The Ridiculous Amount of Energy It Takes to Run Bitcoin

Some informative responses from Colin and Andy from the just-concluded Nano AMA at the Atomic Wallet Telegram group

The AMA ran today from 13:00 - 14:20 UTC, with Colin and Andy. I've copied over some of their responses that I found give me better insight into Nano. Their responses are in italics. Responses to different questions are separated by double spaces. Colin's responses are listed first, followed by Andy's. Sorry I couldn't copy over the questions as well. I've added my comments in places.
From Colin:
PoW coins have done a good marketing that the energy expenditure makes your coins more secure but it’s really unnecessory. PoW coins need to continue expending work because if they stop, their security parameter erodes.
Nano has no such problem, once an election for a transaction is complete, it’s confirmed. If it sits there it stays confirmed and it doesn’t need any extra effort. Wow, put that way, Bitcoin seems unsustainable in the long term when there is an alternative like Nano.

Yes the circulating supply is forever like this. The reason it can’t change is because nano transactions can only send your current balance or less to someone else, this means new coins can never be injected in to the system. Interesting design reason new Nano can't be minted.

Volatility is a focus with all cryptocurrencies and it comes from low volume, it’s not intrinsic to cryptocurrency itself. To cure low volume our focus is integrating it in to parts of the economy where it solves a problem, rather than just emulating credit cards etc.
Not having fees in the network puts us in a very good position for buying beer, for example. Typically credit card providers will charge 2-5% for a purchase, maybe even more, and it tight margin businesses that make 2-5% profit anyway, this is huge. A lot of Reddit discussion on crypto adoption considers only user experience and overlooks benefits to merchants.

Nano is purpose built to be the fastest and most decentralized currency around. Our transactions settle in less than 1 second and it’s all done on a network with no fees, and a tiny environmental footprint
Decentralization is an essential focus for us, many other cryptocurrencies can get fast or low cost, but they can’t also maintain decentralization which I think we do very well.
Well the sustainability comes from 2 main parts. We have a laser sharp focus on being the most efficient currency. This means our development stays focused and eventually the amount of things going in to the code base will trend downward; once we’ve achieved the goal we just have to make things more efficient.
The second part of sustainability is our Open Representative Voting which is our replacement for PoW mining. We saw the energy expenditure as something that would come in conflict with any system that would attain high adoption so our goal was to get the same or better decentralization benefits and also have a low energy footprint. We think we achieved that goal as our representatives are all over the world under many different organizations. A healthy decentralized representative set is good for long term sustainability.

And on the simplicity, nano is probably one of the easiest cryptocurrencies to use. There are no fees to calculate, the UX impact of entering a fee is greatly understated. How much should the fee be? Does my grandma know what network load is? What does it mean with respect to fee?
Nano simply has accounts and balances, you send and it lands in their wallet in less than a second, nothing can be simpler.

We’re not looking to expand in to defi right now. I have some reservations about it’s viability. One thing I’ve noticed in my many years of seeing technology evolution is to not try and change 2 things at once. We don’t want to simultaneously change the currency people use and also change how finances are done. First change the currency, then change the finances.
I think Libra suffers from a market mis-assesment. Essentially what they’re claiming is be a multi-currency bank account for every facebook user. Getting users electronic bank accounts isn’t a technology problem, it’s a regulatory and logistics problem. Since Facebook is essentially being a bank for people, they’re going to be required to comply with KYC requirements. Sending/receiving isn’t going to be open as it is in cryptocurrency because of AML requirements. People are not going to have access to the system in remote areas because how do they deposit or more importantly withdraw local currency from their Libra accounts.
I think privacy is a big concern with our transactions and credit card purchases and it’s only getting worse. Letting Facebook/Libra know all your purchase history I think is a huge mistake.
I think it also doesn’t fundamentally solve the central banking problem where they can print more money and inflate the currency supply. I see this behavior as a fundamentally unethical thing that cryptocurrency solves and Libra is taking a huge step back on that.
I don’t see anything compelling about it and I don’t see long term viability.

I think disk usage is going to be a low concern long term. The goal with Nano is to be a widely used commercial grade currency so the representatives will be banks and other financial institutions, universities, and tech companies. Considering how much youtube, instagram, and other social media data is created each day, I don’t think the ledger size will be a long-term limiting factor. Looks like the role of hobbyists in running nodes will diminish with widening adoption.

Nano’s value is being the fastest, most efficient currency around. Entreprenuers make use of natural market incentives / natural efficiencies to make money on a business.
Cryptocurrency has distorted that term a bit with something more closely resembling subsidies. The transaction fees and block rewards are subsidizing the security parameter and processing prioritization. PoW chains need this subsidy because their security parameter costs a lot. Additionally we’ve seen miners work to limit the network’s throughput in order to rent-seek on the limited transaction space. Damn, talk about unaligned incentives between users and miners.
The people we’re looking for are the entreprenuers that know how to make use of a faster, lower cost currency.

Yes, having a fixed supply is an essential component of currency. If people can add more currency to the system, they’re taking value away from everyone else in that process. It’s unfair and unethical.
1 Nano actually can be divided down very small so there’s no risk of not having enough coins.

In this response, Colin is addressing a question about Steem and other dPoS systems. One major difference with Nano consensus is: having more Nano does not get you more Nano, there are no rewards for holding Nano. Holding nano doesn’t give people voting privledges on network changes, or any other centralizing component associated with holding.
Another big difference is voting in nano does not produce blocks, it chooses between conflicting blocks that a user publishes. If you don’t attempt to double-spend, your transactions cannot be voted against.

From Andy:
1. The faucet did indeed seed Nano's amazing international communities, and the contributions from around the world to the project have been unbelievable over that last 2.5 years. Communities are still active, engaged and building 💪
2. The effects of Nano being added to the Atomic Wallet (and other multi-currency wallets) is two fold. It increases the accessibility and convenience of storing Nano alongside other coins and also helps to disperse voting weight across a wider spread of representatives - increasing decentralization!

We certainly feel that Nano possesses far and away the best fundamentals, democratic approach to decentralization, and user experience.
Being fully distributed and operating on a the mainnet since 2015 is also very important, and puts Nano way ahead of many other projects making bold claims about future potential.
Nano is here today, and works as one would expect the digital money would!

Privacy is an attractive proposition to users of digital money for obvious reasons, it can be very important. Our position towards privacy is more conservative as we have seen many more hurdles to mainstream adoption being put in front of privacy-based projects.
With that being said, there are eyes towards the technical implications of introducing privacy, but it is extremely difficult to do this without incurring slowdowns to settlement times.
Throughout 2019 we were able to make significant progress in helping some of the more well-established cryptocurrency services such as exchanges, fiat gateways, payment platforms, and wallets- like Atomic 😄, to understand and integrate Nano. This proliferation of Nano across the space has ensured that it is increasingly more convenient for users and merchants to access and begin using Nano for payments.
submitted by Live_Magnetic_Air to nanocurrency [link] [comments]

