolen.
This makes Doge Token more trust-worthy than DogeCoin.
I will note that your entire white paper is based around false claims, baseless speculation, very easily disproved comments about the Dogecoin project, and further more implied relations which are not the actual basis of anything. We have tried in vain repeatedly to contact your project, and you have resisted.
I understand the space is huge, in fact we find it wonderful that it is so diverse. What we pause at, and what will always pause at are projects that make baseless claims, attacks, spread misinformation and bluntly put, lie. Whatever your intentions are this is not the best way to step into the space, especially given we have already had to answer for your projects comments, and we are also very curious why you took a logo without credit to the artist.
In terms of trust? Dogecoin has been here for over half a decade, our engagements are public, our codebase is public, our communications. Our communities are user driven, our third party platforms are also user driven. Where do you find fault in the trust-worthiness given who we are is rather public, we engage in the space openly as people, we are honest, direct and very proactive in relation to the entire userbase.
Sadly, the same cannot be said for you. With this it is our hope that you do correct your statements, that you do make things clearer, further more crediting the artist of your logo would also be kindly. Your methods are deceptive, your entire whitepaper is made up of libelous commentary. I do hope we can find a middle ground that does not take this much further given your stance thus far as been to mislead users by making grossly incorrect comments to further your own personal gains.
submitted by Sporklin to MyToyBox [link] [comments]

[Serious, long] My thoughts on what next for Dogecoin

There’s been a lot of discussion in recent days about the decreasing price of Dogecoin, as well as the risk of a 51% attack from Wafflepool or similar. I wanted to do a wrap-up of the discussions happening amongst the developers of the last few weeks, partly to illustrate that we are looking at options, but mostly to talk about what is happening. Please note that this is all rapidly changing. Dogecoin is actually moving at breakneck speed for a project of its size, especially as we still have a relatively limited core team. This is part of why we don’t write posts very often, as they become out of date so quickly as new arguments and facts are presented.
Lets talk about 51% attacks first. The theory is that if anyone has over 51% of the total hashing power of the network, they can form a blockchain of their own which is considered “more valid” than the blockchain most users are on. This is because cryptocurrency blockchains are secured through proof of work, and therefore more work on a chain makes it, in essence, more valid. This risks an attacker spending coins on one chain, then releasing their own private, longer, blockchain. That latter blockchain replaces the original blockchain, and the coins they spent on the original blockchain are effectively returned to them as if the transactions never happened.
It’s important to understand this because I hear suggestions that Wafflepool shouldn’t accept over 51% of the network hashrate, and unfortunately all this would do is hide the risk. Having one pool own over 51% of the network hashrate is not a problem if it’s actually being used to mine, but instead if it’s used to create a personal blockchain. The other issue raised is one of price; we’ve been steadily dropping since around early February. The core of my answers here is that you need to consider demand vs supply. What happened back in February was that we saw a surge in demand beyond sustainable levels, likely in a form of tulip mania. As supply continued (mining), and demand dropped-off, our price has dropped. This has been worsened by a succession of bad news affecting Bitcoin (MtGox and other exchanges struggling, uncertainty of China and Russia, etc.), which both directly brings down our price, as well as undermining confidence in the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem. It has been suggested (and I can believe this, but have not done my own analysis) that as multipools continue to dominate Dogecoin mining, and they tend to sell coins directly, that they are further reducing the price. Specifically, given that while there is demand for further coins from miners, as they have already expended resources on mining hardware they cannot then purchase the cheap coins the mining pools are producing.
Lastly, there’s the question of ASICs; these are specialised mining devices which are significantly faster than CPU/GPU mining hardware, and typically cheaper to run due to reduced power and space requirements. Their introduction into mining at the moment leaves vastly disproportionate mining power in the hands of a few (there’s one individual with a hashrate of around 20GH/s, for example), and in time is likely to make mining on commodity hardware infeasible.
We’ve had a lot of suggestions for what to do; change proof of work algorithm, add multiple proof of work algorithms, move to proof of stake, merge-mine with Litecoin, have DigiShield merge-mine with us. We’ve considered everything, and then some; I’m not sure how much discussion has happened in total, but I’ve spent over a dozen hours looking at these issues on IRC. In virtually all cases, the majority of people with the skills to implement these changes have rejected them as too high risk and/or having other significant drawbacks. In summary:
The best suggestion we have so far is to out-do the multipools directly, by working on open source multipool software which is more DOGE-friendly. As I understand it two key approaches are being considered for improving DOGE-friendliness; either by directly exchanging other coins to DOGE, or through improved trading algorithms which result in less sharp shocks to the price. For very large mining farms such as SFire’s, it’s hoped this will cause them to separate from the mining pools (which they pay fees to) and go solo. This reduces fees for the miner, as well as reducing the ability for DDoS attacks to be targeted at them, and for us it reduces risk of a 51% attack, improves confidence in the coin security, and enables us to better mitigate impact of people mining huge quantities to sell.
Meanwhile, the main focus is on making Dogecoin (and cryptocurrencies in general) a viable way of moving value around. The 1.7 client (beta release is imminent, and in fact if you’re comfortable compiling it yourself, the code is available from https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/tree/v1.7.0-Beta-1 ) is a major re-write of Dogecoin Core to base it on the Bitcoin Core 0.9 client (with Scrypt added in, of course). This gives us significant performance improvements, as well as a better underlying architecture. To repeat; this will not be a required update, although it will be strongly encouraged as it’s a huge leap forward technologically. One of the features which is currently not working in 1.7, but will be for release, is the Bitcoin payment protocol, which massively improves the payment request/receiving process for merchants. Fundamentally 1.7 is intended to prove we have the technical skills to maintain a stable, useful coin, and help drive/support adoption.
Once 1.7 is done, my immediate priority is technical documentation; we have a security specialist currently working on a guide to cryptocurrency security (setup, risks, best practices, etc.), to help give merchants and exchanges an in-depth understanding of how to securely use cryptocurrency. I’ll be addressing the need for formal standards in Dogecoin, and preparing RFCs for the “dogecoin:” URI and relay network protocol for submission to the IETF (and IANA for the URI).
Lastly; there was a post recently about the need for multi-signature addresses; I’d like to add my own “hell yes!” to that, although obviously I have to prioritise. If anyone else can look at these, that would be fantastic.
For anyone wanting a more permanent link, there's a copy of this on my blog ( http://jrn.me.uk/wp/what-next-for-dogecoin-mid-april-2014/ ), however posting as full text here as probably easier for most people, and I'm not sure my server would survive a reddit hug!
Edit: It's been pointed out that there's no verification of the problems with Blackcoin, and the source alleging problems has a serious credibility issue. Have removed the reference now.
submitted by rnicoll to dogecoin [link] [comments]

