Bitcoin Mining Difficulty - What is it And How Does it

“Difficulty Ribbon”: an Algorithm to Determine the Best Time to Buy Bitcoin

“Difficulty Ribbon”: an Algorithm to Determine the Best Time to Buy Bitcoin
Nowadays there exist a lot of trading strategies by which traders work on cryptocurrency platforms making profit. Some of them are successful, others are not. There are constant attempts to find strategies or formula helping to earn a higher return in Bitcoin or in other coins. Not long ago so called Bitcoin Difficulty Ribbon was presented. It consists of moving averages based on mining difficulty charts.
According to the Difficulty Ribbon, mining influences Bitcoin price. With mining new coins miners engage in selling some of them to recoup their production costs. It results in forming of the bearish price pressure. When hash power and network difficulty reduce, the Ribbon compresses. Only the most productive miners remain, they sell less, opening up thus the prospects of Bitcoin price rising.
Such situation is seen at the very end of the bearishmarket phases, when a part of miners begins to leave the market and the price at first stabilizes, and then goes up. To use the Difficulty Ribbon it’s necessary to have a clear understanding that Bitcoin price anyway finds a certain balance and then starts to go up or to drop.
When miners’ costs begin to increase, they seek to sell part of the coins, and if the trader knows about it, then he gets an opportunity to sell short, and vice versa. This year has witnessed a massive retreat of the miners, and the Ribbon was going down. As a result reduced pressure on sellers was changed by short-term consolidation, and a sharp upsurge in price was noted afterwards.
It is worth noting that next year in spring another halving is expected that will lead to a situation where the reward for a mined block will be even less, and that’s why Bitcoin will become even more expensive. It will be also affected by the trade war between global players and mass development of the cryptocurrency industry.
Of course, it couldn’t be said that the Difficulty Ribbon is a universal solution which allowsdetermining the right time to buy Bitcoin. However, it helps to determine critical points and to know the time of miners’ starting to quit and betting. To do that it’s necessary to possess sources of information and contacts among miners, but for a trader striving for success it won’t be a problem.
Perhaps, the Difficulty Ribbon will be part of the entire conglomerate which will allow in the future performing trade transactions with a high success rate or it will remain a highly specialized algorithm for the most experienced traders of the cryptocurrency market.
submitted by iTradeBit to bitcoin_crypto [link] [comments]

Letter to the Elastos Team

As the entire blockchain industry endures hard times and the price of ELA has fallen almost 90% from its peak, it is appropriate that we collectively gather our thoughts. We understand that the currently price is merely a reflection of the overall market. Regardless of the current price, we will stick with and continue to help grow Elastos.
In light of the above, the launch of ELA merged mining with which has made us particularly nervous. The white paper states, “the amount of ELA in circulation will increase annually at a fixed rate of 4%”, and according to our calculations, this means 1.32 million more ELA is added to circulation every year. We believe most investors do not understand this.
The respective circulated supply of ETH and EOS tokens are 99.99% and 90%, compared with ELA which is only at 23%. Furthermore, ETH and EOS have lower inflation rates of just 1%. We feel this better protects the interests of their communities.
Since we participated in the private token sale or (ICO), we hope that the Elastos team can value the community interests and play by the game’s rules. For the long and prosperous development of the Elastos project and to protect investor and community interests, we have some suggestions as follows:

  1. The total amount of ELA should be kept constant at 33 million. The 12 million ELA reserved for the Elastos foundation, should be produced by merged mining where every 2 or 4 years, the mining difficulty is doubled. ELA already produced through mining and currently held by the foundation should be burned. A good blockchain project is not defined by how much was invested but by the performance of the blockchain itself in addition to the competence and charm of the team.
  2. The whitepaper also states “the Elastos foundation will take 30%”, we suggest removing the 30% which means the inflation rate drops to 2.8%
  3. The tokens produced through mining should be based on the following formula:
current circulated supply x 2.8% - therefore currently, we would be looking at 8 million x 2.8%

  1. At the initial stages, bitcoin should be used for any investments so as to reduce the released amount of ELA on the secondary market. We need to make clear and distinct rules for the release of tokens for ecosystem investments to provide a more stable secondary market for ELA.
  2. All expenses should be paid in bitcoin, and then ELA if required (e.g. team motivational purposes). Regular public announcements should be made regarding project spend.
  3. Build a better ELA token economic model which factors in usage and consumption etc.
  4. Speed up developments on the underlying platform, and support the projects that will add value to the Elastos ecosystem.
We (community) share the same vision with the Elastos team and want to help improve the project, making it great. We aim to spread this letter to all community members. All views and suggestions are warmly welcomed. It is time to show the power of our Elastos community.
submitted by AllenMG to Elastos [link] [comments]

Debunked: "Bitcoin needs to become a store of value before it can be used as a medium of exchange."

Savings and consumption go hand in hand. One is quite useless without the other and if you try to base your money solely on store of value or rapid deflation — basically for sake of seeing a number on a screen appreciate — then you are running a pump scheme desperately looking for others to provide you with the real justification for the exceedingly higher price and you are just as much against sound money as anyone instead preferring to see it depreciate.
This is the case even if you think that you will necessarily have the use value in commerce of that same number created increase in relation to other goods or necessarily keep the same price tag on the global market later when you finally decide to reconfigure it's attributes. The market will not treat your coin the same way once you give it an actual use case besides speculation and there can be no guarantees as to its price once you stop those actions that made it rise in price so far.

Central planning or manipulation of the price system through the introduction of artificial shortages do not make sound money, no matter your intentions or the direction price takes in order to compensate for your shenanigans.

Bubbles form in environments where for one reason or another demand becomes artificially great in relation to supply considering somethings non-speculative use case. What is done to the price of an asset by systematically forcing rapid deflation is the private equivalent of what the central banks of the world do to all other assets when they are devaluing their locally prescribed fiat currency. It may sound better for savers, but is just as unsustainable and in fact erodes the point of regularly increasing ones savings in the first place.
Without having a monopoly, trade in the actual underlying asset thus historically tends to be replaced with much more risky promissary notes used off the record (off chain) and diminish overall in favor off any and all comparable alternatives that provide better liquidity. Trade in the underlying asset may never stop entirely, but it's connection to the rest of the productive economy has significantly worsened and made it's use increasingly unproductive except where absolutely needed.
To quote Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, a big proponent of money as a store of value,
Money is a tool of exchange; it represents wealth only so long as it can be traded for material goods and services. Wealth does not grow in nature; it has to be produced by men. . .
. . When people refuse to consider the source of wealth, what they refuse to recognize is the fact that wealth is the product of man’s intellect, of his creative ability, fully as much as is art, science, philosophy or any other human value.
Source: The Objectivist Forum
So you think that money is the root of all evil? . . . Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
Source: For the New Intellectual
As per Satoshis design — now arguably better implemented in the form of Bitcoin Cash — bitcoins were always a store of value, because they represented the fungible results of hours of precious computing power that had been consciously expended in order to create them.
They clearly had value to the creator and they also clearly were fungible enough to be divisible into very small pieces and easily passed on to another wallet held by Satoshi himself or by one of his earliest friends to join him in running the network.
The Bitcoin design had been created as the productive response to issues of the past that all stemmed from the problem of having to trust in the reliability of a third party as mediator in any money transactions. It mitigated abusive banking policies and it used competitive market principles rather than a mint or other overseer to keep the network available to any user and drive down the cost of each transaction to the point where it could be free or mostly go completely unnoticed, which would make it usable as cash payment in e-commerce or in person.
There were no "moochers", no arbitrary price manipulation, no central entity that could not be replaced and no price tags preventing small and casual cash-like transactions of any kind.
Any high but limited amount of inflation pressure at the time would have been mitigated by Satoshis own valuation of the importance of these attributes even before he had anyone to trade his coins with and also later when he potentially had, which is exactly how the so called "subjective theory of value" describes prices on a free market.
Economist Ludvig Von Mises, representing the Austrian School of economics and arguably the foremost influence on Rand in this area of thought, had the following to say about money in this regard
In the case of money, subjective use-value and subjective exchange-value coincide.
He also explicitly reminds us that,
Both are derived from objective exchange-value, for money has no utility other than that arising from the possibility of obtaining other economic goods in exchange for it.
Source: The Theory of Money and Credit
But as both Mises and here below Rand are quick to point out, since this means that money is not merely meant to be passed around carelessly (at any rate, slow or fast, cheaply or expensively), the most important function of money is retaining value until it is time to do so, including of course the very moment of the exchange itself. When exactly that time is, can not be allowed to be decided by another human being or by a government-like entity that might be tempted for reasons of controlling such behavior to introduce a tax or a special fee of some kind. Money — the default method of exchange within a network of people, or a community — must still be liquid enough to allow it to be spent cheaply and easily at all times.
Money is the tool of men who have reached a high level of productivity and a long-range control over their lives. Money is not merely a tool of exchange: much more importantly, it is a tool of saving, which permits delayed consumption and buys time for future production. To fulfill this requirement, money has to be some material commodity which is imperishable, rare, homogeneous, easily stored, not subject to wide fluctuations of value, and always in demand among those you trade with.
This leads you to the decision to use gold as money. Gold money is a tangible value in itself and a token of wealth actually produced. When you accept a gold coin in payment for your goods, you actually deliver the goods to the buyer; the transaction is as safe as simple barter. When you store your savings in the form of gold coins, they represent the goods which you have actually produced and which have gone to buy time for other producers, who will keep the productive process going, so that you’ll be able to trade your coins for goods any time you wish.
Source: Philosophy: Who Needs It
Bitcoin fits perfectly into the formula so far described and we may conclude that when it comes to its basic function as money, there is not much more to say in terms of Bitcoin qua the design described in the final edition of Satoshis paper; Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

But the story did not end there (a brief but still long overview of the breakdown of the Bitcoin community around Bitcoin Core)