Report on Filecoin And PoC Projects

Report on Filecoin And PoC Projects
Author: Gamals Ahmed, CoinEx Business Ambassador
ABSTRACT
A Blockchain is a continuously growing record, called blocks, which are linked and secured using cryptography such as hashing. Each block contains a hash pointer as a link to the previous block, a timestamp and transaction data. Filecoin is a decentralized storage network that turns cloud storage into an algorithmic market. The market runs on a blockchain with a native protocol token (also called Filecoin), which miners earn by providing storage to clients. The first section of report is demonstrate the filecoin which is a decentralized storage system used to encrypt files that we need to share it through blockchain platform. The second section is explain briefly blockchain Proof of Concept (POC) which is a process of locate whether a Blockchain project idea can be feasible in a real-world situation, need of proof of concept and blockchain proof of concept stages.
1.Introduction
Filecoin is a protocol token whose blockchain runs on a novel proof, called Proof-of-Space time, where blocks are created by miners that are storing data. Filecoin protocol provides a data storage and retrieval service via a network of independent storage providers that does not rely on a single coordinator, where: (1) clients pay to store and retrieve data, (2) Storage Miners earn tokens by offering storage (3) Retrieval Miners earn tokens by serving data.
Filecoin is a decentralized storage network that turns cloud storage into an algorithmic market. The market runs on a blockchain with a native protocol token (also called Filecoin”), which miners earn by providing storage to clients. Conversely, clients spend Filecoin hiring miners to store or distribute data. As with Bitcoin, Filecoin miners compete to mine blocks with sizable rewards[1].
Filecoin mining power is proportional to active storage, which directly provides a useful service to clients (unlike Bitcoin mining, whose usefulness is limited to maintaining blockchain consensus). This creates a powerful incentive for miners to amass as much storage as they can, and rent it out to clients. The protocol weaves these amassed resources into a self-healing storage network that anybody in the world can rely on. The network achieves robustness by replicating and dispersing content, while automatically detecting and repairing replica failures. Clients can select replication parameters to protect against different threat models. The protocol’s cloud storage network also provides security, as content is encrypted end-to-end at the client, while storage providers do not have access to decryption keys. Filecoin works as an incentive layer on top of IPFS [1], which can provide storage infrastructure for any data. It is especially useful for decentralizing data, building and running distributed applications, and implementing smart contracts [2].
Filecoin[2] based on IPFS[3] proposes a completely decentralized distributed storage network where customers and storage miners request services and submit orders to the storage and retrieval markets. And the miner provides a service to view matching quotes to initiate a transaction. The protocol guarantees the integrity of data storage by copying proofs and space-time certificates. The Filecoin protocol writes the order book, token transactions, and integrity challenge response records to the blockchain.
1.1 Blockchain
Blockchain is a characteristic data structure formed by combining data blocks in a chain order inchronological order[4], and cryptographically guarantees decentralized, non-tamperable, unforgeable distributed shared ledger system.
Figure 1 Blockchain Structure
1.2 Elementary Components in Filecoin
The Filecoin protocol builds upon four novel components :
  1. Decentralized Storage Network (DSN): We provide an abstraction for network of independent storage providers to offer storage and retrieval services.
  2. Novel Proofs-of-Storage: We present two novel Proofs-of-Storage,(1) Proof-of Replication allows storage providers to prove that data has been replicated to its own uniquely dedicated physical storage. Enforcing unique physical copies enables a verifier to check that a prover is not deduplicating multiple copies of the data into the same storage space, (2) Proof-of-Space time allows storage providers to prove they have stored some data throughout a specified amount of time.
  3. Verifiable Markets: We model storage requests and retrieval requests as orders in two decentralized verifiable markets operated by the Filecoin network. Verifiable markets ensure that payments are performed when a service has been correctly provided. We present the Storage Market and the Retrieval Market where miners and clients can respectively submit storage and retrieval orders.
  4. Useful Proof-of-Work: We show how to construct a useful Proof-of-Work based on Proof-of Space time that can be used in consensus protocols. Miners do not need to spend wasteful computation to mine blocks, but instead must store data in the network[2] [4].
1.3 Filecoin: Lifecycle of a File
In this section we mentioned the lifecycle for file in Filecoin, as follow:
  1. Put: Clients send information about the file, storage duration, and a small amount of Filecoin to the Storage Market as a bid. Simultaneously, Miners submit asks, competing to offer low cost storage. Deals are made in the Storage Market, on the blockchain.
  2. Send: The Client then sends the file to the Miner, and the Miner adds the file to a sector. The sectors are cryptographically sealed, with verification sent to the blockchain.
  3. Manage: Miners continuously prove they are storing all sectors they agreed to store. The client’s payment is released in installments. Additional currency is minted over time and awarded to Miners as a block reward, proportional to the storage they provide.
  4. Request: A Client requests a file with some payment in Filecoin to the Retrieval Market (off chain); the first Miner to send the file is paid. Eventually, the contract expires and the storage is once again free[5].
Figure 2 Filecoin Lifecycle of a File
1.4 Filecoin is Built with IPFS
The Interplanetary File System (IPFS) is a next-generation protocol to make the Web faster, safer, decentralized, and permanent. Since the initial IPFS release in January 2015, it has gained strong traction in a variety of industries and organizations. Today, IPFS is a foundational technology for many applications in the blockchain industry. Over 5 billion files have been added to IPFS, spanning scientific data and papers, genetic research, video distribution & streaming, 3D modeling, legal documents, entire blockchains and their transactions, video games, and more. IPFS and Filecoin are complementary protocols, and the adoption of the underlying IPFS protocol is a leading indicator of market demand for a faster, safer, decentralized storage service [6].
Some IPFS Users
Figure(3) IPFS users
1.5 IPFS Open Source Community
The IPFS Project is a large community of open source contributors driven to decentralize the web. The community is made up of thousands of developers and users who have been working together for several years, building valuable and widely used software tools. The same seasoned core developers of IPFS are also leading the design and development of Filecoin. The IPFS team has experience building ambitious sotware projects and coordinating thriving developer communities. A significant portion of the IPFS community plans to join the Filecoin network, building tools and applications on this new, exciting platform [ 7].
2. PoC PROJECTS:
2.1 What is PoC?
PoC is abbreviate of Project of Concept which is a process of determining whether a Block-chain project idea can be feasible in a real-world situation. This process is necessary to verify that the idea will function as envisioned. The best part about proof of concept blockchain meaning is that it will help you to get a clear idea of what you are doing before you even get started. Furthermore, the proof of concept in the blockchain niche isn’t for exploring the marketplace for ideas only. Moreover, you won’t determine the best way to start the production process. Instead, you’ll only work on your possible blockchain solution option and see whether it’s capable of being a reality or not. Developing a blockchain proof of concept would require an investment of time, money and resources. In reality, you’d need to get your hands on supporting technologies or even the physical components needed to get the perfect plan. Going through the process is necessary for enterprises to see whether their idea is visible before using all production level equipment for it. According to a recent Gartner survey, 66% of CIOs think that blockchain is here to disrupt the existing marketplaces. And many will spend more than $10 million on the experimentation of the technology. So, if you were confused with what is proof of concept blockchain, now you know just what it is [8]. PoC is used to demonstrate the feasibility and practical potential of any blockchain project in any field such as Energy, Communication, Services, Insurance and Healthcare. A PoC can either be a prototype without any supporting code or any MVP (Minimum Viable Product) with bare feature set. A PoC is a prototype that is used for internal organization who can have a better understanding of a particular project.
2.3 Why Companies Need a Proof of Concept?
Usually, the blockchain proof of concept is awfully popular among the startups in the market. However, proof of concept in blockchain can also be a great tool for the Enterprises as well. Mainly there are three points for needing it.
  • Test out the blockchain project before going for mass production.
  • Identify possible pain points that can make the project not useful.
  • Save an enormous amount of time and money.
Although anyone who comes up with a blockchain project idea will think that it will work, however, proof of concept in blockchain will test out your idea to ensure that you get the best version out of it, which will save up a lot of time and money in the process. Another major reason for you to use proof of concept for blockchain is to ensure that all the stakeholders love your idea and would be interested in investing in it. Whether you are just adding up a new type of feature in the existing blockchain solution or developing it from scratch blockchain proof of concept would let you take the fastest route possible. This relatively gives a different edge in the proof of concept blockchain meaning [9].
2.4 Proof of Concept Phases
Its explain as follows:
Figure (4) explains the steps of blockchain PoC
Step-1: Finding the Proper Blockchain Application Sectors That Adds Value
Let’s start with the first step of the theoretical build-up stage. Many of you don’t really know which application sectors are great for blockchain Proof of concept [10]. That’s why we are outlining some major application sector where you can use your solution. These are:
1.Finance
Let’s start with the financing sector. This sector is relatively popular among the blockchain community. Furthermore, there are many projects already that cover this sector and offer a lucrative solution for major issues. So, in that sense, this sector is quite competitive in case of blockchain PoC development. 2. Medical
The medical sector is another major blockchain application sector at present. There are count-less scenarios where blockchain can truly shine. Hospitals have to deal with a lot of falsifying reports and counterfeit drugs.
3. Asset Management
Maintaining asset in these times are relatively hard due to all the bad players in the market. Simple paper-based record keeping isn’t enough now. Moreover, due to political and other reasons, ownership management is at risk of becoming a corrupted sector.
4. Government
Many governmental institutions are falling behind in the race of digitization. Moreover, every citizen needs a better infrastructure which will give them the security they need. In reality, the government sector is unable to reserve the citizen rights properly.
5. Identity
Identity management is a big hassle when it comes to enterprises. Furthermore, many often impersonate other people’s identity and commit serious crimes. Even in trade financer, many companies have to deal with fake companies and fake documents.
6. IoT
Internet of things is a wonderful sector for proof of concept in blockchain development. Furthermore, this sector is responsible for linking all your smart applications together. Moreover, the device to device connection in a secured platform is necessary.
7. Payments
The payments sector is another awesome application point for your enterprise-grade solution. The blockchain system is more than capable of handling payments, and many of it also offer micro payments. Furthermore, it takes a really small amount of time to send money compared to the traditional banking system. Not to mention the reduction of fees in overseas payment.
8. Supply Chain
Big enterprise needs to have their eyes and ears in every step of the supply chain process. Furthermore, any minor errors could end up in a million dollars of loss. Obviously, you would not want that. Tracking where the raw materials are coming from and whether your products are truly authentic or not is one of the major pain points.
9. Insurance
The insurance industry is facing some serious problems regarding insurance claims and document authentication. Also, the enormous amount of paperwork that every single employee has to fill out is overly dreadful. Detecting fraud, managing all the documents in a secure environment is tough. So, if you introduce a blockchain framework that can solve all these issues would be a huge factor. However, the competition in this marketplace is a bit high; still, with proper blockchain proof of concept, it should be a great opportunity.
Step-2: Defining the Product
In the second stage of the theoretical build-up, you would need to think your blockchain Proof of concept just like any other product. Furthermore, you need to have a solid plan along with full support from all stakeholders. PoC Feature Requirements Define all the features that your enterprise blockchain solution needs. After deciding your blockchain application, you would probably have some idea on what features to add up.
Step-3: Investigating the Technology
After you’ve come up with the solid idea of what features to include and how to focus the road map, you would need to hand them off to the engineering team. Therefore, your team will then research the technology based on your requirements and come up with the best plat-form to develop it on.
  • Advice to make a successful Proof of Concept As we knew, a proof of concept is a project, and like any project it must be clearly defined. That means breaking down the process into these four steps in order to can manage it better.
  • Focus on a Specific Business Issue If you want to make the blockchain PoC framework a success, then you have to start with focusing your real-life problems. At the beginning of the theoretical build-up stage when you are looking for a popular sector of deployment, look for a specific issue. Furthermore, any problem that your idea can fix would be a big plus from the consumers’ end. Many blockchain proof of concept only focuses on the capabilities of the technology only. However, they just don’t resolve any new issues or even old issues.
  • Take Small Steps, Avoid Scope Creeps Another major thing that the enterprises face is the scope creeps. While choosing what features you might need for the blockchain proof of concept many go for too much from the start. However, making a flashier entrance in the market won’t mean 100% success. Further-more, get the ones that you can truly deliver, not the ones you aren’t capable of.
  • Connect All Ideas and Control Them You won’t be the only one coming up with all the ideas. As you already know you’d need to get yourself a good team that will back you up and helps you come up with a compact solution. However, not every single member of your team would agree with the same idea. Furthermore, they have different ideas and vision regarding the blockchain development too.
  • Construct a Thorough Plan Another hurdle in the way of proper proof of concept blockchain is the misinterpretation of the blockchain implementation challenges. Obviously, blockchain implementation isn’t an easy task. At the first stage, it might have many flaws that would end up in possible failure scenarios.
  • Test A Million Times After getting the design done, you’d need to go into the testing phase. However, the problem is many seem to enroll the MVP before properly testing it, which end up in failure. So, test out the MVP a lot of time before making it accessible to the end-users.
  • Collaborate With Other Parties Collaborating with other enterprises could help to take down the overall costing of the block-chain proof of concept. Furthermore, if you are a small to medium level enterprise than collaborating with other parties could help out with the production costing. It will solely depend on the feature or the type of blockchain PoC framework you want to work on.
  • The Right Amount of Staff The right amount of stuff is always necessary to pull off a blockchain proof of concept project. Furthermore, you would need to recruit staffs that have blockchain skills or have an intellectual concept of the technology. Get the necessary amount of stuff with blockchain skill set to perfect the Blockchain Proof of Concept..
3. Conclusion
This report explain a distributed storage scheme based on blockchain technology( Filecoin), and introduces the system design in detail in first part , we have studied about blockchain technology related for Filecoin(decentralized storage network), Filecoin, a highly-anticipated decentralized storage network (under development), announced that there will be more delays before its Mainnet can be officially launched. Created by Protocol Labs, Filecoin has been developed using the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS), an established peer to peer data storage network. The Filecoin software will allow users to trade storage space in an open and decentralized market place.In the second part we mentioned a proof of concept (PoC), The Blockchain Proof of Concept is a demonstration to verify that certain concepts or theories have the potential for real-world application. PoC represents the evidence demonstrating that a project or product is feasible and worthy enough to justify the expenses needed to support and develop it.
REFERENCES
[1] Juan Benet. IPFS — Content Addressed, Versioned, P2P File System. 2014.
[2] Protocol Labs. Filecoin: A Decentralized Storage Network. https://filecoin.io/ filecoin.pdf, 2017.
[3] Benet J. IPFS-content addressed, versioned, P2P file system[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.3561, 2014.
[4] Liu AD, Du XH, Wang N, Li SZ. Research Progress of Blockchain Technology and its Application in Information Security. Ruan Jian Xue Bao/Journal of Software,2018,6,14:1–24.
[5] Protocol Labs, Inc,[email protected] , Filecoin Primer July 25, 2017.
[6] Protocol Labs, Inc,[email protected] , Filecoin Primer July 25, 2017.
[7] Retrieved from IPFS internal monitoring July 6, 2017.
[8] https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/proof-of-concept-definition.
[9] https://www.blockchainappfactory.com/poc-blockchain-application
[10] https://101blockchains.com/blockchain-proof-of-concept/#prettyPhoto
submitted by CoinEx_Institution to Coinex [link] [comments]

How can Stellar be so fast?

How can Stellar be so fast?
If you’ve used our XLMwallet, you know that Stellar is exceptionally fast compared to Bitcoin and Ethereum. How is it possible? They are all blockchains, after all. Does the high speed mean that Stellar is centralized? Not at all — here’s why.
With XLMwallet you can send and receive lumens (XLM) in under 5 seconds. For comparison: with Bitcoin, one confirmation takes 10 minutes (1 block time), and many exchanges and dApps require more than 3 confirmations. So your recipient will need to wait for half an hour or more to get their money.
5 seconds vs 10 minutes — it’s a 120x difference! How can one blockchain network be 120 times faster than another?
Some people who are not familiar with Stellar think that it must be centralized to be so efficient. But the truth is very different!
SCP vs PoW
The key reason why Stellar has such a huge processing speed is that it uses a completely different consensus protocol.
As you probably know, Bitcoin employs Proof-of-Work, where miners have to waste lots of resources trying to find a solution (hash) for each block. Network members together agree that the found hash is correct, and whoever found it first gets a reward. This agreement is known as consensus.
PoW a good system in the sense that it’s difficult to attack. A thief or hacker would need to spend a gigantic sum of money to force the network to agree on something that is not true. But PoW is also hugely wasteful. Maybe you’ve heard that Bitcoin mining consumes as much energy as a small country — it’s true!
The Byzantine problem
Instead of PoW, Stellar uses something called Federated Byzantine Agreement (FBA). This consensus model answers the same question: how can we make the nodes in the network work for the common good? How can we prevent evil agents (nodes) from colluding with each other and deceiving others?
The word Byzantine refers to the so-called Byzantine Generals Problem. The generals are sieging an enemy city, each with his own division. They have to decide if they want to attack, and the only way to communicate is to send a messenger. Some of the generals are actually enemy spies, so they send conflicting messages. Other messages can get lost. The problem is, how do we find out what the real generals think?
Stellar solution
Stellar’s Federated Byzantine Agreement can solve the problem. This model was created in 2015 by a professor from Stanford University. It’s too complicated to describe it in detail here, but here are some facts:
- All the nodes are divided into quorums (groups). Within each quorum, each node trusts some other nodes, and these ‘circles of trust’ are called slices.
- Nodes reach an agreement within each quorum.
- Different quorums intersect, and that ensures general agreement across the network.
- Even if many nodes turn ‘evil’ or get turned off, the system still reaches an agreement.
The bottom line is that there’s a very complex system of interlocking ‘agreement groups’, voting and ballots. Still, it’s many times faster than PoW — and yet very hard to break or hack into. You can read more here.
Even if you don’t know anything about consensus protocols, don’t worry. You can still use XLMwallet and enjoy all of its advantages: fast crypto transfers, user-friendly web interface, support for all Stellar assets (lumens and tokens), transfers by email, account merging, and so on.
By the way, now is still a good time to buy some more XLM. It’s been growing steadily and gained more than 20% in just one week. But there’s still a huge potental for growth after the Bitcoin halving on May 18.
So better make up your mind now — you can buy XLM on any major exchange. To protect your investment, withdraw the lumens from the exchange and store them safely in XLMwallet — the fastest, lightest web wallet for Stellar.
https://xlmwallet.co/
Web site — https://xlmwallet.co/
Medium — https://medium.com/@XLMwalletCo
Teletype — https://teletype.in/@XLMwalletCo
Twitter — https://twitter.com/XLMwalletCo
Reddit — https://www.reddit.com/XLM_wallet/
submitted by Stellar__wallet to XLM_wallet [link] [comments]

Nano #Ama on Binance Spanish telegram group!!

