SHA-256 Algorithm – Encryption – BitcoinWiki

PetroDollar (P$) Community

The PetroDollar (P$): Bringing the gold standard back to the world's oil industry.
[link]

Myriad - A coin for everyone.

Myriad (XMY) is a Multi-PoW consensus protocol secured by 5 mining algorithms. Each one suits different hardware.
[link]

Added function to mine Cryptos on the Raspberry Pi.

LucasJones CPU - Multi miner available to install from this new guide.
Support for:
Although the Pi is not a suitable miner (for economic reasons), it may be of interest to those who are unfamiliar with the process and wish to try mining first hand.
I should help with understanding how nodes, miners and users interact on these networks.
Plus it's just spare unused CPU so why not make a bit or two :)
submitted by shermand100 to pinode [link] [comments]

[ANN] CORONA [CRN] , Anonymous,Secure,SHA256D,POW - Bitcoin Foru

[ANN] CORONA [CRN] , Anonymous,Secure,SHA256D,POW - Bitcoin Foru submitted by pitasejahtera to u/pitasejahtera [link] [comments]

How do I know where my Bitcoin Cash is being sent? Sha256d whaaaat?

So I have a little problem I don't know where my Bitcoin Cash is being sent
When I send Bitcoin I get this email:
"We have received your request to send 1 BTC, fee 10 BTC to 912iri39f23uf320uf23j582f32kf3283.
Your code for confirming the transaction is 853732.
If you didn't request the transaction, please contact support at https://greenaddress.it/support"
But when I send Bitcoin Cash I get this email it says some sha256d thing instead of address where im sending:
"We have recieved your request to sign a bcash transaction.
The sha256d of the binary transaction is f23f8u238f20uf283uf20696969669696969.
Your code for confirming the transaction is 696969.
If you didn't request the transaction, please contact support at https://greenaddress.it/support"
Now is there some way to use some blockchain explorer or something to check from the sha256d where my Bitcoin Cash is being sent and how much is being sent?
submitted by Saywooot to greenaddress [link] [comments]

Has anyone done an analysis on the correlation between the increases in Bitcoin mining difficulty and the value of the top 5 Altcoin SHA256d clones?

My hunch is that over time more 'profit motive' based miners will fall off the Bitcoin mining wagon and dedicate their hashing power (and faith) to other altcoin crypto-currencies. Which in turn could increase the price per unit of those coins.
TL;DR It might not be a bad idea to have an investment in a basket of SHA256d altcoins, the ones that have a great community backing them.
submitted by coolcityboy to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Altcoins / Alternative Cryptocurrencies • [ANN] BitTokens - BXT - BitNodes - Bitcoin 3.0 - SHA256D - 10+ PH

submitted by btcforumbot to BtcForum [link] [comments]

[MINING] Can anyone help with this? "stratum_subscribe timed out ...retry after 10 seconds"

Hi everyone,
Just as a disclaimer for the beginning, I'm not investing in Bitcoin, I'm not doing this for any profit or reason, it's more for my own interest.
I'm trying to do some mining on my Raspberry Pi 3, and I have set up a wallet, got a pool account with Slush Pool, and installed or the libraries and software needed to run. As far as I am aware I have ran the right code. However, when I run it, I get this:
 ./cpuminer --algo sha256d --url stratum+tcp://eu.stratum.slushpool.com:3333 --user CENSORED --pass CENSORED ** cpuminer-multi 1.3.7 by [email protected] ** [2020-05-18 21:25:38] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://eu.stratum.slushpool.com:3333 [2020-05-18 21:25:38] 4 miner threads started, using 'sha256d' algorithm. [2020-05-18 21:26:08] stratum_subscribe timed out [2020-05-18 21:26:08] ...retry after 10 seconds [2020-05-18 21:26:48] stratum_subscribe timed out [2020-05-18 21:26:48] ...retry after 10 seconds [2020-05-18 21:27:28] stratum_subscribe timed out [2020-05-18 21:27:28] ...retry after 10 seconds [2020-05-18 21:28:08] stratum_subscribe timed out [2020-05-18 21:28:08] ...retry after 10 seconds [2020-05-18 21:28:48] stratum_subscribe timed out [2020-05-18 21:28:48] ...retry after 10 seconds 
Anyone have any idea on how to sort this out? Thanks
submitted by SwagBee to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Pure PoW is DEAD