r/Bitcoin recap - June 2018

Hi Bitcoiners!
I’m back with the eighteenth monthly Bitcoin news recap.
For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month.
You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com
A recap of Bitcoin in June 2018
See you next month!
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

XMR.RU report [DECEMBER]

Sup-Sup Monteros!
Thanks for your November donations to our team of translators! The following articles were translated in December into Russian, thank you guys:
Thanks to @ajiekceu4, now we have those beautiful and useful charts:
Many thanks to XMR.RU-team, for all your contributions and helping our community to grow!
Cheers!
XMR:
42CxJrG1Q8HT9XiXJ1Cim4Sz18rM95UucEBeZ3x6YuLQUwTn6UWo9ozeA7jv13v8H1FvQn9dgw1Gw2VMUqdvVN1T9izzGEt
submitted by TheFuzzStone to Monero [link] [comments]

Of Wolves and Weasels - Day 187 - Guest Post: Confessions of a Bitcoiner

Hey all! GoodShibe... on Summer Vacation!
Please enjoy this post by Guest Writer Justlite and tip them well ;D)
Note: To tip them directly:
+dogetipbot @Justlite xxx doge verify
I've been part of this Dogecoin community since early January and I have to say the people here constantly amaze me. For me Dogecoin and this community is the future of cryptocurrency and I'm speaking as a long time Bitcoiner. Over a month ago I explained in a previous post why I believe Dogecoin price will rise again and correctly predicted Bitcoin to rise substantially shortly after my post against in the face of several counter arguments late last year. My thoughts have not changed on Dogecoin but I feel it's worth giving my experience on cryptocurrencies as a Bitcoiner in the early days of 2010-13 and how that compares with Dogecoin.
I bought Bitcoin and Litecoin in the early days and I can tell you the Bitcoin community back then was hopeful, cheerful and very welcoming...forgive us right now we are at the fighting stage with the established status quo wants to knock Bitcoin down.
In the early days we were only known for CPU/GPU mining discussions and tipping one another after each comment. In fact Bitcoin was only ever used to tip and trade but not to buy anything since we didn't have anything available for Bitcoin. We were very brave I mean wiring money to a company in Japan and getting these online things called Bitcoin which doesn't buy anything?!
Back then Bitcoin fans were seen as weird and Bitcoin as a complete joke we were idealist and we still are. Many of the people that fought us then were actually the libertarian precious metals community and because gold and silver were tangible and has been money for 5000 years Bitcoin wasn't and was barely a year old. It's hard to argue with them, after all some guy that called himself Satoshi Nakamoto, the Japanese equivalent of Jack Smith, created it but left after a year and no one saw how he looks like.
We could understand their concerns, a lot of early Bitcoiners like me also have gold and silver in the belief it will protect our wealth from the next financial collapse. But Bitcoin was created for this purpose too, no more will the 1% have economic power over the 99%, "1 CPU - 1 vote" said Satoshi in his white paper. We are also in the digital era and with all the success the internet is nowadays there still was no internet currency without the excessive charges of credit card companies.
Bitcoin changed all that it wasn't just an internet currency it was hoping to be money on every platform in every country, person to person, in at least 10 minutes between any country in any amount for free! Fast forward to present day and we are starting to see that.
Of course we have had many setbacks on the way, such as exchanges being hacked, wallets stolen. We weren't so security conscious back then and we learned the hard way.
Then we grew in price and popularity and quite recently the government fought us when our dark market Silk Road was shut down by the Feds. We have had 4 price bubbles a lot of sleepless nights I've personally ploughed in tens of thousands of dollars lost a lot of Bitcoins on the way (and also lost 15000 Litecoins) and forced to read articles with declarations of "Bitcoin is dead" after each major price drop.
Sound familiar?
"History doesn't repeat it self but it does rhyme" Mark Twain
That's all part of the growing pains of a disruptive idea.
Dogecoin, by comparison, has a whole economy after just 7 months of inception! It's remarkable as I am also a big Litecoin fan and even that community isn't as productive as this. People talk about Dogecoin's PR as it being behind its popularity but I honestly believe there is no intentional PR, I mean where is the PR team?
I believe it was a combination of a friendly meme encouraging positive kind people, a internet currency that's easily explainable to anyone, a very mineable coin using your PC/laptop so everyone can get involved in and great online platform such as Reddit to connect like minded users together and everything just snowballed from there.
Now Dogecoin is one of the most productive coins out there with several client and core devs, hundreds of retailers, apps, doge specific websites, blogs and charity fundraisers. That's why I believe Dogecoin is undervalued right now.