Regards!! I'm Jesús Zambrano, member of the Hispanic community of NANO for a long time. Last thursday, we had an interesting and enjoying Ask-me-anything at Binance Spanish community on telegram with the people behind NANO, Colin LeMahieu (Founder and Executive Director) and Zach Hyatt (Proyect Manager), where we take advantage of their kindness and willingness to ask them some questions and share opinions about de currency. I will share a compilation of some of the questions and answers.
-(Admin) ¡Welcome Binancians to our following AMA!
I will explain how AMA works; we will have three (3) segments.
Segment #1: I am going to ask to our guests five (5) questions and then they will answer them.
I will be explaining the rest of the segments as we conclude one of them.
-(Admin) Today we have the great pleasure of having Colin (Founder and Executive Director) and Zach (Project Manager) with us in our chat room. Could you give us a little introduction about you?
- (Zach) Hi everyone, I am Zach Hyatt, the Project Manager at the Nano Foundation and am excited to help answer questions about Nano. I live in Austin, TX where it is quite hot right now!
-(Colin) I’m Colin LeMahieu, founder of Nano. I’m a computer engineer and I’ve worked at companies like Qualcomm, Dell, and AMD. I have been working on Nano for about 5 years now and I’m really excited to talk with people who are interested as well!
-(Admin) It is a pleasure for us to have you here, I have to say that on a personal level, I have been a follower of the project for a long time now, so it is incredible for me to be able to count on you tonight, we will start with segment # 1, with the questions I have for you.
Feeless transactions and in record time! What is NANO? Can you give us an introduction to the project?
-(Colin) Nano’s goal is to solve problems with other cryptocurrencies and make sending value fast and fee-less. It has a unique design to allow us to accomplish this. We want people to have the option of using decentralized digital money instead of fiat money anywhere in the world. Nano is accessible and easy-to-use today and we plan on keeping it focused on these goals.
-(Admin) Thank you for answering my first question, I am delighted with the features offered by the project, every week they are updating and making important changes that help to improve the ecosystem that surrounds the team.
Here you can find all the weekly updates: https://nano.org/en
Previously the project was called RaiBlocks, it appeared for the first time in an ad in Bitcoin Talk in 2015. Can you tell us why a name change came up later?
-(Zach) Yeah, absolutely. Although the original RaiBlocks name has a special place in our history, it was difficult to pronounce in some areas of the world and caused confusion with certain users. We decided to move to a shorter name that not only was easy to pronounce but also reflected the fast, efficient nature of the protocol.
-(Admin) A short and quick name to pronounce, definitely NANO is perfect to define it!
My third question is the following; I had seen a very interesting gif early in the chat and it is just about the question that I came to ask.
Currently, NANO has 100% of its tokens in circulation and these tokens were distributed through Faucets, so it meant that any user with a computer could get coins simply by completing some captchas, can you tell me which has been the experience of users when using this method?
-(Colin) The faucet was a great way for us to distribute coins to people who have never used it before. Cryptocurrencies that use mining end up distributing only to people who have money to buy the mining hardware and this is unfair. We had a lot of people from Indonesia and Asia in the beginning of our distribution and at the end there were a lot of people from South America, Venezuela and Brasil that were getting most of the Nano from the faucet. We think this was a fairer way to do it and it got Nano into the hands of people in different locations, and it had a very positive impact on their lives.
-(Admin) This is incredible! thanks for your answer!
Can you tell us about what the Open Representative Vote is about and how it protects the network?
-(Zach) Nano uses voting to get confirmation on the network instead of mining and the nodes on the network that create votes are called Representatives. Open Representative Voting allows people who have a Nano balance to pick whatever representative they want to vote on their behalf. This allows the people who hold Nano to decide who generates consensus instead of mining companies. The voting process is very efficient and is a big part of what allows Nano to be fee-less and use very little energy.
-(Admin) Very good! The last question on my part:
Nano PoW is your new approach, I have read a pretty interesting example with emails, can you explain what it is about?
-(Colin) Nano PoW is a research project we’re doing in order to create a proof of work algorithm that uses less energy than other popular algorithms. Since Nano is fee-less, there must be a method to limit transactions going onto the network, which this PoW achieves. With the goal of using more memory in the process instead of CPU cycles in order to generate proofs, this new Nano PoW will help prevent ASICs from being able to cheaply send lots of transactions. It’s important for a cryptocurrency that’s used around the world to be energy efficient and green so continuing our research on this is important to us.
-(Admin) https://medium.com/nanocurrency/nano-pow-the-details-ba22a9092d6f
Thanks for your answers, Colin and Zach! I have a video, taken from your YouTube account that I would like to share with the community
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh9pA8UCUrI
Can you tell me what we see in this video?
-(Colin) This is a video of how fast our transactions send and receive. You can see it takes less than 1 second to finish which means you can use it as a currency.
- (Zach) The wallet was made by developers in our amazing community, it is called Natrium. It really shows how fast Nano is and how it is easy-to-use!
-(Colin) You can also see how simple it is to use. You just scan, enter an amount, and send. There are no complicated setting which is great for new users and great for adoption.
- (Zach) And the best part is, there were no fees at all for that transaction. In fact there have never been any transaction fees on the Nano network ever!
-(Admin) Great! That's why I wanted to share it with everyone, yesterday I could try the wallet and it is really spectacular to use, thank you very much for that excellent explanation, please stay with us, now comes the part in which our users participate
Segment 3, community questions
Q -First congratulations on your project, it is amazing. Now, does nano BlockChain have another use besides making transactions?
A - (Zach) Thank you! Nano has always been focused on transfer of value and will continue to maintain that focus. The overall design is aimed at doing only this so it can remain fast, efficient and fee-less.
Q -Good evening! I understand that thanks to its architecture called "Block-lattice", each individual provides the computing power necessary to verify their own transaction, thanks to this they do not use miners to confirm transactions and they do not apply commissions of any kind. My question is: How did this occur and how difficult was it?
A - (Colin) It’s simila, transactions are validated by votes from the representatives, not by the PoW. The PoW is a way to slow down how fast people can create transactions so they can’t spam the network.
Q - Do you have any short or long term projects so that transactions using $NANO were anonymous?
A - (Colin) Long term we want to see what privacy options exist and are fast. Most privacy schemes make the transactions very big or slow to process and it’s important for things to remain quick and efficient so we can have fast transactions.
Q - We are living in Venezuela many changes in the cryptocurrency sector, the integration of crypto for service payment and product purchases is already a reality. What agreements has NANO made with service stores to integrate it as a means of payment? I want to pay my movie ticket with NANOS
A - (Zach) Thanks for your interest in Nano. We are always looking for ways to allow everyone to use Nano in as many places as possible. Although separate from our organization, we are aware of the efforts of the Nano Venezuela organization and try to support them when possible in bringing Nano to as many people and stores in Venezuela as possible.
Q - (7 questions made from one persone at once)
  1. How do you manage to make your transactions virtually instantaneous?
  2. How do they create part of the company's livelihood if no fees are charged for transactions?
  3. Why does $ NANO consume so little electricity?
  4. Requirements for a medium-sized company to adopt nano correctly as a means of payment?
  5. Since 100% of the $ NANOS are distributed, I have seen something in Medium that talked about `` Nano PoW '', could you tell me a little more about how it works? What profit will the person / institution get that puts hardware for their PoW? Will more $ NANO be created apart from those already in circulation?
  6. What do the representatives earn for putting their vote and validating blocks if 100% of the $ NANOS are already created / issued?
7- Since your policy / slogan / commandment is to be a cryptocurrency without fees, shouldn't you force exchanges in which $ NANO is present that they don't charge withdrawal fees?
A - (Colin)
  1. Transactions are fast because they’re validated by voting. The votes get transmitted around the world in milliseconds and all people have to do is count votes to confirm the transaction.
  2. We use the Dev fund to pay for developing the Nano protocol. The Nano protocol is a free tool that other people can build businesses on. We have ideas for businesses that can use fast, free money in order to help people send money to their family in other countries or pay microtransactions. It’s similar to Linux, it’s free but big companies use it because it saves them money.
  3. Nano uses little electricity because we use voting for validating transactions. Voting is just sending data over the internet which is power efficient.
  4. You can run a nano node with 40-60$/mo using cloud virtual machines
  5. Nano pow is just a more efficient way to slow people down from sending transactions to the network
  6. The most important thing is: why does a company want to use cryptocurrency? They want to use it because it saves them money on bank fees, etc. Since 40-60$/mo running a node is less expensive than their bank fees, they want to participate in the network to keep it going and save them money.
Q - Knowing all this about Nano, could you say that Nano is one of the most energy-efficient, Ecological friendly currencies in existence?
A -(Zach) Absolutely. We care about making a positive change in the world and so pride ourselves on leaving as little energy trace possible in the world. It may just be the fastest, most efficient transfer of value available.
Q - If the nano protocol had not passed the Red4Sec signature security test, would it have any vulnerability today?
A - (Colin) The Red4Sec audit didn’t find any critiral vulnerabilities in Nano. In fact they did the audit twice because they couldn’t find anything wrong and that never happened before.
It’s important for us to keep the code high quality and we will do audits again in the future because it’s important to make sure everything is secure.
Q - I'd like to see more development of Nano by using SMS on our phones to avoid the problem of no Internet connection at the moment
A -(Zach) As much as we like the idea of SMS, unfortunately it is not a secure network so managing Nano transactions over it brings some unique requirements. However we are always innovating and trying to make Nano as easy and accessible as possible so hope advances can help over time make it more accessible in this area.
Q - What plans do you have to close this 2019 to increase adoption in Latin America?
A -(Colin) We are very excited about the passion we see in the south american community. We would love to make it down to VE however in the mean time follow nanoVE for updates and meetups - there may be one near you soon!
Q - How will you make the adoption and use of $ NANO continue to increase especially in markets where other cryptocurrencies are gaining more ground?
A - (Colin) Our focus is to build tools people need to accept cryptocurrency. Right now it’s still difficulty and expensive. One thing we’re making is the device Appia which can accept cryptocurrency similar to a credit card. We made this device very inexpensive and can connect over wireless so it can be used in markets or resturaunts or other places cryptocurrency is not yet available.
- (Admin) Thank you very much for your answers! You are the first guests that answer all the questions of our users, you are amazing guys!
@AndyNano It was amazing to meet you, I learned a lot from you
@FundacionNanoVE Thanks for making this happen! excellent work
@nano_isam Thanks for everything buddy!
-(Zach) Can we ask a question to the channel?
What are the top things Nano can do to help you in your daily lives?
-(Colin) My question: How do you store cryptocurrency safely? Where do you back up your seed so it isn’t lost or stolen?
A - In Venezuela we currently have a problem with conventional payment processors, they are very slow, it would be great to be able to see people using NANO to make their purchases at any store in Venezuela, 0 commissions and instant transactions, is what we need
A - Fast transactions are what can help society the most, and except that, the best thing is that it is very cheap ... from there it is addition, those are the main characteristics that we look for the most
A - encrypted file in a pendrive
A - Nano is a direct competition to the vast majority of Cryptos, in transaction speed and that it is literally free to send or receive, nothing to wait for 5 hours or the next day when you pay for items or services with Crypto, let's increase the adoption of nano!
-(Colin) Question: Are there barriers to using Nano in your country right now?
A - No barriers in Venezuela
A - No barrier what is lacking is greater diffusion in means to give greater projection and that the adoption arrives. Here I am to support NANO!
A - There should be no barriers to the payments we wish to make, freedom above all
-(Colin) Fantastic!
- (Zach) Thanks everyone, I have to go but I appreciate all the awesome questions and answers!
submitted by AlejandroZD58 to nanocurrency [link] [comments]

NANO #AMA ON BINANCE SPANISH TELEGRAM GROUP!!