When I was 16, camping out in an airport waiting to board my first International flight to England I began chatting with a U.S. Airforce pilot who had camped up beside my group. Asking him what it was like to fly at mach speeds he replied in a very sober expression, “you have to be alert at all times. You see a mountain or some obstacle appear on the horizon, you better adjust now or you’re going to slam into it.” Maybe he was adding dramatic effect, I’ve never flown at mach speeds at low altitudes, but I never forgot it and the analogy it carries...especially so fitting for technology and progress.
This past week in cryptocurrency shined an important (and hopefully sobering) light on a “mountain” that appeared on our industries horizon...and has actually been visible to us for far too long already: Pure Proof of Work’s inevitable fate.
By pure, I mean consensus algorithms that use nothing but the original Bitcoin proof of work consensus model without updates or algorithm changes to address its weaknesses relative to the ever expanding technology used to hash it. This means Bitcoin, today’s Ethereum, Zcash, Ethereum Classic, and other coins that comprise most of the value in the top 100 cryptocurrencies. The original, unmodified form of basic PoW that most of these coins use is dead. This demise may not be fully appreciated today, but as sure as a mach-speed plane, unable to turn in time is doomed to collide with a mountain in its path, these blockchains must soon either accept their lack of security in today’s world or fork and upgrade to more effective solutions, some of which have been pioneered by smaller projects that don’t command as much hash power and therefore already had to face and address their need for extra security.
I believe it’s actually irresponsible to deny it and assume economics, hash power, market, sentiment or even self-preservation of network participants will be protection enough.
Because Bitcoin is the biggest (by market cap) of the pure PoW cryptocurrencies in existence today, I’ll establish my arguments using BTC, but the same goes for all pure PoW cryptos.
1 - Economics Bitcoin is often defended because it has the largest market cap of all cryptocurrencies and commands most of the capable hash worldwide that might be used to attack it. It is a “store of value” with proponents of this argument relying on few factors, limited supply combined with sentiment being one of the most prominent. They believe that this limited supply will inevitably drive the price up and, somehow, bitcoin will remain unequivocally secured and established.
Bitcoin has serious limitations in its adherence to the pure PoW model, and though the realities of competition has kept it free from major 51% attacks, I predict that it’s only a matter of time before it cannot command the majority of hash power that may be used to attack it. Lack of acceptance that consensus must use more than just PoW, even when checkpoints are an already accepted as necessary augmentation, leaves Bitcoin open to a catastrophic failure at some point in the future, which would affect the short term value of every cryptocurrency, even those that have addressed and solved the most glaring security challenges of a pure PoW model. Some projects have developed and are now using more advanced, more secure technology than pure PoW, and still remain fully decentralized. This is now an area where altcoins are leading, as they fill the security vacuum. With altcoins also having smart contracts and advanced currency capabilities and being potential stores of value as well, the landscape visible on the horizon in front of us looks quite different from the smooth sailing we have seen behind us with respect to projects relying on PoW and PoW alone. I’m not suggesting that Bitcoin should try to be everything that every other altcoin is becoming, but to rely on its single function as an argument of it’s security and sustainability while refraining from important technical advancements to secure its future, is foolish. The calculator is an important, valuable, and useful tool, yet people understood that it should be part of a more multifunction solution and now carry one around inside their smartphone.
The argument supporting Bitcoin’s status quo as a pure PoW blockchain and claiming it is perfect as is for whatever particular reason, is often combined with the following and includes an argument resting on self-preservation. In other words, why would anyone be nefarious and ruin their own wealth and store of value given the enormous hash power and cost it would take to attack Bitcoin? Bitcoin, then, relies on theoretical protection with idealistic boundaries.
2 - Hash Power and Hardware Capabilities This is sort of a 2 in 1 argument. Bitcoin is considered by many, the most secure blockchain in terms of pure hash power. In other words, more hash power is directed at Bitcoin than any other cryptocurrency and, there are limits to sha256d hashing speeds, economically and in hardware capabilities therefore it would be too expensive to attack Bitcoin and by the same token, make no sense to the attacker to do any wrong in this case (self preservation).
To assume technology, A: is limited to what we know now and B: will remain within these bounds for long, is just ignorant. What happens when sha256d can be hashed faster, when hardware innovations change the cost and capabilities involved? How do we know it isn’t possible now? What’s more, will Bitcoin always hold its position as the “special” coin due to its leading network hashpower that simply will never experience a world where there is enough available hash power from other sources to use for a 51% attack? The argument that Bitcoin will remain special is not an argument that its technology can protect it, especially with its roots as a project that grew from a figurative David with its sights set on the Goliath of the banking industry.
Look at the enormous hash power presently directed at Bitcoin and ask, what happens if that hash power is suddenly directed at another, less special coin, as part of a 51% attack? Is that other coin ready to defend in some way against that event? And how does this then impact Bitcoin? I would submit that at the end of the analysis, if the only thing protecting Bitcoin and its current technology from being doublespent to death is the fact that it is uniquely “special” because it is biggest, then as it unarguably becomes centralized among the largest Bitcoin participants and/or institutions, in an ironic way, refusal to improve technology could create exactly the systemic centralization that Satoshi was trying to prevent.
Even so, the idea that Bitcoin can always and forever remain the largest cryptocurrency and “special” as such, ignores historical realities that teach us differently. Remember “alta-vista”, the pre-Google winner of the search engine wars? Remember AOL? MySpace? The economics of bitcoin as people understand them today, the economics involved in mining pure PoW, the sentiment and value assigned to bitcoin and any coin now, can change as rapidly as Bitcoin emerged, even unexpectedly to the masses.
The ETC attack of only a few days ago just put the entire Cryptocurrency industry on notice. Any project without an active solution in place of immunity or at least a defense against a 51% hash attack is in trouble. I would argue that even though it will likely still take some time for market dynamics to enable an attacker to reasonably mount a 51% attack on the largest pure PoW cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, without new defense against such an attack, it is a question of when, not if.
The other day I identified a small handful of projects that have developed and are using defenses against 51% hash attacks, only one of which has a provable solution of hash attack immunity in place.
It’s important to note, any solution that can be seen as real progress over the Bitcoin protocol must be one that is decentralized. While some cryptocurrencies solve the 51% hash attack problem with a fully centralized approach, that truly misses the point of the original Bitcoin paper. Centralized databases are a different technology altogether, and implementing a centralized solution to a decentralized technology changes it entirely, in which case it’s more akin to just trying to brand your centralized database with the latest catch phrases to gain attention, support or funding.
Here’s a short list I identified of projects who have developed a defense or a complete solution to 51% hash attacks. To my knowledge, all of these solutions are now active on the respective project main networks, with the exception of Litecoin Cash, which is running on testnet at this time.:
As an industry, we need to face the fact that pure PoW is an incomplete solution to decentralized blockchain security in this age of cheap, fungible compute power. Pure PoW-only systems must evolve, and it’s time we look beyond to understand what are the best solutions that have evolved to address that fact. If you are part of a crypto project, no matter how large, you ignore the notice provided by the ETC attack at your own peril and the peril of your network participants.
My request is this… if you know of a project with a 51% hash attack solution, please provide some information below. If you totally disagree with the main point of this post, please provide a reasoned argument to prove me wrong or explain why pure PoW systems will remain viable indefinitely. As an industry, it’s time we see the blunt reality and apply innovation. Those who don’t will be reduced to interesting historical experiments.
submitted by ethadvisor to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Many mistake that PoW is the single defining factor of Bitcoin. However if you understand that Satoshi didn’t conceive the idea of e-currency, but simply put all the pieces of the puzzle together to gift us Bitcoin, you will understand that it’s a melting pot of ideas & tech.

Many mistake that PoW is the single defining factor of Bitcoin. However if you understand that Satoshi didn’t conceive the idea of e-currency, but simply put all the pieces of the puzzle together to gift us Bitcoin, you will understand that it’s a melting pot of ideas & tech. submitted by BitcoinXio to btc [link] [comments]

Huobi Pool is merge-mining Myriadcoin Please Update Your Mining Node.

The Huobi sha256d pool appears to be merge-mining Myriadcoin (as signed in the auxpow coinbase "/Huobi/"). It is urgent that you update your Myriadcoin node as consensus rules are changing. You risk mining a forked chain. Here is the link:
https://www.reddit.com/myriadcoin/comments/9l0apt/myriadcoin_01440/
Please notify your mining pool operator at your earliest convenience.
submitted by cryptapus to HuobiGlobal [link] [comments]

Dash announces novel approach to mitigating 51% attack and requiring only 1 confirmation = fully confirmed. What do you think? As cool as it seems?

The Hashwar is over if you want it.

Shared from https://blog.dash.org/mitigating-51-attacks-with-llmq-based-chainlocks-7266aa648ec9

Mitigating 51% attacks with LLMQ-based ChainLocks

The recent controversies observed in other crypto projects have shown that threats of 51% mining attacks are real, at least in the sense that they can generate a great deal of uncertainty and fear in the market.

What are 51% mining attacks?

A 51% mining attack becomes possible when a single entity/miner has more hash power than the total combined hash power of all other miners. In this case, the miner is able to overrule all blocks of all other miners, simply by ignoring the blocks found by other miners and mining new blocks only on top of his own blocks.
Such a miner can do this in public, which would be noticed by an unusually high rate of orphaned blocks. The miner can also perform this in private without publishing blocks one by one, and instead publish their own secret chain at once after some time (e.g. hours or days). If this is done, the network would first assume that everything is operating as usual, and then suddenly perform a deep reorganization.
By following this process, the miner is able to attack the network in multiple ways. He could publish transactions to the public chain and secretly mine a conflicting transaction on the secret chain that sends the coins back to himself (which is perfectly valid by consensus rules). He could mine only empty blocks in the secret chain and basically revert all transactions that have been confirmed in the meantime on the public chain. These transactions would very likely be re-confirmed later in new blocks (mined by honest miners), but there is no real guarantee for this to happen. Also, everyone would have to assume that even after re-confirmation, the attack could be repeated, as the malicious miner might already be working on the next secret chain.
These are just a few examples of what a miner with 51% hash power can do. There are probably many more possible attacks/scenarios that all lead to some real damage.