As Bitcoin was already making mainstream appearances time and time again (which it had already started to do while Satoshi was still openly in the community and working on the project), it turned out that many of the remaining developers, as well as those that would arrive later, would completely reject Satoshis views and the design he had proposed. While they likely still keep convincing themselves that they are developing Bitcoin and that their actions have been in the best interest of the project as they see it, they had and still have radically different priorities and the community that formed around them naively competed to rationalize the basis for these priorities among each other and to any newcomers. This resulted in what must carefully be described as a "cult like" atmosphere and lead to a number of debilitating changes in the networks protocol.
Everything started to change. New ideas that went completely against the Bitcoin design started to be made part of the general concerns and everything from scaling, network topology, acceptable fee levels and even transaction speed and reliability were made to perform worse than they used to because of the deep ideological differences that allowed this. The economic understanding of the gradually reduced block rewards for the miners was only one of the many casualties within the community.
According to design, as the tokens of CPU cycles started to spread across the world, the inflation would start to taper off and ultimately at some point in the still distant future ensure that no actively inflating parties were allowed on the network anymore; Thereby safeguarding the limit of 21 million coins and that any price being gradually established during the time of initial distribution would meet up with objective exchange value as per the users in the community and from there remain relatively stable. Then, the plan always was, fees and interest in running the network itself would be the remaining incentive already built into the system to keep it going.
However soon, long before the final stage of the coin distribution which even today still has a really long way to go, developers working on the official reference software implementation that had been named "Bitcoin Core" no longer all expected that this would happen. In fact, not everyone agreed that the system should perform as "cash" at all, but instead perhaps as a "digital gold" or "store of value" that could then still be traded easily, only through other presumably still decentralized means.
That's how it was decided and eventually why increasing the amount of transactions on the network through a simple and safe change of a single parameter was not only considered a potentially unsustainable path to continue down in the long run, but also actually not as high a priority as other factors much less relevant to the systems function as "cash".
Instead of upgrading per the only plan consisted with the original design and as suggested by Satoshi, his successor Gavin Andresen and countless others that eventually would become isolated and for various reasons themselves decide to or be forced to have their role in Bitcoin development further reduced, the block space available for such transactions was kept so low that it eventually got full. This in turn triggered an event in the self-stabilizing transaction fee parameter, the price of which would normally trend as low as it could over time by virtue of being priced in the designs own deflationary native currency and nodes choosing to keep their fees low for sake of internal competition. Now the market in fees traded steadily higher, spiking several times, and with the introduction of features that would let the users more easily increase their fees to have higher chance of being one of the lucky to transact on time, got more and more extreme. At one point it had Greg Maxwell — prominent developer of technologies that would eventually enable "solutions" to this problem, such as the Lightning Network to be deployed as a side chain to what at least ought to be the main chain — supposedly celebrating the event, which he and other developers had already made known was the intent all along.
Personally, I’m pulling out the champaign that market behaviour is indeed producing activity levels that can pay for security without inflation, and also producing fee paying backlogs needed to stabilize consensus progress as the subsidy declines
This in turn, not only priced out all casual and cash type transactions, but also generated a lock-in effect as users could no longer sell what supposedly was still "currency" without loosing a significant portion of their balance or perhaps do anything at all, until the price of the "coins" had trended high enough to compensate for any fees. The now known risks and fees, had spread throughout the system in various ways. For example had fees to and from exchanges increased and the newly developer introduced RBF function also pushed (the one that would allow a user to increase fees, and that was wrongly argued on various occasions to have been part of the original design) made users have to wait for hours or days before their transactions were considered safe. In other words, the system was no longer the one described in the paper and behaved at best more like a typical bank.
But while Bitcoin use for casual and outward facing commerce transactions stagnated, this didn't stop the price rallies that were increasingly driven on by this fee based lack of "liquidity" for recent buyers waiting to sell and fears of missing out on a good investment. It can also be speculated, that not only the lock in-effect for traders looking to ride the price but the high fees on users themselves contributing to a rapid concentration in wealth amongst miners and exchanges, thereby replacing the deflation already brought on by increased difficulty and reduced block rewards with a state of hyperdeflation.
While this may sound good for every bag holder on the onset, it was not so good for the small users looking to spend their coins. Their money store of value had now become more like a time locked interest paying account with a really large withdraw fee.
For those users that did not have much or enough money to even pay the fee in the first place, a single necessary transaction could trigger an event to them comparable to what happened in Cyprus during the height of the financial crisis, as the government had a large portion of savings confiscated as an "emergency tax" directly out of ordinary people's savings accounts. In fact it might be far worse for them than what happened back then, as the sum needed to be paid in fees could be a far greater percentage of their savings and constitute a small fortune depending on where in the world the user had earned and were planning to spend it.
It also did not help at all in the long run that the bull market may draw in more speculating "adopters", since this deflationary mode is only a temporary benefit to traders and doesn't itself necessarily bring any reliable value or relatively stable price at higher levels at all. It can just as well collapse again at any moment and lead to countless losses or by worsening simply rob users of their money by not making it usable on the network anymore.
Instead of viewing this economic policy as merely "testing" the system or "preparing it" for a future without block rewards, you would do better to compare it to "pumping" pretty much any currency, stock or commodity, as the goal even when assuming "good faith" is to centrally plan a restriction on blockspace to below market demand and "happily accept" the result that it manipulates the internal price per byte that is sent upwards. This in combination with already existing speculative interest from the public also almost inevitably leads to significant price moves and in turn even more of the public buying into the bull run before the developers themselves have actually provided anything that should logically attract such increased investment or use interest in the first place.
After the initial pumps it may also be anticipated that corrections in the form of bear markets will tend to set in, as the nodes mempools (the recorded transactions now having to wait in a long que to be timestamped) eventually clears are expected to clear. Because this marks the eventual return to normal fee levels and thus also a temporary stop to increasing deflation. The perceived inflation in turn created by increased liquidity in the underlying asset (on chain) may then set in fast or slow in the markets as some users are finally able to sell for a more reliable asset.
(As soon as speculators have become accustomed to the new prices in the underlying asset itself, its related IOUs and fees relating to both, markets will have stabilized enough that bullish speculation either alone or with the help of the very same processes can start over, yet again and with renewed enthusiasm.)
In the end, the market response will be what the market response will be and you have no control over it. Now that there is Bitcoin Cash, the same is true for it. No guarantees exist or can be made that either of the two chains will remain the more successful one as compared to the other, but the market will be the ultimate arbitrator in the long run.
TLDR: Savings and consumption go hand in hand. Bitcoins were a store of value ever since inception, even when only Satoshi were mining them. All market prices must emerge and be entertained in the market place without top down manipulation through the introduction of artificial scarcity. Pumping prices or letting the various parts of the design malfunction/be fundamentally changed to go against the rest is not sustainable and will only break the incentives model. In the long run the market is the ultimate arbitrator in all matters of money prices.
submitted by fruitsofknowledge to btc [link] [comments]

DD on Crypto. Just kidding Allin AMD

Alright, I keep seeing you fucks talk about how "Bitcoin is going to make Nvidia/AMD go to the moon". I'm going to walk all you fucks through bitcoin, crypto currencies, and how they effect the GPU market.
What is Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is a decentralized ledger. That's pretty much it. A set number of bitcoin is generated per block, and each block is solved when a resulting hash is found for the corresponding proof of work. The difficulty is adjusted periodically based on a formula, meaning that as hash rate rises and falls, the number of bitcoins produced per day is roughly the same.
What does Bitcoin have to do with AMD and Nvidia?
Fucking nothing. Bitcoin is mined on proprietary hardware called Application-specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs). Neither AMD or Nvidia produce these.
Why does everyone keep talking about Bitcoin and AMD then?
Because they're fucking retarded and you're listening to retards. Bitcoin runs on the SHA-256 Hashing Function which people have custom hardware for. The Crypto driving GPU sales is ETHEREUM, NOT BITCOIN
What the fuck is Ethereum then?
Don't worry about it. It's for smug assholes who are too edgy for Bitcoin. All you need to know is it runs on a different Hashing function than Bitcoin, so if you weren't a retard you'd probably realize that the proprietary hardware I talked about earlier won't work with it. Currently Ethereum is being mined the same way Bitcoin was when it first started; on GPUs.
When are you going to tell me what to buy
Shut the fuck up, learn something or kill your self.
How many GPUs are being used to mine currently?
Currently the Ethereum Hash Rate is 73,000 GH/s. For upcoming earnings, we should instead look at the period from April to June. April 1st shows a network hash rate of 16,500 GH/s, and June 31st shows 59,200 GH/s, meaning the network hash rate increased by 42,700 GH/s for this upcoming earnings report quarter.
I've linked a decent benchmark for GPU hashrate . You should notice that all of these are quoted in MH/s, versus the Network reporting in GH/s; there are ALOT of fucking GPUs running on the network. A top of the line 1080 puts out about 20-25 MH/s, a good Radeon card does about 30. As a rough estimate, lets assume that the average card mining Ethereum currently produces about 25 MH/s. 42,700GH/s / 25MH/s means that there are 1.7 MILLION more GPUs currently mining ethereum than there were at the beginning of Q1. Based on my personal observations being involved in this, AMD is actually taking a majority market share of the sold cards just due to their superior performance compared to Nvidia's 1080s, and I'd estimate that About 50-60% of the cards currently mining Ethereum are AMD Radeons.
What does this all mean?
AMD are selling their highest margin video cards faster than they can produce them, and at ~250$ a pop with 50%-60% market capture AMD will have sold roughly 200-300 million dollars more in video cards than they did last quarter. AMD quarterly revenue last reported was just under 1 Billion. This is a 20-30% increase in revenue from last quarter, where Ethereum Hash Rate only increased by about 10,000GH/s. Even assuming a modest 30% margin for their video cards, AMD will still have almost 60 million in unexpected earnings this quarter due to crypto mining, which translates to about .06-.1 per share in earnings.
Ethereum will make AMD beat revenue by 20-30%. BUY AMD YOU CUCKS.
submitted by Askmeaboutmyautism to wallstreetbets [link] [comments]

The Nexus FAQ - part 1

Full formatted version:

Nexus 101:

  1. What is Nexus?
  2. What benefits does Nexus bring to the blockchain space?
  3. How does Nexus secure the network and reach consensus?
  4. What is quantum resistance and how does Nexus implement this?
  5. What is Nexus’ Unified Time protocol?
  6. Why does Nexus need its own satellite network?

The Nexus Currency:

  1. How can I get Nexus?
  2. How much does a transaction cost?
  3. How fast does Nexus transfer?
  4. Did Nexus hold an ICO? How is Nexus funded?
  5. Is there a cap on the number of Nexus in existence?
  6. What is the difference between the Oracle wallet and the LLD wallet?
  7. How do I change from Oracle to the LLD wallet?
  8. How do I install the Nexus Wallet?

Types of Mining or Minting:

  1. Can I mine Nexus?
  2. How do I mine Nexus?
  3. How do I stake Nexus?
  4. I am staking with my Nexus balance. What are trust weight, block weight and stake weight?

