If you have decided to read all this, thanks, keep reading for a concise breakdown!
So what's the current big thing going on with ARK right NOW?
ARK.io has recently announced on both its blog and its Twitter that ARK Core v2.6 is coming to Mainnet February 11th. The iteration of 2.6 may sound anticlimactic, but it's far from that. Core v2.6 is the biggest upgrade to date- even bigger than the total Core overhaul performed for v2.0, deployed late 2018. The new version brings new transaction types to the ARK Public Network, including types that will play a role in creating an ecosystem of linked chains. This ecosystem of linked chains will have the ARK Public Network in the center of the action, storing chain details and allowing for chain discovery. These new transaction types include: Multipayments — sending to multiple ARK addresses, while just initiating one transaction, saves time and cost Multisignatures — you can now get all of the benefits of multisignatures where more than one user can propose or spend funds depending on the predefined terms (eg. 2 out of 3 users needed to successfully send tokens, vote, …) IPFS — register IPFS compliant hashes on the ARK blockchain within Desktop Wallet. Business & Bridgechain registrations — you can now register your business and bridgechain on the blockchain and soon, you will be able to get verified via our Marketplace to get access to some exciting new features. Delegate resignation — delegates who don’t want to be voted for anymore can now opt-out of this by simply initiating delegate resignation. Additionally, the Core v2.6 improves security against double-spend attacks by implementing nonces. Also, massive enhancements were made to the GTI or Generic Transaction Interface, a critical tool for developers who wish to develop decentralized applications.
What is ARK's unique approach to current issues plaguing the blockchain industry?
ARK empowers everyone, regardless of their aim or technical background, to quickly and easily leverage blockchain technology. In the current hype-driven blockchain landscape, ARK acts as a beacon for individuals, groups, and enterprises seeking to apply blockchain technology to both reach their individual goals and affect change in their local community. ARK’s uniquely simple technology stack allows almost anyone to create and deploy standalone blockchains for any use case with an intuitive graphical user interface and experience. These newly created blockchains also known as bridgechains will have the ability to interoperate through ARK SmartBridge Technology. ARK is also reinventing smart contracts with ARK Logic, a collection of tools including custom transaction types, templates, and plugins. ARK Logic brings security, adaptability, and scalability to decentralized computing workflows. Most importantly, the ARK Ecosystem fosters a growing international community of developers, node operators, blockchains, businesses, and enthusiasts who collectively breathe life into this disruptive technology. Get into the interactive whitepaper here.
Tell me about the ARK Public Network
Ok, no problem. Since coming online on March 21, 2017, the APN has operated as a P2P cryptocurrency with fast block times of 8 seconds and low dynamic fees (near a penny and somewhat novel for a DPoS blockchain). However, the end goal of the APN far exceeds that of just a cryptocurrency that is faster and cheaper to use than Bitcoin. I'll explain further in a minute. The network, as mentioned, is set up as Delegated Proof-of-Stake. This means forging delegates are deemed worthy to secure the chain and add blocks to it by the holders of the ARK token, which vote for delegates using their ARK as vote weight. ARK remains in users' control at all times, and the top 51 delegates in vote weight enter forging status. The network awards each delegate 2 ARK per block (~12,705 ARK/mo) for services rendered. This continues ad infinitum resulting in a declining inflation rate each year (relative to total supply). When users add or remove ARK from a voting wallet address, vote weight adjusts automatically and they don't need to vote again. Voting continues even if user's wallet is offline. The main uses of ARK as the cryptoasset of the ARK Public Network besides being a P2P cryptocurrency include:
Being a medium of exchange for ARK Public Network services. Delegates and businesses can operate services where transactions are settled in ARK.
Allowing convenience in interoperability, giving users access to bridgechain use cases via the main ARK cryptoasset.
Liquidity for small and large ARK bridgechains. This is via ARK SmartBridge Technology/ARK Swap Market (in development)
Payment method for plugin, delegate, and talent marketplaces. Services rendered can have transactions settled using ARK.
Yes, team good. Team very good. General sentiment among ARK team members is that ARK is a dream project to work on, and this motivates them to do great work on a consistent basis as the ARK technology stack progresses. Very recently, ARK hired an additional half dozen people in various departments, including marketing department. This brings ARK team total to over three dozen experts. The ARK business entity is also well funded with around 10 years of budget. The ARK business entity spends funds in a very sensible manner compared to some other projects who spend with insufficient foresight or discretion. Members of the board are thoughtful and deliberate, and the CEO FX Thoorens has been hard at work putting a spotlight on ARK, showing an 'intermeshing' of ARK with the global regulatory landscape in regards to crypto. Recently, ARK became a founding member of ADAN, a professional association based in France created to help structure and develop the digital assets industry. Other members include Consensys France and Ledger. ADAN will consult with public authorities, industry leaders and private bodies to promote the use of digital assets and all activities in this sector. This includes exchange platforms, brokers, hardware, protocols, decentralized applications and blockchain technology platforms. Hear FX Thoorens talk more about this in this podcast episode. The ARK business entity is located in France, but the ARK team is distributed across 10+ countries and multiple continents.
What's going to happen?
Cool stuff. Organizations and open source projects have been stumbling across ARK and really like what they see. Multiple projects are working with ARK technology and are at various stages of development, but since you're busy, I'll highlight the project nOS which recently launched their public testnet and uses ARK technology for their blockchain. nOS also has great things to say about ARK that you can hear in this podcast episode or watch in this video. We believe that as more businesses, organizations, and open source projects start looking around for blockchain solutions, they will also enjoy ARK's simplicity, flexibility, and feature set. Our powerful technology stack is backed up by a recently upgraded documentation hub for developers. The product we have that makes it very easy for projects to join the ARK Ecosystem is called the ARK Deployer, which you can learn about in this two minute video. It allows developers from all walks of life to create, customize and launch a standalone blockchain in three simple steps. In the near future, what's going to happen is a big improvement to the Deployer. The ARK Deployer will get an upgraded and more powerful user interface that also facilitates chain management post-launch, as well as interface directly with cloud providers like Digital Ocean to launch genesis node and peers in background. This would allow for a massive leap forward in our vision of 'Point. Click. Blockchain.' ARK.io is also working on a Marketplace for developers, where custom plugins and tools developed by both ARK.io as well as third parties can be acquired for assembling blockchains much easier. Imagine a wordpress-type environment where you can create a super-powerful and customized blockchain by connecting Legos together. In the same way that early World Wide Web needed WordPress/Squarespace style tools to bring the technology to every business or organization, we believe that this need will be out there for blockchain technology as this new decade progresses. There is more cool stuff that is going to happen, but I'll wrap it up there for now.
After reading all this stuff, what is it you want me to do?
Well, not make any financial decisions, because that is not the purpose of this information. However, as a developer, there's a lot of interesting things you should know and may want to consider doing. The ARK technology stack uses TypeScript and other JS-style frameworks, so if you know those, you should get excited.
Earn a lot more ARK. The Tier 0 Program offers bigger projects we need help with and therefore more ARK. You can even contact the team with an idea for a Tier 0 Project you want to do that makes ARK look cool. For example, there is a Tier 0 project designed to highlight ARK tech as a proof of concept for scooter rentals. See program status here.
Look into the ARK Deployer for making your own chain with a custom use case. If you are a part of a project that is currently just a token on someone else's mainnet, and you have scaling concerns or issues with sovereignty, ARK should be a candidate for upgrading your solution for this new decade. Check out ARK Deployer here.
Here's some additional less 'developery' stuff you can do:
Get your idea funded through theARK Community Fund. It's community run, and operated by community elected board members. Your idea can be anything that helps ARK, maybe some seed money for a business like this one that ships ARK Stickers worldwide, or maybe some small dev project, or video production, or article, etc.
Subscribe to the ARK Crypto Podcast. It happens weekly, and it's one of the absolute best podcasts in the space that's centered around a specific project. It knows you're busy, so it's to the point, well constructed, and entertaining. The podcast is looking for subscribers. Do it on iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Castbox, etc. Here's an updated ARK overview episode that covers much more than you read in this post today.
Other subscribing goodies. Twitter, Slack, Discord, Reddit, Facebook, Medium, etc list of links here.
Just in case, throwing the website URL here, which is ARK.io - it's a really good website that has more information for users and developers, as well as live integrations with dynamic data.
Thanks for coming along for the ride of this post. ARK has been out here, it's out here, and it's going to continue to be out here, doing its part to make sure everybody knows that blockchains are, in fact, a thing.
The REAL biggest issue facing Bitcoin Cash: we are under attack and many don't realize it
Many in our community are warning us that we are in danger because we are letting ourselves be defined by BTC, and too negative in how we interact online. Let me be crystal clear, they are WRONG. First, watch this video. It's an interview with a KGB defector. It was filmed over 30 years ago, but sounds like it is talking about current events. What you must understand is that the BCH community is under attack. We, whether we know it or not, are at war. If you don't perceive this as reality, you are nothing more than a useful idiot. It's not just a war, it's an asymmetric war, and the odds aren't in our favor. At best, BTC and decentralized cryptocurrencies are under attack by bank funded VC's who are trying to rent seek on BTC while keeping it dominant. At worst, and most likely, BTC and decentralized cryptocurrencies are under attack by state actors, with companies that profit from the attack tagging merrily along. In the video, Yuri talks about four stages when the KGB would attempt to attack a community/country/adversary during a cold war. It wasn't James Bond and espionage, it was almost all social manipulation. Here are the four stages: 1 Demoralize. This process takes years. For countries it takes an entire generation, 15-20 years. For crypto, it happened much faster, because they started very early, when culture was still being formed in 2011. With BTC it happened with the "contentious blocksize debate". Developers were installed by blockstream and other companies, spokespeople came out of the woodwork blocking scaling, and progress on BTC was halted. The narrative was controlled by censorship and banning, and figureheads that wanted to scale Bitcoin had their reputations attacked and ruined. I have never been so frustrated and demoralized in my life as I was from 2014 to 2017. I know many of you reading this know what I'm talking about. 2 Destabilize. This happened with BTC with the SegWit 2x fork, where they double crossed with the 2x increase. 3 Crisis. This was the fork. The few people who had the tenacity to put up with all of the bullshit in 1 and 2 were forced to fork off into a much smaller community, the refuge called Bitcoin Cash. 4 Normalization. This is when the adversary takes control. This has happened with BTC. The blocksize will never be increased, and the only scaling that will ever happen will be through bank-like hubs, controlled by the same authorities we have in place today. Anyone that disagrees is cast out and must find a different community. BTC's dominance is cemented because huge financial giants pump the price, and attack alternatives viciously. But wait... that's not the only attack. BCH was subsequently attacked again! 1 Demoralize. CSW (the guy who ruined Gavin's reputation, mind you) wormed his way into the community over around a year. Backed by an online gambling billionaire who was on the FBI's most wanted list (hmmmm) and unknown funders behind that front powering "nChain". 2 Destabilize. nChain and CSW introduce changes that force a hard fork in BCH only days before the scheduled upgrade date, months after the code for the upgrade was agreed to by all parties and frozen. 3 Crisis. The fork. Planted agents and useful idiots like Ryan Charles leave the project, supporting BSV. Our community is fractured AGAIN. BCH itself is suspected to be 51% attacked, but only through a shift in hash power and the 10 block rollback emergency change, this attack is mitigated. 4 Normalization. Projects and developers (both agents and useful idiots) left the BCH ecosystem, and now support the fully controlled BSV chain, leaving BCH weaker and demoralized. This process, demoralize, destabilize, crisis, normalization will be repeated over and over and over, forever, as long as the existing financial institutions and/or state powers deem cryptocurrency a threat. The Soviets used to murder useful idiots during normalization, when they realized they had been duped. I don't think we've had much murder, thankfully, but if state actors are involved, don't rule it out. If we are naive, ignore the fact that we are under attack by a larger adversary who will use any tactic to win, and only talk about the positives of BCH, that message WILL be drown out by 10x more Bcash Jihan Roger centralized BS. Our adversaries have more resources, people, and are laser focused on their attack. It's unfortunate, but we MUST point out common sense, and educate newcomers over and over about the history of the BTC attack, the BSV attack, and any future attacks that can and will be made against BCH. If we don't, BCH will be drown out by the psychological operation, and become a failed experiment. It's going to be a long, hard road.