How likely is this?

51% mining attacks are generally assumed to not be an issue as long as the basic assumptions behind proof of work hold true. One of the assumptions is that honesty is generally more profitable than malicious behavior. Another assumption is that most of the hash rate is provided by rational participants who follow the first assumption. Even if part of the network was malicious for some reason, the rational participants would outvote the malicious participants since they have more hash power in total.
There are however situations where these assumptions may become completely void. If for example advancements in ASIC hardware were kept private, distribution of hash power could be shifted in a way that either makes malicious behavior profitable for single entities, or at least reduces losses to an acceptable level.
Also, coins (e.g. Bitcoin Cash) which don’t have the majority of available hash power for their specific hash algorithm are always at risk of being attacked by entities who have a moderate hash rate on the majority coin (Bitcoin Cash uses SHA256D, which is also used by Bitcoin, but it has less than 10% of the hashing power Bitcoin has).
This leads to some level of uncertainty and lack of trust in Proof of Work, which has been shown very clearly by the recent “hash wars” observed in the Bitcoin Cash community. Multiple entities have joined together to create a fork from the Bitcoin Cash network, and threatened to perform 51% attacks on the original network.
Although these attacks have not been (successfully) performed on any major coin so far, the market has reacted in a very negative way, contributing to a downturn in the market and multiple exchanges halting transfers of coins. Even the possibility of such situations is unacceptable if mass adoption is the long term target.

How can Dash solve this?

As of now, Dash is as vulnerable as any other Proof of Work coin and many community members have asked how we can solve this. There was an older proposal called “Collateralized Mining” which would solve the 51% mining attack to some degree, but it would have required massive changes in mining economics (which would have been an issue on its own).
The introduction of Long Living Masternode Quorums (LLMQs) enables us to implement a new protection mechanism against 51% mining attacks. This protection mechanism, called ChainLocks, is proposed in DIP8. This DIP has been in progress for a number of months and we decided to publish it now as an answer to community questions on how Dash is going to handle the threat of 51% attacks. It also makes Collateralized Mining obsolete.

LLMQ-based ChainLocks

The idea of ChainLocks is to perform a verifiable network-wide measurement/vote of the “first-seen” rule. For each block, an LLMQ of a few hundred masternodes is selected and each participating member signs the first block that it sees extending the active chain at the current height. If enough members (e.g. >= 60%) see the same block as the first block, they will be able to create a P2P message (CLSIG) and propagate it to all nodes in the network. There are some more details to this process, especially when multiple miners find a block at approximately the same time. These details are described in DIP8.
The CLSIG message can only be created if enough quorum members agree on it. This is because LLMQs use BLS M-of-N Threshold Signatures and the CLSIG message is required to have a valid threshold signature included. This threshold signature is internally just like a normal BLS signature, and can be verified by all nodes without knowledge of who signed it. This verification only requires the LLMQ’s quorum public key, which can be retrieved from on-chain data. Due to the nature of how LLMQ Signing Requests/Sessions work, there can only be either one valid CLSIG message or none, so there is no uncertainty due to conflicts.
Presence of a valid CLSIG message indicates that most members (e.g. 60%) of the LLMQ have seen the specified block as the first block. As LLMQs are randomly composed from Dash’s Masternode set (currently about 4900 nodes), the distribution of nodes that have seen this block first across the whole network is statistically the same as inside the LLMQ. This means, that if 60% of LLMQ members have seen the block first, about 60% of the whole network should also have seen it first.
If a valid CLSIG message is received by a node, it should reject all blocks (and their descendants) at the same height that do not match the block specified in the CLSIG message. This makes the decision on the active chain quick, easy and unambiguous. It also makes reorganizations below this block impossible.

Implications and effects on the network

ChainLocks have a few very important effects on the whole network and its economics. The most important effect for normal users and merchants is that transactions can be considered fully confirmed after the first on-chain confirmation inside a block protected by ChainLocks. Transactions can no longer vanish from the chain since reorganization of signed/locked blocks is not possible. This means that there is no need anymore to wait for 6 or more confirmations until a received transaction can be considered secure.
It also has effects on the economics of mining. It removes all incentives for miners to cause chain reorganizations. Many attacks based on secret or selfish mining become impossible as they all depend on miners withholding longer and secret chains. Under the current consensus rules, such chains would override the publicly known chain and cause a chain reorganization when published. With ChainLocks however, miners are incentivized to publish every block immediately, even if they in theory have enough hash power to overrule every other miner. Failure to publish creates substantial risks for a malicious miner since any secret chain (even if thousands of blocks longer) would be immediately invalidated if another honest miner publishes a valid block that receives a CLSIG before the secret chain is revealed.

But what about the longest-chain rule?

The longest-chain rule is one of the most important parts of Proof of Work based consensus. The idea is that every node should consider the chain with the most accumulated work as the locally active chain (but only if it is also valid by all other consensus rules). The reason for this rule is that otherwise it wouldn’t be possible to find consensus on which chain to extend. Nodes need to find consensus based on limited information, and the only reliable information which is viable for this is the information found from the chain of headers. Using only the accumulated work (calculable from the headers) makes sure that every node can disconnect and reconnect, and still find consensus at any time.
With ChainLocks, this rule is still in effect, but it can be overridden by a valid CLSIG message. Effectively, only the members of the responsible LLMQ are fully following the longest-chain rule, as they are the ones creating the CLSIG message in collaboration. As the CLSIG message can only be created if enough LLMQ members agree, the presence of the CLSIG message serves as a proof that the referenced block was (or still is) the block resulting in the longest-chain.
This puts quite some trust into CLSIG messages and the Masternode network, but we consider this to be an acceptable tradeoff. The assumption is that the majority of the masternode network is honest, which is basically the same assumption applied to miners in a plain Proof of Work system.
The difference with ChainLocks is that miners AND Masternodes representing 51% of each of the layers would have to collude in order to perform a working attack. And even if an attack succeeded, the attackers would still not be able to cause deep reorganizations, as previous CLSIG messages can’t be invalidated by the attackers. The worst thing that could be achieved is to NOT sign blocks, which would be noticed by all nodes. Also, if any LLMQ with mostly honest masternodes signed a block in-between the attack, all previously unsigned blocks would become fully confirmed as well, making reorganizations for these impossible as well.

And the other consensus rules?

No other consensus rules are affected. All nodes must still fully verify a block before accepting it. This includes double-spending checks, signature checks, and Proof of Work (hash < difficulty target).
A valid CLSIG can NOT enforce acceptance of an otherwise invalid block.

Why can’t other coins have ChainLocks?