Nexus 101:

1. What is Nexus (NXS)?
Nexus is a digital currency, distributed framework, and peer-to-peer network. Nexus further improves upon the blockchain protocol by focusing on the following core technological principles:
Nexus will combine our in-development quantum-resistant 3D blockchain software with cutting edge communication satellites to deliver a free, distributed, financial and data solution. Through our planned satellite and ground-based mesh networks, Nexus will provide uncensored internet access whilst bringing the benefits of distributed database systems to the world.
For a short video introduction to Nexus Earth, please visit this link
2. What benefits does Nexus bring to the blockchain space?
As Nexus has been developed, an incredible amount of time has been put into identifying and solving several key limitations:
Nexus is also developing a framework called the Lower Level Library. This LLL will incorporate the following improvements:
For information about more additions to the Lower Level Library, please visit here
3. How does Nexus secure the network and reach consensus?
Nexus is unique amongst blockchain technology in that Nexus uses 3 channels to secure the network against attack. Whereas Bitcoin uses only Proof-of-Work to secure the network, Nexus combines a prime number channel, a hashing channel and a Proof-of-Stake channel. Where Bitcoin has a difficulty adjustment interval measured in weeks, Nexus can respond to increased hashrate in the space of 1 block and each channel scales independently of the other two channels. This stabilizes the block times at ~50 seconds and ensures no single channel can monopolize block production. This means that a 51% attack is much more difficult to launch because an attacker would need to control all 3 channels.
Every 60 minutes, the Nexus protocol automatically creates a checkpoint. This prevents blocks from being created or modified dated prior to this checkpoint, thus protecting the chain from malicious attempts to introduce an alternate blockchain.
4. What is quantum resistance and how does Nexus implement it?
To understand what quantum resistance is and why it is important, you need to understand how quantum computing works and why it’s a threat to blockchain technology. Classical computing uses an array of transistors. These transistors form the heart of your computer (the CPU). Each transistor is capable of being either on or off, and these states are used to represent the numerical values 1 and 0.
Binary digits’ (bits) number of states depends on the number of transistors available, according to the formula 2n, where n is the number of transistors. Classical computers can only be in one of these states at any one time, so the speed of your computer is limited to how fast it can change states.
Quantum computers utilize quantum bits, “qubits,” which are represented by the quantum state of electrons or photons. These particles are placed into a state called superposition, which allows the qubit to assume a value of 1 or 0 simultaneously.
Superposition permits a quantum computer to process a higher number of data possibilities than a classical computer. Qubits can also become entangled. Entanglement makes a qubit dependant on the state of another, enabling quantum computing to calculate complex problems, extremely quickly.
One such problem is the Discrete Logarithm Problem which elliptic curve cryptography relies on for security. Quantum computers can use Shor’s algorithm to reverse a key in polynomial time (which is really really really fast). This means that public keys become vulnerable to quantum attack, since quantum computers are capable of being billions of times faster at certain calculations. One way to increase quantum resistance is to require more qubits (and more time) by using larger private keys:
Bitcoin Private Key (256 bit) 5Kb8kLf9zgWQnogidDA76MzPL6TsZZY36hWXMssSzNydYXYB9KF
Nexus Private Key (571 bit) 6Wuiv513R18o5cRpwNSCfT7xs9tniHHN5Lb3AMs58vkVxsQdL4atHTF Vt5TNT9himnCMmnbjbCPxgxhSTDE5iAzCZ3LhJFm7L9rCFroYoqz
Bitcoin addresses are created by hashing the public key, so it is not possible to decrypt the public key from the address; however, once you send funds from that address, the public key is published on the blockchain rendering that address vulnerable to attack. This means that your money has higher chances of being stolen.
Nexus eliminates these vulnerabilities through an innovation called signature chains. Signature chains will enable access to an account using a username, password and PIN. When you create a transaction on the network, you claim ownership of your signature chain by revealing the public key of the NextHash (the hash of your public key) and producing a signature from the one time use private key. Your wallet then creates a new private/public keypair, generates a new NextHash, including the corresponding contract. This contract can be a receive address, a debit, a vote, or any other type of rule that is written in the contract code.
This keeps the public key obscured until the next transaction, and by divorcing the address from the public key, it is unnecessary to change addresses in order to change public keys. Changing your password or PIN code becomes a case of proving ownership of your signature chain and broadcasting a new transaction with a new NextHash for your new password and/or PIN. This provides the ability to login to your account via the signature chain, which becomes your personal chain within the 3D chain, enabling the network to prove and disprove trust, and improving ease of use without sacrificing security.
The next challenge with quantum computers is that Grover’s algorithm reduces the security of one-way hash function by a factor of two. Because of this, Nexus incorporates two new hash functions, Skein and Keccak, which were designed in 2008 as part of a contest to create a new SHA3 standard. Keccak narrowly defeated Skein to win the contest, so to maximize their potential Nexus combines these algorithms. Skein and Keccak utilize permutation to rotate and mix the information in the hash.
To maintain a respective 256/512 bit quantum resistance, Nexus uses up to 1024 bits in its proof-of-work, and 512 bits for transactions.
5. What is the Unified Time protocol?
All blockchains use time-stamping mechanisms, so it is important that all nodes operate using the same clock. Bitcoin allows for up to 2 hours’ discrepancy between nodes, which provides a window of opportunity for the blockchain to be manipulated by time-related attack vectors. Nexus eliminates this vulnerability by implementing a time synchronization protocol termed Unified Time. Unified Time also enhances transaction processing and will form an integral part of the 3D chain scaling solution.
The Unified Time protocol facilitates a peer-to-peer timing system that keeps all clocks on the network synchronized to within a second. This is seeded by selected nodes with timestamps derived from the UNIX standard; that is, the number of seconds since January 1st, 1970 00:00 UTC. Every minute, the seed nodes report their current time, and a moving average is used to calculate the base time. Any node which sends back a timestamp outside a given tolerance is rejected.
It is important to note that the Nexus network is fully synchronized even if an individual wallet displays something different from the local time.
6. Why does Nexus need its own satellite network?
One of the key limitations of a purely electronic monetary system is that it requires a connection to the rest of the network to verify transactions. Existing network infrastructure only services a fraction of the world’s population.
Nexus, in conjunction with Vector Space Systems, is designing communication satellites, or cubesats, to be launched into Low Earth Orbit in 2019. Primarily, the cubesat mesh network will exist to give Nexus worldwide coverage, but Nexus will also utilize its orbital and ground mesh networks to provide free and uncensored internet access to the world.

The Nexus Currency (NXS):

1. How can I get Nexus?
There are two ways you can obtain Nexus. You can either buy Nexus from an exchange, or you can run a miner and be rewarded for finding a block. If you wish to mine Nexus, please follow our guide found below.
Currently, Nexus is available on the following exchanges:
Nexus is actively reaching out to other exchanges to continue to be listed on cutting edge new financial technologies..
2. How much does a transaction cost?
Under Nexus, the fee structure for making a transaction depends on the size of your transaction. A default fee of 0.01 NXS will cover most transactions, and users have the option to pay higher fees to ensure their transactions are processed quickly.
When the 3D chain is complete and the initial 10-year distribution period finishes, Nexus will absorb these fees through inflation, enabling free transactions.
3. How fast does Nexus transfer?
Nexus reaches consensus approximately every ~ 50 seconds. This is an average time, and will in some circumstances be faster or slower. NXS currency which you receive is available for use after just 6 confirmations. A confirmation is proof from a node that the transaction has been included in a block. The number of confirmations in this transaction is the number that states how many blocks it has been since the transaction is included. The more confirmations a transaction has, the more secure its placement in the blockchain is.
4. Did Nexus hold an ICO? How is Nexus funded?
The Nexus Embassy, a 501(C)(3) not-for-profit corporation, develops and maintains the Nexus blockchain software. When Nexus began under the name Coinshield, the early blocks were mined using the Developer and Exchange (Ambassador) addresses, which provides funding for the Nexus Embassy.
The Developer Fund fuels ongoing development and is sourced by a 1.5% commission per block mined, which will slowly increase to 2.5% after 10 years. This brings all the benefits of development funding without the associated risks.
The Ambassador (renamed from Exchange) keys are funded by a 20% commission per block reward. These keys are mainly used to pay for marketing, and producing and launching the Nexus satellites.
When Nexus introduces developer and ambassador contracts, they will be approved, denied, or removed by six voting groups namely: currency, developer, ambassador, prime, hash, and trust.
Please Note: The Nexus Embassy reserves the sole right to trade, sell and or use these funds as required; however, Nexus will endeavor to minimize the impact that the use of these funds has upon the NXS market value.
5. Is there a cap on the number of NXS in existence?
After an initial 10-year distribution period ending on September 23rd, 2024, there will be a total of 78 million NXS. Over this period, the reward gradient for mining Nexus follows a decaying logarithmic curve instead of the reward halving inherent in Bitcoin. This avoids creating a situation where older mining equipment is suddenly unprofitable, encouraging miners to continue upgrading their equipment over time and at the same time reducing major market shocks on block halving events.
When the distribution period ends, the currency supply will inflate annually by a maximum of 3% via staking and by 1% via the prime and hashing channels. This inflation is completely unlike traditional inflation, which degrades the value of existing coins. Instead, the cost of providing security to the blockchain is paid by inflation, eliminating transaction fees.
Colin Cantrell - Nexus Inflation Explained
6. What is the difference between the LLD wallet and the Oracle wallet?
Due to the scales of efficiency needed by blockchain, Nexus has developed a custom-built database called the Lower Level Database. Since the development of the LLD wallet, which is a precursor to the Tritium updates, you should begin using the LLD wallet to take advantage of the faster load times and improved efficiency.
The Oracle wallet is a legacy wallet which is no longer maintained or updated. It utilized the Berkeley DB, which is not designed to meet the needs of a blockchain. Eventually, users will need to migrate to the LLD wallet. Fortunately, the wallet.dat is interchangeable between wallets, so there is no risk of losing access to your NXS.
7. How do I change from Oracle to the LLD wallet?
Step 1 - Backup your wallet.dat file. You can do this from within the Oracle wallet Menu, Backup Wallet.
Step 2 - Uninstall the Oracle wallet. Close the wallet and navigate to the wallet data directory. On Windows, this is the Nexus folder located at %APPDATA%\Nexus. On macOS, this is the Nexus folder located at ~/Library/Application Support/Nexus. Move all of the contents to a temporary folder as a backup.
Step 3 - Copy your backup of wallet.dat into the Nexus folder located as per Step 2.
Step 4 - Install the Nexus LLD wallet. Please follow the steps as outlined in the next section. Once your wallet is fully synced, your new wallet will have access to all your addresses.
8. How do I install the Nexus Wallet?
You can install your Nexus wallet by following these steps:
Step 1 - Download your wallet from Click the Downloads menu at the top and select the appropriate wallet for your operating system.
Step 2 - Unzip the wallet program to a folder. Before running the wallet program, please consider space limitations and load times. On the Windows OS, the wallet saves all data to the %APPDATA%\Nexus folder, including the blockchain, which is currently ~3GB.
On macOS, data is saved to the ~/Library/Application Support/Nexus folder. You can create a symbolic link, which will allow you to install this information in another location.
Using Windows, follow these steps:
On macOS, follow these steps:
Step 3 (optional) - Before running the wallet, we recommend downloading the blockchain database manually. Nexus Earth maintains a copy of the blockchain data which can save hours from the wallet synchronization process. Please go to and click the Downloads menu.
Step 4 (optional) - Extract the database file. This is commonly found in the .zip or .rar format, so you may need a program like 7zip to extract the contents. Please extract it to the relevant directory, as outlined in step 2.
Step 5 - You can now start your wallet. After it loads, it should be able to complete synchronization in a short time. This may still take a couple of hours. Once it has completed synchronizing, a green check mark icon will appear in the lower right corner of the wallet.
Step 6 - Encrypt your wallet. This can be done within the wallet, under the Settings menu. Encrypting your wallet will lock it, requiring a password in order to send transactions.
Step 7 - Backup your wallet.dat file. This can be done from the File menu inside the wallet. This file contains the keys to the addresses in your wallet. You may wish to keep a secure copy of your password somewhere, too, in case you forget it or someone else (your spouse, for example) ever needs it.
You should back up your wallet.dat file again any time you create – or a Genesis transaction creates (see “staking” below) – a new address.