Regards!! I'm Jesús Zambrano, member of the Hispanic community of NANO for a long time. Last thursday, we had an interesting and enjoying Ask-me-anything at Binance Spanish community on telegram with the people behind NANO, Colin LeMahieu (Founder and Executive Director) and Zach Hyatt (Proyect Manager), where we take advantage of their kindness and willingness to ask them some questions and share opinions about de currency. I will share a compilation of some of the questions and answers.
-(Admin) ¡Welcome Binancians to our following AMA!
I will explain how AMA works; we will have three (3) segments.
Segment #1: I am going to ask to our guests five (5) questions and then they will answer them.
I will be explaining the rest of the segments as we conclude one of them.
-(Admin) Today we have the great pleasure of having Colin (Founder and Executive Director) and Zach (Project Manager) with us in our chat room. Could you give us a little introduction about you?
- (Zach) Hi everyone, I am Zach Hyatt, the Project Manager at the Nano Foundation and am excited to help answer questions about Nano. I live in Austin, TX where it is quite hot right now!
-(Colin) I’m Colin LeMahieu, founder of Nano. I’m a computer engineer and I’ve worked at companies like Qualcomm, Dell, and AMD. I have been working on Nano for about 5 years now and I’m really excited to talk with people who are interested as well!
-(Admin) It is a pleasure for us to have you here, I have to say that on a personal level, I have been a follower of the project for a long time now, so it is incredible for me to be able to count on you tonight, we will start with segment # 1, with the questions I have for you.
Feeless transactions and in record time! What is NANO? Can you give us an introduction to the project?
-(Colin) Nano’s goal is to solve problems with other cryptocurrencies and make sending value fast and fee-less. It has a unique design to allow us to accomplish this. We want people to have the option of using decentralized digital money instead of fiat money anywhere in the world. Nano is accessible and easy-to-use today and we plan on keeping it focused on these goals.
-(Admin) Thank you for answering my first question, I am delighted with the features offered by the project, every week they are updating and making important changes that help to improve the ecosystem that surrounds the team.
Here you can find all the weekly updates: https://nano.org/en
Previously the project was called RaiBlocks, it appeared for the first time in an ad in Bitcoin Talk in 2015. Can you tell us why a name change came up later?
-(Zach) Yeah, absolutely. Although the original RaiBlocks name has a special place in our history, it was difficult to pronounce in some areas of the world and caused confusion with certain users. We decided to move to a shorter name that not only was easy to pronounce but also reflected the fast, efficient nature of the protocol.
-(Admin) A short and quick name to pronounce, definitely NANO is perfect to define it!
My third question is the following; I had seen a very interesting gif early in the chat and it is just about the question that I came to ask.
Currently, NANO has 100% of its tokens in circulation and these tokens were distributed through Faucets, so it meant that any user with a computer could get coins simply by completing some captchas, can you tell me which has been the experience of users when using this method?
-(Colin) The faucet was a great way for us to distribute coins to people who have never used it before. Cryptocurrencies that use mining end up distributing only to people who have money to buy the mining hardware and this is unfair. We had a lot of people from Indonesia and Asia in the beginning of our distribution and at the end there were a lot of people from South America, Venezuela and Brasil that were getting most of the Nano from the faucet. We think this was a fairer way to do it and it got Nano into the hands of people in different locations, and it had a very positive impact on their lives.
-(Admin) This is incredible! thanks for your answer!
Can you tell us about what the Open Representative Vote is about and how it protects the network?
-(Zach) Nano uses voting to get confirmation on the network instead of mining and the nodes on the network that create votes are called Representatives. Open Representative Voting allows people who have a Nano balance to pick whatever representative they want to vote on their behalf. This allows the people who hold Nano to decide who generates consensus instead of mining companies. The voting process is very efficient and is a big part of what allows Nano to be fee-less and use very little energy.
-(Admin) Very good! The last question on my part:
Nano PoW is your new approach, I have read a pretty interesting example with emails, can you explain what it is about?
-(Colin) Nano PoW is a research project we’re doing in order to create a proof of work algorithm that uses less energy than other popular algorithms. Since Nano is fee-less, there must be a method to limit transactions going onto the network, which this PoW achieves. With the goal of using more memory in the process instead of CPU cycles in order to generate proofs, this new Nano PoW will help prevent ASICs from being able to cheaply send lots of transactions. It’s important for a cryptocurrency that’s used around the world to be energy efficient and green so continuing our research on this is important to us.
-(Admin) https://medium.com/nanocurrency/nano-pow-the-details-ba22a9092d6f
Thanks for your answers, Colin and Zach! I have a video, taken from your YouTube account that I would like to share with the community
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh9pA8UCUrI
Can you tell me what we see in this video?
-(Colin) This is a video of how fast our transactions send and receive. You can see it takes less than 1 second to finish which means you can use it as a currency.
- (Zach) The wallet was made by developers in our amazing community, it is called Natrium. It really shows how fast Nano is and how it is easy-to-use!
-(Colin) You can also see how simple it is to use. You just scan, enter an amount, and send. There are no complicated setting which is great for new users and great for adoption.
- (Zach) And the best part is, there were no fees at all for that transaction. In fact there have never been any transaction fees on the Nano network ever!
-(Admin) Great! That's why I wanted to share it with everyone, yesterday I could try the wallet and it is really spectacular to use, thank you very much for that excellent explanation, please stay with us, now comes the part in which our users participate
Segment 3, community questions
Q -First congratulations on your project, it is amazing. Now, does nano BlockChain have another use besides making transactions?
A - (Zach) Thank you! Nano has always been focused on transfer of value and will continue to maintain that focus. The overall design is aimed at doing only this so it can remain fast, efficient and fee-less.
Q -Good evening! I understand that thanks to its architecture called "Block-lattice", each individual provides the computing power necessary to verify their own transaction, thanks to this they do not use miners to confirm transactions and they do not apply commissions of any kind. My question is: How did this occur and how difficult was it?
A - (Colin) It’s simila, transactions are validated by votes from the representatives, not by the PoW. The PoW is a way to slow down how fast people can create transactions so they can’t spam the network.
Q - Do you have any short or long term projects so that transactions using $NANO were anonymous?
A - (Colin) Long term we want to see what privacy options exist and are fast. Most privacy schemes make the transactions very big or slow to process and it’s important for things to remain quick and efficient so we can have fast transactions.
Q - We are living in Venezuela many changes in the cryptocurrency sector, the integration of crypto for service payment and product purchases is already a reality. What agreements has NANO made with service stores to integrate it as a means of payment? I want to pay my movie ticket with NANOS
A - (Zach) Thanks for your interest in Nano. We are always looking for ways to allow everyone to use Nano in as many places as possible. Although separate from our organization, we are aware of the efforts of the Nano Venezuela organization and try to support them when possible in bringing Nano to as many people and stores in Venezuela as possible.
Q - (7 questions made from one persone at once)
  1. How do you manage to make your transactions virtually instantaneous?
  2. How do they create part of the company's livelihood if no fees are charged for transactions?
  3. Why does $ NANO consume so little electricity?
  4. Requirements for a medium-sized company to adopt nano correctly as a means of payment?
  5. Since 100% of the $ NANOS are distributed, I have seen something in Medium that talked about `` Nano PoW '', could you tell me a little more about how it works? What profit will the person / institution get that puts hardware for their PoW? Will more $ NANO be created apart from those already in circulation?
  6. What do the representatives earn for putting their vote and validating blocks if 100% of the $ NANOS are already created / issued?
7- Since your policy / slogan / commandment is to be a cryptocurrency without fees, shouldn't you force exchanges in which $ NANO is present that they don't charge withdrawal fees?
A - (Colin)
  1. Transactions are fast because they’re validated by voting. The votes get transmitted around the world in milliseconds and all people have to do is count votes to confirm the transaction.
  2. We use the Dev fund to pay for developing the Nano protocol. The Nano protocol is a free tool that other people can build businesses on. We have ideas for businesses that can use fast, free money in order to help people send money to their family in other countries or pay microtransactions. It’s similar to Linux, it’s free but big companies use it because it saves them money.
  3. Nano uses little electricity because we use voting for validating transactions. Voting is just sending data over the internet which is power efficient.
  4. You can run a nano node with 40-60$/mo using cloud virtual machines
  5. Nano pow is just a more efficient way to slow people down from sending transactions to the network
  6. The most important thing is: why does a company want to use cryptocurrency? They want to use it because it saves them money on bank fees, etc. Since 40-60$/mo running a node is less expensive than their bank fees, they want to participate in the network to keep it going and save them money.
Q - Knowing all this about Nano, could you say that Nano is one of the most energy-efficient, Ecological friendly currencies in existence?
A -(Zach) Absolutely. We care about making a positive change in the world and so pride ourselves on leaving as little energy trace possible in the world. It may just be the fastest, most efficient transfer of value available.
Q - If the nano protocol had not passed the Red4Sec signature security test, would it have any vulnerability today?
A - (Colin) The Red4Sec audit didn’t find any critiral vulnerabilities in Nano. In fact they did the audit twice because they couldn’t find anything wrong and that never happened before.
It’s important for us to keep the code high quality and we will do audits again in the future because it’s important to make sure everything is secure.
Q - I'd like to see more development of Nano by using SMS on our phones to avoid the problem of no Internet connection at the moment
A -(Zach) As much as we like the idea of SMS, unfortunately it is not a secure network so managing Nano transactions over it brings some unique requirements. However we are always innovating and trying to make Nano as easy and accessible as possible so hope advances can help over time make it more accessible in this area.
Q - What plans do you have to close this 2019 to increase adoption in Latin America?
A -(Colin) We are very excited about the passion we see in the south american community. We would love to make it down to VE however in the mean time follow nanoVE for updates and meetups - there may be one near you soon!
Q - How will you make the adoption and use of $ NANO continue to increase especially in markets where other cryptocurrencies are gaining more ground?
A - (Colin) Our focus is to build tools people need to accept cryptocurrency. Right now it’s still difficulty and expensive. One thing we’re making is the device Appia which can accept cryptocurrency similar to a credit card. We made this device very inexpensive and can connect over wireless so it can be used in markets or resturaunts or other places cryptocurrency is not yet available.
- (Admin) Thank you very much for your answers! You are the first guests that answer all the questions of our users, you are amazing guys!
@AndyNano It was amazing to meet you, I learned a lot from you
@FundacionNanoVE Thanks for making this happen! excellent work
@nano_isam Thanks for everything buddy!
-(Zach) Can we ask a question to the channel?
What are the top things Nano can do to help you in your daily lives?
-(Colin) My question: How do you store cryptocurrency safely? Where do you back up your seed so it isn’t lost or stolen?
A - In Venezuela we currently have a problem with conventional payment processors, they are very slow, it would be great to be able to see people using NANO to make their purchases at any store in Venezuela, 0 commissions and instant transactions, is what we need
A - Fast transactions are what can help society the most, and except that, the best thing is that it is very cheap ... from there it is addition, those are the main characteristics that we look for the most
A - encrypted file in a pendrive
A - Nano is a direct competition to the vast majority of Cryptos, in transaction speed and that it is literally free to send or receive, nothing to wait for 5 hours or the next day when you pay for items or services with Crypto, let's increase the adoption of nano!
-(Colin) Question: Are there barriers to using Nano in your country right now?
A - No barriers in Venezuela
A - No barrier what is lacking is greater diffusion in means to give greater projection and that the adoption arrives. Here I am to support NANO!
A - There should be no barriers to the payments we wish to make, freedom above all
-(Colin) Fantastic!
- (Zach) Thanks everyone, I have to go but I appreciate all the awesome questions and answers!
submitted by AlejandroZD58 to u/AlejandroZD58 [link] [comments]

Lightning!

Lightning Network
Today I am going to talk about the “Lightning Network” which is a proposed solution to the issue of scaling Bitcoin faces. Lightning Network (I will use the acronym “LN” to refer to the Lightning network from this point forth) LN has its fair share of criticism in the crypto space. Some claim its brilliant, while others claim it is the antithesis of what Bitcoin was supposed to be. I am going to try my best to touch on the reasoning both crowds use to come to these conclusions. First things first, lets discuss how the whole thing got started.
The LN was first proposed in 2015 by Thaddeus Dryja and Joseph Poon in a white paper they wrote (White paper for LN can be viewed at the following linkhttps://www.weusecoins.com/assets/pdf/library/Lightning%20Network%20Whitepaper.pdf ) They decided that Bitcoin has a scalability issue and were looking for the best way to solve that issue without ultimately sacrificing the fundamentals that make BTC such a great currency. They decided that building a 2nd layer on top of Bitcoin was the best solution (rather than another useless hard fork to add to the 103 or so other Bitcoin forks out there) Many claim that coins like Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin Cash are the solution to scaling issues, but they are forks and centralized when compared to Bitcoin which sacrifices decentralization for scalability. Lightning is different than a fork as it is basically a payment channel that connects 2 or more parties directly. This makes payments almost instant, which is something people using Bitcoin core have desired since its creation. How does it work? Lets discuss that!
How does the Lightning Network work?
Okay so you have been hearing your friend Phil go on and on about how great the LN is, but why is he so excited? Lets figure it out! The LN is a payment channel that is set up between 2 or more parties. They start by creating the payment channel which is a multisig wallet (a multisig wallet is a BTC wallet that cannot be accessed by just one party as it takes “multiple signatures” to access the funds. Now that Phil and I have set up the payment channel we can now transact with each other as much as we like with no transaction fees (until we close the channel). The payment channel gets updated every time a payment is made. So if Phil and I have 2 Bitcoin on the channel, lets say I have 1 BTC and Phil has 1 Bitcoin in the multisig wallet me and him created for the Lightning channel. I could send Phil ½ of a BTC and the ledger would show that Phil now has 1.5 Bitcoin while I only hold .5 Bitcoin. This transaction occurred off the Bitcoin blockchain so it avoided the hefty transaction fees that accompany Bitcoin core transactions at times. The channel can be left open and the ledger will update every time me and Phil transact with each other (until we decide to close the channel) This layer makes micro transactions more feasible as people are not paying a 3 $ transaction fee for a 1$ transaction.
People that would like to use the LN can get a node (Casanode, Raspberry Pi 3 etc.) which will also act as a BTC core node along with a lightning node. This is a popular way to be a part of Lightning payments. It is not the only way though. There are wallets that can be used to access the LN without having to own a casanode or raspberry pi. You can still use the LN without owning a casanode by downloading an app like “Blue Wallet” which will allow you to access LN without necessarily owning a node. Apps like this make LN more available to the general public that may not quite grasp the reason people own casanodes. Either way removing barriers that could potentially hinder people from using LN is a big part of wide spread adoption. Lightning is still in its infancy really so more and more apps should pop up similar to Blue Wallet in the near future. (This is not an endorsement of Blue Wallet, I simply used it as an example) If you would like to order a casanode it can easily be found with a simple google search. I personally know a few people that paid for the node and most of them did it just to help the LN network grow and to actually be able to use it! They typically run for around $300 USD. (I see the price going down in the future as LN becomes more used and the casanodes become more in demand)
Now just because you aren’t connected to someone directly through a payment channel you can still send payments to someone in many cases. So, Lets say Phil and I want to transact with each other but we don’t have a channel connecting us. We could utilize a 3rd party to connect the payment channels. For example, I am trying to send Phil 1 BTC, but we don’t have a channel set up, but we want to transact with each other. The node will find the fastest path it can to Phil so I do not necessarily need to create a channel with him. We could use anyone to bridge the gap and transact with each other in this way. This is referred to as a “Hop”. Some people may worry that the link between me and Phil may act maliciously and attempt to take the payment, but that’s the beauty of LN. It can’t be taken in this way. So I send Phil .1 BTC. A 3rd party would first receive the .1 BTC and would send it to Phil automatically. The 3rd party cannot stop the transaction in the middle if he were to try and steal the funds. LN doesn’t allow that.
LN offers almost instant payments with Bitcoin (and soon many altcoins will also utilize LN) with minimal fees. Some think the LN is absolutely a terrible idea. They believe transaction fees will be severely diminished in the wake of LN due to the fact payments made on LN do not post to the BTC chain until the channel has been closed charging a one-time fee for multiple transactions. I would say that with LN we will see a surge of new adoption that will increase the use of BTC and in the long run should increase the amount of transaction fees collected by miners for the work the perform. People like to claim LN is centralized and the antithesis of what Satoshi was thinking when he created BTC. I have to say I disagree. LN is a layer on top of BTC. It doesn’t effect the fundamentals of BTC core and that is important to me and many others. Bitcoin is a work of art because of decentralization. LN doesn’t hinder this. It is simply an option for people that want BTC payments faster to have a means to do so. In the future people will most likely do plenty of transactions on LN (I think most dealings will be done via LN) But the big transfers will still likely be done on BTC core itself. Bitcoin is a work in progress and LN is a step towards adoption.
Right now, LN is very new and still untested in many ways. It is an experiment in my eyes that is likely to succeed. Even if LN went belly up tomorrow BTC will still be here. I have a lot of faith in LN and I think it will be a huge part of mass adoption in the future. Nobody can see the future… But we can speculate! I enjoyed writing this and I hope you learned something. I sure did.
Written by: Tim Pace 2/13/2019
submitted by HeisenbergBTC to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Debunking myths about mining and GPUs