One of the main prerequisites required to make ChainLocks secure is a Sybil protected network of semi-trusted nodes. A coin that does not offer such a class of nodes will not be able to implement something like ChainLocks in a secure manner. In Bitcoin for example, anything that would rely on “votes” of individual nodes can be gamed by simply starting up thousands of malicious nodes. The only possible solution would require setting up explicit trust in human selected nodes, but this would be a massively centralized solution.
In Dash, the Masternode network is protected against Sybil attacks by requiring a collateral of 1000 Dash per Masternode. This makes it economically impractical to perform a Sybil attack, simply because buying enough Masternodes would require substantial financial resources, which would be put at high risk while performing any attacks. With the current parameters that we target for LLMQs, an attacker would have to buy at least 60% of all Masternodes to get a realistic chance of success.
I believe that this is one of the most undervalued properties of the Masternode network in Dash. Practical protection against Sybil attacks is the main prerequisite for ChainLocks and any other functions that utilize any form of quorum decisions.
In the future, this unique and powerful network infrastructure will allow us to safely implement more innovative features on top of LLMQs, making Dash even more secure, fast and user-friendly.
submitted by mikenewhouse to CryptoTechnology [link] [comments]

Today I lost my first bits. Dont be like me. Backup everything!

I have been supporting Bitcoin for about 5 years now. In this time I have never failed to keep stringent backups. I got comfortable and it has cost me 0.26 Bitcoin
In a rush to prepare for a trip a few weeks ago I created a new wallet on my new Samsung Galaxy s8+ and put .26 BTC in it in case I met a Bitcoin friendly vendor on my journey. I wrote my recovery seed in a text file on my desktop but did not save the file. Left it open and left home for 5 days. While I was gone the computer crashed for unknown reasons.
I returned home. Powered on the PC, went to sign in to one of my accounts and was prompted to enter my 2fa.
When I pulled my phone from my pocket it vibrated and the screen was black. I assumed the battery was dead and plugged it in. I returned a few minutes later and was presented with a screen to select my language.
At first I assumed it was a new update or something and followed the prompts. When it asked me if I wanted to restore applications I knew I was in trouble.
I had my phone encrypted with a passphrase. Due to the sensitive nature of my work I have it set to wipe the phone and factory reset if the password is entered wrong 10 times.
My .26 BTC is lost forever. Do not be like me. Back everything up in places that are secure. I have invested thousands in securing my crypto currency over the years and all of that was moot due to an error in judgement on my part. Sadly when my Bitcoin reserves are at a historic low.
submitted by BitcoinRootUser to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Pure PoW is DEAD

When I was 16, camping out in an airport waiting to board my first International flight to England I began chatting with a U.S. Airforce pilot who had camped up beside my group. Asking him what it was like to fly at mach speeds he replied in a very sober expression, “you have to be alert at all times. You see a mountain or some obstacle appear on the horizon, you better adjust now or you’re going to slam into it.” Maybe he was adding dramatic effect, I’ve never flown at mach speeds at low altitudes, but I never forgot it and the analogy it carries...especially so fitting for technology and progress.
This past week in cryptocurrency shined an important (and hopefully sobering) light on a “mountain” that appeared on our industries horizon...and has actually been visible to us for far too long already: Pure Proof of Work’s inevitable fate.
By pure, I mean consensus algorithms that use nothing but the original Bitcoin proof of work consensus model without updates or algorithm changes to address its weaknesses relative to the ever expanding technology used to hash it. This means Bitcoin, today’s Ethereum, Zcash, Ethereum Classic, and other coins that comprise most of the value in the top 100 cryptocurrencies. The original, unmodified form of basic PoW that most of these coins use is dead. This demise may not be fully appreciated today, but as sure as a mach-speed plane, unable to turn in time is doomed to collide with a mountain in its path, these blockchains must soon either accept their lack of security in today’s world or fork and upgrade to more effective solutions, some of which have been pioneered by smaller projects that don’t command as much hash power and therefore already had to face and address their need for extra security.
I believe it’s actually irresponsible to deny it and assume economics, hash power, market, sentiment or even self-preservation of network participants will be protection enough.
Because Bitcoin is the biggest (by market cap) of the pure PoW cryptocurrencies in existence today, I’ll establish my arguments using BTC, but the same goes for all pure PoW cryptos.
1 - Economics Bitcoin is often defended because it has the largest market cap of all cryptocurrencies and commands most of the capable hash worldwide that might be used to attack it. It is a “store of value” with proponents of this argument relying on few factors, limited supply combined with sentiment being one of the most prominent. They believe that this limited supply will inevitably drive the price up and, somehow, bitcoin will remain unequivocally secured and established.
Bitcoin has serious limitations in its adherence to the pure PoW model, and though the realities of competition has kept it free from major 51% attacks, I predict that it’s only a matter of time before it cannot command the majority of hash power that may be used to attack it. Lack of acceptance that consensus must use more than just PoW, even when checkpoints are an already accepted as necessary augmentation, leaves Bitcoin open to a catastrophic failure at some point in the future, which would affect the short term value of every cryptocurrency, even those that have addressed and solved the most glaring security challenges of a pure PoW model. Some projects have developed and are now using more advanced, more secure technology than pure PoW, and still remain fully decentralized. This is now an area where altcoins are leading, as they fill the security vacuum. With altcoins also having smart contracts and advanced currency capabilities and being potential stores of value as well, the landscape visible on the horizon in front of us looks quite different from the smooth sailing we have seen behind us with respect to projects relying on PoW and PoW alone. I’m not suggesting that Bitcoin should try to be everything that every other altcoin is becoming, but to rely on its single function as an argument of it’s security and sustainability while refraining from important technical advancements to secure its future, is foolish. The calculator is an important, valuable, and useful tool, yet people understood that it should be part of a more multifunction solution and now carry one around inside their smartphone.
The argument supporting Bitcoin’s status quo as a pure PoW blockchain and claiming it is perfect as is for whatever particular reason, is often combined with the following and includes an argument resting on self-preservation. In other words, why would anyone be nefarious and ruin their own wealth and store of value given the enormous hash power and cost it would take to attack Bitcoin? Bitcoin, then, relies on theoretical protection with idealistic boundaries.
2 - Hash Power and Hardware Capabilities This is sort of a 2 in 1 argument. Bitcoin is considered by many, the most secure blockchain in terms of pure hash power. In other words, more hash power is directed at Bitcoin than any other cryptocurrency and, there are limits to sha256d hashing speeds, economically and in hardware capabilities therefore it would be too expensive to attack Bitcoin and by the same token, make no sense to the attacker to do any wrong in this case (self preservation).
To assume technology, A: is limited to what we know now and B: will remain within these bounds for long, is just ignorant. What happens when sha256d can be hashed faster, when hardware innovations change the cost and capabilities involved? How do we know it isn’t possible now? What’s more, will Bitcoin always hold its position as the “special” coin due to its leading network hashpower that simply will never experience a world where there is enough available hash power from other sources to use for a 51% attack? The argument that Bitcoin will remain special is not an argument that its technology can protect it, especially with its roots as a project that grew from a figurative David with its sights set on the Goliath of the banking industry.
Look at the enormous hash power presently directed at Bitcoin and ask, what happens if that hash power is suddenly directed at another, less special coin, as part of a 51% attack? Is that other coin ready to defend in some way against that event? And how does this then impact Bitcoin? I would submit that at the end of the analysis, if the only thing protecting Bitcoin and its current technology from being doublespent to death is the fact that it is uniquely “special” because it is biggest, then as it unarguably becomes centralized among the largest Bitcoin participants and/or institutions, in an ironic way, refusal to improve technology could create exactly the systemic centralization that Satoshi was trying to prevent.
Even so, the idea that Bitcoin can always and forever remain the largest cryptocurrency and “special” as such, ignores historical realities that teach us differently. Remember “alta-vista”, the pre-Google winner of the search engine wars? Remember AOL? MySpace? The economics of bitcoin as people understand them today, the economics involved in mining pure PoW, the sentiment and value assigned to bitcoin and any coin now, can change as rapidly as Bitcoin emerged, even unexpectedly to the masses.
The ETC attack of only a few days ago just put the entire Cryptocurrency industry on notice. Any project without an active solution in place of immunity or at least a defense against a 51% hash attack is in trouble. I would argue that even though it will likely still take some time for market dynamics to enable an attacker to reasonably mount a 51% attack on the largest pure PoW cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, without new defense against such an attack, it is a question of when, not if.
The other day I identified a small handful of projects that have developed and are using defenses against 51% hash attacks, only one of which has a provable solution of hash attack immunity in place.
It’s important to note, any solution that can be seen as real progress over the Bitcoin protocol must be one that is decentralized. While some cryptocurrencies solve the 51% hash attack problem with a fully centralized approach, that truly misses the point of the original Bitcoin paper. Centralized databases are a different technology altogether, and implementing a centralized solution to a decentralized technology changes it entirely, in which case it’s more akin to just trying to brand your centralized database with the latest catch phrases to gain attention, support or funding.
Here’s a short list I identified of projects who have developed a defense or a complete solution to 51% hash attacks. To my knowledge, all of these solutions are now active on the respective project main networks, with the exception of Litecoin Cash, which is running on testnet at this time.:
As an industry, we need to face the fact that pure PoW is an incomplete solution to decentralized blockchain security in this age of cheap, fungible compute power. Pure PoW-only systems must evolve, and it’s time we look beyond to understand what are the best solutions that have evolved to address that fact. If you are part of a crypto project, no matter how large, you ignore the notice provided by the ETC attack at your own peril and the peril of your network participants.
My request is this… if you know of a project with a 51% hash attack solution, please provide some information below. If you totally disagree with the main point of this post, please provide a reasoned argument to prove me wrong or explain why pure PoW systems will remain viable indefinitely. As an industry, it’s time we see the blunt reality and apply innovation. Those who don’t will be reduced to interesting historical experiments.
submitted by ethadvisor to CryptoTechnology [link] [comments]