Types of Mining or Minting:

1.Can I mine Nexus?
Yes, there are 2 channels that you can use to mine Nexus, and 1 channel of minting:
Prime Mining Channel
This mining channel looks for a special prime cluster of a set length. This type of calculation is resistant to ASIC mining, allowing for greater decentralization. This is most often performed using the CPU.
Hashing Channel
This channel utilizes the more traditional method of hashing. This process adds a random nonce, hashes the data, and compares the resultant hash against a predetermined format set by the difficulty. This is most often performed using a GPU.
Proof of Stake (nPoS)
Staking is a form of mining NXS. With this process, you can receive NXS rewards from the network for continuously operating your node (wallet). It is recommended that you only stake with a minimum balance of 1000 NXS. It’s not impossible to stake with less, but it becomes harder to maintain trust. Losing trust resets the interest rate back to 0.5% per annum.
2. How do I mine Nexus?
As outlined above, there are two types of mining and 1 proof of stake. Each type of mining uses a different component of your computer to find blocks, the CPU or the GPU. Nexus supports CPU and GPU mining on Windows only. There are also third-party macOS builds available.
Please follow the instructions below for the relevant type of miner.
Prime Mining:
Almost every CPU is capable of mining blocks on this channel. The most effective method of mining is to join a mining pool and receive a share of the rewards based on the contribution you make. To create your own mining facility, you need the CPU mining software, and a NXS address. This address cannot be on an exchange. You create an address when you install your Nexus wallet. You can find the related steps under How Do I Install the Nexus Wallet?
Please download the relevant miner from Please note that there are two different miner builds available: the prime solo miner and the prime pool miner. This guide will walk you through installing the pool miner only.
Step 1 - Extract the archive file to a folder.
Step 2 - Open the miner.conf file. You can use the default host and port, but these may be changed to a pool of your choice. You will need to change the value of nxs_address to the address found in your wallet. Sieve_threads is the number of CPU threads you want to use to find primes. Ptest_threads is the number of CPU threads you want to test the primes found by the sieve. As a general rule, the number of threads used for the sieve should be 75% of the threads used for testing.
It is also recommended to add the following line to the options found in the .conf file:
"experimental" : "true"
This option enables the miner to use an improved sieve algorithm which will enable your miner to find primes at a faster rate.
Step 3 - Run the nexus_cpuminer.exe file. For a description of the information shown in this application, please read this guide.
The GPU is a dedicated processing unit housed on-board your graphics card. The GPU is able to perform certain tasks extremely well, unlike your CPU, which is designed for parallel processing. Nexus supports both AMD and Nvidia GPU mining, and works best on the newer models. Officially, Nexus does not support GPU pool mining, but there are 3rd party miners with this capability.
The latest software for the Nvidia miner can be found here. The latest software for the AMD miner can be found here. The AMD miner is a third party miner. Information and advice about using the AMD miner can be found on our Slack channel. This guide will walk you through the Nvidia miner.
Step 1 - Close your wallet. Navigate to %appdata%\Nexus (~/Library/Application Support/Nexus on macOS) and open the nexus.conf file. Depending on your wallet, you may or may not have this file. If not, please create a new txt file and save it as nexus.conf
You will need to add the following lines before restarting your wallet:
Step 2 - Extract the files into a new folder.
Step 3 - Run the nexus.bat file. This will run the miner and deposit any rewards for mining a block into the account on your wallet.
For more information on either Prime Mining or Hashing, please join our Slack and visit the #mining channel. Additional information can be found here.
3. How do I stake Nexus?
Once you have your wallet installed, fully synchronized and encrypted, you can begin staking by:
After you begin staking, you will receive a Genesis transaction as your first staking reward. This establishes a Trust key in your wallet and stakes your wallet balance on that key. From that point, you will periodically receive additional Trust transactions as further staking rewards for as long as your Trust key remains active.
IMPORTANT - After you receive a Genesis transaction, backup your wallet.dat file immediately. You can select the Backup Wallet option from the File menu, or manually copy the file directly. If you do not do this, then your Nexus balance will be staked on the Trust key that you do not have backed up, and you risk loss if you were to suffer a hard drive failure or other similar problem. In the future, signature chains will make this precaution unnecessary.
4. I am staking with my Nexus balance. What are interest rate, trust weight, block weight, and stake weight?
These items affect the size and frequency of staking rewards after you receive your initial Genesis transaction. When staking is active, the wallet displays a clock icon in the bottom right corner. If you hover your mouse pointer over the icon, a tooltip-style display will open up, showing their current values.
Please remember to backup your wallet.dat file (see question 3 above) after you receive a Genesis transaction.
Interest Rate - The minting rate at which you will receive staking rewards, displayed as an annual percentage of your NXS balance. It starts at 0.5%, increasing to 3% after 12 months. The rate increase is not linear but slows over time. It takes several weeks to reach 1% and around 3 months to reach 2%.
With this rate, you can calculate the average amount of NXS you can expect to receive each day for staking.
Trust Weight - An indication of how much the network trusts your node. It starts at 5% and increases much more quickly than the minting (interest) rate, reaching 100% after one month. Your level of trust increases your stake weight (below), thus increasing your chances of receiving staking transactions. It becomes easier to maintain trust as this value increases.
Block Weight - Upon receipt of a Genesis transaction, this value will begin increasing slowly, reaching 100% after 24 hours. Every time you receive a staking transaction, the block weight resets. If your block weight reaches 100%, then your Trust key expires and everything resets (0.5% interest rate, 5% trust weight, waiting for a new Genesis transaction).
This 24-hour requirement will be replaced by a gradual decay in the Tritium release. As long as you receive a transaction before it decays completely, you will hold onto your key. This change addresses the potential of losing your trust key after months of staking simply because of one unlucky day receiving trust transactions.
Stake Weight - The higher your stake weight, the greater your chance of receiving a transaction. The exact value is a derived by a formula using your trust weight and block weight, which roughly equals the average of the two. Thus, each time you receive a transaction, your stake weight will reset to approximately half of your current level of trust.
submitted by scottsimon36 to nexusearth [link] [comments]

7 Smart Ethereum Price Prediction Methods for HODL’ers

It is incredibly difficult to predict where the price of Ethereum will go.
This is not a matter of talent, or how "smart" you are - I mean, shit, you have possibly made a good deal of money investing in Ethereum. But now you have additional money to invest, and are unsure if now is the best time to buy.
Even the best Ethereum traders/investors in the world are left dumbfounded about when to invest.
Luckily, Ethereum price prediction tools have emerged that are helping investors and analysts better predict where Ethereum prices are going to go.

Why is it so difficult to predict Ethereum prices?

Putting a value on a cryptocurrency is fundamentally different from a stock.
Stock valuations are typically heavily based around one big component: cash flow. The most well-known methods for valuing stocks: DCF, Graham Formula and EBIT Multiples are all based in some form or another on cash flow and profitability.
Cryptocurrencies do not have cash flow, and thus it becomes impossible to use the traditional methods of stock forecasting. What this means is we have to find alternative methods for pricing this amazing technology.
I have outlined 7 different ways we can come to an Ethereum price prediction to help out future investing.

1. Chris Burniske's cryptoasset valuation, aka "I am very thoughtful in my analysis"

Chris Burniske of Placeholder capital and author of the book "Cryptoassets: The Innovative Investors Guide to Bitcoin and Beyond" recently released a very promising and thoughtful piece on Medium outlining a new way to value Cryptoassets.
The outline of the model is this:
Instead, valuing cryptoassets requires setting up models structurally similar to what a DCF would look like, with a projection for each year, but instead of revenues, margins and profits, the equation of exchange is used to derive each year’s current utility value (CUV). Then, since markets price assets based on future expectations, one must discount a future utility value back to the present to derive a rational market price for any given year.
Said a different way, the goal of the model is to derive the asset's utility (for example, Filecoin's utility is price per GB)and what that utility will look like in the future. Then, discount the utility value to what it would cost today.
The model does have a good amount of subjective inputs, so the price estimates I came up with varied significantly. I highly recommend heading over to the Medium piece and completing your own analysis.

2. Cost of Production Model, aka "The cake is a lie"

Initially created for Bitcoin, the cost of production model can be tailored for Ethereum. This analysis was completed by Adam Hayes in March 2015 at the New School for Social Research.The basis of the paper explains that pricing is not based on more traditional methods, but instead centered around the uniqueness of cryptocurrencies - mining statistics.
Directly from the paper:
Break-even points are modeled for market price, energy cost, efficiency and difficulty to produce. The cost of production price may represent a theoretical value around which market prices tend to gravitate.
The authors did state that certain factors such as future technology and utility may prove to be more valuable than the coin in and of itself. These factors could prove challenging for putting a true value on a cryptocurrency.

3. Economics of Price Formation, aka "I am most likely smarter than you"

The Economics of Price Formation method captures the relationship between BitCoin price and supply-demand fundamentals of BitCoin, global macro-financial indicators and BitCoin’s attractiveness for investors.
Written by Pavel Ciaian, Miroslava Rajcaniova, and d'Artis Kancs, the bones of the analysis focuses on vector autoregression (VAR) which I am definitely not covering here. However, the finding of the paper suggests that:
BitCoin market fundamentals have an important impact on BitCoin price, implying that, to a large extent, the formation of BitCoin price can be explained in a standard economic model of currency price formation.
Since the inputs used in the paper are the same, the findings can be carried over to Ethereum. Also of note, is that one of the main inputs of the 1st method, velocity, is also used in this paper.

4. Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR), aka "I work in Finance"

Borrowed from the financial world, CAGR seeks to estimate the size of an industry (or in this case, market cap of Ethereum) over a period of a few years.
The cryptocurrency world is expected to grow by 35%, based on CoinDesk data. Using this data, we can estimate what the market cap of Ethereum will be in five years. The required inputs are:
As of 10/23
  1. Current Market Cap ($27B, sourced from CoinMarketCap)
  2. Available supply of coins (95M, sourced from CoinMarketCap)
  3. CAGR (35%, from CoinDesk)
  4. Coin inflation, or anticipated coins (1%, per Ethereum whitepaper)
I have provided a handy Google Sheets spreadsheet utilizing the Spreadstreet Google Sheets plugin to automatically bring in coin information for the calculation. You can find that sheet here:

5. Max Market Cap, aka "Ethereum will grow to be bigger than Bitcoin"

Max market cap is a theoretical maximum that is calculated taking the market cap of the most popular coin (in this case Bitcoin) and plugging it in for a seperate cryptocurrency.
In the Ethereum example, the formula is very simply:
Available Coins (Ethereum) / Market Cap (Bitcoin)
This results in a max theoretical value of $1,038 for Ethereum, which as of 10/23 would be a 364% increase. This analysis gets really hilarious when you start using some of the less popular coins such as BAT (46,000% increase) and the useless Dogecoin (88,000% increase). Take with a grain of salt, but still very interesting to see.

6. NVT Ratio, aka "I also sometimes engage in technical analysis"

NVT Ratio is another valuation methdology outlined by Chris Burniske, albeit at a much simpler calculation method.
The calculation is:
Network Value / Estimated Transaction Volume
Where I differ from Chris' advice is I tailored the calculation to give me the value of Ethereum if it were to hit it's max historical peak. For this example, the 30-day trailing average of transaction volume in the last year peaked on December 16th, 2016 at ~126. If we take the current daily transaction volume of ~$498M, this gives us a new market cap of $63B (126 * $498M).
Using this new market cap of $63B, if we divide that by the current supply of 95M, we get a new price of $664.