DISCLAIMER This Whitepaper is for Era Swap Network. Its purpose is solely to provide prospective community members with information about the Era Swap Ecosystem & Era Swap Network project. This paper is for information purposes only and does not constitute and is not intended to be an offer of securities or any other financial or investment instrument in any jurisdiction. The Developers disclaim any and all responsibility and liability to any person for any loss or damage whatsoever arising directly or indirectly from (1) reliance on any information contained in this paper, (2) any error, omission or inaccuracy in any such information, or (3) any action resulting therefrom Digital Assets are extremely high-risk, speculative products. You should be aware of the risks involved and fully consider before participating in Digital assets whether it’s appropriate for you. You should only participate if you are an experienced investor with sophisticated knowledge of financial markets and you fully understand the risks associated with digital assets. We strongly advise you to take independent professional advice before making any investment or participating in any way. You should check what rules and protections apply to your respective jurisdictions before investing or participating in any way. The Creators & community will not compensate you for any losses from trading, investment or participating in any way. You should read whitepaper carefully before participating and consider whether these products are right for you. TABLE OF CONTENT · Abstract · Introduction to Era Swap Network · Development Overview · Era Swap Utility Platform · Alpha-release Development Plan · Era Swap Network Version 1: Specification · Bunch Structure: 10 · Converting ES-ERC20 to ES-Na: · Conclusion: · Era Swap Ecosystem · Social Links Abstract The early smart contracts of Era Swap Ecosystem like TimeAlly, Newly Released Tokens, Assurance, BetDeEx of Era Swap Ecosystem, are deployed on Ethereum mainnet. These smart contracts are finance-oriented (DeFi), i.e. most of the transactions are about spending or earning of Era Swap tokens which made paying the gas fees in Ether somewhat intuitive to the user (withdrawal charges in bank, paying tax while purchasing burgers) but transactions that are not token oriented like adding a nominee or appointee voting also needs Ether to be charged. As more Era Swap Token Utility platform ideas kept appending to the Era Swap Main Whitepaper, more non-financial transaction situations arise like updating status, sending a message, resolving a dispute and so on. Paying extensively for such actions all day and waiting for the transaction to be included in a block and then waiting for enough block confirmations due to potential chain re-organizations is counter-intuitive to existing free solutions like Facebook, Gmail. This is the main barrier that is stopping Web 3.0 from coming to the mainstream. As alternatives to Ethereum, there are few other smart contract development platforms that propose their own separate blockchain that features for higher transaction throughput, but they compromise on decentralization for improving transaction speeds. Moreover, the ecosystem tools are most advancing in Ethereum than any other platform due to the massive developer community. With Era Swap Network, the team aims to achieve scalability, speed and low-cost transactions for Era Swap Ecosystem (which is currently not feasible on Ethereum mainnet), without compromising much on trustless asset security for Era Swap Community users. Introduction to Era Swap Network Era Swap Network (ESN) aims to solve the above-mentioned problems faced by Era Swap Ecosystem users by building a side-blockchain on top of Ethereum blockchain using the Plasma Framework. Era Swap Network leverages the Decentralisation and Security of Ethereum and the Scalability achieved in the side-chain, this solves the distributed blockchain trilema. In most of the other blockchains, blocks are a collection of transactions and all the transactions in one block are mined by a miner in one step. Era Swap Network will consist of Bunches of Blocks of Era Swap Ecosystem Transactions. Decentralization Layer 2 Scalable and Secure A miner mines all the blocks in a bunch consequently and will commit the bunch-root to the ESN Plasma Smart Contract on Ethereum mainnet. Development Overview Initially, we will start with a simple Proof-of-Authority (PoA) based consensus of EVM to start the development and testing of Era Swap Ecosystem Smart Contracts as quickly as possible on the test-net. We will call this as an alpha-release of ESN test-net and only internal developers will work with this for developing smart contracts for Era Swap Ecosystem. User’s funds in a Plasma implementation with a simple consensus like PoA are still secured as already committed bunch-roots cannot be reversed. Eventually, we want to arrive on a more control-decentralized consensus algorithm like Proof-of-Stake (PoS) probably, so that even if the chain operator shuts down their services, a single Era Swap Ecosystem user somewhere in the world can keep the ecosystem alive by running software on their system and similarly more people can join to decentralize the control further. In this PoS version, we will modify the Parity Ethereum client in such a way, that at least 50% of transaction fees collected will go to the Luck Pool of NRT Smart Contract on Ethereum mainnet and rest can be kept by miner of the blocks/bunch of blocks if they wish. After achieving such an implementation, we will release this as a beta version to the community for testing the software on their computers with Kovan ERC20 Era Swaps (Ethereum test-net). Era Swap Decentralised Ecosystem Following platforms are to be integrated:
Era Swap Token Contract (adapted ERC20 on Ethereum) The original asset will lie on Ethereum to avoid loss due to any kind of failure in ESN.
Plasma Manager Contract (on Ethereum) To store ESN bunch headers on Ethereum.
Reverse Plasma Manager Contract (on ESN) Bridge to convert ES to ES native and ES native to ES. User deposits ES on Mainnet Plasma, gives proof on ESN and gets ES native credited to their account in a decentralised way.
NRT Manager Contract (on Ethereum or on ESN) If it is possible to send ES from an ESN contract to luck pool of NRT Manager Contract on Ethereum, then it’s ok otherwise, NRT Manager will need to be deployed on ESN for ability to add ES to luck pool.
Era Swap Wallet (React Native App for managing ESs and ES natives) Secure wallet to store multiple private keys in it, mainly for managing ES and ES native, sending ES or ES native, also for quick and easy BuzCafe payments.
TimeAlly (on Ethereum or on ESN) On whichever chain NRT Manager is deployed, TimeAlly would be deployed on the same chain.
Assurance (on Ethereum or on ESN) On whichever chain NRT Manager is deployed, TimeAlly would be deployed on the same chain.
DaySwappers (on ESN) KYC manager for platform. For easily distributing rewards to tree referees.
TimeSwappers (on ESN) Freelance market place with decentralised dispute management.
SwappersWall (on ESN) Decentralised social networking with power tokens.
BuzCafe (on ESN) Listing of shops and finding shops easily and quick payment.
BetDeEx (on ESN) Decentralised Prediction proposals, prediction and results.
DateSwappers (on ESN) Meeting ensured using cryptography.
ComputeEx (on Ethereum / centralised way) Exchange assets.
Era Swap Academy (on ESN / centralised way) Learn. Loop. Leap. How to implement ES Academy is not clear. One idea is if content is constantly being modified, then subscription expired people will only have the hash of old content while new content hash is only available to people who have done Dayswapper KYC and paid for the course. Dayswapper KYC is required because this way people won’t share their private keys to someone else.
Value of Farmers (tbd) The exchange of farming commodities produced by farmers in VoF can be deposited to warehouses where the depositors will get ERC721 equivalent tokens for their commodities (based on unique tagging).
DeGameStation (on ESN) Decentralised Gaming Station. Games in which players take turns can be written in Smart Contract. Games like Chess, Poker, 3 Patti can be developed. Users can come to DeGameStation and join an open game or start a new game and wait for other players to join.
Alpha-release Development Plan
Deploying Parity Node customized according to Era Swap Whitepaper with PoA consensus.
Setting up Plasma Smart Contracts.
Creating a bridge for ERC20 Swap from Ethereum test-net to ESN alpha test-net.
Alpha Version Era Swap Network Version 1 : Specification The Version 1 release of ESN plans to fulfill the requirements for political decentralisation and transparency in dApps of Era Swap Ecosystem using Blockchain Technology. After acquiring sufficient number of users, a version 2 construction of ESN will be feasible to enable administrative decentralization, such that the Era Swap Ecosystem will be run and managed by the Era Swap Community and will no longer require the operator to support for it's functioning. Era Swap Network (ESN) Version 1 will be a separate EVM-compatible sidechain attached to Ethereum blockchain as it’s parent chain. ESN will achieve security through Plasma Framework along with Proof-of-Authority consensus for faster finality. The idea behind plasma framework is to avoid high transaction fees and high transaction confirmation times on Ethereum mainnet by instead doing all the ecosystem transactions off-chain and only post a small information to an Ethereum Smart Contract which would represent hash of plenty of ecosystem transactions. Also, to feature movement of Era Swap Tokens from Ethereum blockchain to ESN using cryptographic proof, reverse plasma of Ethereum on ESN will be implemented. Also, submitting hash of each ESN blocks to ESN Plasma Smart Contract on Ethereum would force ESN to have a block time equal to or more than Ethereum’s 15 second time as well as it would be very much costly for operator to post lot of hashes to an Ethereum Smart Contract. This is why, merkle root of hashes of bunch of blocks would instead be submitted to ESN Plasma Smart Contact on Ethereum. Actors involved in the ESN:
Block Producer Nodes Lesser the number of nodes, quicker is the block propagation between block producers which can help quick ecosystem transactions. We find that 7 block producers hosted on different could hosting companies and locations reduces the risk of single point of failure of Era Swap Ecosystem and facilitates 100% uptime of dApps. Block Producer Nodes will also be responsible to post the small information to the Blockchain.
Block Listener Nodes Rest of the nodes will be Block Listeners which will sync new blocks produced by the block producer nodes. Plenty of public block listener nodes would be setup in various regions around the world for shorter ping time to the users of Era Swap Ecosystem. Users would submit their Era Swap Ecosystem transactions to one of these public nodes, which would relay them to rest of the Era Swap Network eventually to the block producer nodes which would finalize a new block including the user transaction.
Bunch Committers This will be an instance in the block producers which will watch for new blocks confirmed on ESN and will calculate bunch merkle roots and will submit it to ESN Plasma Smart Contract. This instance will also post hash of new Ethereum blocks to ESN (after about 10 confirmations) for moving assets between both the blockchain.
Users These will be integrating with dApps which would be connected to some public ESN nodes or they can install a block listner node themselves. They can sign and send transactions to the node which they are connected to and then that node will relay their transactions to block producer nodes who would finalise a block including their transaction.
A Bunch Structure in Smart Contract will consist of the following: • Start Block Number: It is the number of first ESN block in the bunch. • Bunch Depth: It is Merkle Tree depth of blocks in the bunch. For e.g. If bunch depth is 3, there would be 8 blocks in the bunch and if bunch depth is 10, there would be 1024 blocks in the bunch. Bunch depth of Bunches on ESN Plasma Contract is designed to be variable. During the initial phases of ESN, it would be high, for e.g. 15, to avoid ether expenditure and would be decreased in due course of time. • Transactions Mega Root: This value is the merkle root of all the transaction roots in the bunch. This is used by Smart Contract to verify that a transaction was sent on the chain. • Receipts Mega Root: This value is the merkle root of all the receipt roots in the bunch. This is used to verify that the transaction execution was successful. • Timestamp: This value is the time when the bunch proposal was submitted to the smart contract. After submission, there is a challenge period before it is finalised.
Converting ES-ERC20 to ERC-NA and BACK
On Ethereum Blockchain, the first class cryptocurrency is ETH and rest other tokens managed by smart contracts are second class. On ESN, there is an advancement to have Era Swaps as the first class cryptocurrency. This cryptocurrency will feature better user experience and to differentiate it from the classic ERC20 Era Swaps, it will be called as Era Swap Natives (ES-Na). According to the Era Swap Whitepaper, maximum 9.1 Million ES will exist which will be slowly released in circulation every month. Era Swaps will exist as ES-ERC20 as well as in form of ES-Na. One of these can be exchanged for the other at 1:1 ratio. Following is how user will convert ES-ERC20 to ES-Na:
User will give allowance to a Deposit Smart Contract, and following that call deposit method to deposit tokens to the contract.
On transaction confirmation, user will paste the transaction hash on a portal which will generate a Proof of Deposit string for the user. This string is generated by fetching all the transactions in the Ethereum Block and generating a Transaction Patricia Merkle Proof to prove that user’s transaction was indeed included in the block and the Receipts Patricia Merkle Proof to confirm that the user’s transaction was successful.
Using the same portal, user will submit the generated proofs to a Smart Contract on ESN, which would release funds to user. Though, user will have to wait for the Etheruem block roots to be posted to ESN after waiting for confirmations which would take about 3 minutes. Once, it’s done user’s proofs will be accepted and will receive exact amount of ES- Na on ESN.
Following is how user will convert ES-Na to ES-ERC20:
ES-Na being first class cryptocurrency, user will simply send ES-Na to a contract.
User will paste the transaction hash on a portal which will generate a Proof of Deposit for the user. Again ES-Na being first class cryptocurrency, Transaction Patricia Merkle Proof is enough to prove that user’s transaction was indeed included in the block. Another thing which will be generated is the block inclusion proof in the bunch.