a hardfork is the worst thing that could happen to bitcoin

why?well cryptocurrency money is the way of the future for sure from what we know as of today. if china gets its bitcoin2,then whats to stop usa from getting bitcoin3 and japan from bitcoin4 etc etc. and here we go we are back to a divided world with all our differences and wars etc etc. right now bitcoin has the potential to unite the world. united it stands,divided it will fall. and this scenario could play out on any coin keeping us in the dark ages so to speak. sure there will be money to be made and lost for traders,but the average folk...... with bitcoin as 1 coin everyone can get ahead if they save and the population continues to rise....its a simple formula that can be broken...and maybe we are seeing that happen right now.
submitted by undadatunda to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Can quantum computers threaten bitcoin's cryptography in the future?

I believe bitcoin is in it for the long haul, when people talk about it's weaknesses, cryptography is rarely mentioned because it's really strong, and that's true at least for traditional computers.
Quantum computers in this day and age do exist but are nowhere as practical or viable to be used to attack the bitcoin network or it's crypto.
But some time in the distant or maybe near future, may it be 50 years or 80 years, how will bitcoin be able to hypothetically handle brute force attacks using the sheer power of quantum computation?
Can it evolve with the technology and develop quantum computer resistant cryptography?
submitted by HariSeldon4 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[dev] Very developer update

Dear Shibes,
I have the honor of updating you this time with news from the development front, as both u/rnicoll and u/langer_hans are occupied. I’ll try to keep it as to-the-point as possible.
Last week we started to have interactions with the Namecoin development team, as they found u/rnicoll’s gem libdohj and that with all the work he did there and on bitcoinj, he actually did the majority of altcoins a huge favor, as most coins can now very easily, without having to hack bitcoinj, create a java wallet for their coin.
Returning the favor, the Namecoin devs alerted us to the impeding BIP9 implementation in Bitcoin (and therefore becoming a protocol standard that other coins will copy) that conflicts with the auxpow standard that both Namecoin and Dogecoin implement. We’ve quickly looked at BIP9 before, and shortly discussed it, but at that time it seemed to be far on the horizon and a proposal that was very likely to get shot down. However, now that Bitcoin Core wants to introduce Segregated Witness in the short term, BIP9 is very likely to also get implemented short term, and the conflict, unfortunately, remains.
Both Namecoin and Dogecoin have to do something: we need to update the standard to make sure that coins we allow in our auxpow proofs (sha256d coins for Namecoin and scrypt coins for Dogecoin), cannot influence the rules that decide whether a block is valid or not, or we could see an artificial drop in hashrate, putting us at risk of losing security “by accident”. Until so far the bad news, on to the good news.
The good news is that we have been working together with the Namecoin devs on a solution and we know what to do: we’ll change our rules a little bit, so that other coins cannot influence the proof of work validation on our end anymore, without breaking their own. That way, we can be assured that as long as other coins like Litecoin do not hard-fork (when they do that, we need to check ourselves in any case) we will have a working security model. I’m currently reviewing code that is developed by the Namecoin devs, to help them and in the same time have something good that we can take from them: it’s great work as a team with another coin as awesome as Namecoin, too!
The roadmap for Dogecoin is now:
We’re still discussing some details of how we’re going to implement the hard-fork, which mechanism we’ll use to determine the fork moment and when that exactly will take place. We will get back with a proposal on that soon.
So what does this mean for Dogecoin:
  1. We want to make sure that the hard-fork only triggers if more than 95% of the miners are migrated. This is more secure as it means the maximum amount of hashpower we’ll lose is 5%.
  2. We will keep working with Namecoin to make sure that we have a standardized implementation. This helps with transparency and custom implementations (most pools nowadays have custom implementations for “SPV mining”)
What does this mean for shibes:
  1. For now, keep building and fueling your rockets and training for zero gravity environments, this is not a major change like we had before, but it is one that forces an update for everyone, and important enough to do so.
  2. Once we release, you’ll have to update your wallets. We will absolutely notify you and you’ll have a lot of time to do so (many months.)
  3. We will remind you often. Like every other week. And of course whenever we meet you on IRC, per email, on the street and even on reddit, any chance we get, really :-)
To the moon!
submitted by patricklodder to dogecoin [link] [comments]

HTMLcoin is changing entirely.