E: Going to bed, will contribute more tomorrow. Thanks for the discussion!
Myth: Mining is more stressful than gaming. Fact: It depends. During the old days, this was plausible, because older GPUs (Pre-polaris) are/were bottlenecked by core clock when mining the most profitable coins. Thus, miners overclocked and overvolted these cards quite frequently, especially with cheap electricity. This meant that those cards were often run hot, pushing the limits and stressing VRM and fans quite a lot. Nowadays, ethash (Ethereum) is the most profitable algorithm for AMD cards 99% of the time, and newer GPUs (Polaris) are limited by memory bandwidth and latency. Miners can underclock core to the low 1100MHz range before seeing performance drop. To save power, miners who know what they are doing also undervolt, since it is no longer necessary to sustain a high core clock. Thus, it is quite feasible to run polaris cards below 70C at a reasonable fan speed. However, dual mining (mining more than one coin at once) does increase power consumption by up to 20%, and there are also idiots who run their polaris cards OCd while mining. With the exception of a few idiots, miners treat their Polaris GPUs pretty much the same; that is, running underclocked and undervolted 24/7 with a memory strap mod and mem OC. On the other hand, former gaming cards are highly variable in use cases. Some gamers leave their cards at stock settings, some undervolt, and some OC and/or overvolt. Most of the time, these cards are thermal cycled far more often than mining cards, which is known to weaken solder. Another thing to consider is that manufacturers have learned (somewhat) from their mistakes of putting shit tier fans in GPUs, and many fans on modern GPUs are ball bearing and/or swappable. Even some budget cards, such as MSI Armor, use decent ball bearing fans. Bottom line: the risk of buying mined Polaris cards is not as high as the risk of buying older mined cards. I would not be against buying mined polaris cards, but it's not necessarily better than buying a gamer's card instead. At the end of the day, it depends more on how the owner treated it than what they used it for.
Myth: GPUs are obsolete because of FPGAs and ASICs Fact: Mostly false. Older algorithms such as scrypt and SHA256 (lite/doge/feathebitcoin etc) are no longer feasible to mine with GPUs, but there have been multiple algorithms since then that are built to deter ASICs; most of the time it is done by making it memory-hard because designing an ASIC with high memory throughput is considerably more expensive to design and manufacture. Many devs prefer their blockchain to be ASIC resistant to avoid the concentration of power problem that Bitcoin is having nowadays, where a giant, near-monopolistic ASIC manufacturer (Bitmain) is causing a lot of (subjective) controversy. Blockchains based on ethash (Ethereum and its forks), equihash (Zcash and its forks) and cryptonight (Monero and forks) are some examples, but there are scores of other shitcoins and a few other algos that are GPU dominant. It is almost impossible that there will be another ASIC takeover, which is what was responsible for the stop in GPU demand in the bitcoin and litecoin days. Bottom line: ASICs no longer threaten GPU miners, or the demand for GPUs
Myth: Ethereum switching to Proof of Stake will kill mining soon Fact: Doomsayers have been preaching about proof of stake since late 2015. It has always been "coming soon." The fact is, the Ethereum roadmap goes from proof of work (mining) -> Casper (mining + PoS) -> Metropolis (PoS). Currently, the release date of Casper is not even announced yet, nor is it being tested in a (public) testnet. Proof of Stake might one day take over, but mining is here to stay for a while yet. Another thing to consider is that there are tons of other GPU mineable blockchains, and although Ethereum is biggest, it is certainly feasible that mining stays profitable even after Ethereum goes PoS (if it ever does). However, it is possible that profits will be low enough to discourage new miners. Bottom line: It's very unlikely. E: I screwed up the roadmap; here is a better source than me with some interesting information: https://www.ethnews.com/ethereums-vitalik-buterin-gives-keynote-on-metropolis
Myth: The current Ethereum demand spike is a bubble Opinion: Honestly, I don't know. I would not be surprised if stricter regulations on ICOs come sooner or later, which would fuck with Ether prices. There is also the inherent volatility of cryptocurrencies. However, it is also possible that blockchain technology continues to gain traction; that is, the price could just as easily go up as go down. Although it's fun to read about other people's opinions, only time-travelling wizards can tell you when it will become economical again to upgrade your poor HD5770. Bottom line: No one knows.
Myth: Miners will "steal" all the RX Vegas Fact: Only a reckless miner would buy Vegas on release, since mining performance is not known. In fact, it is possible that it can't mine at all (or at some stupidly low speed) until devs add support to existing miners. It would be even more reckless than gamers who buy without seeing benchmarks, since at least gamers can expect the games to actually run. It's also not necessarily the case that Vega will be good once miners do add support. Maybe there will be enough reckless miners to affect supply, maybe not. Of course, it is possible that miners will deplete the supply after it is demonstrated that Vega is good for mining. Bottom line: Most miners won't preorder, but it's possible that a significant number will. E: Important to remember that even if mining demand isn't high, doesn't mean that supply will be plentiful.
Myth: Nvidia cards SUCK at mining Fact: Mostly false. They USED to suck in the old pre-Maxwell days, but now they are actually more efficient at mining Ethereum and Zcash compared to AMD cards, even after both cards are undervolted. The flipside is that they (used to) cost more for the equivalent hashrate. For reference, my old 5xRX470 rig drew just under 800W when mining ETH only and hashed at 150MH/s. My current 6xGTX1060 rig draws just over half of that (<450W) and hashes at about 135MH/s. Certainly not as good in raw performance, but they are viable nonetheless, especially given the AMD GPU shortage. In fact, Nvidia cards (1060 and especially 1070) are becoming scarce as well. Bottom line: Nvidia is still the underdog when it comes to mining, but far from irrelevant nowadays.
Myth: 4GB cards will be obsolete for mining soon Fact: FALSE. The Ethereum DAG is not even 3GB yet, and won't be for a few months. The recent reports of 4GB Polaris cards slowing down soon due to DAG size is caused by limited TLB capacity, not VRAM restrictions. Polaris cards will still be able to mine ETH forks such as Expanse and UBIQ without diminished speed, and even if they are used to mine ETH, it is not that much of a performance hit at first. It would certainly not make polaris useless or undesirable for mining anytime soon. Tahiti GPUs already suffer from this issue and Hawaii is the most resistant to this issue. Have not benched Nvidia at a later epoch.
Myth: Creating miner-bashing posts on Reddit will help alleviate the GPU supply problem Fact: False, you are simply giving cryptocurrencies and mining more exposure to the general public, increasing demand.
Myth: Mining-specific GPUs will solve the shortage problems Opinion: There's not enough info to tell yet, but I am a skeptic for the following reasons. First, no display limits the resale value of the card for obvious reasons. IMO, the whole point of crypto mining from a profitability standpoint is to have a hedge against coin volatility (hardware is still worth something if the coin crashes). Otherwise it is much less effort to just buy and hold the coin. If the hardware is useless without demand from other (significant) sources, then it doesn't make much sense to buy it unless the price is extremely low. I'm sure that cost-downing the PCB and warranty will make for a cheap card, but it has to be extremely cheap and plentiful in supply, or else miners will buy whatever they can get. I could envision "failed" chips (not meeting spec of consumer editions) being stuck in miner cards, but I doubt there are enough to meet demand without ramping up production as a whole, which carries its own risks. I guess that it would help a little, but probably not solve the problems. Alternatively, since modern GPUs are bottlenecked by RAM when mining, it might be enticing to miners to have the fastest (GDDR5) RAM on the market (probably the 9gbps chips from the 1060 6G 9gbps edition, although I don't have one to test). However, my previous points still apply; buying such a card without display outputs carries a big risk. Bottom line: It's not a great idea, unless they are super cheap or use really good RAM.
Hope this helped; if you have any further questions I will try to answer them. I'm both a gamer and miner who uses both AMD and Nvidia roughly equally and don't favor one group over another. I've mined and gamed on all high end AMD GPUs since Tahiti (except Tonga) and all Pascal cards except 1050ti.
submitted by key_smash to Amd [link] [comments]

5 most promising Altcoins for long-term investments | Coinscapture

5 most promising Altcoins for long-term investments | Coinscapture

After the success of Bitcoin and the rise in the price of the first-ever cryptocurrency, many new coins were developed in cryptoworld. In simple words, any coin other than bitcoin is termed as “Altcoins”. These coins are created by tweaking the Bitcoin's or any other existing cryptocurrencies protocol. In the growing world of cryptocurrency, there are more than 3000 cryptocurrencies which came into existence and so it is a tough job to choose the right Altcoin to invest in it. Here are the 5 most promising Altcoins that can help you to narrow your search.
Disclaimer: This guide should not be considered as financial advice. It is highly recommended to do appropriate market research before any investments.

Litecoin

After the successful launch of Bitcoin, Litecoin was the next one to enter the Cryptoworld in 2011. Charlie Lee - a computer scientist created Litecoin by making some technical changes in the bitcoin’s source-code and made it the fastest peer-to-peer currency that enabled instant, near-zero cost payments to anyone across the world. Also, litecoin has a total supply of 84 million with an average block mining time of 2.5 minutes.

Reasons why to choose Litecoin as a Long-Term Investment

  • Improved: Litecoin algorithm is generally easier to mine but difficult to crack The bitcoin mining is highly processed intensive requiring, application-specific integrated circuit devices with high processing capabilities, while Litecoin mining is memory-intensive requiring less cost-intensive graphics processing units (GPU).
  • Faster block-processing rate: The technical changes done on Bitcoin’s source-code allows Litecoin to processes a block at a much faster rate and giving out rewards to the miner faster in every 2.5 minutes as compared to Bitcoin which processes a block in every 10 minutes. Litecoin network have more capacity to handle the transactions than bitcoin's network
  • SegWit upgrade: Litecoin's SegWit upgrade boost the capacity of the number of transactions a block can hold in litecoin's blockchain, thereby speeding up the transaction settlement times and lowering transaction costs.
  • Higher trading volume: The trading of Litecoin has begun since 2011 and since then it was in the top 10 list of coins. The popularity of Litecoins is so much that you won't face any problem selling them in the future which brings less fear of having risk as compared to other new coins.

Ethereum

Ethereum is the second-largest digital currency introduces Vitalik Buterin in late 2015. It has been a popular choice in many industries as its cool feature named Smart Contracts helps developers to build decentralized applications (dApps) on top of its (i.e. Ethereum's) blockchain which helps to avoid fraud, downtime, and control or interference from a third party. Ethereum can also be used for banking and financial service contracts, ICOS, prediction markets, replacing escrow, identity management. The Enterprise Ethereum Alliance founded in 2017 has over 200 organizations that are testing on various versions of Ethereum's blockchain in different industries. Ethereum has a circulating supply of 106,376,346 ETH, the market capitalization of $26,307, 580,992 and faster transaction of 6 minutes as compared to Bitcoin.

Reasons why to choose Ethereum as a Long-Term Investment

  • Multi-purpose usage- Other than trading Ethereum can be used for ICOs, prediction markets, building tokens and many more ways that very few cryptocurrencies can do as good as Ethereum.
  • Safety: The apps built on Ethereum’s blockchain termed as dApps or decentralized apps are significantly safer and more resistant to hacking than the software you use now.
  • Smart contracts: The smart contract feature offers significant business benefits over more traditional conventional forms of cloud computing and transaction-clearing.
  • Initial Coin Offerings: Ethereum is used ICOs (Initial Coin Offerings) that means it acts as a launchpad for new tokens which thereby makes it a valuable platform and price will increase with its use.

Ripple

Ripple is the hot choice in banking and financial institutions as it can be used as an intermediary for quick transaction-processing and settlement service; allowing to transact directly and instantly across national borders. XRP currently has a fast transaction processing time of about 4 seconds and a cheap transaction fee about $0.004 per transaction (which is less than half a cent). It has a circulating supply of 42,181,995,112 and a market capitalization of around 17 billion USD.

Reasons why to choose Ripple as a Long-Term Investment

  • Well distributed: Ripple is an open-source technology, built on the principles of blockchain with an increasing set of validators.
  • Highly Scalable: XRP has the potential to handle 1,500 transactions per second, 24x7, and can scale to deal with a similar throughput as Visa.
  • Highly Stable: The most stable record of Ripple makes it ready for institutional and enterprise use.
  • Global Bank partners: Ripple has partnered with over 100 banks like Bank of America, UBS, Standard Chartered, Barclays, JP Morgan, Santander, and American Express.

Stellar

Stellar offers the fastest and the cheapest online payment and cross-border payment services as compared to the other large companies. Also, it does not use proof of work verification which is time and energy consuming which allows processing a transaction in approx 5 seconds. It has a market capitalization of $2,378,213,121 and a circulating supply of 19.331,689,641.

Reasons why to choose Stellar as a Long-Term Investment

  • Low-cost transactions: Stellar’s payment protocol prioritizes profit, the low transaction time and high operational efficiency translates to a lower cost of transactions.
  • Currency exchanger: Stellar’s platform also acts as a currency exchanger between government-backed currencies, such as dollars to euros.
  • Creating tokens: Launching a token on the Stellar platform is super easy because of the simple programming.
  • Tech elements: Stellar can integrate with elements such as blockchain smart contracts, and multi signatures that enhances the functionality of the payment protocol

Binance Coin

Binance coin is the official coin of the Binance platform that offers a stage for trading cryptocurrencies. Binance is soon launching its own decentralized exchange, Binance DEX that would be available on all platforms, such as Windows, Linux, Mac OS, iOS and Android. BNB has a market capitalization of 4 billion USD and a circulating supply of 141,175,490.

Reasons why to choose Binance Coin a Long-Term Investment

  • Discounts: BNB can be used not only to pay сommissions for transactions on the exchange and also to get additional discounts for each purchase and exchange via Binance
  • Team: BNB has a great team that is ambitious and experienced in the cryptocurrency world
  • Referrals: BNB coin offers a smart referral scheme which attracts many users and thereby grows the platform’s adoption
  • Loyalty: BNB coin is the only cryptocurrency that rewards customers for their loyalty and creating a fair ecosystem within Binance
    https://coinscapture.com/blog/5-most-promising-altcoins-for-long-term-investments
submitted by coinscapturecom to u/coinscapturecom [link] [comments]

Just read these two sentences and you'll understand why a SegWit Coin is not a Bitcoin: Satoshi: "We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures." // Core: "Segregating the signature data allows nodes to avoid downloading it in the first place, saving resources."