User will have to wait for the bunch confirmation to the Plasma Smart Contract and once it’s done, user can send the proof to the Plasma Smart Contract to receive ES-ERC20.
Since the blocks are produced and transactions are validated by few block producers, it exposes a possibility for fraud by controlling the block producer nodes. Because ESN is based on the Plasma Model, when failure of sidechain occurs or the chain halts, users can hard exit their funds directly from the Plasma Smart Contract on Ethereum by giving a Proof of Holdings.
HOld ES Tokens Swapping with New ES Tokens
The old ES Tokens will be valueless as those tokens will not be accepted in ESN because of NRT (New Released Tokens) and TimeAlly contracts on mainnet which is causing high gas to users, hence reducing interactions. Also, there was an event of theft of Era Swap Tokens and after consensus from majority of holders of Era Swap Tokens; it was decided to create a new contract to reverse the theft to secure the value of Era Swap Tokens of the community. Below is the strategy for swapping tokens: TimeAlly and TSGAP: Majority of Era Swap Community have participated in TimeAlly Smart Contract in which their tokens are locked for certain period of time until which they cannot move them. Such holders will automatically receive TimeAlly staking of specific durations from the operator during initialization of ESN. Liquid Tokens: Holders of Liquid Era Swap Tokens have to transfer the old tokens to a specified Ethereum wallet address managed by team. Following that, team will audit the token source of the holder (to eliminate exchange of stolen tokens) and send new tokens back to the wallet address.
Post-Genesis Tokens Return Program
Primary asset holding of Era Swap tokens will exist on Ethereum blockchain as an ERC20 compatible standard due to the highly decentralised nature of the blockchain. Similar to how users deposit tokens to an cryptocurrency exchange for trading and then withdraw the tokens back, users will deposit tokens to ESN Contract to enter Era Swap Ecosystem and they can withdraw it back from ESN Contract for exiting from ecosystem network. The design of the token system will be such that, it will be compatible with the future shift (modification or migration of ESN version 1) to ESN version 2, in which an entirely new blockchain setup might be required. To manage liquidity, following genesis structure will be followed:
1.17 billion (Circulating Supply)
Locked in Smart Contract
7.93 billion (pending NRT releases)
Though it looks like there are 9.1 * 2 = 18.2 Billion ES, but the cryptographic design secures that at any point in time at least a total of 9.1 billion ES (ES-ERC20 + ES-Na) will be locked. To unlock ES-Na on ESN, an equal amount of ES-ERC20 has to be locked on Ethereum and vice-versa. 9.1 billion ES-ERC20 will be issued by ERC20 smart contract on Ethereum Blockchain, out of which the entire circulating supply (including liquid and TimeAlly holdings) of old ES will be received to a team wallet. TimeAlly holdings of all users will be converted to ES-Na and distributed on ESN TimeAlly Smart Contract by team to the TimeAlly holders on their same wallet address. Liquid user holdings will be sent back to the users to the wallet address from which they send back old ES tokens (because some old ES are deposited on exchange wallet address). ES-Na will be issued in the genesis block to an ESN Manager Smart Contract address. It will manage all the deposits and withdrawals as well as NRT releases.
Following are identified risks to be taken care of during the development of ESN: Network Spamming: Attackers can purchase ES from the exchange and make a lot of transactions between two accounts. This is solved by involving gas fees. A setting of 200 nanoES minimum gas price will be set, which can be changed as per convenience. DDoS: Attackers can query public nodes for computationally heavy output data. This will overload the public node with requests and genuine requests might get delayed. Block producers RPC is private, so they will continue to produce blocks. To manage user’s denial of service, the provider in dApps needs to be designed in such a way such that many public nodes will be queried simple information (let’s say latest block number) and the one which response quickly to user will be selected. AWS is down: To minimize this issue due to cloud providers down, there will be enough nodes on multiple cloud providers to ensure at least one block producer is alive. User deposit double spending: User deposits ES on Ethereum, gets ES-Na on ESN. Then the issue happens that there are re-org on ETH mainnet and the user’s transaction is reversed. Since ETH is not a fixed chain and as per PoW 51% attack can change the blocks. As Ethereum is now enough mature and by statistics forked blocks are at most of height 2. So it is safe to consider 15 confirmations. Exit Game while smooth functioning: User starts a hard exit directly from Plasma Smart Contract on Ethereum, then spends his funds from the plasma chain too. To counter this, the exit game will be disabled, only when ESN halts, i.e. fails to submit block header within the time the exit game starts. This is because it is difficult to mark user’s funds as spent on ESN. Vulnerability in Ecosystem Smart Contracts: Using traditional methods to deploy smart contracts results in a situation where if a bug is found later, it is not possible to change the code. Using a proxy construction for every ecosystem smart contract solves this problem, and changing a proxy can be given to a small committee in which 66% of votes are required, this is to prevent a malicious change of code due to compromising of a single account or similar scenario. ChainID replay attacks: Using old and traditional ways to interact with dApps can cause loss to users, hence every dApp will be audited for the same.
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System — published on Oct. 31, 2008 — outlined a tamper-proof, decentralized peer-to-peer protocol that could track and verify digital transactions, prevent double-spending and generate a transparent record for anyone to inspect in nearly real-time. The protocol represented a cryptographically-secured system — based on a Proof-of-Work algorithm — in which Bitcoins (BTC) are “mined” for a reward by individual nodes and then verified by other nodes in a decentralized network. This system contained the possibility of overcoming the need for intermediaries such as banks and financial institutions to facilitate and audit transactions — a major disruption to a siloed, monopolized field of centralized financial power.
304033233% all-time-price appreciation
Eleven years on, Bitcoin is consistently setting new records for its network hash rate — a measure of the overall computing power involved in validating transactions on the blockchain at any given time. More power and participation establishes greater network security and attests to widespread recognition of the profitability potential of Bitcoin mining. As of the middle of this month, network data revealed that since the creation of the very first block on the Bitcoin blockchain on Jan 3, 2009 — known in more technical language as its “genesis block” — miners have received combined revenue of just under $15 billion. The figure includes both block rewards — “new” bitcoins paid to miners for validating a block of transactions — as well as transaction fees, which broke the $1 billion mark this week. Bitcoin’s first-ever recorded trading price was noted on Mar. 17, 2010 — on the now-defunct trading platform bitcoinmarket.com, at a value of $0.003. The cryptocurrency’s appreciation thus stands at a staggering 304033233% as of press time, with Bitcoin currently trading at $9,120. As of this August, 85% of Bitcoin’s supply in circulation had been mined — leaving just 3.15 million new coins for the future. Eleven years on, the mystery enshrouding the white paper’s author remains as impenetrable as ever. Those both within and without the crypto community began attempting to determine Nakamoto’s identity as early as October 2011, just a few months after the mysterious figure first went silent.
Speaking to CNBC in an interview on Sept. 27, the founder, CEO & chief investment officer of Morgan Creek Capital Management compared Bitcoin’s ten-year history to Amazon. He was responding to concerns from regular cryptocurrency host Melissa Lee over the Bitcoin price, which fell below $8,000 on Thursday. For Yusko, while the price of Bitcoin can go up and down, year-on-year growth gives a solid reason to buy and not sell it. “All the indicators of the network and the network value are rising; the price of any asset fluctuates,” he explained. Examples included network hash rate, transaction volume and wallet numbers, all of which have continued their upward trajectory this year.
Betting on a bullish return
Yusko thus concluded that selling Bitcoin would be like selling shares in Amazon — so far, there has not been an advantageous point to do so. “In every year, including this year, it’s had a double-digit drawdown. The average peak-to-trough: 31%, twice 90%. When was the right time to sell? Never,” he said. Earlier this month, Fundstrat Global Advisors co-founder Tom Lee predicted Bitcoin would rally once the S&P 500 put in new highs.
In the past weeks I heard a lot pros and cons about IOTA, many of them I believe were not true (I'll explain better). I would like to start a serious discussion about IOTA and help people to get into it. Before that I'll contribute with what I know, most things that I will say will have a source link providing some base content.
The pros and cons that I heard a lot is listed below, I'll discuss the items marked with *. Pros
Many users claim that the network infinitely scales, that with more transactions on the network the faster it gets. This is not entirely true, that's why we are seeing the network getting congested (pending transactions) at the moment (12/2017). The network is composed by full-nodes (stores all transactions), each full-node is capable of sending transactions direct to the tangle. An arbitrary user can set a light-node (do not store all transactions, therefore a reduced size), but as it does not stores all transactions and can't decide if there are conflicting transactions (and other stuff) it needs to connect to a full-node (bitifinex node for example) and then request for the full-node to send a transaction to the tangle. The full-node acts like a bridge for a light-node user, the quantity of transactions at the same time that a full-node can push to the tangle is limited by its brandwidth. What happens at the moment is that there are few full-nodes, but more important than that is: the majority of users are connected to the same full-node basically. The full-node which is being used can't handle all the requested transactions by the light-nodes because of its brandwidth. If you are a light-node user and is experiencing slow transactions you need to manually select other node to get a better performance. Also, you need to verify that the minimum weight magnitude (difficulty of the Hashcash Proof of Work) is set to 14 at least. The network seems to be fine and it scales, but the steps an user has to make/know are not friendly-user at all. It's necessary to understand that the technology envolved is relative new and still in early development. Do not buy iota if you haven't read about the technology, there is a high chance of you losing your tokens because of various reasons and it will be your own fault. You can learn more about how IOTA works here. There are some upcoming solutions that will bring the user-experience to a new level, The UCL Wallet (expected to be released at this month, will talk about that soon and how it will help the network) and the Nelson CarrIOTA (this week) besides the official implementations to come in december.
We all know that currently (2017) IOTA depends on the coordinator because the network is still in its infancy and because of that it is considered centralized by the majority of users. The coordinator are several full-nodes scattered across the world run by the IOTA foundation. It creates periodic Milestones (zero value transactions which reference valid transactions) which are validated by the entire network. The coordinator sets the general direction for the tangle growth. Every node verifies that the coordinator is not breaking consensus rules by creating iotas out of thin air or approving double-spendings, nodes only tells other nodes about transactions that are valid, if the Coordinator starts issuing bad Milestones, nodes will reject them. The coordinator is optional since summer 2017, you can choose not implement it in your full-node, any talented programmer could replace Coo logic in IRI with Random Walk Monte Carlo logic and go without its milestones right now. A new kind of distributed coordinator is about to come and then, for the last, its completely removal. You can read more about the coordinator here and here.
These are blockchain-based cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin) that has miners to guarantee its security. Satoshi Nakamoto states several times in the Bitcoin whitepaper that "The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes". We can see in Blockchain.info that nowadays half of the total hashpower in Bitcoin is controlled by 3 companies (maybe only 1 in the future?). Users must trust that these companies will behave honestly and will not use its 50%> hashpower to attack the network eventually. With all that said it's reasonable to consider the IOTA network more decentralized (even with the coordinator) than any mining-blockchain-based cryptocurrency You can see a comparison between DAG cryptocurrencies here
Some partnerships of IOTA foundation with big companies were well known even when they were not officialy published. Some few examples of confirmed partnerships are listed below, others cofirmed partnerships can be seem in the link Partnerships with big companies at the pros section.
So what's up with all alarming in social media about IOTA Foundation faking partnerships with big companies like Microsoft and Cisco? At Nov. 28th IOTA Foundation announced the Data Marketplace with 30+ companies participating. Basically it's a place for any entity sell data (huge applications, therefore many companies interested), at time of writing (11/12/2017) there is no API for common users, only companies in touch with IOTA Foundation can test it. A quote from Omkar Naik (Microsoft worker) depicted on the Data Marketplace blog post gave an idea that Microsoft was in a direct partnership with IOTA. Several news websites started writing headlines "Microsoft and IOTA launches" (The same news site claimed latter that IOTA lied about partnership with Microsoft) when instead Microsoft was just one of the many participants of the Data Marketplace. Even though it's not a direct partnership, IOTA and Microsoft are in close touch as seen in IOTA Microsoft and Bosch meetup december 12th, Microsoft IOTA meetup in Paris 14th and Microsoft Azure adds 5 new Blockchain partners (may 2016). If you join the IOTA Slack channel you'll find out that there are many others big companies in close touch with IOTA like BMW, Tesla and other companies. This means that right now there are devs of IOTA working directly with scientists of these companies to help them integrate IOTA on their developments even though there is no direct partnership published, I'll talk more about the use cases soon.