The new HTMLcoin is not just a cryptocurrency but a new secure sha256d blockchain based on a fully integrated Bitcoin Core and Ethereum cpp client codebase, to deliver Smart Contracts and Distributed Applications (DAPPS). It implements an extendable design which is capable of adding more virtual machines (VM), enabled through an Account Abstraction Layer, which allows an account based VM to function on a Bitcoin UTXO based Blockchain. We have the strength of Bitcoin and features of Ethereum on one platform.
Another way of describing it is that we are moving from an older Blockchain to a new one which is based on bitcoin core 0.14 (csv/segwit) with the ethereum client c++ codebase integrated on top. We have the best of both worlds on one blockchain.
As well as being a coin, HTMLCOIN will be the gateway to buying tokens from dapps and smart contracts on the HTMLCOIN blockchain where it will can also be exchanged for the gas required to drive smart contracts.
The HTMLcoin Foundation is developing key use cases to show the capabilities of the platform where decentralized technologies using cryptocurrencies and distributed applications can bring innovation to large economic groups and communities across the globe. We are working with a number of partners and startups across the globe to join our Blockchain, for their crowdfunding and final deployed services.
The features of HTMLCoin include:
● Double SHA256: is used by Bitcoin and other established blockchains to provide a secure and provens cryptographic wrap for HTMLCOIN.
● Real Time Checkpointing: Protects the history of the chain from being changed by 51% attacks, and broadcasts block height and hash of the main chain that cannot be overwritten.
● Enhanced Hash Rate Compensation: Adjusts every 120 blocks but with short, medium and long block time samples to average out the adjust and apply 25% damping to the result.
● Hybrid Bitcoin / Ethereum: Uses both the Bitcoin and Ethereum codebase combining Bitcoin with EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machines).
● Smart Contracts: Protocol to facilitate, verify or enforce negotiation or performance of a contract.
● Simple Payment Verification: Execute smart contracts from lite wallets.
● Decentralized Applications and distributed computing platform: The new HTMLCoin network will to be able to create smart contracts and other more fully fledged complex EVM apps.
● Account Abstraction Layer: extension to Bitcoins ‘Script’ language, sits between the blockchain and EVM and allows decentralised applications and smart contracts to run in environments that were not possible before.
submitted by amc198009 to htmlcoin_community [link] [comments]

So you’ve got your miner working, busy hashing away … but what is it really doing?

Posted for eternity @ https://vertcoin.easymine.online/articles/mining
Your miner is repeatedly hashing (see below for detail about a hash) a block of data, looking for a resulting output that is lower than a predetermined target. Each time this calculation is performed, one of the fields in the input data is changed, and this results in a different output. The output is not able to be determined until the work is completed – otherwise why would we bother doing the work in the first place?
Each hash takes a block header (see more below, but basically this is a 80-byte block of data). It runs this through the hashing function, and what comes out is a 32-byte output. For each, we usually represent that output in hexadecimal format, so it looks something like:
5da4bcb997a90bec188542365365d8b913af3f1eb7deaf55038cfcd04f0b11a0 
(that’s 64 hexadecimal characters – each character represents 4-bits. 64 x 4 bits = 256bit = 32 bytes)
The maximum value for our hash is:
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 
And the lowest is:
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 
The goal in Proof-of-Work systems is to look for a hash that is lower than a specific target, i.e. starts with a specific number of leading zeros. This target is what determines the difficulty.
As the output of the hash is indeterminate, we look to statistics and probability to estimate how much work (i.e. attempts at hashing) we need to complete to find a hash that is lower than a specific target. So, we can therefore assume that to find a hash that starts with a leading zero will take, on average, 16 hashes. To find one that will start with two leading zeros (00), we’re looking at 256 hashes. Four leading zeros (0000) will take 65,536 hashes. Eight leading zeros (00000000) takes 4,294,967,296 hashes. So on and so on, until we realize that it will take 2 ^ 256 (a number too big for me to show here) attempts at hitting our minimum hash value.
Remember – this number of hashes is just an estimate. Think of it like rolling a dice. A 16-sided dice. And then rolling it 64 times in a row. And hoping to strike a specific number of leading zeros. Sometimes it will take far less than the estimate, sometimes it will take far more. Over a long enough time period though (with our dice it may take many billions of years), the averages hold true.
Difficulty is a measure used in cryptocurrencies to simply show how much work is needed to find a specific block. A block of difficulty 1 must have a hash smaller than:
00000000FFFF0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 
A block of difficulty 1/256 (0.00390625) must have a hash lower than:
000000FFFF000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 
And a block of difficulty 256 must have a hash lower than:
0000000000FFFF00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 
So the higher the difficulty, the lower the hash must be; therefore more work must be completed to find the block.
Take a recent Vertcoin block – block # 852545, difficulty 41878.60056944499. This required a hash lower than:
000000000001909c000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 
The achieve finding this, a single miner would need to have completed, on average 179,867,219,848,013 hashes (calculated by taking the number of hashes needed for a difficulty 1 block - 4,294,967,296 or 2 ^ 32 or 16 ^ 8 – and multiplied by the difficulty). Of course, our single miner may have found this sooner – or later – than predicted.
Cryptocurrencies alter the required difficulty on a regular basis (some like Vertcoin do it after every block, others like Bitcoin or Litecoin do it every 2016 blocks), to ensure the correct number of blocks are found per day. As the hash rate of miners increases, so does the difficulty to ensure this average time between blocks remains the same. Likewise, as hash rate decreases, the difficulty decreases.
With difficulties as high as the above example, solo-mining (mining by yourself, not in a pool) becomes a very difficult task. Assume our miner can produce 100 MH/s. Plugging in this into the numbers above, we can see it’s going to take him (on average) 1,798,673 seconds of hashing to find a hash lower than the target – that’s just short of 21 days. But, if his luck is down, it could easily take twice that long. Or, if he’s lucky, half that time.
So, assuming he hit’s the average, for his 21 days mining he has earned 25 VTC.
Lets take another look at the same miner, but this time he’s going to join a pool, where he is working with a stack of other miners looking for that elusive hash. Assume the pool he has joined does 50 GH/s – in that case he has 0.1 / 50 or 0.2% of the pool’s hash rate. So for any blocks the pool finds he should earn 0.2% of 25 VTC = 0.05 VTC. At 50 GH/s, the pool should expect to spend 3,597 seconds between finding blocks (2 ^ 32 * difficulty / hashrate). So about every hour, our miner can expect to earn 0.05 VTC. This works out to be about 1.2 VTC per day, and when we extrapolate over the estimated 21 days of solo mining above, we’re back to 25 VTC.
The beauty of pooled-mining over solo-mining is that the time between blocks, whilst they can vary, should be closer to the predicted / estimated times over a shorter time period. The same applies when comparing pools – pools with a smaller hash rate will experience a greater variance in time between blocks than a pool with a greater hash rate. But in the end, looking back over a longer period of time, earnings will be the same.
Hashes
A Hash is a cryptographic function that can take an arbitrary sized block of data and maps it to a fixed sized output. It is a one-way function – only knowing the input data can one calculate the output; the reverse action is impossible. Also, small changes to the input data usually result in significant changes to the output value.
For example, take the following string:
“the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog” 
If we perform a SHA256 hash of this, it results in:
05c6e08f1d9fdafa03147fcb8f82f124c76d2f70e3d989dc8aadb5e7d7450bec 
If we change a single character in the input string (in this case we will replace the ‘o’ in ‘over’ to a zero), the resulting hash becomes:
de492f861d6bb8438f65b2beb2e98ae96a8519f19c24042b171d02ff4dfecc82 
Blocks
A block is made up of a header, and at least one transaction. The first transaction in the block is called the Coinbase transaction – it is the transactions that creates new coins, and it specifies the addresses that those coins go to. The Coinbase transaction is always the first transaction in a block, and there can only be one. All other transactions included in a block are transactions that send coins from one wallet address to another.
The block header is an 80-byte block of data that is made up of the following information in this order:
  • Version – a 32-bit/4-byte integer
  • Previous Block’s SHA256d Hash – 32 bytes
  • Merkle Hash of the Transactions – 32 bytes
  • Timestamp - a 32-bit/4-byte integer the represents the time of the block in seconds past 1st January 1970 00:00 UTC
  • nBits - a 32-bit/4-byte integer that represents the maximum value of the hash of the block
  • Nonce - a 32-bit/4-byte integer
The Version of a block remains relatively static through a coin’s lifetime – most blocks will have the same version. Typically only used to introduce new features or enforce new rules – for instance Segwit adoption is enforced by encoding information into the Version field.
The Previous Blocks’ Hash is simple a doubled SHA256 hash of the last valid blocks header.
The Merkle Hash is a hash generated by chaining all of the transactions together in a hash tree – thus ensuring that once a transaction is included in a block, it cannot be changed. It becomes a permanent record in the blockchain.
Timestamp loosely represents the time the block was generated – it does not have to be exact, anywhere within an hour each way of the real time will be accepted.
nBits – this is the maximum hash that this block must have in order to be considered valid. Bitcoin encodes the maximum hash into a 4-byte value as this is more efficient and provides sufficient accuracy.
Nonce – a simple 4-byte integer value that is incremented by a miner in order to find a resulting hash that is lower than that specified by nBits.
submitted by nzsquirrell to VertcoinMining [link] [comments]