This doesn't mean you should put your life savings into Dogecoin or other cryptocurrencies as they are still a risk and early stage technology. Just buy with what you can afford to lose!
So where is Dogecoin heading? - The analysis
As long as we still use doge for goods and services and keep the positivity going then I can only see the price of doge going higher and reaching all time highs without the need for manipulation. Over what time frame?
Like Bitcoin it won't be overnight and granted there's no supply limit so it will never reach tens or hundreds of dollars but we don't need it to. I honestly want Dogecoin to be a currency and I personally like having whole doges. Ideally I would hope that 1 or even 10 doge will buy 1 loaf of bread or 1 litre of milk at my local grocery store some day.
Supply vs Demand
As I mentioned before the supply coming to the exchanges from multipools has been immense - it is thought about 160 million doge a day is being mined and sold on exchanges just from miners. This not only exerts a lot of selling pressure but it also encourages weak hands to sell forcing the price down further it's a downward spiral which we have been seeing.
Any other coin would have collapsed long ago but doge is no ordinary coin. After the next two halvings in October time it will be down to 40 million a day and low enough to allow for natural demand to outpace the supply causing the price to increase steadily which will give momentum and may then lead to a new all time high and the second bubble.
Network Hashrate
I'm of the belief that ASICs are a necessary evolution in cryptocurrencies by making a coin secure which will attract investment/adoption and environmentally friendly. With scrypt ASICs large and small coming online the network hashrate has more than doubled in the last 2 months from 40 GH/s to 90 GH/s and while we tend to see a jump in hashrate just before a halvening I attribute this rise to small miners also buying ASICs and a lack of more profitable altcoins. Again that's great for the stability of our coin and this will provide further confidence that Dogecoin is a good crypto to buy/adopt/invest.
Deflationary Inflation
Sounds confusing so let me explain unlike Bitcoin where there will only be 21 million coins mined, Dogecoin will reach 100 billion coins mined after block 600k and then see 5.25 billion coins mined each year forever which works out as 5.25% inflation in the first year and then 4.99% in the second year and so on.
While this may seem a lot I have come to the conclusion that it may be a blessing for Dogecoin as it is thought that 5 billion coins per year would be lost permanently anyway so this will 5.25billion coins would replace the lost coins. The extra 5.25 billion coins per year would be enough to incentivise miners to continue mining doge (which would hopefully be at a high enough price after the 600k block reward) and securing our network.
Because Bitcoin has a cap it is seen as a store of value like gold whereas Dogecoin has a infinite supply but at a predictably low yearly increase in fact from 2015 to 2020 Dogecoin will have less yearly inflation than Bitcoin. This can actually encourage people to treat Dogecoin as a true currency to buy everyday items with than as a store of value. I believe that is what Satoshi envisioned Bitcoin to be.
What are the whales doing?
The top 20 dogecoin addresses which account for 40% of all mined Dogecoin out there haven't sold any of their DOGEs.
The whales with large wallets have not sold their DOGE over the course of the last 4 months but the smaller wallets have! Why? The whales are happy to see their DOGE go to zero if they thought it was dying or they have been there and done that and know that perhaps Dogecoin is heading up? I can tell you I have no intention of selling my DOGEs as I believe interesting times are ahead.
The Bitcoin Effect
Bitcoin has paved the way for a crypto to go from $0.0001 to $1000+ and brought technological development, liberty and a sense of community all in a 5 year timespan.
While only $0.00023 Dogecoin has got an ecosystem, a following, funded several charity efforts and a burgeoning economy after only 7 months thanks in part to the network effect of Bitcoin and the rest down to you.
All I can say to you all is well done to all of you for being such a positive and productive community. Keep using Dogecoin and check the links at the side bar such as dogedoor.net and suchlist.com so that you can spend, buy, tip and mine doge and spread the word.
Now let's go to the moon!
TL;DR - Bitcoin had it's ups and downs and not short of haters over the years. Dogecoin is following the same path but in a shorter time frame. After the next 2 halvings Dogecoin price should be rising and adoption will speed up again which will make it a true currency so keep buying using and tipping doge wherever you can.
It's 8:09AM EST and we've found 87.24% of our initial 100 Billion DOGEs -- only 12.76% remains until our period of Hyper-inflation ends! Our Global Hashrate is up from ~76 to ~92 Gigahashes per second and our Difficulty is up from ~1196 to ~1351.
I Hope you enjoyed today's Guest Post by Justlite!
Note: To tip them directly:
+dogetipbot @Justlite xxx doge verify
GoodShibe
submitted by GoodShibe to dogecoin [link] [comments]