We are excited to partner with IOTA foundation and proud to be associated with its new data marketplace initiative... - Omkar Naik
IOTA's use cases
Every cryptocurrency is capable of being a way to exchange goods, you pay for something using the coin token and receive the product. Some of them are more popular or have faster transactions or anonymity while others offers better scalablity or user-friendness. But none of them (except IOTA) are capable of transactioning information with no costs (fee-less transactions), in an securely form (MAM) and being sure that the network will not be harmed when it gets more adopted (scales). These characteristics open the gates for several real world applications, you probably might have heard of Big Data and how data is so important nowadays.
Data sets grow rapidly - in part because they are increasingly gathered by cheap and numerous information-sensing Internet of things devices such as mobile devices, aerial (remote sensing), software logs, cameras, microphones, radio-frequency identification (RFID) readers and wireless sensor networks.
It’s just the beginning of the data period. Data is going to be so important for human life in the future. So we are now just starting. We are a big data company, but compared to tomorrow, we are nothing. - Jack Ma (Alibaba)
There are enormous quantities of wasted data, often over 99% is lost to the void, that could potentially contain extremely valuable information if allowed to flow freely in data streams that create an open and decentralized data lake that is accessible to any compensating party. Some of the biggest corporations of the world are purely digital like Google, Facebook and Amazon. Data/information market will be huge in the future and that's why there so many companies interested in what IOTA can offer. There are several real world use cases being developed at the moment, many of them if successful will revolutionize the world. You can check below a list of some of them.
Not having your wallet set up properly (min weight 14, etc.)
Problems that could be easily avoided with a better understand of the network/wallet or with a better wallet that could handle these issues. As I explained before, some problems during the "congestion" of the network could be simply resolved if stuff were more user-friendly, this causes many users storing their iotas on exchanges which is not safe either. The upcoming (dec 2017) UCL Wallet will solve most of these problems. It will switch between nodes automatically and auto-reattach transactions for example (besides other things). You can have full a overview of it here and here. Also, the upcoming Nelson CarrIOTA will help on automatic peer discovery for users setup their nodes more easily.
IOTA Vulnerability issue
On sept 7th 2017 a team from MIT reported a cryptographic issue on the hash function Curl. You can see the full response of IOTA members below.
Funds were never in danger as such scenarios depicted on the Neha's blogpost were not pratically possible and the arguments used on the blogpost had'nt fundamentals, all the history you can check by yourself on the responses. Later it was discovered that the whole Neha Narula's team were envolved in other concurrent cryptocurrency projects Currently IOTA uses the relatively hardware intensive NIST standard SHA-3/Keccak for crucial operations for maximal security. Curl is continuously being audited by more cryptographers and security experts. Recenlty IOTA Foundation hired Cybercrypt, the world leading lightweight cryptography and security company from Denmark to take the Curl cryptography to its next maturation phase.
It took me a couple of days to gather the informations presented, I wanted it to make easier for people who want to get into it. It might probably have some mistakes so please correct me if I said something wrong. Here are some useful links for the community.
This is my IOTA donation address, in case someone wants to donate I will be very thankful. I truly believe in this project's potential. I9YGQVMWDYZBLHGKMTLBTAFBIQHGLYGSAGLJEZIV9OKWZSHIYRDSDPQQLTIEQEUSYZWUGGFHGQJLVYKOBWAYPTTGCX
This is a donation address, if you want to do the same you might pay attention to some important details:
Create a seed for only donation purposes.
Generate a address and publish it for everyone.
If you spend any iota you must attach a new address to the tangle and refresh your donation address published before to everyone.
If someone sends iota to your previous donation address after you have spent from it you will probably lose the funds that were sent to that specific address.
You can visualize how addresses work in IOTA here and here.
This happens because IOTA uses Winternitz one-time signature to become quantum resistent. Every time you spend iota from a address, part of the private key of that specific address is revealed. This makes easier for attackers to steal that address balance. Attackers can search if an address has been reused on the tangle explorer and try to brute force the private key since they already know part of it.
A perspective from the Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Unlimited developer who discovered CVE-2018–17144. That is about the time that Matt Corallo wanted to shave off of block validation with his pull request in 2016 to Bitcoin Core. 600µs is a lot less than what is saved with more efficient block propagation, like XThin, Compact Blocks, or now Graphene over typical links, especially those that are of similar low-end quality in network speed like Raspberry Pis are in compute speed. An optimization that was not in the focus by Core until XThin from Bitcoin Unlimited came onto the scene and kicked the Core team into gear on this issue. Furthermore, 600 microseconds is an order of magnitude or more below the variance between node validation speeds from a Raspberry Pi to a more high-end miner node and thus wholly in the range that the network already deals with. This 600 microsecond optimization now resulted in CVE-2018–17144. Certainly the most catastrophic bug in recent years, and certainly one of the most catastrophic bugs in Bitcoin ever. This bug was initially suspected to potentially cause inflation, was reported because it led to reliable crashes and confirmed by closer analysis… to be actually allowing inflation! I have consistently and repeatedly criticized hubris and arrogance in the most prominent Core developers, and done so since 2013, when the bullshitting around the 1MB block size limit started. Here we have an optimization that talks about avoiding “duplicate” validation like validation is nothing to worry about, an afterthought in Bitcoin almost. And a change that is quickly found to be good in peer reviewed, ACKed in Core-speak, in a rubber-stamp-like manner by Core developers such as Gregory Maxwell. Developers which I fully respect for their intelligence and knowledge by the way, but still, well, dislike as much for their overblown egos and underhanded discussion style as well as having done all they can to handicap Bitcoin with the 1MB limit. I also have to be honest, this change creates an unavoidable element of suspicion in me. For anyone who knows what went down and what the code paths do, it is just unavoidable to have this thought here. I like to qualify that this is not what I assert nor think is happening, but definitely crosses my mind as a potentiality! Because what is better to destroy the value of Bitcoin in the public’s eye than a silent inflation bug? What is better than creating code paths that look harmless for themselves but combined with some other, seemingly harmless rework in other areas of the code, result in utter catastrophe? And it looks like CVE-2018–17144 would eventually have become exactly this. The only thing that saved Core is their effective client diversity between revisions and someone actually noticing that there is a problem. After two years of this bug sitting around idle and exploitable. Client diversity that has been much criticized on the Bitcoin Cash side of things, but it obviously shows its advantages now. Reading the title of the original PR: “Remove duplicatable duplicate-input check from CheckTransaction” , as well as the message therein: “Benchmark results indicate this saves about 0.5–0.7ms during CheckBlock.” almost reads like it could be a sick joke being played on us all now. I always feared that someone from the bankster circles, someone injected into the Bitcoin development circles with the sole goal of wreaking unsalvageable havoc, would do exactly what happened. Injecting a silent inflation bug. Because that is what would destroy one of the very core advantages that Bitcoin has over the current status quo. That of transparency and a verifiable money supply. And, even though as a Bitcoin/BCHer, I do not see true long term prospects in Bitcoin/BTC anymore, calling the whole foundation of crypto into question just like that would have been equally disastrous to “our” variant of Bitcoin. Now, again, I am definitely not saying this is the case with PR 9049 for sure. I actually think the explanation of a young, cocky Core developer, a new “master of the universe” wreaking havoc by sheer arrogance and hubris, is the more likely explanation. People in general, but I don’t even exclude myself here, tend to believe in the competence of others if they appear just self-assured enough. This is part of the problem with attitude and psychological dynamics in this space. It creates a dangerous aura of ‘these guys know what they are doing’. I myself have done some minor work on sensitive areas in the Bitcoin Unlimited implementation. And I am working on some more “consensus critical” code for BCH now (see below). And, yes, I sometimes do lose some sleep over what could go wrong. I know I make mistakes. I have done so. I will. We all do. But I have yet to see anything resembling an admission of being imperfect by the developer in question, or any other prominent Core developer for that matter. The folks in question know exactly who I mean. There must be more reasonable folks in Core, but they are rather silent. Much worse even: In the discussion on github that follows this PR, user freetrader (a well known anonymous but still respected member of the Bitcoin Cash community who helped to create the Bitcoin Cash initial fork) asks the very valid question: Which is answered in the, all-too-typical for Core, smug manner by Matt Corallo, notably the original author of the bug who has all reason to be a bit more careful and respectful: The bug was disclosed in an absolutely responsible manner. As even the full disclosure on bitcoincore.org’s own pages notices, it went to a set of trustworthy people by the person who found the bug and did so in an encrypted PGP message only. This leaves the question why Core recklessly endangered the security of Bitcoin Cash as well endangering the myriad of altcoins that are out there and still susceptible with this premature and hasty publication. The back references from altcoins merging the change trickling into PR #14247 are a glimpse into this process. Now, Matt talks about “running out of time” in the above reply. But what time is that exactly? If you think hard about this, this can only be a distrust in any of the informed parties that they’ll leak this secret prematurely and thus catch Bitcoin Core with their pants down, or as a worse assumption, be actually exploited by one of the informed parties against BTC. Bitcoin Unlimited was ferociously attacked, presumably by deranged BTC supporters from the wider ‘community’, when it had a bug. And it seems a bit like Core members assumed a payback by deranged BCH supporters in kind here (I am not doubting those supporters exist), given the hints in the original disclosure that this bug has actually been discovered by someone aligned with the Bitcoin Cash side of things. But not only that, Core seems to have assumed that members on the BCH side of things who have been informed are deranged or at least irresponsible enough to leak this info to the wrong parties! I like to applaud deadalnix and the ABC team for what I was thinking the Core team should have done here as well: Bury the fix in a bit more and unrelated refactoring code so as to fix it but also to buy some more time for an upgrade. Maybe Core wasn’t creative enough to see a way to hide the problem, but then they also had no reason to blare it out like they did here. This was very irresponsible, and, and this should reach any altcoin impacted by this, this is definitely solely Bitcoin Core’s responsibility. No one else said anything in public before Core published their PR. It should also be noted by the Core team that this creates a strong disincentive to keep them in the loop with initial disclosure for anyone finding a bug. Cory Fields has talked about the risks and dangers with regards to sitting on the knowledge of a 0-day on Bitcoin Cash, and this bug discussed herein is one that was worth at least 10x more in potential damage and thus also shorting value and angry deranged people (a.k.a. “31337 crypto trading bros”) capable of violence. If a party behaves this irresponsibly, it shouldn’t be surprised if it degrades itself to a lower position in the food chain with regards to vulnerability disclosures. I am not saying I won’t inform next time I might stumble upon something, but this is not a good way to create the necessary trust. The Discovery and Disclosure Sitting in my little van by the sea on Monday, I was working on getting the new CHECKDATASIG/-VERIFY opcodes that are about to activate for Bitcoin (Cash) in November implemented on the Bitcoin Unlimited client. I have been looking at a potentially neat use case for those and am motivated to get this done. Around noon, I noticed that there is a lot of divergence in the way that signature operations counting was done in ABC vs. how it was done in Bitcoin Unlimited (BU). I agreed earlier with the BU team that I would go and port most of the CDS/-V stuff over from ABC, but I felt overwhelmed. My thoughts were that: Ok, this is doable, but this needs a lot more analysis and also many more eyeballs for review. And will take a lot longer. Sigh. While doing so, I stumbled upon this comment in the ABC code base: Check for duplicate inputs — note that this check is slow so we skip it in CheckBlock My initial reaction was a slight “Eh, WTF is going on with that comment?”. And then I looked up uses of CheckRegularTransaction in ABC, which is the renamed variant of CheckTransaction in Core (but I didn’t know at that time). I dug through the code to try to understand the logic. I noticed that block validation skips this test as it is assumed to have already happen during mempool ingress. My next thought was a bit of a sinking feeling and a “Uh-oh, I really hope the folks from ABC have thought about the difference between the mempool and block transmission and that those are distinct ways into the system. There might be a problem here!”. And then I went and thought about a way to test this. I patched an ABC node to not relay transactions even when asked and connected one unpatched and one patched node together in -regtest mode and created a transaction with a duplicate input (which the above test was skipping). Wham! assert(), Aborted. Next thought was along the lines: “Oh fuck, this doesn’t look good, gotta notify deadalnix and the crew what is lurking in ABC, this doesn’t look good at all. [email protected]#%!!”