Just read these two sentences and you'll understand why a SegWit Coin is not a Bitcoin: Satoshi: "We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures." // Core: "Segregating the signature data allows nodes to avoid downloading it in the first place, saving resources."
This isn't me making this argument.
This is Core itself openly confessing that SegWit is not Bitcoin.
Because Core itself admits that "SegWit allows avoiding downloading the signatures" - which is the total opposite of when Satoshi said that the signatures are what defines Bitcoin.
So you can't have it both ways.
So, the difference between Bitcoin and SegWit could not be more extreme. After all, the only reason Bitcoin is secure is because it's based on cryptographic signatures. That's the security that has made the value of a bitcoin go from less than 0.01 USD to over 2500 USD in 8 years. And that's the same security which Core's alt-coin called SegWit allows you to "avoid dowloading" (and avoid validating). This is Core's words - not mine.
So SegWit is not Bitcoin. SegWit is an alt-coin. With less security than Bitcoin.
The two definitions below define totally different coins - one more secure, one less secure:
"We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures."
~ Satoshi Nakamoto, the Bitcoin whitepaper
"Segregating the signature data allows nodes to avoid downloading it in the first place, saving resources."
~ Core
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/
https://archive.fo/f9Qgh
https://archive.fo/8AFon#selection-905.0-905.176
There is nothing more to debate.
  • SegWit Coin is not Bitcoin. (Because - as Core open and proudly confesses - Segwit "allow nodes to avoid downloading" the signatures - which are the very definition of a coin.)
  • Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin. (Because Bitcoin Cash changes absolutely nothing about Bitcoin transactions - it just allows including more of them in a block - and this is also exactly the way Satoshi designed Bitcoin.)
The only people who don't understand these simple facts are lemmings who have been brainwashed by reading the subreddit r\bitcoin - which deletes posts quoting their enemy Satoshi Nakamoto:
CENSORED (twice!) on r\bitcoin in 2016: "The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling." - Satoshi Nakomoto
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6l7ax9/censored_twice_on_rbitcoin_in_2016_the_existing/
The moderators of r\bitcoin have now removed a post which was just quotes by Satoshi Nakamoto.
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/49l4uh/the_moderators_of_rbitcoin_have_now_removed_a/
So you can take your pick.
  • You can either listen to Satoshi and use Bitcoin - now called Bitcoin Cash.
  • Or you can listen to Core and r\bitcoin and use SegWit coin - an alt-coin developed by Core, which (as they openly admit) "allows nodes to avoid downloading" - and avoid validating - the cryptographic signatures which are the only thing providing the security of Bitcoin.
I'm not the only one making these arguments.
Peter Rizun and Peter Todd are also saying the same thing: that SegWit provides less security than Bitcoin - precisely because (as Core admits) SegWit "allows nodes to avoid downloading" the signature data.
Those alarms sounded by Peter Rizun and Peter Todd were cited by a Bitcrust dev in an important article discussing the incorrectly designed incentives (and decreased security - and ultimately decreased value) of SegWit Coins versus plain old Bitcoins:
The dangerously shifted incentives of SegWit
https://bitcrust.org/blog-incentive-shift-segwit
UPDATE:
OK, lots of people have been attempting to write rebuttals here, talking about (SegWit) "full nodes" not validating blocks.
But that's not the danger being discussed here.
The danger is being discussed here is about (SegWit) miners not validating full blocks.
So I think I need to quote this excerpt from Peter Todd's message - which is hard to find in the OP, because to get to it, first you have to click on the link to the article by the Bitcrust dev at the bottom of the OP, titled "The dangerously shifted incentives of SegWit".
In his message, Peter Todd is making a very important warning about the dangers of "validationless mining" enabled by SegWit:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe012103.html
Segregated witnesses and validationless mining
With segregated witnesses the information required to update the UTXO set state is now separate from the information required to prove that the new state is valid. We can fully expect miners to take advantage of this to reduce latency and thus improve their profitability.
We can expect block relaying with segregated witnesses to separate block propagation into four different parts, from fastest to propagate to slowest:
1) Stratum/getblocktemplate - status quo between semi-trusting miners
2) Block header - bare minimum information needed to build upon a block. Not much trust required as creating an invalid header is expensive.
3) Block w/o witness data - significant bandwidth savings, (~75%) and allows next miner to include transactions as normal. Again, not much trust required as creating an invalid header is expensive.
4) Witness data - proves that block is actually valid.
The problem is [with SegWit] #4 is optional: the only case where not having the witness data matters is when an invalid block is created, which is a very rare event. It's also difficult to test in production, as creating invalid blocks is extremely expensive - it would be surprising if an anyone had ever deliberately created an invalid block meeting the current difficulty target in the past year or two.
The nightmare scenario - never tested code never works
The obvious implementation of highly optimised mining with segregated witnesses will have the main codepath that creates blocks do no validation at all; if the current ecosystem's validationless mining is any indication the actual code doing this will be proprietary codebases written on a budget with little testing, and lots of bugs. At best the codepaths that actually do validation will be rarely, if ever, tested in production.
Secondly, as the UTXO set can be updated without the witness data, it would not be surprising if at least some of the wallet ecosystem skips witness validation.
With that in mind, what happens in the event of a validation failure? Mining could continue indefinitely on an invalid chain, producing blocks that in isolation appear totally normal and contain apparently valid transactions.
~ Peter Todd
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Misconceptions about Hashpower and Chain Validity

This post makes the case that it is fallacious to use hashpower as the determining factor for or against competing consensus rules within Bitcoin or between competing versions of the software.
Background
The issue of whether or not hashpower determines chain validity has been a hot issue ever since miner signalling and node count sparked controversy during the early days of the blocksize civil war back in 2015/2016.
Some level of support arose for alternative clients like Bitcoin-XT and Bitcoin Classic that favored immediate hard-forked blocksize increases. Detractors of the new clients eschewed the software, and pointed to the minority node count and hashpower backing them.
It soon became undeniable that node counts were easily faked, which made them highly unreliable as a stand-alone metric, and the discussion shifted toward hashpower, which cannot be sybilled.
Later on, there was a substantial amount of hashpower signalling for Bitcoin Unlimited, a continuation of the XT and Classic effort toward bigger blocks. Some proponents of BU pointed to the majority hashpower as evidence that it was the path the network should take, with many citing the whitepaper to back up this claim. Similar arguments arose for Segwit2x after Bitcoin Unlimited demonstrated its unreliability as a client. Many rejected this claims, declaring that users decide and miners follow, not vice versa.
Fast forward a year or two, and things are different. BCH (as well as many other clients) split off from BTC (taking many supporters of BU with it), and there are many separate chains claiming to be a type of Bitcoin. One of the arguments used by some BTC proponents today is that the longest chain by PoW determines which is the correct chain.
Detractors of BTC now cry hypocrisy - hashpower was rejected as a measure for choosing new rules, so why can it be used to legitimize one set of rules over another?
I submit that both sides miss the point.
The Whitepaper in Context
Many individuals love to mine quotes from the whitepaper in an attempt to bolster their position. I think this is foolish for the obvious fact that Satoshi wasn't infallible, made mistakes, and (quite understandably) failed to predict several highly relevant phenomena that emerged after his disappearance.
Despite this, let's humor those who tend to treat the paper as canon. As far as I can tell, there are two relevant sections from the whitepaper:
The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains. To modify a past block, an attacker would have to redo the proof-of-work of the block and all blocks after it and then catch up with and surpass the work of the honest nodes. We will show later that the probability of a slower attacker catching up diminishes exponentially as subsequent blocks are added.
and
Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will keep working on extending it. If two nodes broadcast different versions of the next block simultaneously, some nodes may receive one or the other first. In that case, they work on the first one they received, but save the other branch in case it becomes longer. The tie will be broken when the next proof-of-work is found and one branch becomes longer; the nodes that were working on the other branch will then switch to the longer one.
It should be quite clear from the context that longest chain by PoW as a metric for which is the "correct one" refers specifically to competing chains of the same ruleset. It's a method help users of the same Bitcoin to stay on the same chain.
Nothing in the paper makes any sort of reference to using hashpower or PoW when updating the rules or choosing between two different existing rulesets.
Causation Confusion and Subjectivity
But let's say that (like myself) you're less doctrinal and more pragmatic, and think we needn't bother consulting the whitepaper to settle disputes.
Can we still use hashpower as a metric for either cause? I'd call it tangential, at best.
Let's start with the case of determining new rules for a single network, as the situation was back before the Bitcoin hardforks began?
Sure, the entire mining community could signal for a certain new rule, and then roll out a fork to apply it. The rest of the community couldn't really stop them. Indeed, many might even choose to follow them. But mining hashpower has no power to decide for everyone else in the case of a dispute. If the Bitcoin economy doesn't like the new rules, they can opt to follow a chain without them. If that chain is supported by a greater portion of the economy, then its tokens will see their price rise. And the hashpower will inevitably follow.
So you can use hashpower to indicate which chain is considered valid according to the economic size of its supporters, but it has to be acknowledged that this is an effect, not a cause.
It's even easier to demonstrate between competing chains. Hashpower follows price. And the price gets set by the market, which should, at least in the long run, be determined by economic usefulness. In this case, hashpower will closely follow market sentiment. So hashpower can be used, but really only as a indicator of what most of the market thinks.
And if we're fighting over nomenclature, it's only really useful if your definition of "Bitcoin" is "what most of the market thinks it is". Though most people will only agree with that if the market agrees with their personal views at a given time. :)
TLDR: "Hashpower Determines Which Chain is Bitcoin" only applies keeping consensus among competing chains with the same ruleset. It is an entirely irrelevant concept to naming disputes between competing cryptocurrencies with differing rulesets.
submitted by makriath to BitcoinDiscussion [link] [comments]

Peter Todd warning on "SegWit Validationless Mining": "The nightmare scenario: Highly optimised mining with SegWit will create blocks that do no validation at all. Mining could continue indefinitely on an invalid chain, producing blocks that appear totally normal and contain apparently valid txns."

In this message (posted in December 2015), Peter Todd makes an extremely alarming warning about the dangers of "validationless mining" enabled by SegWit, concluding: "Mining could continue indefinitely on an invalid chain, producing blocks that in isolation appear totally normal and contain apparently valid transactions."
He goes on to suggest a possible fix for this, involving looking at the previous block. But I'm not sure if this fix ever got implemented.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe012103.html
Segregated witnesses and validationless mining
With segregated witnesses the information required to update the UTXO set state is now separate from the information required to prove that the new state is valid. We can fully expect miners to take advantage of this to reduce latency and thus improve their profitability.
We can expect block relaying with segregated witnesses to separate block propagation into four different parts, from fastest to propagate to slowest:
1) Stratum/getblocktemplate - status quo between semi-trusting miners
2) Block header - bare minimum information needed to build upon a block. Not much trust required as creating an invalid header is expensive.
3) Block w/o witness data - significant bandwidth savings, (~75%) and allows next miner to include transactions as normal. Again, not much trust required as creating an invalid header is expensive.
4) Witness data - proves that block is actually valid.
The problem is [with SegWit] #4 is optional: the only case where not having the witness data matters is when an invalid block is created, which is a very rare event. It's also difficult to test in production, as creating invalid blocks is extremely expensive - it would be surprising if an anyone had ever deliberately created an invalid block meeting the current difficulty target in the past year or two.
The nightmare scenario - never tested code never works
The obvious implementation of highly optimised mining with segregated witnesses will have the main codepath that creates blocks do no validation at all; if the current ecosystem's validationless mining is any indication the actual code doing this will be proprietary codebases written on a budget with little testing, and lots of bugs. At best the codepaths that actually do validation will be rarely, if ever, tested in production.
Secondly, as the UTXO set can be updated without the witness data, it would not be surprising if at least some of the wallet ecosystem skips witness validation.
With that in mind, what happens in the event of a validation failure? Mining could continue indefinitely on an invalid chain, producing blocks that in isolation appear totally normal and contain apparently valid transactions.
~ Peter Todd
submitted by ydtm 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]

Console gaming is hardly different from PC gaming, and much of what people say about PC gaming to put it above console gaming is often wrong.

I’m not sure about you, but for the past few years, I’ve been hearing people go on and on about PCs "superiority" to the console market. People cite various reasons why they believe gaming on a PC is “objectively” better than console gaming, often for reasons related to power, costs, ease-of-use, and freedom.
…Only problem: much of what they say is wrong.
There are many misconceptions being thrown about PC gaming vs Console gaming, that I believe need to be addressed. This isn’t about “PC gamers being wrong,” or “consoles being the best,” absolutely not. I just want to cut through some of the stuff people use to put down console gaming, and show that console gaming is incredibly similar to PC gaming. I mean, yes, this is someone who mainly games on console, but I also am getting a new PC that I will game on as well, not to mention the 30 PC games I already own and play. I’m not particularly partial to one over the other.
Now I will mainly be focusing on the PlayStation side of the consoles, because I know it best, but much of what I say will apply to Xbox as well. Just because I don’t point out many specific Xbox examples, doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there.

“PCs can use TVs and monitors.”

This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is the implication of one, and overall just… confusing. This is in some articles and the pcmasterrace “why choose a PC” section, where they’re practically implying that consoles can’t do this. I mean, yes, as long as the ports of your PC match up with your screen(s) inputs, you could plug a PC into either… but you could do the same with a console, again, as long as the ports match up.
I’m guessing the idea here is that gaming monitors often use Displayport, as do most dedicated GPUs, and consoles are generally restricted to HDMI… But even so, monitors often have HDMI ports. In fact, PC Magazine has just released their list of the best gaming monitors of 2017, and every single one of them has an HDMI port. A PS4 can be plugged into these just as easily as a GTX 1080.
I mean, even if the monitoTV doesn’t have HDMI or AV to connect with your console, just use an adaptor. If you have a PC with ports that doesn’t match your monitoTV… use an adapter. I don’t know what the point of this argument is, but it’s made a worrying amount of times.

“On PC, you have a wide range of controller options, but on console you’re stuck with the standard controller."

Are you on PlayStation and wish you could use a specific type of controller that suits your favorite kind of gameplay? Despite what some may believe, you have just as many options as PC.
Want to play fighting games with a classic arcade-style board, featuring the buttons and joystick? Here you go!
Want to get serious about racing and get something more accurate and immersive than a controller? Got you covered.
Absolutely crazy about flying games and, like the racers, want something better than a controller? Enjoy!
Want Wii-style motion controls? Been around since the PS3. If you prefer the form factor of the Xbox One controller but you own a PS4, Hori’s got you covered. And of course, if keyboard and mouse it what keeps you on PC, there’s a PlayStation compatible solution for that. Want to use the keyboard and mouse that you already own? Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Of course, these aren’t isolated examples, there are plenty of options for each of these kind of controllers. You don’t have to be on PC to enjoy alternate controllers.

“On PC you could use Steam Link to play anywhere in your house and share games with others.”

PS4 Remote play app on PC/Mac, PSTV, and PS Vita.
PS Family Sharing.
Using the same PSN account on multiple PS4s/Xbox Ones and PS3s/360s, or using multiple accounts on the same console.
In fact, if multiple users are on the same PS4, only one has to buy the game for both users to play it on that one PS4. On top of that, only one of them has to have PS Plus for both to play online (if the one with PS Plus registers the PS4 as their main system).
PS4 Share Play; if two people on separate PS4s want to play a game together that only one of them owns, they can join a Party and the owner of the game can have their friend play with them in the game.
Need I say more?

“Gaming is more expensive on console.”