7. Dartboard, aka "Go f**k your methods, I don't need you"

Because, the dartboard method of Ethereum price prediction is honestly better than most of the crap out there. HODL.

How you can implement these methods with the valuation spreadsheet

The spreadsheet can be setup to update as often as you like by using the following instructions:
  1. Download the Spreadstreet Google Sheets add-in
  2. Click the Google Sheets link here. In the new window, click File - Make a copy.
  3. Important Open the template, click the menu Add-ons / Spreadstreet / Help / View in store, and then click Manage and in the dropdown menu click Use in this document.
  4. All formulas should update as expected. If not, try refreshing the sheet
The sheet includes CAGR, Max Market Cap, and NVT Ratio. The sheet does not include the cryptoasset valuation, cost of production model, or the economics of price foundation as those methods are significantly more involved. This sheet also does not include the dartboard method, as that requires a physical dartboard.
Good HODL'ers aren't sprinters. They choose each and every investment with care. They know the rules. But they also know how to break the rules. Deliberately. Emphatically. Ruthlessly.
Original Medium post can be found at:
submitted by 1kexperimentdotcom to EthAnalysis [link] [comments]

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

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

Stabler coins

One interesting set of ideas in the "stablecoin" area has to do with systems that do not try to perfectly provide price stability, but which do try to at least marginally improve conditions in this regard over the "Bitcoin/ether baseline". Stablecoins targeting perfect dollar parity (or euro parity, CNY parity, SDR parity, or some kind of decentralized CPI parity) have been criticized for (i) relying on a source of outside information on the value of the target in question, and hence either being centralized or being vulnerable to manipulation, (ii) being unable to handle large, sudden and permanent decreases in demand (or generally market shocks), and (iii) being vulnerable to "speculative attacks" where attackers short the currency in very large volumes, eventually breaking the peg and profiting from the massive resulting fall in price and. (i) and (iii) are possibly both quite solvable even in the perfect parity setting, and (ii) can be mitigated with high collateral requirements; however, for those who are uncomfortable with the reliability or the capital lockup costs of such models, and for those who want some profit potential but with a risk profile closer to a large company stock than to a cryptocurrency there is an opportunity for a "coin" that takes a middle path.
Option 1: the PoW-based stabler coin
This is based on the "bounded difficulty estimator" technique from here, and incorporates a concept of one-way monetary policy. One simple set of rules is as follows:
To see why this works, let us work through an example. Suppose that the price and difficulty rise suddenly by a factor of 2, and then by another factor of 2. As a result, issuance should increase by 2x. However, this itself depresses price, so the equilibrium would be for issuance to increase by ~1.41x and price by ~1.41x (where difficulty would still increase 2x). You may worry about a cascade effect where increasing issuance leads to runaway growing inflation, but the fact that price expectations decrease if such a cascade starts occurring effectively prevents it from happening in the first place.
While allowing for both steady growth and technological improvement, this algorithm creates a cap on the upside of a cryptocurrency, preventing its price from going "to the moon" too quickly as if price rises too far then difficulty will rise too, forcing the compensator to kick in. Now, it might seem like this is a strictly undesirable formula to have: it takes away the upside, but if adoption decreases, it does nothing to take away the downside. However, this is not in fact true. The reason is that whereas sudden price rises are due to the expectation of large increases in adoption (it's always expectation, not actual adoption; adoption is predictable in advance far enough that price rises are almost never directly caused by people buying coins for personal use en masse), sudden price drops are quite often due to that expectation being taken away. However, if expectations of greatly increased adoption only increase price moderately, then reduced expectations of adoption should also decrease price only moderately.
The above is a fairly strict approach to price control, taking away ~50% of potential gains (and hence hopefully close to ~50% of potential losses). But there is also a more moderate approach:
This may be appealing to some cryptocurrency enthusiasts because it retains the property that it has a fixed supply cap (as the annual issuance schedule can have a finite sum just like bitcoin, and the second issuance component is effectively capped at ~30 * Y if parameters are set appropriately, as the difference between an appropriate initial difficulty and a "world domination" scenario is likely well under a factor of a billion). It also works well with a Zcash-style "delayed founder premine" scenario as the founders' share can be designed ONLY as a share of the Y component, effectively giving the founders a superlinear interest in the currency succeeding, where if it does not succeed enough to trigger issuance bursts their returns are effectively zero.
Option 2: the Seignorage Shares-based stabler coin
Now, suppose that we are doing proof of stake (or an asset on top of another PoW blockchain) and so we do not have access to mining as either a way of measuring price increases or as a distribution model. Suppose that the problem of measuring price in a decentralized way is solved. We can use Seignorage Shares as a distribution model, but without sticking to any kind of absolute peg. Instead, what we can do is have some number of "coins" up for auction evenly across all price levels (ie. there are 10000 coins to be sold for $1.00 worth of shares per coin, 10000 coins to be sold for $1.01 worth of shares per coin, etc), and have a market where coins can be sold back - if all of the coins from $0 to $1.25 have been sold, then there would be an opportunity to sell back 10000 coins at $1.25, 10000 coins at $1.24, etc. Note that this is essentially a revenue-neutral market maker; we can also charge a spread (say, a 0.5% fee on selling coins back to the system for shares) and thereby make the scheme profitable.
This kind of scheme is harder to financially exploit, as (i) it does not try to maintain an absolute peg, instead maintaining a "pressure" toward price stability that we can expect to take away roughly ~50% of a cryptocurrency's price volatility, (ii) has a compelling mathematical argument for why it would not "break", and (iii) creates a role for speculators who are willing to protect the currency by buying it up on the cheap during an attack and profit from this.
Option 3: the self-rebalancing portfolio coin
This approach is inspired by collateralized debt obligations, and tries to get price stability in a different way. Essentially, we break up a volatile asset with prior price P into pieces A and B, where if the asset has a posterior price P', then we target price(A) = min(P', P / 2) and price(B) = max(0, P' - P / 2). Essentially, A is the "bottom slice" and B is the "top slice". We enforce this using the following scheme:
The last step can be viewed as the protocol automatically making an operation where (i) A and B holders' holdings are settled in terms of the underlying asset (A holders should get x and B holders should get y), (ii) these holdings of the underlying asset are immediately re-split into A and B, and (iii) those who held A automatically sell their B to those who held B at fair market price and vice versa.
Unless the underlying asset drops by more than a factor of 2 during an epoch, this ensures purchasing power stability for A holders; if we want to convert this into a token with price stability (ie. users don't see changes in the quantity of their holdings), we can create a simple DAO that holds A, and whose shares represent a constant share of its (fluctuating) A holdings. Alternatively, we can pretend to do this, instead baking this functionality into the underlying contract by making the convertibility rate be 1 asset = x A + y B where x and y change as needed; this may actually be simplest to implement, because there is no need to loop through balances and increment all of them proportionately when you can instead just separately store the proportionality constant.
If the underlying asset does drop by more than a factor of 2, then A holders do suffer to some extent, but this is ok; the point was never to provide a perfect guarantee, only an approximate one. The scheme can be generalized to an arbitrary number of tranches tranches; eg. one can even do something like a five-tranche scheme with A = 0-33%, B = 33-67%, C = 67-100%, D = 100-200%, E = 200%+.
IMO it would be interesting to implement some of these on top of ethereum (eg. one can easily make the A/B scheme above on top of ether itself), although it's also important to come up with the tooling to make these systems liquid enough for practical usage, including decentralized exchange dapps, market makers, etc; I'd like to be able to purchase some "bottom-tranche ether" and hold it as a stablecoin just as easily as I can move between ether and bitcoin themselves. Coming up with a reasonably trustworthy decentralized oracle is also important; I quite like the recent proposal by Edmund Edgar though we should probably try a few different ones.
submitted by vbuterin to ethereum [link] [comments]