. Being aware of the danger that this could maybe be further exploited towards an actual inflation and chain-splitting bug (but I didn’t further check the specifics of this, as a node crash bug with assert() failure was already enough to be worried about), I quickly and somewhat inaccurately noted to myself (and timestamped): BitcoinABC does not check for duplicate inputs when processing a block, only when inserting a transaction into the mempool. This is dangerous as blocks can be generated with duplicate transactions and then sent through e.g. compact block missing transactions and avoid hitting the mempool, creating money out of thin air. awemany [Footnote: I timestamped this message in the BU slack, adding an innocuous situational lie of ‘Ooops, wrong channel’ to it. I also tried timestamping my findings on on my usual go-to site originstamp.org but they only submit timestamps every 24h due to the fees on Bitcoin being too high to do more often… I guess I should maybe get into the habit of doing timestamping transactions myself..] Opening up a disclosure email to deadalnix, I started to have a thought of: “Ok, actually, where is this stuff coming from, when and where did they introduce it into the code, might we be lucky and this is not in a release yet?” And then I noticed that this stuff was coming from Core. Already having written a disclosure report, I rechecked whether Core was vulnerable as well. And, once again: Wham! assert(), Aborted. I started to get shivers up my spine. Uh oh! Core has a crash bug, potentially worse. Stuff in the code since 2016. NOT good. NOT good at all. I like to say here that I actually had a feeling of this is bad, not this is good because of Core vs. Cash or something like that. I (unfortunately) still own a (for my poor soul significant) amount of BTC and for that reason and others do not like having bugs in Core either. Being a responsible citizen in this space, I then wrote the encrypted disclosure email to Wladimir, sickpig and some others, attaching a variant of the ABC and the Core patch to exploit this problem to my disclosure. I also put in a BCH address for a bounty payment to myself into that email (disclosed as proof below), as I feel this should be something worth a little performance bonus 🙂 No money has been received at the time of this writing yet. If you want to change this, you can send me BCH here: bitcoincash:qr5yuq3q40u7mxwqz6xvamkfj8tg45wyus7fhqzug5 (1NBKDco2EctDXvBv6r4hqJRPWfgX9jFpqs) I chose the handle beardnboobies as this is the first thing that came into my mind when I thought about this very discovery here. I thought: Ok, I am slowly becoming a pale nerd working on just code, with beard and manboobies. Oh well. I have noticed that this handle was — for whatever reason- taken out of the release notes that are checked into the main development branch of Bitcoin Core and is only available in the release branch / tag, being replaced with anonymous contributor on the main branch. I wonder: Do you Core guys feel this is too unprofessional to have this pseudonym appear in the main branch? Have some humor please! 🙂 By the way, a plea: I urge everyone in BCH as well as BTC (as well as impacted altcoins), to take a fine-toothed comb through the code with the goal of looking for similar issues! More specifically, I faintly remember (though might be wrong) from discussions back with Core devs on reddit in 2016 and before, that the idea that there’s a lot of “duplicate validation” between mempool and block validation was kind of en vogue back then. Potentially more code is vulnerable because it assumes that mempool validation can stand in for block validation. I suspect more, though maybe not as grave bugs, in this area. Reactions After I submitted it, I felt relief and then I started to watch the space from the back. A weird situation. Only then I also fully realized what Core contributor Cory Fields described with a bit of a different angle and on a smaller scale, the weirdness of having found a bug that you know is worth millions at least, massively impacting a $100 billion currency. The fact that I could have gone and rented hash power and shorted BTC and exploited this. But also the fact that I did not! Wladimir eventually wrote me an email that they’re preparing releases (and at that time or around it they published the PR), so I responded expressing my astonishment of the quite public handling of this serious issue. What I was amazed by in general was the long time it took for the bug to blow up to its full proportions, with the process seemingly even not over now. One thing is certainly others digging into this and realizing the full severity of this — as it turns out, yes it CAN be used to double-spend and inflate on BTC after all! — but also the time it takes from the initial PR being public, seemingly not noticed at all and the first media article being written. And then I noticed the usual spin. The “stupid BCashers can’t code and are irresponsible and what not” angle that is all too often repeated then by seemingly cerebrally insufficient Core supporters. I quote the below to gloat maybe. But also to show the world WHAT kind of bullshit the Bitcoin Cash side of things is facing here in a constant barrage. This is just from a few of the more prominent Core supporters and devs. There is, of course, a lot more folks foaming “btrash, bcash” at the mouth on reddit and twitter. Tone Vays and Jimmy Song Here we have Tone Vays, who likes to pose with the undercurrent of violence by wielding weapons on Twitter and apparently also on Youtube, discussing this bug with Jimmy Song in an unwillingly hilarious Youtube video: Luke-Jr I like to say some words about this tweet of Luke-Jr, committing the sin of bearing false witness about us irresponsible “BCashers”… I suspect Luke-Jr has been left in the dark about the background of this disclosure as well, not belonging to the innermost circles either. Careful observers might have noticed even more of this dynamic happening with other people. And note again: I have done everything that is necessary to make this a responsible disclosure. The initial, unobfuscated public disclosure happened by Bitcoin Core on their github! This is exactly the opposite situation compared to what Luke-Jr is describing. This is despicable. From:Luke-Jr Closing remarks Apart from pointing out the insane spin of some Core supporters in the preceding part, I simply want to take the opportunity now to urge caution for everyone here. Bugs lurk everywhere. Everyone is imperfect. Myself included, of course. I started to like Jihan Wu’s credo of “Don’t play hatred, don’t wish competing coins ill. Just wish and try to make BCH better” (from twitter) and see BCH and BTC in fierce but still civil competition. Civil competition obviously meaning no violence, including no violence like attacking each other’s nodes. I like to reiterate that, despite the gloating and strong words you might find in this article, I did everything to play fair. I also agree in general with Cory Fields from Core that it is not very easy to find the necessary disclosure addresses and information. He’s right about the lack of easily accessible GPG keys both on the BCH as well as — I like to add- on the BTC side of things. I didn’t find a non-retracted key of Pieter Wuille in time. I also like to note that a few things went finally completely out of the window here with this bug, for example Core’s idea of ‘the code being law’. If the code is law, does that mean that you have to accept inflation now? Or is it actually the Core devs steering the ship? Is an element of reasonableness entering the space? And yes, I sincerely believe, despite the current price ratio that BCH has a much brighter future than BTC, by being fundamentalist on the principles that matter and came along with the original white paper while not being fundamental on things that were created post-hoc — like the 1MB (now 4MW) limit in the Bitcoin Core implementation. As I also don’t think extended inflation is crucial for BTC’s operation. But anyone is free to buy or sell as they want. Let’s continue competing. Let’s civilly inform each other of bugs. May the best chain win. Finally, I like to thank Andrea Suisani, Andrew Stone and Peter Rizun for their review of this article and valuable input.
Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.
Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT. Summary Like many people, I initially loved SegWit - until I found out more about it. I'm proud of my open-mindedness and my initial - albeit short-lived - support of SegWit - because this shows that I judge software on its merits, instead of being some kind of knee-jerk "hater". SegWit's idea of "refactoring" the code to separate out the validation stuff made sense, and the phrase "soft fork" sounded cool - for a while. But then we all learned that:
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork would be incredibly dangerous - introducing massive, unnecessary and harmful "technical debt" by making all transactions "anyone-can-spend";
Pieter Wuille's Segregated Witness and Fraud Proofs (via Soft-Fork!) is a major improvement for scaling and security (and upgrading!)
I am very proud of that initial pro-SegWit post of mine - because it shows that I have always been totally unbiased and impartial and objective about the ideas behind SegWit - and I have always evaluated it purely on its merits (and demerits). So, I was one of the first people to recognize the positive impact which the ideas behind SegWit could have had (ie, "segregating" the signature information from the sender / receiver / amount information) - if SegWit had been implemented by an honest dev team that supports the interests of the Bitcoin community. However, we've learned a lot since December 2015. Now we know that Core / Blockstream is actively working against the interests of the Bitcoin community, by:
trying to force their political and economic viewpoints onto everyone else by "hard-coding" / "bundling" some random / arbitrary / centrally-planned 1.7MB "max blocksize" (?!?) into our code;
trying to take away our right to vote via a clean and safe "hard fork";
trying to cripple our code with dangerous "technical debt" - eg their radical and irresponsible proposal to make all transactions "anyone-can-spend".
This is the mess of SegWit - which we all learned about over the past year. So, Core / Blockstream blew it - bigtime - losing my support for SegWit, and the support of many others in the community. We might have continued to support SegWit if Core / Blockstream had not implemented it as a dangerous and dirty soft fork. But Core / Blockstream lost our support - by attempting to implement SegWit as a dangerous, anti-democratic soft fork. The lesson here for Core/Blockstream is clear: Bitcoin users are not stupid. Many of us are programmers ourselves, and we know the difference between a simple & safe hard fork and a messy & dangerous soft fork. And we also don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to take away our right to vote. And finally, we don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to steal functionality away from nodes while using misleading terminology - as u/chinawat has repeatedly been pointing out lately. We know a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack when we see it - and SegWit is a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack. If Core/Blockstream attempts to foce messy and dangerous code like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork on the community, we can and should and we will reject SegWit - to protect our billions of dollars of investment in Bitcoin (which could turn into trillions of dollars someday - if we continue to protect our code from poison pills and trojans like SegWit). Too bad you lost my support (and the support of many, many other Bitcoin users), Core / Blockstream! But it's your own fault for releasing shitty code. Below are some earlier comments from me showing how I quickly turned from one of the most outspoken supporters of Segwit (in that single OP I wrote the day I saw Pieter Wuille's presentation on YouTube) - into one of most outspoken opponents of SegWit:
I also think Pieter Wuille is a great programmer and I was one of the first people to support SegWit after it was announced at a congress a few months ago. But then Blockstream went and distorted SegWit to fit it into their corporate interests (maintaining their position as the dominant centralized dev team - which requires avoiding hard-forks). And Blockstream's corporate interests don't always align with Bitcoin's interests.
As noted in the link in the section title above, I myself was an outspoken supporter championing SegWit on the day when I first the YouTube of Pieter Wuille explaining it at one of the early "Scaling Bitcoin" conferences. Then I found out that doing it as a soft fork would add unnecessary "spaghetti code" - and I became one of the most outspoken opponents of SegWit.
Probably the only prominent Core/Blockstream dev who does understand this kind of stuff like the Robustness Principle or its equivalent reformulation in terms of covariant and contravariant types is someone like Pieter Wuille – since he’s a guy who’s done a lot of work in functional languages like Haskell – instead of being a myopic C-tard like most of the rest of the Core/Blockstream devs. He’s a smart guy, and his work on SegWit is really important stuff (but too bad that, yet again, it’s being misdelivered as a “soft-fork,” again due to the cluelessness of someone like Luke-Jr, whose grasp of syntax and semantics – not to mention society – is so glaringly lacking that he should have been recognized for the toxic influence that he is and shunned long ago).
The damage which would be caused by SegWit (at the financial, software, and governance level) would be massive:
Millions of lines of other Bitcoin code would have to be rewritten (in wallets, on exchanges, at businesses) in order to become compatible with all the messy non-standard kludges and workarounds which Blockstream was forced into adding to the code (the famous "technical debt") in order to get SegWit to work as a soft fork.
SegWit was originally sold to us as a "code clean-up". Heck, even I intially fell for it when I saw an early presentation by Pieter Wuille on YouTube from one of Blockstream's many, censored Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences)
But as we all later all discovered, SegWit is just a messy hack.
Probably the most dangerous aspect of SegWit is that it changes all transactions into "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" without SegWit - all because of the messy workarounds necessary to do SegWit as a soft-fork. The kludges and workarounds involving SegWit's "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" semantics would only work as long as SegWit is still installed.
This means that it would be impossible to roll-back SegWit - because all SegWit transactions that get recorded on the blockchain would now be interpreted as "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" - so, SegWit's dangerous and messy "kludges and workarounds and hacks" would have to be made permanent - otherwise, anyone could spend those "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" SegWit coins!
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer
"The scaling argument was ridiculous at first, and now it's sinister. Core wants to take transactions away from miners to give to their banking buddies - crippling Bitcoin to only be able to do settlements. They are destroying Satoshi's vision. SegwitCoin is Bankcoin, not Bitcoin" ~ u/ZeroFucksG1v3n
u/Uptrenda on SegWit: "Core is forcing every Bitcoin startup to abandon their entire code base for a Rube Goldberg machine making their products so slow, inconvenient, and confusing that even if they do manage to 'migrate' to this cluster-fuck of technical debt it will kill their businesses anyway."
"SegWit [would] bring unnecessary complexity to the bitcoin blockchain. Huge changes it introduces into the client are a veritable minefield of issues, [with] huge changes needed for all wallets, exchanges, remittance, and virtually all bitcoin software that will use it." ~ u/Bitcoinopoly
Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life.