Technical: How is the global BTC hashrate calculated?

I'm coming up with different numbers - here's my estimate:
The hash space for SHA256 is 2256, so that would be ~1.158E77
The current target is 18050edc (in bits) which should be: ~1.240E56
So the number of hash attempts on average should be: ~9.336E20
Assuming you have on average 10 mins you need to achieve that number of attempts in 600 seconds, so your hash attempts per second should be: ~1.556E18
Which itself is not far off the 1.7 exahash/sec that I see; except that each hash comparison requires finding the double-hash of the proposed header bytes: SHA256(SHA256(Header))
So I end up with an estimate of ~3.112E18
Am I going wrong somewhere or does "global hashrate" implicitly mean a double hash per hash comparison?
If it does, then if say an antminer S9 does 12 TH/s is that a single or double hash?
Grateful for any insights here!
submitted by zeptochain to btc [link] [comments]

A writing style comparaison between CSW and Satoshi

I would like to post this comment and let anyone make his own mind on how likely it is that CSW and Satoshi are the same person:
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/9uoy92/comment/e962non
The full thread, for the lulz:
A note. Many like to treat me like Casandra. Well, here is your warning to ignore at your peril. We will win this fast, or we will win this slow, but, we will win this. Others would like this to be "nicer", I would prefer a lesson. I want to have people understand Bitcoin.
If it means we spend a year or more slowly bleeding every satoshi of value one by one from the ABC chain, we will. Without exception. If ABC stays on SHA256d and does not add replay protection, we will hound it.
Not until it is weak, not until it is unlisted on every miner and major and home level exchange globally, but until the last CPU running it anywhere globally burns out If this means chasing a lone dev with a CPU to burn that last vestige of hope, and you think I will not...
Then, you do not know me! But, you will learn. This is not vengeance. It is a lesson. And I intend to burn it into the hearts and souls of all the socialists in ABC so their great grand children do not forget it! Have a nice day
The thing that strikes me straight away is how much he sounds like Satoshi Nakamto /s :
I wish you wouldn’t keep talking about me as a mysterious shadowy figure, the press just turns that into a pirate currency angle. Maybe instead make it about the open source project and give more credit to your dev contributors; it helps motivate them.
submitted by Ant-n to btc [link] [comments]

Why mine other crypto currencies?

Is it not better to just mine bitcoin only since its value is a lot higher than ethereum and other currencies?
submitted by Pyro_Woof to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

How can I make test-net?