Great interview questions for bitcoin engineers

From here...
Questions. Chapter 1: Introduction 1. What are the main Bitcoin terms? 2. What is a Bitcoin address? 3. What is a Bitcoin transaction? 4. What is a Bitcoin block? 5. What is a Bitcoin blockchain? 6. What is a Bitcoin transaction ledger? 7. What is a Bitcoin system? What is a bitcoin (cryptocurrency)? How are they different? 8. What is a full Bitcoin stack? 9. What are two types of issues that digital money have to address? 10. What is a “double-spend” problem? 11. What is a distributed computing problem? What is the other name of this problem? 12. What is an election? 13. What is a consensus? 14. What is the name of the main algorithm that brings the bitcoin network to the consensus? 15. What are the different types of bitcoin clients? What is the difference between these clients? Which client offers the most flexibility? Which client offers the least flexibility? Which client is the most and least secure? 16. What is a bitcoin wallet? 17. What is a confirmed transaction and what is an unconfirmed transaction? Chapter 2: How Bitcoin works. 1. What is the best way to understand transactions in the Bitcoin network? 2. What is a transaction? What does it contain? What is the similarity of a transaction to a double entry ledger? What does input correspond to? What does output correspond to? 3. What are the typical transactions in the bitcoin network? Could you please name three of such transactions and give examples of each type of the transaction? 4. What is a QR and how it is used in the Bitcoin network? Are there different types of QRs? If so, what are the different types? Which type is more informational? What kind of information does it provide? 5. What is SPV? What does this procedure check and what type of clients of the Bitcoin network usually use this procedure? Chapter 3: The Bitcoin client. 1. How to download and install the Core Bitcoin client? 2. What is the best way to test the API available for the Core Bitcoin client without actually programming? What is the interface called? 3. What are the major areas of operations in the Bitcoin client? What can we do with the client? 4. What are the available operations for the Bitcoin addresses? 5. What are the available read operations for the Bitcoin transactions? How is a transaction encoded in the Bitcoin network? What is a raw transaction and what is a decoded transaction? 6. If I want to get information about a transaction that is not related to any address in my own wallet, do I need to change anything in the Bitcoin client configuration? If yes, which option do I need to modify? 7. What are the available read operation for the Bitcoin blocks? 8. What are the available operations for the creation of the transactions in the Bitcoin network? 9. How do you normally need to address the unspent output from the previous transaction in order to use it as an input for a new transaction? 10. What is the mandatory operation after creating a new transaction and before sending this new transaction to the network? What state does the wallet have to be in order to perform this operation? 11. Is the transaction ID immutable (TXID)? If not why, if yes, why and when? 12. What does signing a transaction mean? 13. What are the other options for Bitcoin clients? Are there any libraries that are written for some specific languages? What types of clients do these libraries implement? Chapter 4: Keys, Addresses and Wallets. 1. What is a PKC? When it was developed? What are the main mathematical foundations or functions that PKC is using? 2. What is ECC? Could you please provide the formula of the EC? What is the p and what is the Fp? What are the defined operations in ECC? What is a “point to infinity”? 3. What is a Bitcoin wallet? Does this wallet contain coins? If not, what does it contain then? 4. What is a BIP? What it is used for? 5. What is an encrypted private key? Why would we want to encrypt private keys? 6. What is a paper wallet? What kind of storage it is an example of? 7. What is a nondeterministic wallet? Is it a good wallet or a bad wallet? Could you justify? 8. What is a deterministic wallet? 9. What is an HD wallet? 10. How many keys are needed for one in and out transaction? What is a key pair? Which keys are in the key pair? 11. How many keys are stored in a wallet? 12. How does a public key gets created in Bitcoin? What is a “generator point”? 13. Could you please show on a picture how ECC multiplication is done? 14. How does a private key gets created in Bitcoin? What we should be aware of when creating a new private key? What is CSPRNG? What kind of input should this function be getting? 15. What is a WIF? What is WIF-Compressed? 16. What is Base58 encoding and what is Base58Check encoding? How it is different from Base64 encoding? Which characters are used in Base58? Why Base58Check was invented? What kind of problems does it solve? How is Base58Check encoding is created from Base58 encoding? 17. How can Bitcoin addresses be encoded? Which different encodings are used? Which key is used for the address creation? How is the address created? How this key is used and what is the used formula? 18. Can we visually distinguish between different keys in Base58Check format? If yes, how are they different from each other? What kind of prefixes are used? Could you please provide information about used prefixes for each type of the key? 19. What is an index in HD wallets? How many siblings can exist for a parent in an HD wallet? 20. What is the depth limitation for an HD wallet key hierarchy? 21. What are the main two advantages of an HD wallet comparing to the nondeterministic wallets? 22. What are the risks of non-hardened keys creation in an HD wallet? Could you please describe each of them? 23. What is a chain code in HD wallets? How many different chain code types there are? 24. What is the mnemonic code words? What are they used for? 25. What is a seed in an HD wallet? Is there any other name for it? 26. What is an extended key? How long is it and which parts does it consist of? 27. What is P2SH address? What function are P2SH addresses normally used for? Is that correct to call P2SH address a multi-sig address? Which BIP suggested using P2SH addresses? 28. What is a WIF-compressed private key? Is there such a thing as a compressed private key? Is there such a thing as a compressed public key? 29. What is a vanity address? 30. What is a vanity pool? 31. What is a P2PKH address? What is the prefix for the P2PKH address? 32. How does the owner prove that he is the real owner of some address? What does he have to represent to the network to prove the ownership? Why a perpetrator cannot copy this information and reuse it in the next transactions? 33. What is the rule for using funds that are secured by a cold storage wallet? How many times you can send to the address that is protected by the private key stored in a cold storage? How many times can you send funds from the address that is protected by the private key stored in a cold storage? Chapter 5: Transactions. 1. What is a transaction in Bitcoin? Why is it the most important operation in the Bitcoin ecosystem? 2. What is UTXO? What is one of the important rules of the UTXO? 3. Which language is used to write scripts in Bitcoin ecosystem? What are the features of this language? Which language does it look like? What are the limitations of this language? 4. What is the structure of a transaction? What does transaction consists of? 5. What are the standard transactions in Bitcoin? How many standard transactions there are (as of 2014)? 6. What is a “locking script” and what is an “unlocking script”? What is inside these scripts for a usual operation of P2PKH? What is a signature? Could you please describe in details how locking and unlocking scripts work and draw the necessary diagrams? 7. What is a transaction fee? What does the transaction fee depend on? 8. If you are manually creating transactions, what should you be very careful about? 9. Could you please provide a real life scenario when you might need a P2SH payment and operation? 10. What is the Script operation that is used to store in the blockchain some important data? Is it a good practice? Explain your answer. Chapter 6: The Bitcoin Network. 1. What is the network used in Bitcoin? What is it called? What is the abbreviation? What is the difference between this network architecture and the other network architectures? Could you please describe another network architecture and compare the Bitcoin network and the other network architectures? 2. What is a Bitcoin network? What is an extended Bitcoin network? What is the difference between those two networks? What are the other protocols used in the extended Bitcoin network? Why are these new protocols used? Can you give an example of one such protocol? What is it called? 3. What are the main functions of a bitcoin node? How many of them there are? Could you please name and describe each of them? Which functions are mandatory? 4. What is a full node in the Bitcoin network? What does it do and how does it differ from the other nodes? 5. What is a lightweight node in the Bitcoin network? What is another name of the lightweight node? How lightweight node checks transactions? 6. What are the main problems in the SPV process? What does SPV stand for? How does SPV work and what does it rely on? 7. What is a Sybil attack? 8. What is a transaction pool? Where are transaction pools stored in a Bitcoin network client? What are the two different transaction pools usually available in implementations? 9. What is the main Bitcoin client used in the network? What is the official name of the client and what is an unofficial name of this client? 10. What is UTXO pool? Do all clients keep this pool? Where is it stored? How does it differ from the transaction pools? 11. What is a Bloom filter? Why are Bloom filters used in the Bitcoin network? Were they originally used in the initial SW or were they introduced with a specific BIP? Chapter 7: The Blockchain. 1. What is a blockchain? 2. What is a block hash? Is it really a block hash or is it a hash of something else? 3. What is included in the block? What kind of information? 4. How many parents can one block have? 5. How many children can one block have? Is it a temporary or permanent state of the blockchain? What is the name of this state of the blockchain? 6. What is a Merkle tree? Why does Bitcoin network use Merkle trees? What is the advantage of using Merkle trees? What is the other name of the Merkle tree? What kind of form must this tree have? 7. How are blocks identified in the blockchain? What are the two commonly used identities? Are these identities stored in the blockchain? 8. What is the average size of one transaction? How many transactions are normally in one block? What is the size of a block header? 9. What kind of information do SPV nodes download? How much space do they save by that comparing to what they would need if they had to download the whole blockchain? 10. What is a usual representation of a blockchain? 11. What is a genesis block? Do clients download this block and if yes – where from? What is the number of the genesis block? 12. What is a Merkle root? What is a Merkle path? Chapter 8: Mining and Consensus. 1. What is the main purpose of mining? Is it to get the new coins for the miners? Alternatively, it is something else? Is mining the right or good term to describe the process? 2. What is PoW algorithm? 3. What are the two main incentives for miners to participate in the Bitcoin network? What is the current main incentive and will it be changed in the future? 4. Is the money supply in the Bitcoin network diminishing? If so, what is the diminishing rate? What was the original Bitcoin supply rate and how is it changed over time? Is the diminishing rate time related or rather block related? 5. What is the maximum number of Bitcoins available in the network after all the Bitcoins have been mined? When will all the Bitcoins be mined? 6. What is a decentralized consensus? What is a usual setup to clear transactions? What does a clearinghouse do? 7. What is deflationary money? Are they good or bad usually? What is the bad example of deflationary spiral? 8. What is an emergent consensus? What is the feature of emergent consensus? How does it differ from a usual consensus? What are the main processes out of which this emergent decentralized consensus becomes true? 9. Could you please describe the process of Independent Transaction Verification? What is the list of criteria that are checked against a newly received transaction? Where can these rules be checked? Can they be changed over time? If yes, why would they be changed? 10. Does mining node have to be a full node? If not, what are the other options for a node that is not full to be a mining node? 11. What is a candidate block? What types of nodes in the Bitcoin network create candidate blocks? What is a memory pool? Is there any other name of the memory pool? What are the transactions kept in this memory pool? 12. How are transactions added to the candidate block? How does a candidate block become a valid block? 13. What is the minimum value in the Bitcoin network? What is it called and what is the value? Are there any alternative names? 14. What is the age of the UTXO? 15. How is the priority of a transaction is calculated? What is the exact formula? What are the units of each contributing member? When is a transaction considered to be old? Can low priority transactions carry a zero fee? Will they be processed in this case? 16. How much size in each block is reserved for high priority transactions? How are transactions prioritized for the remaining space? 17. Do transactions expire in Bitcoin? Can transactions disappear in the Bitcoin network? If yes, could you please describe such scenario? 18. What is a generation transaction? Does it have another name? If it does, what is the other name of the transaction? What is the position of the generation transaction in the block? Does it have an input? Is the input usual UTXO? If not – what is the input called? How many outputs there are for the generation transaction? 19. What is the Coinbase data? What is it currently used for? 20. What is little-endian and big-endian formats? Could you please give an example of both? 21. How is the block header constructed? Which fields are calculated and added to the block header? Could you please describe the steps for calculation of the block header fields? 22. What is a mantissa-exponent encoding? How is this encoding used in the Bitcoin network? What is the difficulty target? What is the actual process of mining? What kind of mathematical calculation is executed to conduct mining? 23. Which hash function is used in the Bitcoin mining process? 24. Could you describe the PoW algorithm? What features of the hash function does it depend on? What is the other name of the hash function? What is a nonce? How can we increase the difficulty of the PoW calculation? What do we need to change and how do we need to change this parameter? 25. What is difficulty bits notation? Could you please describe in details how it works? What is the formula for the difficulty notation? 26. Why is difficulty adjustable? Who adjusts it and how exactly? Where is the adjustment made? On which node? How many blocks are taken into consideration to predict the next block issuance rate? What is the change limitation? Does the target difficulty depend on the number of transactions? 27. How is a new block propagated in the network? What kind of verification does each node do? What is the list of criteria for the new block? What kind of process ensures that the miners do not cheat? 28. How does a process of block assembly work? What are the sets of blocks each full node have? Could you please describe these sets of blocks? 29. What is a secondary chain? What does each node do to check this chain and perhaps to promote it to the primary chain? Could you please describe an example when a fork occurs and what happens? 30. How quickly forks are resolved most of the time? Within how many new block periods? 31. Why the next block is generated within 10 minutes from the previous? What is this compromise about? What do designers of the Bitcoin network thought about when implementing this rule? 32. What is a hashing race? How did Bitcoin hashing capacity has changed within years from inception? What kind of hardware devices were initially used and how did the HW utilization evolved? What kind of hardware is used now to do mining? How has the network difficulty improved? 33. What is the size of the field that stores nonce in the block header? What is the limitation and problem of the nonce? Why was an extra nonce created? Was there any intermediate solution? If yes, what was the solution? What are the limitations of the solution? 34. What is the exact solution for the extra nonce? Where does the new space come from? How much space is currently used and what is the range of the extra nonce now? 35. What is a mining pool? Why was it created? How are normally such pools operated? Do they pay regularly to the pool participants? Where are newly created Bitcoins distributed? To which address? How do mining pools make money? How do the mining pools calculate the participation? How are shares earned calculated? 36. What is a managed pool? How is the owner of the pool called? Do pool members need to run full nodes? Explain why or why not? 37. What are the most famous protocols used to coordinate pool activities? What is a block template? How is it used? 38. What is the limitation of a centralized pool? Is there any alternative? If yes, what is it? How is it called? How does it work? 39. What is a consensus attack? What is the main assumption of the Bitcoin network? What can be the targets of the consensus attacks? What can these attacks do and what they cannot do? How much overall capacity of the network do you have to control to exercise a consensus attack? Chapter 9: Alternative Chains, Currencies and Applications. 1. What is the name of alternative coins? Are they built on top of the Bitcoin network? What are examples of them? Is there any alternative approach? Could you please describe some alternatives? 2. Are there any alternatives to the PoW algorithm? If yes – what are the alternatives? Could you please name two or three? 3. What is the operation of the Script language that is used to store a metadata in Bitcoin blockchain? 4. What is a coloured coin? Could you please explain how it is created and how it works? Do you need any special SW to manage coloured coins? 5. What is the difference between alt coins and alt chains? What is a Litecoin? What are the major differences between the Bitcoin and Litecoin? Why so many alt coins have been created? What are they usually based on? 6. What is Scrypt? Where is it used and how is it different from the original algorithm from which it has been created? 7. What is a demurrage currency? Could you please give an example of one blockchain and crypto currency that is demurrage? 8. What is a good example of an alternative algorithm to PoW? What is it called and how is it different from the PoW? Why the alternatives to Bitcoin PoW have been created? What is the main reason for this? What is dual-purpose PoW algorithms? Why have they been created? 9. Is Bitcoin “anonymous” currency? Is it difficult to trace transactions and understand someone’s spending habits? 10. What is Ethereum? What kind of currency does it use? What is the difference from Bitcoin? Chapter 10: Bitcoin security. 1. What is the main approach of Bitcoin security? 2. What are two common mistakes made by newcomers to the world of Bitcoin? 3. What is a root of trust in traditional security settings? What is a root of trust in Bitcoin network? How should you assess security of your system? 4. What is a cold storage and paper wallet? 5. What is a hardware wallet? How is it better than storing private keys on your computer or your smart phone?
submitted by 5tu to BitcoinTechnology [link] [comments]