Core/Blockstream & their supporters keep saying that "SegWit has been tested". But this is false. Other software used by miners, exchanges, Bitcoin hardware manufacturers, non-Core software developers/companies, and Bitcoin enthusiasts would all need to be rewritten, to be compatible with SegWit
SegWit-as-a-softfork is a hack. Flexible-Transactions-as-a-hard-fork is simpler, safer and more future-proof than SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - trivially solving malleability, while adding a "tag-based" binary data format (like JSON, XML or HTML) for easier, safer future upgrades with less technical debt
ViABTC: "Why I support BU: We should give the question of block size to the free market to decide. It will naturally adjust to ever-improving network & technological constraints. Bitcoin Unlimited guarantees that block size will follow what the Bitcoin network is capable of handling safely."
Bitcoin's specification (eg: Excess Blocksize (EB) & Acceptance Depth (AD), configurable via Bitcoin Unlimited) can, should & always WILL be decided by ALL the miners & users - not by a single FIAT-FUNDED, CENSORSHIP-SUPPORTED dev team (Core/Blockstream) & miner (BitFury) pushing SegWit 1.7MB blocks
The Blockstream/SegWit/LN fork will be worth LESS: SegWit uses 4MB storage/bandwidth to provide a one-time bump to 1.7MB blocksize; messy, less-safe as softfork; LN=vaporware. The BU fork will be worth MORE: single clean safe hardfork solving blocksize forever; on-chain; fix malleability separately.
Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & dangerous "anyone-can-spend kludge".
The real reason why Core / Blockstream always favors soft-forks over hard-forks (even though hard-forks are actually safer because hard-forks are explicit) is because soft-forks allow the "incumbent" code to quietly remain incumbent forever (and in this case, the "incumbent" code is Core)
Reminder: Previous posts showing that Blockstream's opposition to hard-forks is dangerous, obstructionist, selfish FUD. As many of us already know, the reason that Blockstream is against hard forks is simple: Hard forks are good for Bitcoin, but bad for the private company Blockstream.
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
The proper terminology for a "hard fork" should be a "FULL NODE REFERENDUM" - an open, transparent EXPLICIT process where everyone has the right to vote FOR or AGAINST an upgrade. The proper terminology for a "soft fork" should be a "SNEAKY TROJAN HORSE" - because IT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
If Blockstream were truly "conservative" and wanted to "protect Bitcoin" then they would deploy SegWit AS A HARD FORK. Insisting on deploying SegWit as a soft fork (overly complicated so more dangerous for Bitcoin) exposes that they are LYING about being "conservative" and "protecting Bitcoin".
"We had our arms twisted to accept 2MB hardfork + SegWit. We then got a bait and switch 1MB + SegWit with no hardfork, and accounting tricks to make P2SH transactions cheaper (for sidechains and Lightning, which is all Blockstream wants because they can use it to control Bitcoin)." ~ u/URGOVERNMENT
u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork kludge. Now he helped kill Bitcoin trading at Circle. He thinks Bitcoin should only hard-fork TO DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTING. Luke-Jr will continue to kill Bitcoin if we continue to let him. To prosper, BITCOIN MUST IGNORE LUKE-JR.
Normal users understand that SegWit-as-a-softfork is dangerous, because it deceives non-upgraded nodes into thinking transactions are valid when actually they're not - turning those nodes into "zombie nodes". Greg Maxwell and Blockstream are jeopardizing Bitcoin - in order to stay in power.
"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt
"Anything controversial ... is the perfect time for a hard fork. ... Hard forks are the market speaking. Soft forks on any issues where there is controversy are an attempt to smother the market in its sleep. Core's approach is fundamentally anti-market" ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
As Core / Blockstream collapses and Classic gains momentum, the CEO of Blockstream, Austin Hill, gets caught spreading FUD about the safety of "hard forks", falsely claiming that: "A hard-fork forced-upgrade flag day ... disenfranchises everyone who doesn't upgrade ... causes them to lose funds"
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
Blockstream is "just another shitty startup. A 30-second review of their business plan makes it obvious that LN was never going to happen. Due to elasticity of demand, users either go to another coin, or don't use crypto at all. There is no demand for degraded 'off-chain' services." ~ u/jeanduluoz
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
The Bitcoin community is talking. Why isn't Core/Blockstream listening? "Yes, [SegWit] increases the blocksize but BU wants a literal blocksize increase." ~ u/lurker_derp ... "It's pretty clear that they [BU-ers] want Bitcoin, not a BTC fork, to have a bigger blocksize." ~ u/WellSpentTime
"The MAJORITY of the community sentiment (be it miners or users / hodlers) is in favour of the manner in which BU handles the scaling conundrum (only a conundrum due to the junta at Core) and SegWit as a hard and not a soft fork." ~ u/pekatete
Bitcoin Unlimited is the real Bitcoin, in line with Satoshi's vision. Meanwhile, BlockstreamCoin+RBF+SegWitAsASoftFork+LightningCentralizedHub-OfflineIOUCoin is some kind of weird unrecognizable double-spendable non-consensus-driven fiat-financed offline centralized settlement-only non-P2P "altcoin"
The number of blocks being mined by Bitcoin Unlimited is now getting very close to surpassing the number of blocks being mined by SegWit! More and more people are supporting BU's MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE - because BU avoids needless transaction delays and ultimately increases Bitcoin adoption & price!
I have just been banned for from /Bitcoin for posting evidence that there is a moderate/strong inverse correlation between the amount of Bitcoin Core Blocks mined and the Bitcoin Price (meaning that as Core loses market share, Price goes up).
The main difference between Bitcoin core and BU client is BU developers dont bundle their economic and political opinions with their code
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v3rt2/the_main_difference_between_bitcoin_core_and_bu/ TL;DR: You wanted people like me to support you and install your code, Core / Blockstream? Then you shouldn't have a released messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - with its random, arbitrary, centrally planned, ridiculously tiny 1.7MB blocksize - and its dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork semantics. Now it's too late. The market will reject SegWit - and it's all Core / Blockstream's fault. The market prefers simpler, safer, future-proof, market-based solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
As you may be aware our v2.0 network upgrade is planned for 30th May 2018 (block height 307,500). The estimated time of upgrade will be 09:30 UTC. To enable you to continue trading / mining Electroneum it is critical that you update your Electroneum nodes and wallet software in advance of the planned network upgrade. The latest date you should update by is 29th May, however we suggest that you SWITCH NOW as a matter of urgency. All transactions created with the latest RPC and CLI wallets will be accepted after the upgrade block, however if you have any transactions in the mempool that were generated with old versions of the CLI or RPC they will fail and be returned to sender. Upgrade Overview This major release is aimed at increasing transaction speed and minimising transaction size, in preparation for mass adoption and an exponential increase in global transactional volume. Anti- ASIC Implementation of ASIC resistance. Transfer Fee Increase We have increased our base fee from 0.01 ETN to 0.1 ETN. Reduced Privacy Disabling RingCT & Mixin privacy features means we can fit significantly more transactions into each block than with them enabled. This means less wait to get a transaction into a block and a leaner blockchain size. Wallets are still private as we will continue to use a new stealth wallet address for every blockchain transaction so there is still significantly more privacy than with Bitcoin or Ethereum, but considerably less privacy than with a privacy focused coin like Monero. Mempool life to 3 days During times of high transactional volumes you will now have 3 days for the transaction to complete rather than the current 24 hours period. 2 minute blocks We are moving from one to two minute blocks which will significantly decrease the chance of an orphan block being created. Block Reward We are doubling the block reward to ensure that the daily ETN block reward is unaffected. Reduce difficulty window We are reducing the difficulty window to check every 360 blocks to adjust the difficulty every 12 hours (in line with current adjustment period). What happens if I don’t update my nodes? Failure to update your nodes in advance of the upgrade on May 30th will result in the following: You will no longer be able to trade Electroneum
You would still be getting valid looking transaction hashes but they would be FALSE
You will have to resynchronise your blockchain data after implementing the correct daemon
Any deposits made on / after the network upgrade will not be visible to you
Any withdrawals on / after the network upgrade will not be visible to the end customer
Ultimately this will result in a huge amount of additional administration to resolve the above deposit and withdrawal failures
Ways to update your nodes Method One – Compile from source code Using our GitHub page (link below). Once compiled override the old binaries with the new ones. https://github.com/electroneum/electroneum/tree/v126.96.36.199 Method Two – Download binaries From our GitHub release page (link below). Once downloaded you need to check the ‘checksum’ on the zip files to confirm that they are the official versions. Unzip the new binaries over the old ones. https://github.com/electroneum/electroneum/releases/tag/v188.8.131.52 Checking you’re up to date Once completed restart and check that you are running the correct version of the daemon and wallet software using this command: Linux / Mac./electroneumd –version./electroneum-wallet-cli –version./electroneum-wallet-rpc –version –rpc-bind-port 12345 Windowselectroneumd.exe –versionelectroneum-wallet-cli.exe –versionelectroneum-wallet-rpc.exe –version –rpc-bind-port 12345 These commands should output the following: Electroneum ‘May 2018’ (v184.108.40.206-31f729a) Thank you for your continued support for the Electroneum project. The Electroneum Team (source: Electroneum Official Blog)
I posted this under /cryptocurrency and /cryptomarkets as well! Might be less useful under this subreddit... but I'm using it for purposes of helping people become aware of this coin. Summation of RaiBlocks lead developer AMA. I'm very excited about this coin, and if you're asking why I did this...I'm trying out my AMA consolidating script that I wrote for fun :) I'm interested in seeing what people think about this coin! You can read the responses directly from this link: https://www.reddit.com/RaiBlocks/comments/7ko5l7/colin_lemahieu_founder_and_lead_developer_of/ What are your top priorities atm? Both in developing areas itself and in terms of integration?
The top priorities right now are:
Wallets desktop/mobile and ease-of-use improvements to the node
Integration with exchanges
Vendor adoption wider user adoption
These basically need to happen in a sequence because each item isn't useful unless the previous one is complete.
Do you have any plans to have your source code peer reviewed? By peer review I mean sending your source code down to MIT for testing and review. Where do you see Raiblocks 5-10 years from now? (For instance do you envision people using a Raiblocks mobile phone app to transfer value between each other, or buy stuff at the store?
We definitely need peer and code reviews and we're open to anyone doing this. We have ideas for people in universities that want to analyze the whitepaper or code so we'll see what comes of that. In my opinion code security guarantees can only be given with (eyes * time) and we need both. I'd like to see RaiBlocks adopted as an internet RFC and basically become an ubiquitous background technology like http. I think you're probably right and a mobile app would be the most user-friendly way to do this so people don't need to carry around extra cards in their wallet etc.
Is there a list of the team readily available? Are there firm plans to expand, and if so, in which directions? The roadmap indicated a website redesign scheduled for November 2017. Is there an update?
We have about 12 people in the core team; about half are code and half are business developers. On the redesigned website we're going to include bios for sure, no one in our team is anonymous. I think we have pretty good coverage of what we need right now, we could always use more people capable of contributing to the core code. The website design is well underway, we wanted to streamline and add some more things to it so it took longer than originally estimated. It'll looking like after the new year we'll have it ready.
Would you ever consider renaming the coin to simply "Rai" or any other simplified form other than RaiBlocks? 2. What marketing strategy do you think will push XRB forward from now on as a fully working product. Instant and free, the green coin, "it just works" coin, etc? 3. Regarding security, is "quantum-proofing" a big concern at the moment and how do you guys plan to approach this when the time comes. And how possible would it be for bad actors to successfully implement a 51% attack.
Yea there are a few difficulties people have pointed out with our name. People don't know if it's "ray" or "rye". "Blocks" doesn't have a meaning to a lot of people and the name reference might be too esoteric to be meaningful. I'm not prideful so I'm not stuck on a particular name, we'll take a look at what our marketing and business developers say peoples' impressions are and if they have any naming recommendations.
Our marketing strategy is to focus on complete simplicity. Instant and free resonates with enthusiasts and mass adoption will only come when using xrb is absolutely the same experience as using a banking or other payment app. People aren't going to tolerate jargon or confusing workflows when sending or receiving payments.
Quantum computing is going to be an amazing leap for humanity but it's also going to cause a lot of flux in cryptography. The plan I see is the similar to what I did in selecting the cryptographic algorithms we're using right now: look for leaders in academia and industry that have proven implementations and use those as they recommend migration based on computing capability. Quantum vulnerabilities can be an issue in the future but a vulnerable implementation would be an issue right now.