A look into the future regarding Decentralization,ASIC resistance and Vertcoin and other crypto currency (Long Post)

Warning: this post is lengthy because it includes details to understand the current development of Crypto and ASIC resistant Cryptos.
I. Decentralization is the fundamental assumption in the block chain security model:
I am glad that the recent Vertcoin price hike have brought more people to the awareness of crypto-currency decentralization. As decentralization is an assumption in satoshi's white paper, and hence the fundamental aspect in block-chain's security model. It appears that the block-chain security model is not complete. As you can see, there is an obvious concentration of computing power appears in bitcoin where one or two ASICs manufactures are controlling more than 51% of the network hash power. In satoshi's white paper, the assumption of 1 CPU,1 vote, does not hold indefinitely. Just 5-6 years after the inception of blockchain, we appear to have such machine based on ASIC, and the phenomenon of 1 ASIC, 1*103 or more votes, and the magnitude is only seem to be increasing.
Centralization defeats the entire security model of any crypto-currency based on block-chain and its variant. As of the time of the writing the bitcoin network and its public ledger's survival is not based on its invulnerability to rewrite, but based on the fact that the ASIC computing powers that secure the network currently lacks incentive to destroy it. When such incentive arrives the result can be catastrophic. As whoever controls the 51% hash power control the power to modify the block chain. In the Segwit 1 fork, there is worry that the bitcoin chain can not survive. (reference this article for a variety of possibility during a fork where miner controls the majority of hash power: https://medium.com/@jimmysong/uasf-bip148-scenarios-and-game-theory-9530336d953e ). In segwit 2X fork, some miners wants to make their own copy of of the chain, and in the process destroy the original chain. This upcoming fork is much more threatening than every single bitcoin fork comes before it.
II. CPU/GPU vs FPGA vs ASIC - you must understand the differences to understand the ASIC resistance movement
The decentralization problem is not fully solved yet. the crypto community and its developers are left to fill in the question.
As you can see the current approach is to make hashing algorithm to be hard to realize in ASICs. To fully discuss this approach, we must look at the currently available computing hardware architectures. the list go like this:
(CPU and GPU)->FPGA->ASICs.
The list go from the most general purpose,flexible computing hardware to the least flexible, and specific task computing hardware.
The list also go from the worst raw performance(you can say hash power for crypto) to the best raw performance, given a specific task.
CPU, and to a extend GPU are general purposed hardware that can be programmed to perform all tasks, while ASIC(Application Specific Integrated Circuits) can only perform a specific task. FPGA(Field Programmable Gate Arrays) - sits somewhere in the middle, it can be reprogram to perform a specific task better than CPUs and GPUs but the performance and durability is worse than ASIC.
In therms of computing speed,optimization and hence raw performance on a specific task, the list goes in reverse, this is because hashing algorithms and its calculation can be optimize thru parallelism(I have 10 workers to do 1 task 10 times quicker) and pipe-lining (think factory production pipeline with sequential work stations). CPU and General-Purpose GPUs in our computers exploit parallalism and pipe-lining to a degree, But because they are general hardware, the exploitation is limited because they must accommodate all types of possible computation. ASICs, are develop to only accommodate the required computation in a task, and exploit parallelism and pipe-lining to the extreme, this gives rise to ASICs such as AntMiners, where the performance is more than 3 magnitudes better than CPU and GPU.
III. ASIC resistance, and the movement to keep the crypto decentralize
The ultimate goal of alt-coin development is to fill in the void of satoshi's block-chain security model. The void is , How to keep the network decentralized in terms of hashrate/s?