I've tried to make test-net for mining pool test. There's no information or seed node for testnet. and find reddit and add testnet node to conf, but, testnode ip is very old , not working now. Is there latest information for make testnet? thanks,
(update)
my config also have a testnet=1 addnode=nz.nutty.one:20888 from searched community .
-- here's logs --
2018-03-12 13:38:46 Bitcoin version v0.14.2.5-6ad93ba 2018-03-12 13:38:46 InitParameterInteraction: parameter interaction: -whitelistforcerelay=1 -> setting -whitelistrelay=1 2018-03-12 13:38:46 Assuming ancestors of block ff983c72147a81ac5b8ebfc68b62b39358cac4b8eb5518242e87f499b71c6a51 have valid signatures. 2018-03-12 13:38:49 Default data directory /home/nomp/.myriadcoin 2018-03-12 13:38:49 Using data directory /home/nomp/nomp_chaindata/myriadcoin-test/testnet 2018-03-12 13:38:49 Using config file /home/nomp/nomp_chaindata/myriadcoin-test/myriadcoin.conf 2018-03-12 13:38:49 Using at most 125 automatic connections (1024 file descriptors available) 2018-03-12 13:38:49 Using 32 MiB out of 32 requested for signature cache, able to store 1048576 elements 2018-03-12 13:38:49 Using 2 threads for script verification 2018-03-12 13:38:49 scheduler thread start 2018-03-12 13:38:49 HTTP: creating work queue of depth 16 2018-03-12 13:38:49 Config options rpcuser and rpcpassword will soon be deprecated. Locally-run instances may remove rpcuser to use cookie-based auth, or may be replaced with rpcauth. Please see share/rpcuser for rpcauth auth generation. 2018-03-12 13:38:49 HTTP: starting 4 worker threads 2018-03-12 13:38:49 Using BerkeleyDB version Berkeley DB 4.8.30: (April 9, 2010) 2018-03-12 13:38:49 Using wallet wallet.dat 2018-03-12 13:38:49 init message: Verifying wallet... 2018-03-12 13:38:51 CDBEnv::Open: LogDir=/home/nomp/nomp_chaindata/myriadcoin-test/testnet/database ErrorFile=/home/nomp/nomp_chaindata/myriadcoin-test/testnet/db.log 2018-03-12 13:38:51 Bound to [::]:10898 2018-03-12 13:38:51 Bound to 0.0.0.0:10898 2018-03-12 13:38:51 Cache configuration: 2018-03-12 13:38:51 * Using 2.0MiB for block index database 2018-03-12 13:38:51 * Using 8.0MiB for chain state database 2018-03-12 13:38:51 * Using 440.0MiB for in-memory UTXO set (plus up to 286.1MiB of unused mempool space) 2018-03-12 13:38:51 init message: Loading block index... 2018-03-12 13:38:51 Opening LevelDB in /home/nomp/nomp_chaindata/myriadcoin-test/testnet/blocks/index 2018-03-12 13:38:59 Opened LevelDB successfully ... 2018-03-12 13:43:39 keypool added key 100, size=100 2018-03-12 13:43:42 keypool added key 101, size=101 2018-03-12 13:43:43 keypool reserve 1 2018-03-12 13:43:44 keypool keep 1 2018-03-12 13:43:50 wallet 282608ms 2018-03-12 13:43:50 setKeyPool.size() = 100 2018-03-12 13:43:50 mapWallet.size() = 0 2018-03-12 13:43:50 mapAddressBook.size() = 1 2018-03-12 13:43:51 UpdateTip: new best=0000017ce2a79c8bddafbbe47c004aa92b20678c354b34085f62b762084b9788 height=0 version=0x00000002 algo=0 (sha256d) log2_work=17.678071 tx=1 date='2014-02-20 06:06:33' progress=0.000003 cache=0.0MiB(0tx) 2018-03-12 13:43:51 mapBlockIndex.size() = 1 2018-03-12 13:43:51 Failed to open mempool file from disk. Continuing anyway. 2018-03-12 13:43:51 nBestHeight = 0 2018-03-12 13:43:51 torcontrol thread start 2018-03-12 13:43:51 AddLocal(x.x.2x.x:10898,1) 2018-03-12 13:43:51 Discover: IPv4 enp3s0: 175.2x.x.x 2018-03-12 13:43:51 init message: Loading addresses... 2018-03-12 13:43:51 ERROR: Read: Failed to open file /home/nomp/nomp_chaindata/myriadcoin-test/testnet/peers.dat 2018-03-12 13:43:51 Invalid or missing peers.dat; recreating 2018-03-12 13:43:52 init message: Loading banlist... ... 2018-03-12 13:55:05 addcon thread start 2018-03-12 13:55:05 opencon thread start 2018-03-12 13:55:05 dnsseed thread start 2018-03-12 13:55:05 net thread start 2018-03-12 13:55:05 connect() to 75.19.27.27:20888 failed after select(): Connection refused (111) 2018-03-12 13:55:06 connect() to 75.19.27.28:20888 failed after select(): Connection refused (111) 2018-03-12 13:55:16 Loading addresses from DNS seeds (could take a while) 2018-03-12 13:55:17 3 addresses found from DNS seeds 2018-03-12 13:55:17 dnsseed thread exit 2018-03-12 13:55:17 connect() to 75.19.27.27:20888 failed after select(): Connection refused (111) 2018-03-12 13:55:18 connect() to 75.19.27.28:20888 failed after select(): Connection refused (111) 2018-03-12 13:55:22 connect() to 75.19.27.27:20888 failed after select(): Connection refused (111) 2018-03-12 13:55:23 connect() to 75.19.27.28:20888 failed after select(): Connection refused (111) 2018-03-12 1 ....
same forever until today. can't encrease test node heights.
submitted by trustfarmhub to myriadcoin [link] [comments]

Multiple simultaneous PoWs

I've made multiple comments about this but I'm starting to feel like a spammer so I'll start a big post here and be done with it.
Everyone's asking what do we do about the PoW? If we don't change it, the chain could easily be attacked. This hasn't happened with ETC, but that's no guarantee. We could switch to a new PoW that is GPU/CPU friendly, but then we would also instantly lose support from 100% of current Bitcoin miners. Many of them would be sympathetic to our fork if we don't fire them...
The solution can be borrowed from an altcoin called Myriadcoin. Instead of a block being solved by satisfying sha256d(sha256d(header + nonce)) < diff, you could have:
sha256d(sha256d(header + nonce)) < shaDiff OR equihash(header + nonce) < equihashDiff
Whichever solution propagates across the network first, wins. Sha blocks could build on top of equihash blocks and vice versa, on the same chain. This eliminates the possibility of sha256 miners performing a 51% attack.
I used sha256d and equishash as an example, but it's possible to use any PoW and to have more than 2.
Tl;dr: We can have the best of both worlds.
submitted by myriadyoucunts to btcfork [link] [comments]

Mining Bitcoin with pencil and paper What is a Bitcoin hash and SHA-256 Bitcoin in Action #7 – Che cosa è lo SHA256? What is SHA256?  Bitcoin mining using Raspberry Pi What is SHA 256 and Moby Dick in English - How Bitcoin Earn ?

E xisten muchos sistemas para codificar la información y uno de ellos es el algoritmo SHA-256. Este es un algoritmo de hash que es usado por Bitcoin para garantizar la integridad de la información almacenada en un bloque, entre otras cosas.. Como casi todos los avances en materia de criptografía, los gobiernos del mundo han tenido un papel fundamental debido a las guerras. #What is SHA-256? The SHA (Secure Hash Algorithm) is one of a number of cryptographic hash functions.A cryptographic hash is like a signature for a data set. If you would like to compare two sets of raw data (source of the file, text or similar) it is always better to hash it and compare SHA256 values. List of known Bitcoin pools (BTC) SHA-256 PoW algorithm. Live network hashrate distribution, pool fees & minimum payment comparison. Mining Pools & Block Explorer SHA-256 is a member of the SHA-2 cryptographic hash functions designed by the NSA. SHA stands for Secure Hash Algorithm. Cryptographic hash functions are mathematical operations run on digital data; by comparing the computed "hash" (the output from execution of the algorithm) to a known and expected hash value, a person can determine the data's integrity. SHA-256 is a member of the SHA-2 cryptographic hash functions designed by the NSA. SHA stands for Secure Hash Algorithm. Cryptographic hash functions are mathematical operations run on digital data; by comparing the computed "hash" (the output from execution of the algorithm) to a known and expected hash value, a person can determine the data's integrity.

[index] [25249] [11490] [4560] [29028] [20244] [16030] [26790] [557] [25662] [10476]

Mining Bitcoin with pencil and paper

The most successful and widely-used form of digital money is #cryptocurrency #Bitcoin. #Digital #money is exchanged using technologies such as smartphones, credit cards, and online cryptocurrency ... Che cosa è lo #SHA256 e dove è utilizzato in #Bitcoin? Come si calcola l'#hash della transazione? 1:08 La pratica ––– GitHub: https://bit.ly/2Lj3yeY ––– Libro Bitcoin dalla teoria ... How To Setup Gekko Science 2Pac USB Mining Bitcoin Algorithm SHA 256 - Duration: 9:29. Little Life 2,840 views. 9:29. The unsolved math problem which could be worth a billion dollars. Bitcoins are mined using a cryptographic algorithm called SHA-256. This algorithm is simple enough to be done with pencil and paper, as I show in this video. Not surprisingly, this is a thoroughly ... Bitcoin Explained Simply for Dummies - Duration: 12:49. 99Bitcoins 973,198 views. 12:49. What is a HashTable Data Structure - Introduction to Hash Tables , Part 0 - Duration: 7:37.

Flag Counter