Hi Colin, lately XRB has been getting frequently compared to and contrasted with Iota. I was hoping that you could give us your thoughts on the differences between the two and what your general vision for the future of Raiblocks is.
It's flattering to be compared to IOTA, they have a very talented team building ambitious technology. When looking at design goals I think one thing we're not attempting to approach is transferring a data payload, we're only looking to be a transfer of value. There are lots of ideas and technology to be developed in the cryptocurrency space and I want RaiBlocks to solve one section of that industry: the transfer of value. I think the best success would be if RaiBlocks was adopted as the global standard for this and crypto efforts could move to non-value-transfer use-cases.
Do you see XRB becoming the new payment method for commerce. As in, buying coffee, groceries, etc? Do you have plans for combating the HODL mentality so this currency can actually be used in the future of buying and selling?
Being a direct transactional payment method is our goal and we're trying to build software that's accessible to everyone to make that happen. I see holding as a speculative tactic anticipating future increases and you're right, it's not in line with day-to-day transactions. I think as market cap levels off to a more consistent value the reason for holding and speculating goes away and people can instead focus on using it as a value exchange.
Are you planning to expand the RaiBlocks team over the next 12 months? If so, what types of positions are you hoping to fill?
Right now we have about 12 people, half core and half business developers. I think this count is good for working on what we're doing right now which is getting wallets and exchanges worked on. Ideally people outside our team will start developing technology around xrb taking advantage of the network effect to build more technology faster than we could internally. That being said we're going to look in a few months to see if there's anything out there people aren't developing that should be and we'll see what people we need to make it happen.
At what point did you make the decision to make RaiBlocks your full time job? What was the decision making process like?
It was after the week where the core team met here in Austin to brainstorm our next steps. I saw how much enthusiasm there was from crypto-veterans with having a working system capable of being scaled up to what's needed for massive adoption and it seemed the risk needed to be taken. It was hard decision to make, working in the crypto and finance is rough and I like using my leisure time to work on inventions. Of all the projects ideas I have this one seemed to have a high chance of success and the benefits of having a working, decentralized currency would be huge.
Hi Colin, what prevents great cryptos like XRB from being listed on bigger exchanges?
It's good to understand where the biggest headaches for exchanges lie: support tickets, operations, and development. If a technology is different from what they already have, that takes development time. If the software is new and not widely run, that's potential operations time to fix it which results in support tickets and community backlash. Adding BitCoin clones or Ethereum ICO coins is easy because they don't have these associated risks or costs.
What can the average RaiBlocks-Fan do to help XRB getting adopted / growing / expanding?
I think the best thing an average fan could do is word of mouth and telling people about RaiBlocks. More people being aware of it means there's the possibility someone who's never heard of it before would be interested in contributing as a vendor, developer, exchange etc. Good advertising or marketing will never be able to reach everyone as well as someone reaching out within their own network.
Are you looking at incorperating a datamarket like iota in the future? Given the speed of the network a data exchange for highly accurate sensors could be a game changer. Further more, are there any plans to increase the Dev team in the future? I read on the FAQ you'd like RaiBlocks to be somewhat of a protocol which is a huge ambition. A Dev from say the Mozilla foundation or other could further cement this ambitious project.
Transmitting data payloads is something we probably won't pursue. The concern is adding more features like this could cause us to make decisions that compromise the primary focus points of low-cost and speed for transferring value. We can add people to the dev team though I think we'll get the most traction by teaching teams in these other organization how to use RaiBlocks so they can be the experts on the subject in their companies.
If a node wants to independently know the balances of all accounts in the system, it must at a minimum have storage to hold accounts and all their balances. In order to know all balances it must either listen to transactions as they're happening or bootstrap from someone else to catch up as what happens on startup.
There is no incentive to run nodes. Some people will do it because it is cheap as fuck (as I read an raspberry pie can run it). But I think not many people will do it. 1. How important are the nodes in terms of further scaling? 2. On which network conditions where the 7000 transactions met? 3. What happens if the transactions per day tenfolds but the nodes don't? 4. How much better will Rai scale if someone sets up, lets say, 100 nodes with awesome hardware and network? 5. How many nodes could be enough for visa level scaling? 6. Which further improvements can be made for Rai IF there needs to be other improvements than setting up new nodes? Are there other concepts like 2nd layer solutions planned? 7. How will Rai defend network attacks? I know there is an PoW part. But since there a also large attacks on high cap coins on which people invest millions of $ to congest a network..Is it possible that the Rai network will be unusable for several days because of this?
I think the out-of-protocol incentives to running a node are under-referenced yet I see them as the primary driving factor for participating as a whole. Node rewards come at the expense of other network participants and in this closed loop the incentives aren't enough to keep a cryptocurrency alive. Long-term there needs to be a system-level comparative advantage to what people are already using for a transfer of value. If someone is using xrb and it saves them hundreds or thousands of dollars per month in fees and customer irritation in delayed payments, they have a direct monetary incentive to using xrb and a monetary incentive in the health of the system. 1) More nodes provides transaction and bootstrapping redundancy. More representatives provides decentralization. 2) The 7k TPS was a profile how fast commodity hardware could eat transactions. All of the real-world limits are going to be something hardware related, either bandwidth, IO, or CPU. 3) The scaling is more related to the hardware the nodes are using rather than the node count. If there was 10x increase in transactions it would use 10x the bandwidth and IO as nodes observe transactions happening. 4) If someone made 100 representative nodes the network would be far more decentralized though the tx throughput would be unchanged since that's a per-node requirement. 5) Scaling to Visa will have high bandwidth and IO requirements on representatives associated with doing 10k IOPS. Datacenter and business class hardware will have to be enough to handle the load. 6) Second layer solutions are always an option and I think a lot of people will use them for fraud protection and insurance. Our primary focus is to make the 1st layer as efficient and high speed as possible so a 2nd layer isn't needed for daily transactions. 7) Defending against network attacks will be an ongoing thing, people like breaking the network for lulz or monetary gain i.e. competing cryptos. If there are attacks we haven't defended against or considered it'll be a matter of getting capable people to fix issues.
Are you open to changes to the name? (Rai) What are your plans with regards to marketing?
I'm open to it, people get confused on ray/rye pronunciation, not the greatest first impression. As far as timing I think marketing works best after a more user friendly wallet and integration in to more exchanges otherwise we're sending traffic to something people can't use. We're going to start by focusing on the initial adopters which will likely be enthusiasts and going forward work on the next set of users that aren't enthusiasts but want to drive savings for their business through lower payment processing costs.
I think he's definitely right, a lot of the TPS numbers are synthetic benchmarks usually on one system. The biggest thing hindering TPS are protocol-specific limits like hard caps or high contention design. The next biggest thing will be bandwidth and then disk IO. Some of these limits can be improved by profiling and fixing code instead of actual limits in the hardware. We want to get better, real world numbers but our general opinion is that the RaiBlocks protocol is going to be limited by hardware, rather than design.
Are you planning to add a fiat gateway to the main website and mobile wallet?
If we can make it happen for sure, that seems like a very user-focused feature people would want. The difficulty at least in the US is the money-transmitter licenses which are hard to obtain. More than likely if this functionality was added it'd be a partnership with an established financial company that has procedures in place to operate within countries' regulations.
I saw a post on /iota that claims that their quantum resistance is a main benefit over raiblocks. Can you go into detail about this? explain any plans you have to let XRB persevere through upcoming quatum revolution?
I think everyone with cryptography in their programs is keeping an eye on quantum cryptography because we're all in the same boat. I don't have cryptanalysis credentials so I didn't feel comfortable building an implementation and instead chose to use one off-the-shelf from someone with assuring credentials. There are some big companies that have made small mistakes that blow up the usefulness of the entire algorithm, it's incredibly easy to do. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/12/ps3-hacked-through-poor-implementation-of-cryptography/
Hello Colin, is any security audit to the source code planned?
We don't have one contracted though both internally and externally this is an important thing people want completed.
Do you have plans to radically change the interface of the desktop wallet, and to develop a universal, cross-platform, clean and simple UX design for the wallet? This will be huge for mass adoption in my humble opinion
I completely agree, we do plan on completely redoing the desktop wallet, both from a UX standpoint and maintainability so UI code doesn't need to be in C++. This could also remove out dependency on QT which is the least permissive license in the code right now. I write code better than I design GUIs ;)
It seems like Raiblocks is aiming to be a true currency with it's lacking of transaction fees and fast confirmation times, which is great! If Raiblocks can add some kind of support for privacy then I think it got the whole picture figured out in terms of being "digital cash". Do you currently have any plans to implement privacy features into RaiBlocks? If Raiblocks is unable to do this, it will still be a straight improvement over things like LTC which are currently being used as currency, but I don't think it will be able to become THE cryptocurrency without privacy features.
I love the concept of privacy in the network and it's a hard thing to do right. Any solution used would need to be compatible with our balance-weighted-voting method which means at least we'd have to know how much weight a representative has even if we're hiding actual account balances. To be fully anonymous it would have to be hide accounts, amounts, endpoints, and also timing information; with advanced network analysis the timing is the hardest thing to hide. Hopefully some day we can figure out an efficient privacy solution though the immediate problem we can solve is making a transactional cryptocurrency so we're focusing on that.
Could you provide an analysis on the flaws of RaiBlocks? Is it in any way, shape, or form at a disadvantage compared to a blockchain based ledger like bitcoin? There has to be drawbacks, but I haven’t found any. Do you plan on expanding the dev team and establishing a foundation? Also, how much money is in the development pool?
One drawback is to handle is our chain-per-account model and asynchronous updates it takes more code and design. This means instead of one top-block hash for everything there's one for each account. This gives us the power of wait-free asynchronous transactions at the cost of simplicity. After we finish up things like the wallet, website, and exchange integration we'll be looking at seeing what dev resources we need to build tech if no one else is already working on a particular thing. We have about 6 million XRB right now so we've made the existing dev funds go a long way. If something expensive to build came along and dev funds wouldn't cut it we could look at some sort of external funding.
How big of a problem is PoW for exchanges and what are potential solutions?
Considering how much exchanges stand to make through commission I don't see the cost as a barrier, it's just an abnormal technology request compared to other cryptocurrencies. We're working on providing a service exchanges can use in the interim until they set up their own infrastructure to generate the work. Other options are containers people can use on cloud services to get the infrastructure they need until they want to invest in their own.
It's my understanding that since everything works asynchronously, in the case of double spending there is a chance a merchant would receive the block that would be later invalidated and have it shown in it's wallet, even if a little later (1 minute?) the amount would correct when the delegates vote that block invalid. Is there any mechanism to avoid this? Maybe tag the transactions in the wallet as "confirming" and then "confirmed" after that minute? Is there actually any certain way for a wallet to know, in a deterministic/programable way, at what moment a transaction is 100% legit? (for example if the delegates are DoS'ed I guess that minute could be much longer). I know this is an improbable case, but still...
Yea you're hitting a good point, the consensus algorithm in the node is designed to wait for the incoming transaction to settle before accepting it in to the local chain for the exact reason you listed, if their transaction were to be rolled back the local account would be rolled back as well. We can trend the current weight of all representatives that are online and voting and make sure we have >50% of the vote weight accounted for before considering it settled.
Hey Colin, will you eventually have support for a Trezor or other hard wallet?
Yea we'll definitely work with companies like Trezor that are interested in being a hardware wallet for xrb. It's just a matter of making sure they support the signing algorithms and integrating with their API.
EDIT: I'm getting a lot of messages asking me how to buy XRB. I used this guide which was very helpful: https://www.reddit.com/RaiBlocks/comments/7i0co0/the_definitive_guide_to_buying_and_storing/ In short -- buy BTC on coinbase, open up an account on bitgrail, transfer that BTC from coinbase to bitgrail, then trade your BTC for XRB. It's a pain right now because it's such a new coin, but soon it will be listed on more exchanges, and hopefully on things like shapeshift/changelly. After that it will be much easier... but until then, the inconvenience is what we have to pay in order to get into XRB while its still early. EDIT: BAD SCRIPT, BAD!