The obvious answer, the first approach, would be to let the most abundant hardware to perform as well as the least abundant hardware. Thus, make an hashing algorithm so that either a CPU can perform as well as ASICs, or make an algorithm so that it is very very hard(cost prohibited) to develop ASICs for.
It appears that this approach is the most successful at the moment, some memory hard algorithms such as Vertcoin's very own Lyra2REv2 has no ASICs currently available.
But on the longer time frame, the profit driven development of ASICs is a definite trend, ASIC resistance is a constant Spear vs Shield game. Being ASIC resistance is not necessarily equivalent to being decentralized.
There are several ramification of being ASIC resistant. First the algorithm is necessarily more complex and cost more electricity on CPU/GPU to perform. Secondly, Developing ASIC for algorithm such as Lyra2REv2 is hard. Because of this hardness, there are fewer people who can develop this than the amount of people who can develop SHA256*bitcoin ASICs. Maybe in the not too distance future bitmain's monopoly over SHA256 ASICs would end and more of us can purchase a bitcoin ASIC, thus the bitcoin network becomes decentralized again. But because it is harder to develop Lyra2REv2 ASICs, once developed the ASIC monopoly can remain for a very long time enough to destroy the network. Because fewer people can do it, it will be more centralized once developed.
This does not mean that Vertcoin's security model is not good. In fact it is very promising. First the hardness to develop Lyra2REv2 ASIC can be to the point of such extrem that no one is able to figure out over an very long period of time. Second, once developed, the devs promise to hard fork the network again with a new algorithm in their tool bag. because the tool bag is unknown, the ASIC development cycle repeats, possibility over a long time.
So the Vertcoin's hashing algo Lyra2REv2 is among the best of all crypto. combining with the fact that a promised evolution of hashing algo once ASIC appear, I dare to say that the security/decentralization model is the best in crypto.
IV. Further discussion regarding ASICs and Network decentralization and security. paradigm switch regarding ASICs
It is in the profit driven nature that an ASIC would apear,Bitcoin already fell, for a memory hard algo, Scrypt and Scrypt-N is thought to be resistant enough, but ASIC appear, thus LiteCoin and The old Vertcoin falls. Vertcoin later forked and adapt to Lyra2 , and sub sequently Lyra2REv2 and remain the most secure coin.
For the ones used by GroestleCoin(Groestl), Decred(Blake256), SteinCoin(Stein256) , although there is no ASICs, but over an infinite horizon, the ASIC will appear this coins can all flop over night, if they do not adapt to the changes , Like what Vertcoin can do.
I think in the infinitely long term, there are 2 solution.
1st the same as Vertcoin, Keep ASICs out, and keep evolving the unknown puzzle bag for replacement if ASICs appear.
2nd, Amend the algorithm so that the theoretical upper bound in the speed up from ASIC is low. This requires making most calculations sequential and none-associative, with a slow bottle neck. thus parallal and pipe-lining machine can not take too much advantage. After that make ASIC development an open source, community movement, so that the entire community is guarantee to enjoy the advancement in ASICs. This would guarantee that the advantage from a new novel asic is small compare to what the community have, and limit the degree of concentration of hash power. ASIC can also benefit the network by reducing power consumption and increase transaction speed.
V. Conclusion
The current security model of Bitcoin is flawed and Vertcoin's solution is the current best at tackling the security concern. The promise of evolution of Vertcoin's Lyra2REv2 can be a viable long term solution to the Spear vs Shield game of ASICs. Nonetheless, I think we are making good progress of filling the void. I hope the future decentralization solution of Vertcoin can evolve past the paradigm of strictly ASIC resistance, and considering community driven and fair distribution of ASICs. I hope everyone in crypto can participate in this discussion.
Disclosure: I hold Vertcoin, 100% of my porfolio :).
submitted by bntyjx to vertcoin [link] [comments]