The Strange Birth & History of Monero, Part III: Decentralized team

You can read here part I (by americanpegaus). This is the post that motivated me to make the part II. Now i'm doing a third part, and there'll be a final 4th part. This is probably too much but i wasn't able to make it shorter. Some will be interested in going through all them, and maybe someone is even willing to make a summary of the whole serie :D.
Monero - an anonymous coin based on CryptoNote technology
Comentarios de interés:
-4: "No change, this is just a renaming. In the future, the binaries will have to be changed, as well as some URL, but that's all. By the way, this very account (monero) is shared by several user and is meant to make it easier to change the OP in case of vacancy of the OP. This idea of a shared OP comes from Karmacoin.
Some more things to come:
-5: “Before this thread is too big, I would like to state that a bug has been identified in the emission curve and we are currently in the process of fixing it (me, TFT, and smooth). Currently coins are emitted at double the rate that was intended. We will correct this in the future, likely by bitshifting values of outputs before a certain height, and then correcting 1 min blocks to 2 min blocks. The changes proposed will be published to a Monero Improvement Protocol on github.”
[tacotime make public the bug in the emission curve: token creation is currently 2 times what was intended to be, see this chart BTC vs the actual XMR curve, as it was and it is now, vs the curve that was initially planned in yellow see chart]
-14: “Moving discussion to more relevant thread, previous found here:
I have to say that I am surprised that such an idea [halving current balances and then changing block target to 2 min with same block reward to solve the emission curve issue] is even being countenanced - there are several obvious arguments against it.
Perception - what kind of uproar would happen if this was tried on a more established coin? How can users be expected to trust a coin where it is perceived that the devs are able and willing to "dip" into people's wallets to solve problems?
Technically - people are trying to suggest that this will make no difference since it applies to reward and supply, which might be fair enough if the cap was halved also, but it isn't. People's holdings in the coin are being halved, however it is dressed up.
Market price - How can introducing uncertainty in the contents of people's wallets possibly help market price? I may well be making a fool of myself here, but I have never heard of such a fix before, unless you had savings in a Cypriot bank - has this ever been done for another coin?”
-15: “You make good points but unfortunately conflicting statements were made and it isn't possible to stick to them all. It was said that this coin had a mining reward schedule similar to bitcoin. In fact it is twice as fast as intended, even even a bit more than twice as fast as bitcoin.
If you acquired your coins on the basis of the advertised reward schedule, you would be disappointed, and rightfully so, as more coins come to into existence more quickly than you were led to believe.
To simply ignore that aspect of the bug is highly problematic. Every solution may be highly problematic, but the one being proposed was agreed as being the least bad by most of the major stakeholders. Maybe it will still not work, this coin will collapse, and there will need to be a relaunch, in which case all your coins will likely be worthless. I hope that doesn't happen.”
[smooth tries to justify his proposal to solve the emission curve issue: halve every current balance and change block target to 2 min with same block reward]
-16: “This coin wasn't working as advertised. It was supposed to be mined slowly like BTC but under the current emission schedule, 39% would be mined by the first year and 86% by the fourth year. Those targets have been moved out by a factor of 2, i.e. 86% mined by year 8, which is more like BTC's 75% by year 8. So the cap has been moved out much further into the future, constraining present and near-term supply, which is what determines the price.”
[eizh supports smooth’s plan]
-20: “So long as the process is fair and transparent it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone. Correcting this now will avoid people accusing the coin of a favourable premine for people who mined in the first week.”
[random user supporting smooth’s idea]
-21: “Why not a reduction in block reward of slightly more than half to bring it into line with the proposed graph? That would avoid all sorts of perceptual problems, would not upset present coin holders and be barely noticeable to future miners since less than one percent of coins have been mined so far, the alteration would be very small?”
-22: “Because that still turns into a pre-mine or instamine where a few people got twice as many coins as everyone else in the first week.
This was always a bug, and should be treated as such.”
[smooth wants to be sure they can’t be stigmatized as “premine”]
-23: “No, not true [answering to "it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone"]. Your share of the 18,000,000 coins is being halved - rightly or wrongly.”
[good point made by a user that is battling “hard” with smooth and his proposal]
-28: “+1 for halving all coins in circulation. Would they completely disappear? What would the process be?”
-31: “I will wait for the next coin based on CryptoNote. Many people, including myself, avoided BMR because TFT released without accepting input from anyone (afaik). I pm'ed TFT 8 days before launch to help and didn't get response until after launch. Based on posting within the thread, I bet there were other people. Now the broken code gets "fixed" by taking away coins.”
-32: “What you say is true, and I can't blame anyone from simply dropping this coin and wanting a complete fresh start instead. On the other hand, this coin is still gaining in popularity and is already getting close to bytecoin in hash rate, while avoiding its ninja premine. There is a lot done right here, and definitely a few mistakes.”
[smooth stands for the project legitimacy despite the bugs]
-37: “Since everything is scaled and retroactive, the only person to be affected is... me. Tongue Because I bought BMR with BTC, priced it with incorrect information, and my share relative to the eventual maximum has been halved. Oh well. The rest merely mined coins that never should have been mined. The "taking away coins" isn't a symptom of the fix: it's the fundamental thing that needed fixing. The result is more egalitarian and follows the original intention. Software is always a work-in-progress. Waiting for something ideal at launch is pretty hopeless. edit: Let me point out that most top cryptocurrencies today were released before KGW and other new difficulty retargeting algorithms became widespread. Consequently they had massive instamines on the first day, even favorites in good standing like LTC. Here the early miners are voluntarily reducing their eventual stake for the sake of fairness. How cool is that?”
[this is eizh supporting the project too]
-43: “I'm baffled that people are arguing about us making the emission schedule more fair. I'm an early adopter. This halves my money, and it's what I want to do. There's another change that needs to be talked about too: we don't believe that microscopic levels of inflation achieved at 9 or 10 years will secure a proof-of-work network. In fact, there's a vast amount of evidence from DogeCoin and InfiniteCoin that it will not. So, we'd like to fix reward when it goes between 0.25 - 1.00 coins. To do so, we need to further bitshift values to decrease the supply under 264-1 atomic units to accommodate this. Again, this hurts early adopters (like me), but is designed to ensure the correct operation of the chain in the long run. It's less than a week old, and if we're going to hardfork in economic changes that make sense we should do it now. We're real devs turning monero into the coin it should have been, and our active commitment should be nothing but good news. Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use.”
[tacotime brings to the public for first time the tail emission proposal and writes what is my favourite sentence of the whole monero history: “Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use”]
-51: “I think this is the right attitude. Like you I stand to "lose" from this decision in having my early mining halved, but I welcome it. Given how scammy the average coin launch is, I think maximizing fairness for everyone is the right move. Combining a fair distribution with the innovation of Cryptonote tech could be what differentiates Monero from other coins.”
-59: “Hello! It is very good that you've created this thread. I'm ok about renaming. But I can't agree with any protocol changes based only on decisions made by people. This is because not all miners are continiously reading forum. Any decision about protocol changes are to be made by hashpower-based voting. From my side I will agree on such a decision only if more than 50% of miners will agree. Without even such a simple majority from miners such changes are meaningless. In case of hardfork that isn't supported by majority of miners the network will split into two nets with low-power fork and high-power not-forking branches. I don't think that this will be good for anybody. Such a voting is easy to be implemented by setting minor_version of blocks to a specific value and counting decisions made after 1000 of blocks. Do you agree with such a procedure?”
[TFT appears after a couple days of inactivity]
-63: “In few days I will publish a code with merged mining support. This code will be turned ON only by voting process from miners. What does it mean:
The same procedure is suitable for all other protocol changes.”
[And now he is back, TFT is all about merged mining]
-67: “We don't agree that a reverse split amounts to "taking" coins. I also wouldn't agree that a regular forward split would be "giving" coins. It's an exchange of old coins with new coins, with very nearly the exact same value. There is a very slight difference in value due to the way the reward schedule is capped, but that won't be relevant for years or decades. Such a change is entirely reasonable to fix an error in a in coin that has only existed for a week.”
-68: “There were no error made in this coin but now there is an initiative to make some changes. Changes are always bad and changes destroy participant confidence even in case these changes are looking as useful. We have to be very careful before making any changes in coins”
[TFT does not accept the unexpected emission curve as a bug]
-72: “You are wrong TFT. The original announcement described the coin as having a reward curve "close to Bitcoin's original curve" (those are your exact words). The code as implemented has a reward curve that is nothing like bitcoin. It will be 86% mined in 4 years. It will be 98% mined in 8 years. Bitcoin is 50% mined in 4 years, and 75% in 8 years.
With respect TFT, you did the original fork, and you deserve credit for that. But this coin has now gone beyond your initial vision. It isn't just a question of whether miners are on bitcointalk or not.
There is a great team of people who are working hard to make this coin a success, and this team is collaborating regularly through forum posts, IRC, PM and email. And beyond that a community of users who by and large have been very supportive of the efforts we've taken to move this forward.
Also, miners aren't the only stakeholders, and while a miner voting process is great, it isn't the answer to every question. Though I do agree that miners need to be on board with any hard fork to avoid a harmful split.”
[smooth breaks out publicily for first time against TFT]
-75: “I suppose that merged mining as a possible option is a good idea as soon as nobody is forced to use it. MM is a possibility to accept PoW calculated for some other network. It helps to increase a security of both networks and makes it possible for miners not to choose between two networks if they want both:
Important things to know about MM:
Actually the only change that goes with MM is that we are able to accept PoW from some other net with same hash-function. Each miner can decide his own other net he will merge mine BMR with.
And this is still very secure.
This way I don't see any disadvantage in merged mining. What disadvantages do you see in MM?”
[TFT stands for merged mining]
-77: “Merged mining essentially forces people to merge both coins because that is the only economically rational decision. I do not want to support the ninja-premined coin with our hash rate.
Merged mining makes perfect sense for a coin with a very low hash rate, otherwise unable to secure itself effectively. That is the case with coins that merge mine with bitcoin. This coin already has 60% of the hash rate of bytecoin, and has no need to attach itself to another coin and encourage sharing of hash rate between the two. It stands well on its own and will likely eclipse bytecoin very soon.
I want people to make a clear choice between the fair launched coin and the ninja-premine that was already 80% mined before it was made public. Given such a choice I believe most will just choose this coin. Letting them choose both allows bytecoin to free ride on what we are doing here. Let the ninja-preminers go their own way.”
[smooth again]
-85: “One of you is saying that there was no mistake in the emission formula, while the other is. I'm not asking which I should believe . . I'm asking for a way to verify this”
[those that have not been paying attention to the soap opera since the beginning do not understand anything at all]
-86: “The quote I posted "close to Bitcoin's original curve" is from the original announcement here:
I think there was also some discussion on the thread about it being desirable to do that.
At one point in that discussion, I suggested increasing the denominator by a factor of 4, which is what ended up being done, but I also suggested retaining the block target at 2 minutes, which was not done. The effect of making one change without the other is to double the emission rate from something close to bitcoin to something much faster (see chart a few pages back on this thread).”
[smooth answers just a few minutes later]
-92: “I'm happy the Bitmonero attracts so much interest.
I'm not happy that some people want to destroy it.
Here is a simple a clear statement about plans:
We have two kind of stakeholders we have respect: miders and coin owners.
Before any protocol changes we will ask miners for agreement. No changes without explicit agreement of miners is possible.
We will never take away or discount any coins that are already emitted. This is the way we respect coin owners.
All other issues can be discussed, proposed and voted for. I understand that there are other opinions. All decisions that aren't supported in this coin can be introduced in any new coin. It's ok to start a new fork. It's not ok to try to destroy an existsing network.”
[TFT is kinda upset – he can see how the community is “somehow” taking over]
-94: “Sounds like there's probably going to be another fork then. Sigh.
I guess it will take a few tries to get this coin right.
The problem with not adjusting existing coins is that it make this a premine/instamine. If the emission schedule is changed but not as a bug fix, then earlier miners got an unfair advantage over everyone else. Certainly there are coins with premines and instamines, but there's a huge stigma and such a coin will never achieve the level of success we see for this coin. This was carefully discussed during the team meeting, which was announced a day ahead of time, and everyone with any visible involvement with the coin, you included, was invited. It is unfortunate you couldn't make it to that meeting TFT.”
[smooth is desperate due to TFT lack of interest in collaboration, and he publicly speaks about an scission for first time]
-115: “Very rough website online, (in case you asked, the domain name was voted on IRC, like the crypto name and its code). Webdesigner, webmaster, writers... wanted.”
[Even though the lack of consensus and the obvious chaos, the community keeps going on: Monero already has his own site]
-152: “Here's one idea on fixing the emissions without adjusting coin balances.
We temporarily reduce the emission rate to half of the new target for as long as it takes for the total emission from 0 to match the new curve. Thus there will be a temporary period when mining is very slow, and during that period there was a premine.
But once that period is compete, from the perspective of new adopters, there was no premine -- the total amount of coins emitted is exactly what the slow curve says it should be (and the average rate since genesis is almost the same as the rate at which they are mining, for the first year or so at least).
This means the mining rewards will be very low for a while (if done now then roughly two weeks), and may not attract many new miners. However, I think there enough of us early adopters (and even some new adopters who are willing to make a temporary sacrifice) who want to see this coin succeed to carry it through this period.
The sooner this is done the shorter the catch up period needs to be.”
[smooth makes a proposal to solve the “emission curve bug” without changing users balances and without favoring the early miners]
-182: “We have added a poll in the freenode IRC room "Poll #2: "Emission future of Monero, please vote!!" started by stickh3ad. Options: #1: "Keep emission like now"; #2: "Keep emission but change blocktime and final reward"; #3: "Keep emission but change blocktime"; #4: "Keep emission but change final reward"; #5: "Change emission"; #6: "Change emission and block time"; #7: "Change emission and block time and final reward"
Right now everyone is voting for #4, including me.”
[tacotime announces an ongoing votation on IRC]
-184: “ change emission: need to bitshift old values on the network or double values after a certain block. controversial. not sure if necessary. can be difficult to implement. keep emission: straightforward, we don't keep change emission or block time. change final reward is simple. if (blockSubsidy < finalSubsidy) return finalSubsidy; else return blockSubsidy;”
-188: “Yeah, well. We need to change the front page to reflect this if we can all agree on it.
We should post the emissions curve and the height and value that subsidy will be locked in to.
In my opinion this is the least disruptive thing we can do at the moment, and should ensure that the fork continues to be mineable and secure in about 8 years time without relying on fees to secure it (which I think you agree is a bad idea).”
-190: “I don't think the proposed reward curve is bad by any means. I do think it is bad to change the overall intent of a coin's structure and being close to bitcoins reward curve was a bit part of the intent of this coin. It was launched in response to the observation that bytecoin was 80% mined in less than two years (too fast) and also that it was ninja premined, with a stated goal that the new coin have a reward curve close to bitcoin.
At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:
  1. No GUI
  2. No web site
  3. Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
  4. No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
  5. No effective team behind it at launch
  6. No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)
I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure.
I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.).
We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.”
[smooth is disappointed]
-191: “The website does exist now, it's just not particularly informative yet. :) But, I agree that thankful_for_today has severely mislead everyone by stating the emission was "close to Bitcoin's" (if he's denying that /2 rather than /4 emission schedule was unintentional, as he seems to be). I'm also against BCN merge mining. It works against the goal of overtaking BCN and if that's not a goal, I don't know what we're even doing here. I'll dedicate my meagre mining to voting against that.
That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.”
[eizh tries to keep smooth on board]
-196: “BCN is still growing as well. It is up to 1.2 million now. If merged mining happens, (almost) everyone will just mine both. The difficulty on this coin will jump up to match BCN (in fact both will likely go higher since the hash rate will be combined) and again it is an instamine situation. (Those here the first week get the benefit of easy non-merged mining, everyone else does not.) Comments were made on this thread about this not being yet another pump-and-dump alt. I think that could have been the case, but sadly, I don't really believe that it is.”
-198: “There's no point in fragmenting talent. If you don't think merge mining is a good idea, I'd prefer we just not add it to the code.
Bitcoin had no web site or GUI either initially. Bitcoin-QT was the third Bitcoin client.
If people want a pool, they can make one. There's no point in centralizing the network when it's just began, though. Surely you must feel this way.”
[tacotime also wants smooth on board]
-201: “My personal opinion is that I will abandon the fork if merge mining is added. And then we can discuss a new fork. Until then I don't think Monero will be taken over by another fork.”
[tacotime opens the season: if merged mining is implemented, he will leave the ship]
-203: “Ditto on this. If the intention wasn't to provide a clearweb launched alternative to BCN, then I don't see a reason for this fork to exist. BCN is competition and miners should make a choice.”
[eizh supports tacotime]
-204: “+1 Even at the expense of how much I already "invested" in this coin.”
[NoodleDoodle is also against merged mining]
This is basically everything worth reading in this thread. This thread was created in the wrong category, and its short life of about 2 days was pretty interesting. Merged mining was rejected and it ended up with the inactivity of TFT for +7 days and the creation of a new github repo the 30th of April. It is only 12 days since launch and a decentralized team is being built.
Basically the community had forked (but not the chain) and it was evolving and moving forward to its still unclear future.
These are the main takeaways of this thread:
  • The legitimacy of the "leaders" of the community is proven when they proposed and supported the idea of halving the balances for the greater good to solve the emission curve issue without any possible instamine accusation. Also their long-term goals and values rejecting merged-mining with a "primined scam"
  • It is decided that, as for now, it is “too late” to change the emission curve, and finally monero will mint 50% of its coin in ~1.3 years (bitcoin did it after 3.66 years) and 86% of its coins in 4 years (bitcoin does it in ~11 years) (was also voted here) (see also this chart)
  • It is decided that a “minimum subsidy” or “tail emission” to incentivize miners “forever” and avoid scaling fees will be added (it will be finally added to the code march 2015)
  • Merged mining is plainly rejected by the future “core team” and soon rejected by "everyone". This will trigger TFT inactivity.
  • The future “core team” is somehow being formed in a decentralized way: tacotime, eizh, NoodleDoodle, smooth and many others
And the most important. All this (and what is coming soon) is a proof of the decentralization of Monero. Probably comparable to Bitcoin first days. This is not a company building a for-profit project (even if on the paper it is not for-profit), this a group of disconnected individuals sharing a goal and working together to reach it.
Soon will be following a final part where i'll collect the bitcointalk logs in the current official announcement threads. There you'll be able to follow the decentralized first steps of develoment (open source pool, miner optimizations and exchanges, all surrounded by fud trolls, lots of excitmen and a rapidly growing collaborative community.
submitted by el_hispano to Monero [link] [comments]