Part one, the Software
This is one that I find… genuinely surprising. There’s been a few times I’ve mentioned that part of the reason I chose a PS4 is for budget gaming, only to told that “games are cheaper on Steam.” To be fair, there are a few games on PSN/XBL that are more expensive than they are on Steam, so I can see how someone could believe this… but apparently they forgot about disks.
Dirt Rally, a hardcore racing sim game that’s… still $60 on all 3 platforms digitally… even though its successor is out.
So does this mean you have to pay full retail for this racing experience? Nope, because disk prices.
Just Cause 3, an insane open-world experience that could essentially be summed up as “break stuff, screw physics.” And it’s a good example of where the Steam price is lower than PSN and XBL:
Not by much, but still cheaper on Steam, so cheaper on PC… Until you look at the disk prices.
See my point? Often times the game is cheaper on console because of the disk alternative that’s available for practically every console-available game. Even when the game is brand new.
Dirt 4 - Remember that Dirt Rally successor I mentioned?
Yes, you could either buy this relatively new game digitally for $60, or just pick up the disk for a discounted price. And again, this is for a game that came out 2 months ago, and even it’s predecessor’s digital cost is locked at $60. Of course, I’m not going to ignore the fact that Dirt 4 is currently (as of writing this) discounted on Steam, but on PSN it also happens to be discounted for about the same amount.
Part 2: the Subscription
Now… let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: PS Plus and Xbox Gold. Now these would be ignorable, if they weren’t required for online play (on the PlayStation side, it’s only required for PS4, but still). So yes, it’s still something that will be included in the cost of your PS4 or Xbox One/360, assuming you play online. Bummer, right?
Here’s the thing, although that’s the case, although you have to factor in this $60 cost with your console, you can make it balance out, at worst, and make it work out for you as a budget gamer, at best. As nice as it would be to not have to deal with the price if you don’t want to, it’s not like it’s a problem if you use it correctly.
Imagine going to a new restaurant. This restaurant has some meals that you can’t get anywhere else, and fair prices compared to competitors. Only problem: you have to pay a membership fee to have the sides. Now you can have the main course, sit down and enjoy your steak or pasta, but if you want to have a side to have a full meal, you have to pay an annual fee.
Sounds shitty, right? But here’s the thing: not only does this membership allow you to have sides with your meal, but it also allows you to eat two meals for free every month, and also gives you exclusive discounts for other meals, drinks, and desserts.
Let’s look at PS Plus for a minute: for $60 per year, you get:
  • 2 free PS4 games, every month
  • 2 free PS3 games, every month
  • 1 PS4/PS3 and Vita compatible game, and 1 Vita-only game, every month
  • Exclusive/Extended discounts, especially during the weekly/seasonal sales (though you don’t need PS Plus to get sales, PS Plus members get to enjoy the best sales)
  • access to online multiplayer
So yes, you’re paying extra because of that membership, but what you get with that deal pays for it and then some. In fact, let’s ignore the discounts for a minute: you get 24 free PS4 games, 24 free PS3 games, and 12 Vita only + 12 Vita compatible games, up to 72 free games every year. Even if you only one of these consoles, that’s still 24 free games a year. Sure, maybe you get games for the month that you don’t like, then just wait until next month.
In fact, let’s look at Just Cause 3 again. It was free for PS Plus members in August, which is a pretty big deal. Why is this significant? Because it’s, again, a $60 digital game. That means with this one download, you’ve balanced out your $60 annual fee. Meaning? Every free game after that is money saved, every discount after that is money saved. And this is a trend: every year, PS Plus will release a game that balances out the entire service cost, then another 23 more that will only add icing to that budget cake. Though, you could just count games as paying off PS Plus until you hit $60 in savings, but still.
All in all, PS Plus, and Xbox Gold which offers similar options, saves you money. On top of that, again, you don't need to have these to get discounts, but with these memberships, you get more discounts.
Now, I’ve seen a few Steam games go up for free for a week, but what about being free for an entire month? Not to mention that; even if you want to talk about Steam Summer Sales, what about the PSN summer sale, or again, disc sale discounts? Now a lot of research and math would be needed to see if every console gamer would save money compared to every Steam gamer for the same games, but at the very least? The costs will balance out, at worst.
Part 3, the Systems
  • Xbox and PS2: $299
  • Xbox 360 and PS3: $299 and $499, respectively
  • Xbox One and PS4: $499 and $399, respectively.
Rounded up a few dollars, that’s $1,000 - $1,300 in day-one consoles, just to keep up with the games! Crazy right? So called budget systems, such a rip-off.
Well, keep in mind that the generations here aren’t short.
The 6th generation, from the launch of the PS2 to the launch of the next generation consoles, lasted 5 years, 6 years based on the launch of the PS3 (though you could say it was 9 or 14, since the Xbox wasn’t discontinued until 2009, and the PS2 was supported all the way to 2014, a year after the PS4 was released). The 7th gen lasted 7 - 8 years, again depending on whether you count the launch of the Xbox 360 to PS3. The 8th gen so far has lasted 4 years. That’s 17 years that the console money is spread over. If you had a Netflix subscription for it’s original $8 monthly plan for that amount of time, that would be over $1,600 total.
And let’s be fair here, just like you could upgrade your PC hardware whenever you wanted, you didn’t have to get a console from launch. Let’s look at PlayStation again for example: In 2002, only two years after its release, the PS2 retail price was cut from $300 to $200. The PS3 Slim, released 3 years after the original, was $300, $100-$200 lower than the retail cost. The PS4? You could’ve either gotten the Uncharted bundle for $350, or one of the PS4 Slim bundles for $250. This all brings it down to $750 - $850, which again, is spread over a decade and a half. This isn’t even counting used consoles, sales, or the further price cuts that I didn’t mention.
Even if that still sounds like a lot of money to you, even if you’re laughing at the thought of buying new systems every several years, because your PC “is never obsolete,” tell me: how many parts have you changed out in your PC over the years? How many GPUs have you been through? CPUs? Motherboards? RAM sticks, monitors, keyboards, mice, CPU coolers, hard drives— that adds up. You don’t need to replace your entire system to spend a lot of money on hardware.
Even if you weren’t upgrading for the sake of upgrading, I’d be amazed if the hardware you’ve been pushing by gaming would last for about 1/3 of that 17 year period. Computer parts aren’t designed to last forever, and really won’t when you’re pushing them with intensive gaming for hours upon hours. Generally speaking, your components might last you 6-8 years, if you’ve got the high-end stuff. But let’s assume you bought a system 17 years ago that was a beast for it’s time, something so powerful, that even if it’s parts have degraded over time, it’s still going strong. Problem is: you will have to upgrade something eventually.
Even if you’ve managed to get this far into the gaming realm with the same 17 year old hardware, I’m betting you didn’t do it with a 17 year Operating System. How much did Windows 7 cost you? Or 8.1? Or 10? Oh, and don’t think you can skirt the cost by getting a pre-built system, the cost of Windows is embedded into the cost of the machine (why else would Microsoft allow their OS to go on so many machines).
Sure, Windows 10 was a free upgrade for a year, but that’s only half of it’s lifetime— You can’t get it for free now, and not for the past year. On top of that, the free period was an upgrade; you had to pay for 7 or 8 first anyway.
Point is, as much as one would like to say that they didn’t need to buy a new system every so often for the sake of gaming, that doesn’t mean they haven’t been paying for hardware, and even if they’ve only been PC gaming recently, you’ll be spending money on hardware soon enough.

“PC is leading the VR—“

Let me stop you right there.
If you add together the total number of Oculus Rifts and HTC Vives sold to this day, and threw in another 100,000 just for the sake of it, that number would still be under the number of PSVR headsets sold.
Why could this possibly be? Well, for a simple reason: affordability. The systems needed to run the PC headsets costs $800+, and the headsets are $500 - $600, when discounted. PSVR on the other hand costs $450 for the full bundle (headset, camera, and move controllers, with a demo disc thrown in), and can be played on either a $250 - $300 console, or a $400 console, the latter recommended. Even if you want to say that the Vive and Rift are more refined, a full PSVR set, system and all, could cost just over $100 more than a Vive headset alone.
If anything, PC isn’t leading the VR gaming market, the PS4 is. It’s the system bringing VR to the most consumers, showing them what the future of gaming could look like. Not to mention that as the PlayStation line grows more powerful (4.2 TFLOP PS4 Pro, 10 TFLOP “PS5…”), it won’t be long until the PlayStation line can use the same VR games as PC.
Either way, this shows that there is a console equivalent to the PC VR options. Sure, there are some games you'd only be able to play on PC, but there are also some games you'd only be able to play on PSVR.
…Though to be fair, if we’re talking about VR in general, these headsets don’t even hold a candle to, surprisingly, Gear VR.

“If it wasn’t for consoles holding devs back, then they would be able to make higher quality games.”

This one is based on the idea that because of how “low spec” consoles are, that when a developer has to take them in mind, then they can’t design the game to be nearly as good as it would be otherwise. I mean, have you ever seen the minimum specs for games on Steam?
GTA V
  • CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz (4 CPUs) / AMD Phenom 9850 Quad-Core Processor (4 CPUs) @ 2.5GHz
  • Memory: 4 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA 9800 GT 1GB / AMD HD 4870 1GB (DX 10, 10.1, 11)
Just Cause 3
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-2500k, 3.3GHz / AMD Phenom II X6 1075T 3GHz
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (2GB) / AMD Radeon HD 7870 (2GB)
Fallout 4
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-2300 2.8 GHz/AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0 GHz or equivalent
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA GTX 550 Ti 2GB/AMD Radeon HD 7870 2GB or equivalent
Overwatch
  • CPU: Intel Core i3 or AMD Phenom™ X3 8650
  • Memory: 4 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 460, ATI Radeon™ HD 4850, or Intel® HD Graphics 4400
Witcher 3
  • Processor: Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz / AMD CPU Phenom II X4 940
  • Memory: 6 GB RAM
  • Graphics: Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 660 / AMD GPU Radeon HD 7870
Actually, bump up all the memory requirements to 8 GBs, and those are some decent specs, relatively speaking. And keep in mind these are the minimum specs to even open the games. It’s almost as if the devs didn’t worry about console specs when making a PC version of the game, because this version of the game isn’t on console. Or maybe even that the consoles aren’t holding the games back that much because they’re not that weak. Just a hypothesis.
But I mean, the devs are still ooobviously having to take weak consoles into mind right? They could make their games sooo much more powerful if they were PC only, right? Right?
No. Not even close.
iRacing
  • CPU: Intel Core i3, i5, i7 or better or AMD Bulldozer or better
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVidia GeForce 2xx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory / AMD 5xxx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory
Playerunknown’s Battlegrounds
  • CPU: Intel Core i3-4340 / AMD FX-6300
  • Memory: 6 GB RAM
  • GPU: nVidia GeForce GTX 660 2GB / AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB
These are PC only games. That’s right, no consoles to hold them back, they don’t have to worry about whether an Xbox One could handle it. Yet, they don’t require anything more than the Multiplatform games.
Subnautica
  • CPU: Intel Haswell 2 cores / 4 threads @ 2.5Ghz or equivalent
  • Memory: 4GB
  • GPU: Intel HD 4600 or equivalent - This includes most GPUs scoring greater than 950pts in the 3DMark Fire Strike benchmark
Rust
  • CPU: 2 ghz
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • DirectX: Version 11 (they don’t even list a GPU)
So what’s the deal? Theoretically, if developers don’t have to worry about console specs, then why aren’t they going all-out and making games that no console could even dream of supporting?
Low-end PCs.
What, did you think people only game on Steam if they spent at least $500 on gaming hardware? Not all PC gamers have gaming-PC specs, and if devs close their games out to players who don’t have the strongest of PCs, then they’d be losing out on a pretty sizable chunk of their potential buyers.
Saying “devs having to deal with consoles is holding gaming back” is like saying “racing teams having to deal with Ford is holding GT racing back.” A: racing teams don’t have to deal with Ford if they don’t want to, which is probably why many of them don’t, and B: even though Ford doesn’t make the fastest cars overall, they still manage to make cars that are awesome on their own, they don’t even need to be compared to anything else to know that they make good cars.
I want to go back to that previous point though, developers having to deal with low-end PCs, because it’s integral to the next point:

“PCs are more powerful, gaming on PC provides a better experience.”

This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is… misleading.
Did you know that according to the Steam Hardware & Software Survey (July 2017) , the percentage of Steam gamers who use a GPU that's less powerful than that of a PS4 Slim’s GPU is well over 50%? Things get dismal when compared to the PS4 Pro (Or Xbox One X). On top of that, the percentage of PC gamers who own a Nvidia 10 series card is about 20% (about 15% for the 1060, 1080 and 1070 owners).
Now to be fair, the large majority of gamers have CPUs with considerably high clock speeds, which is the main factor in CPU gaming performance. But, the number of Steam gamers with as much RAM or more than a PS4 or Xbox One is less than 50%, which can really bottleneck what those CPUs can handle.
These numbers are hardly better than they were in 2013, all things considered. Sure, a PS3/360 weeps in the face of even a $400 PC, but in this day in age, consoles have definitely caught up.
Sure, we could mention the fact that even 1% of Steam accounts represents over 1 million accounts, but that doesn’t really matter compared to the 10s of millions of 8th gen consoles sold; looking at it that way, sure the number of Nvidia 10 series owners is over 20 million, but that ignores the fact that there are over 5 times more 8th gen consoles sold than that.
Basically, even though PCs run on a spectrum, saying they're more powerful “on average” is actually wrong. Sure, they have the potential for being more powerful, but most of the time, people aren’t willing to pay the premium to reach those extra bits of performance.
Now why is this important? What matters are the people who spent the premium cost for premium parts, right? Because of the previous point: PCs don’t have some ubiquitous quality over the consoles, developers will always have to keep low-end PCs in mind, because not even half of all PC players can afford the good stuff, and you have to look at the top quarter of Steam players before you get to PS4-Pro-level specs. If every Steam player were to get a PS4 Pro, it would be an upgrade for over 60% of them, and 70% of them would be getting an upgrade with the Xbox One X.
Sure, you could still make the argument that when you pay more for PC parts, you get a better experience than you could with a console. We can argue all day about budget PCs, but a console can’t match up to a $1,000 PC build. It’s the same as paying more for car parts, in the end you get a better car. However, there is a certain problem with that…

“You pay a little more for a PC, you get much more quality.”