LITECOIN mit Nachholpotenzial vs. BITCOIN Litecoin's {LTC} Hashrate Triples with ASIC's LITECOIN UPDATE!! LITECOIN HASHRATE DOWN 40%... ARE MINERS RUNNING FOR THE HILLS? Bitcoin Hashrate auf Allzeithoch WHAT?! -45% BITCOIN HASHRATE DROP!!! Sell off? Programmer explains

Litecoin vs. Bitcoin Hashrate. The next point of comparison for Litecoin vs. Bitcoin is network hashrate, or the total mining power allocated to the network by miners. The significance of network hashrate is that the higher it is, the more secure the network is. This is because if a network has a high hashrate, it’s more resistant to a 51% attack, since any malicious actor or group would ... Bitcoin, Litecoin Hashrate vs. Price in USD historical chart Average hashrate (hash/s) per day vs. Average price, per day, USD. Share: btc eth ltc bch xrp xmr zec bsv etc dash doge btg rdd vtc blk ftc nvc nmc. Scale: linear log. Latest Prices: BTC/USD: 12813.75 (bitasset) BTC/USD: 12775.54 (hitbtc) LTC/USD: 52.4298 (hitbtc) LTC/USD: 52.51 (gdax) Zoom: 3 months 6 months 1 year 2 years all ... Litecoin vs. Bitcoin Hashrate The next point of comparison for Litecoin vs. Bitcoin is network hashrate, or the total mining power allocated to the network by miners. The significance of network hashrate is that the higher it is, the more secure the network is. This is because if a network has a high hashrate, it’s more resistant to a 51% attack, since any malicious actor or group would need ... Litecoin launched only two years after Bitcoin, in 2011, by Charlie Lee, a former Google Engineer and ex-Director of Engineering at Coinbase. At this time the blockchain industry was in its ... Litecoin wurde 2011 von einem Google-Mitarbeiter Charlie Lee erstellt. Derzeit ist diese Kryptowährung eine der größten nach Marktkapitalisierung. Litecoin wurde als eine der ersten Gabeln der Bitcoin-Blockchain erstellt. Man kann auch mit Sicherheit sagen, dass Litecoin eine der ersten Altmünzen ist. Während Bitcoin auf dem SHA-256 ...

[index] [38912] [821] [9046] [17031] [45573] [34364] [41207] [42078] [30305] [14144]

LITECOIN mit Nachholpotenzial vs. BITCOIN

Today let's look at Bitcoin's price and how it compares to the hashrate. Which follows which? And take a look at other Cryptocurrency news. Become a Cryptos... In todays video we take a look at the Bitcoin and Litecoin price and which move to expect now. Also taking a look at DEX volume and DeFi industry. Which coun... LITECOIN mit Nachholpotenzial vs. BITCOIN JFD. Loading... Unsubscribe from JFD? ... Während der BITCOIN (BTCUSD) bereits sein letztes Reaktionshoch überwunden hat, ziert sich der LITEOCIN ... LITECOIN UPDATE!! LITECOIN HASHRATE DOWN 40%... ARE MINERS RUNNING FOR THE HILLS? MY THOUGHTS! TA- 5:18- End of video Not Financial Advice! Entertainment only! WHAT?! -45% BITCOIN HASHRATE DROP!!! Sell off? Programmer explains Ivan on Tech. Loading... Unsubscribe from Ivan on Tech? Cancel Unsubscribe. Working... Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe 233K ...

#