BTC Difficulty Adjustment NEWS 2020 - How can Miners Survive? How to Calculate Bitcoin Difficulty ⚠️ BITCOIN FAKEOUT OR BREAKOUT ⚠️ Has mining difficulty pumped Bitcoin? Experts Say Bitcoin Difficulty Adjustment Might Prompt Miners to Switch Bitcoin Difficulty Explained

The difficulty can increase or decrease depending on whether it took less or more than 2 weeks to find 2016 blocks. Generally, the difficulty will decrease after the network hashrate drops. If the correction factor is greater than 4 (or less than 1/4), then 4 or 1/4 are used instead, to prevent the change to be too abrupt. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you like cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics. The Bitcoin network has a global block difficulty. Valid blocks must have a hash below this target. Mining pools also have a pool-specific share difficulty setting a lower limit for shares. How often does the network difficulty change? Every 2016 blocks. What is the formula for difficulty? difficulty = difficulty_1_target / current_target The Bitcoin price and the total network hash rate. The Bitcoin network hash rate is growing at a rate of 0.4527678% per day. This means if you buy 50 TH/s of mining hardware your total share of the network will go DOWN every day compared to the total network hash rate. The Bitcoin network varies its difficulty levels after the discovery of every 2016 blocks to ensure a constant output. If the network hash rate is high and the time taken to discover a new block is less than 10 minutes, then the network will increase the difficulty level proportionately to increase the block discovery time.

[index] [11106] [29356] [18394] [7872] [6850] [6622] [25564] [8679] [31104] [15109]

BTC Difficulty Adjustment NEWS 2020 - How can Miners Survive?

Watch in 360 the inside of a nuclear reactor from the size of an atom with virtual reality - Duration: 3:42. EDF in the UK Recommended for you. 360° Investing in bitcoin, cryptocurrency or any other products recommended on this channel is risky AF and you’ll most likely get REKT. If that happens, you’re on your own pal, don’t so I didn ... This is a variable that the Bitcoin system is using to keep the growth of new Bitcoins on a controllable rate. It started as 1 and changes once in every 2016 calculated blocks. Finding the current ... BITCOIN Mining Difficulty Increases - Grayscale BTC Trust - Goldman Sachs Crypto Team - Poloniex ... Increase Bitcoin Mining Profits 2019 and AVOID ASIC Antminer Viruses ... I Am Done Mining Ethereum Difficulty Exploding Why UBIQ Mining Is More Profitable? - Duration: 6:20. ... Bitcoin Mining in 4 Minutes - Computerphile - Duration: 4:02.

Flag Counter