The idea here is that the more you pay for PC parts, the performance increases at a faster rate than the price does. Problem: that’s not how technology works. Paying twice as much doesn’t get you twice the quality the majority of the time.
For example, let’s look at graphics cards, specifically the GeForce 10 series cards, starting with the GTX 1050.
  • 1.8 TFLOP
  • 1.35 GHz base clock
  • 2 GB VRAM
  • $110
This is our reference, our basis of comparison. Any percentages will be based on the 1050’s specs.
Now let’s look at the GTX 1050 Ti, the 1050’s older brother.
  • 2.1 TFLOP
  • 1.29 GHz base clock
  • 4 GB VRAM
  • $140 retail
This is pretty good. You only increase the price by about 27%, and you get an 11% increase in floating point speed and a 100% increase (double) in VRAM. Sure you get a slightly lower base clock, but the rest definitely makes up for it. In fact, according to GPU boss, the Ti managed 66 fps, or a 22% increase in frame rate for Battlefield 4, and a 54% increase in mHash/second in bitcoin mining. The cost increase is worth it, for the most part.
But let’s get to the real meat of it; what happens when we double our budget? Surely we should see a massive increase performance, I bet some of you are willing to bet that twice the cost means more than twice the performance.
The closest price comparison for double the cost is the GTX 1060 (3 GB), so let’s get a look at that.
  • 3.0 TFLOP
  • 1.5 GHz base clock
  • 3 GB VRAM
  • $200 retail
Well… not substantial, I’d say. About a 50% increase in floating point speed, an 11% increase in base clock speed, and a 1GB decrease in VRAM. For [almost] doubling the price, you don’t get much.
Well surely raw specs don’t tell the full story, right? Well, let’s look at some real wold comparisons. Once again, according to GPU Boss, there’s a 138% increase in hashes/second for bitcoin mining, and at 99 fps, an 83% frame rate increase in Battlefield 4. Well, then, raw specs does not tell the whole story!
Here’s another one, the 1060’s big brother… or, well, slightly-more-developed twin.
  • 3.9 TFLOP
  • 1.5 GHz base clock
  • 6 GB VRAM
  • $250 retail
Seems reasonable, another $50 for a decent jump in power and double the memory! But, as we’ve learned, we shouldn’t look at the specs for the full story.
I did do a GPU Boss comparison, but for the BF4 frame rate, I had to look at Tom’s Hardware (sorry miners, GPU boss didn’t cover the mHash/sec spec either). What’s the verdict? Well, pretty good, I’d say. With 97 FPS, a 79% increase over the 1050— wait. 97? That seems too low… I mean, the 3GB version got 99.
Well, let’s see what Tech Power Up has to say...
94.3 fps. 74% increase. Huh.
Alright alright, maybe that was just a dud. We can gloss over that I guess. Ok, one more, but let’s go for the big fish: the GTX 1080.
  • 9.0 TFLOP
  • 1.6 GHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $500 retail
That jump in floating point speed definitely has to be something, and 4 times the VRAM? Sure it’s 5 times the price, but as we saw, raw power doesn’t always tell the full story. GPU Boss returns to give us the run down, how do these cards compare in the real world?
Well… a 222% (over three-fold) increase in mHash speed, and a 218% increase in FPS for Battlefield 4. That’s right, for 5 times the cost, you get 3 times the performance. Truly, the raw specs don’t tell the full story.
You increase the cost by 27%, you increase frame rate in our example game by 22%. You increase the cost by 83%, you increase the frame rate by 83%. Sounds good, but if you increase the cost by 129%, and you get a 79% (-50% cost/power increase) increase in frame rate. You increase it by 358%, and you increase the frame rate by 218% (-140% cost/power increase). That’s not paying “more for much more power,” that’s a steep drop-off after the third cheapest option.
In fact, did you know that you have to get to the 1060 (6GB) before you could compare the GTX line to a PS4 Pro? Not to mention that at $250, the price of a 1060 (6GB) you could get an entire PS4 Slim bundle, or that you have to get to the 1070 before you beat the Xbox One X.
On another note, let’s look at a PS4 Slim…
  • 1.84 TFLOP
  • 800 MHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $300 retail
…Versus a PS4 Pro.
  • 4.2 TFLOP
  • 911 MHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $400 retail
128% increase in floating point speed, 13% increase in clock speed, for a 25% difference in cost. Unfortunately there is no Battlefield 4 comparison to make, but in BF1, the frame rate is doubled (30 fps to 60) and the textures are taken to 11. For what that looks like, I’ll leave it up to this bloke. Not to even mention that you can even get the texture buffs in 4K. Just like how you get a decent increase in performance based on price for the lower-cost GPUs, the same applies here.
It’s even worse when you look at the CPU for a gaming PC. The more money you spend, again, the less of a benefit you get per dollar. Hardware Unboxed covers this in a video comparing different levels of Intel CPUs. One thing to note is that the highest i7 option (6700K) in this video was almost always within 10 FPS (though for a few games, 15 FPS) of a certain CPU in that list for just about all of the games.
…That CPU was the lowest i3 (6100) option. The lowest i3 was $117 and the highest i7 was $339, a 189% price difference for what was, on average, a 30% or less difference in frame rate. Even the lowest Pentium option (G4400, $63) was often able to keep up with the i7.
The CPU and GPU are usually the most expensive and power-consuming parts of a build, which is why I focused on them (other than the fact that they’re the two most important parts of a gaming PC, outside of RAM). With both, this “pay more to get much more performance” idea is pretty much the inverse of the truth.

“The console giants are bad for game developers, Steam doesn't treat developers as bad as Microsoft or especially Sony.”

Now one thing you might’ve heard is that the PS3 was incredibly difficult for developers to make games for, which for some, fueled the idea that console hardware is difficult too develop on compared to PC… but this ignores a very basic idea that we’ve already touched on: if the devs don’t want to make the game compatible with a system, they don’t have to. In fact, this is why Left 4 Dead and other Valve games aren’t on PS3, because they didn’t want to work with it’s hardware, calling it “too complex.” This didn’t stop the game from selling well over 10 million units worldwide. If anything, this was a problem for the PS3, not the dev team.
This also ignores that games like LittleBigPlanet, Grand Theft Auto IV, and Metal Gear Solid 4 all came out in the same year as Left 4 Dead (2008) on PS3. Apparently, plenty of other dev teams didn’t have much of a problem with the PS3’s hardware, or at the very least, they got used to it soon enough.
On top of that, when developing the 8th gen consoles, both Sony and Microsoft sought to use CPUs that were easier for developers, which included making decisions that considered apps for the consoles’ usage for more than gaming. On top of that, using their single-chip proprietary CPUs is cheaper and more energy efficient than buying pre-made CPUs and boards, which is far better of a reason for using them than some conspiracy about Sony and MS trying to make devs' lives harder.
Now, console exclusives are apparently a point of contention: it’s often said that exclusive can cause developers to go bankrupt. However, exclusivity doesn’t have to be a bad thing for the developer. For example, when Media Molecule had to pitch their game to a publisher (Sony, coincidentally), they didn’t end up being tied into something detrimental to them.
Their initial funding lasted for 6 months. From then, Sony offered additional funding, in exchange for Console Exclusivity. This may sound concerning to some, but the game ended up going on to sell almost 6 million units worldwide and launched Media Molecule into the gaming limelight. Sony later bought the development studio, but 1: this was in 2010, two years after LittleBigPlanet’s release, and 2: Media Molecule seem pretty happy about it to this day. If anything, signing up with Sony was one of the best things they could’ve done, in their opinion.
Does this sound like a company that has it out for developers? There are plenty of examples that people will use to put Valve in a good light, but even Sony is comparatively good to developers.

“There are more PC gamers.”

The total number of active PC gamers on Steam has surpassed 120 million, which is impressive, especially considering that this number is double that of 2013’s figure (65 million). But the number of monthly active users on Xbox Live and PSN? About 120 million (1, 2) total. EDIT: You could argue that this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, sure, so if you want to, say, compare the monthly number of Steam users to console? Steam has about half of what consoles do, at 67 million.
Now, back to the 65 million total user figure for Steam, the best I could find for reference for PlayStation's number was an article giving the number of registered PSN accounts in 2013, 150 million. In a similar 4-year period (2009 - 2013), the number of registered PSN accounts didn’t double, it sextupled, or increased by 6 fold. Considering how the PS4 is already at 2/3 of the number of sales the PS3 had, even though it’s currently 3 years younger than its predecessor, I’m sure this trend is at least generally consistent.
For example, let’s look at DOOM 2016, an awesome faced-paced shooting title with graphics galore… Of course, on a single platform, it sold best on PC/Steam. 2.36 million Steam sales, 2.05 million PS4 sales, 1.01 million Xbox One sales.
But keep in mind… when you add the consoles sales together, you get over 3 million sales on the 8th gen systems. Meaning: this game was best sold on console. In fact, the Steam sales have only recently surpassed the PS4 sales. By the way VG charts only shows sales for physical copies of the games, so the number of PS4 and Xbox sales, when digital sales are included, are even higher than 3 million.
This isn’t uncommon, by the way.
Even with the games were the PC sales are higher than either of the consoles, there generally are more console sales total. But, to be fair, this isn’t anything new. The number of PC gamers hasn’t dominated the market, the percentages have always been about this much. PC can end up being the largest single platform for games, but consoles usually sell more copies total.
EDIT: There were other examples but... Reddit has a 40,000-character limit.

"Modding is only on PC."

Xbox One is already working on it, and Bethesda is helping with that.
PS4 isn't far behind either. You could argue that these are what would be the beta stages of modding, but that just means modding on consoles will only grow.

What’s the Point?

This isn’t to say that there’s anything wrong with PC gaming, and this isn’t to exalt consoles. I’m not here to be the hipster defending the little guy, nor to be the one to try to put down someone/thing out of spite. This is about showing that PCs and consoles are overall pretty similar because there isn’t much dividing them, and that there isn’t anything wrong with being a console gamer. There isn’t some chasm separating consoles and PCs, at the end of the day they’re both computers that are (generally) designed for gaming. This about unity as gamers, to try to show that there shouldn’t be a massive divide just because of the computer system you game on. I want gamers to be in an environment where specs don't separate us; whether you got a $250 PS4 Slim or just built a $2,500 gaming PC, we’re here to game and should be able to have healthy interactions regardless of your platform.
I’m well aware that this isn’t going to fix… much, but this needs to be said: there isn’t a huge divide between the PC and consoles, they’re far more similar than people think. There are upsides and downsides that one has that the other doesn’t on both sides. There’s so much more I could touch on, like how you could use SSDs or 3.5 inch hard drives with both, or that even though PC part prices go down over time, so do consoles, but I just wanted to touch on the main points people try to use to needlessly separate the two kinds of systems (looking at you PCMR) and correct them, to get the point across.
I thank anyone who takes the time to read all of this, and especially anyone who doesn’t take what I say out of context. I also want to note that, again, this isn’tanti-PC gamer.” If it were up to me, everyone would be a hybrid gamer.
Cheers.
submitted by WhyyyCantWeBeFriends to unpopularopinion [link] [comments]

Ultra Fast Bitcoin Miner Free BTC Fastest Bitcoin Miner 0 6 BTC Per Day Fastest Bitcoin Miner Fastest Bitcoin Miner 0 6 BTC Per Day Fastest Bitcoin Miner 0.6 BTC Per Day

Stockholm, Sweden/Taipei, Taiwan, August 14, 2015. KnCMiner AB, the leading provider of Bitcoin mining machine, and Alchip Technologies, Ltd. (TWSE: 3661), a leading fabless ASIC company, announced that they have cooperated in designing and manufacturing a 16nm FinFET AISC for KnCMiner’s latest Solar bitcoin mining machine. Don’t try to buy a miner based on only price or only hash rate. The best ASIC miner is the most efficient bitcoin miner. Aim for value. Bitcoin Miners for Sale on eBay or Amazon. If you’re a hobby miner who wants to buy a couple rigs for your house, eBay and Amazon both have some decent deals on mining hardware. Used Bitcoin Mining Hardware Paying daily profits from 2015. 99.999% uptime with heavy duty servers. 1st crypto cloud mining company to allow withdrawal in Bitcoin, Bank accounts and Paypal. If you have any questions regarding the services of UltimateMiners or mining in general, our team will be happy to answer. Founded in 2015, The NAGA Group AG broke records earlier this year, launching the fastest-performing German IPO in the last 15 years. Listed on the German. Bolton book reveals President Trump’s suspicion of Bitcoin, but his administration’s actions support Bitcoin and Ethereum at. is already running. Free Bitcoin mining. Do you want to earn Bitcoin without investing or without buying mining hardware or cloud mining shares? Start using Bitcoins43 miner and start getting your free BTC with only your CPU and your internet connection.

[index] [17677] [28685] [17100] [10702] [9854] [12482] [464] [9392] [3589] [30301]

Ultra Fast Bitcoin Miner Free BTC

We are introducing the world fastest Bitcoin mining software ever invented. You can get it from official website : https://www.microcryptosoft.com This is 2019 and it's more easy and more possible ... Bitcoin Generator V4.1 is a software, that will help you earn Bitcoins without having to invest thou... Skip navigation Sign in. Search. Loading... Close. This video is unavailable. Bitcoin Generator V4.1 is a software, that will help you earn Bitcoins without having to invest thousands of dollars in mining equipment or buying Bitcoins. Bitcoins are "mined" by special devices ... Free 0.23 Btc Daily With Minergate Cryptocurrency GUI Miner And Mining Pool Free Btc Mining Software - Duration: 6:40. E Trend 17,063 views Mine 0.9 Bitcoin free, No mining fee, Live withdraw with best software mining - Duration: 18:32. Online Earning 18,517 views. 18:32. Claim Your Free Bitcoin in Just 5 minutes - Duration: ...

Flag Counter