Note: New Reddit look may not highlight links. See old look here. A copy is hosted on GitHub for better reading experience. Check it out, contains photo of the month! Also on Medium
dcrd: Significant optimization in signature hash calculation, bloom filters support was removed, 2x faster startup thanks to in-memory full block index, multipeer work advancing, stronger protection against majority hashpower attacks. Additionally, code refactoring and cleanup, code and test infrastructure improvements. In dcrd and dcrwallet developers have been experimenting with new modular dependency and versioning schemes using vgo. @orthomind is seeking feedback for his work on reproducible builds. Decrediton: 1.2.1 bugfix release, work on SPV has started, chart additions are in progress. Further simplification of the staking process is in the pipeline (slack). Politeia: new command line tool to interact with Politeia API, general development is ongoing. Help with testing will soon be welcome: this issue sets out a test plan, join #politeia to follow progress and participate in testing. dcrdata: work ongoing on improved design, adding more charts and improving Insight API support. Android: design work advancing. Decred's own DNS seeder (dcrseeder) was released. It is written in Go and it properly supports service bit filtering, which will allow SPV nodes to find full nodes that support compact filters. Ticket splitting service by @matheusd entered beta and demonstrated an 11-way split on mainnet. Help with testing is much appreciated, please join #ticket_splitting to participate in splits, but check this doc to learn about the risks. Reddit discussion here. Trezor support is expected to land in their next firmware update. Decred is now supported by Riemann, a toolbox from James Prestwich to construct transactions for many UTXO-based chains from human-readable strings. Atomic swap with Ethereum on testnet was demonstrated at Blockspot Conference LATAM. Two new faces were added to contributors page. Dev activity stats for May: 238 active PRs, 195 master commits, 32,831 added and 22,280 deleted lines spread across 8 repositories. Contributions came from 4-10 developers per repository. (chart)
Hashrate: rapid growth from ~4,000 TH/s at the beginning of the month to ~15,000 at the end with new all time high of 17,949. Interesting dynamic in hashrate distribution across mining pools: coinmine.pl share went down from 55% to 25% while F2Pool up from 2% to 44%. [Note: as of June 6, the hashrate continues to rise and has already passed 22,000 TH/s] Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 91.3 DCR (+0.8), stake participation is 46.9% (+0.8%) with 3.68 million DCR locked (+0.15). Min price was 85.56. On May 11 ticket price surged to 96.99, staying elevated for longer than usual after such a pump. Locked DCR peaked at 47.17%. jet_user on reddit suggested that the DCR for these tickets likely came from a miner with significant hashrate. Nodes: there are 226 public listening and 405 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 45% on v1.2.0 (up from 24% last month), 39% on v1.1.2, 15% on v1.1.0 and 1% running outdaded versions.
Obelisk team posted an update. Current hashrate estimate of DCR1 is 1200 GH/s at 500 W and may still change. The chips came back at 40% the speed of the simulated results, it is still unknown why. Batch 1 units may get delayed 1-2 weeks past June 30. See discussions on decred and on siacoin. @SiaBillionaire estimated that 7940 DCR1 units were sold in Batches 1-5, while Lynmar13 shared his projections of DCR1 profitability (reddit). A new Chinese miner for pre-order was noticed by our Telegram group. Woodpecker WB2 specs 1.5 TH/s at 1200 W, costs 15,000 CNY (~2,340 USD) and the initial 150 units are expected to ship on Aug 15. (pow8.com – translated) Another new miner is iBelink DSM6T: 6 TH/s at 2100 W costing $6,300 (ibelink.co). Shipping starts from June 5. Some concerns and links were posted in these twothreads.
A new mining pool is available now: altpool.net. It uses PPLNS model and takes 1% fee. Another infrastructure addition is tokensmart.io, a newly audited stake pool with 0.8% fee. There are a total of 14 stake pools now. Exchange integrations:
Upbit added DCKRW and DCUSDT pairs. A user reported that DCR deposits and withdrawals are now available.
CoinEx announced the launch of DCBTC and DCBCH pairs.
Bleutrade added DCUSDT pair. Note their reply to our tweet. It was the first exchange to list Decred minutes after launch.
Brazilian exchange OmniTradeadded DCBRL fiat pair following a poll. Worth noting that it is one of the first to integrate Trezor sign-in.
There are reports that DCR was added to Abucoins and Tor Exchange but we don't know much about them.
OpenBazaar released an update that allows one to trade cryptocurrencies, including DCR. @i2Rav from i2trading is now offering two sided OTC market liquidity on DCUSD in #trading channel. Paytomat, payments solution for point of sale and e-commerce, integrated Decred. (missed in April issue) CoinPayments, a payment processor supporting Decred, developed an integration with @Shopify that allows connected merchants to accept cryptocurrencies in exchange for goods.
michae2xl: Voto Legal: CEO Thiago Rondon of Appcívico, has already been contacted by 800 politicians and negotiations have started with four pre-candidates for the presidency (slack, source tweet)
Blockfolio rolled out Signal Beta with Decred in the list. Users who own or watch a coin will automatically receive updates pushed by project teams. Nice to see this Journal made it to the screenshot! Placeholder Ventures announced that Decred is their first public investment. Their Investment Thesis is a clear and well researched overview of Decred. Among other great points it noted the less obvious benefit of not doing an ICO:
By choosing not to pre-sell coins to speculators, the financial rewards from Decred’s growth most favor those who work for the network.
One project that stands out at #Consensus2018 is @decredproject. Not annoying. Real tech. Humble team. #BUIDL is strong with them. (@PallerJohn)
Token Summit in New York, USA. @cburniske and @jmonegro from Placeholder talked "Governance and Cryptoeconomics" and spoke highly of Decred. (twitter coverage: 12, video, video (from 32 min)) Campus Party in Bahia, Brazil. João Ferreira aka @girino and Gabriel @Rhama were introducing Decred, talking about governance and teaching to perform atomic swaps. (photos) Decred was introduced to the delegates from Shanghai's Caohejing Hi-Tech Park, organized by @ybfventures. Second Decred meetup in Hangzhou, China. (photos) Madison Blockchain in Madison, USA. "Lots of in-depth questions. The Q&A lasted longer than the presentation!". (photo) Blockspot Conference Latam in Sao Paulo, Brazil. (photos: 1, 2) Upcoming events:
The Long-Term Bullish Case for Decred by Ben Davidow (medium.com)
Hardware Companies Are Launching Dedicated ASIC Miners for Decred (btcmanager.com)
Iterative Capital partner Chris Dannen and journalist Ben Schiller speak with Marco and Jonathan from Decred at Consensus 2018 (soundcloud)
Decred Review: What is DCR, the Decred Community & Possible Challenges by BitBoy Crypto (youtube)
Decred Founder: Bitcoin Paved Way, Phase 2 Will Shock You! (Marco Peereboom) by Pure Blockchain Wealth (youtube)
Decred & Blocknet: Revolutionary governance for every community feat. JZ at Consensus 2018 (youtube)
Decred coin - Will it be better than Bitcoin? by Bitassist (youtube)
Community stats: Twitter 39,118 (+742), Reddit 8,167 (+277), Slack 5,658 (+160). Difference is between May 5 and May 31. Reddit highlights: transparent up/down voting on Politeia, combining LN and atomic swaps, minimum viable superorganism, the controversial debate on Decred contractor model (people wondered about true motives behind the thread), tx size and fees discussion, hard moderation case, impact of ASICs on price, another "Why Decred?" thread with another excellent pitch by solar, fee analysis showing how ticket price algorithm change was controversial with ~100x cut in miner profits, impact of ticket splitting on ticket price, recommendations on promoting Decred, security against double spends and custom voting policies. @R3VoLuT1OneR posted a preview of a proposal from his company for Decred to offer scholarships for students. dcrtrader gained a couple of new moderators, weekly automatic threads were reconfigured to monthly and empty threads were removed. Currently most trading talk happens on #trading and some leaks to decred. A separate trading sub offers some advantages: unlimited trading talk, broad range of allowed topics, free speech and transparent moderation, in addition to standard reddit threaded discussion, permanent history and search. Forum: potential social attacks on Decred. Slack: the #governance channel created last month has seen many intelligent conversations on topics including: finite attention of decision makers, why stakeholders can make good decisions (opposed to a common narrative than only developers are capable of making good decisions), proposal funding and contractor pre-qualification, Cardano and Dash treasuries, quadratic voting, equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity, and much more. One particularly important issue being discussed is the growing number of posts arguing that on-chain governance and coin voting is bad. Just a few examples from Twitter: Decred is solving an imagined problem (decent response by @jm_buirski), we convince ourselves that we need governance and ticket price algo vote was not controversial, on-chain governance hurts node operators and it is too early for it, it robs node operators of their role, crypto risks being captured by the wealthy, it is a huge threat to the whole public blockchain space, coin holders should not own the blockchain. Some responses were posted here and here on Twitter, as well as this article by Noah Pierau.
The month of May has seen Decred earn some much deserved attention in the markets. DCR started the month around 0.009 BTC and finished around 0.0125 with interim high of 0.0165 on Bittrex. In USD terms it started around $81 and finished around $92, temporarily rising to $118. During a period in which most altcoins suffered, Decred has performed well; rising from rank #45 to #30 on Coinmarketcap. The addition of a much awaited KRW pair on Upbit saw the price briefly double on some exchanges. This pair opens up direct DCR to fiat trading in one of the largest cryptocurrency markets in the world. An update from @i2Rav:
We have begun trading DCR in large volume daily. The interest around DCR has really started to grow in terms of OTC quote requests. More and more customers are asking about trading it.
Like in previous month, Decred scores high by "% down from ATH" indicator being #2 on onchainfx as of June 6.
David Vorick (@taek) published lots of insights into the world of ASIC manufacturing (reddit). Bitmain replied. Bitmain released an ASIC for Equihash (archived), an algorithm thought to be somewhat ASIC-resistant 2 years ago. Threepure PoWcoins were attacked this month, one attempting to be ASIC resistant. This shows the importance of Decred's PoS layer that exerts control over miners and allows Decred to welcome ASIC miners for more PoW security without sacrificing sovereignty to them. Upbit was raided over suspected fraud and put under investigation. Following news reported no illicit activity was found and suggested and raid was premature and damaged trust in local exchanges. Circle, the new owner of Poloniex, announced a USD-backed stablecoin and Bitmain partnership. The plan is to make USDC available as a primary market on Poloniex. More details in the FAQ. Poloniex announced lower trading fees. Bittrex plans to offer USD trading pairs. @sumiflow made good progress on correcting Decred market cap on several sites:
speaking of market cap, I got it corrected on coingecko, cryptocompare, and worldcoinindex onchainfx, livecoinwatch, and cryptoindex.co said they would update it about a month ago but haven't yet I messaged coinlib.io today but haven't got a response yet coinmarketcap refused to correct it until they can verify certain funds have moved from dev wallets which is most likely forever unknowable (slack)
About This Issue
Some source links point to Slack messages. Although Slack hides history older than ~5 days, you can read individual messages if you paste the message link into chat with yourself. Digging the full conversation is hard but possible. The history of all channels bridged to Matrix is saved in Matrix. Therefore it is possible to dig history in Matrix if you know the timestamp of the first message. Slack links encode the timestamp: https://decred.slack.com/archives/C5H9Z63AA/p1525528370000062 => 1525528370 => 2018-05-05 13:52:50. Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research. Your feedback is precious. You can post on GitHub, comment on Reddit or message us in #writers_room channel. Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee, Richard-Red, snr01 and solar.
Bitcoin hash rate set a new record around three weeks from halving and six weeks after dropping 40% in two weeks. Some analysts believe that price follows hashrate. 04 May, 2020 | AtoZ Markets – Bitcoin’s third halving will take place in about three weeks. The halving takes place approximately every four years, allow the number of coins issued per block to be halved. Hashtag: #bitcoin blockchain. BTC Harvest Admin Work is fun User Rank: 58 Posts: 2,447 Responses: 367 Pinned: How you can promote your website or business here, 100% FREE! Pinned: ¡Cómo puedes promocionar tu sitio web o negocio aquí, 100% GRATIS! Playing with Lightning Network Whether you pay in Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin or Dash; often times the merchant will ask you for the hash or the transaction ID as a proof of payment. There are other scenarios as well where a third party wallet service or a trading platform will require you to send the transaction hash ID in order to troubleshoot any issues that you have. Although I admit that lots of merchant are accepting it although it only show just 1 confirmation or even 0 if and only if the TX is already date/time stamped on the blockchain. The reason is simple, no one on this planet has more than 51% hash rate making the bitcoin blockchain hard to be getting a double spend Hashtag: #hard The Crypto.com token becomes the second cryptocurrency to receive an emoji hashtag on Twitter. The Crypto.com Chain token is now the second cryptocurrency to receive an emoji hashtag on Twitter.This follows a similar move for Bitcoin in February.. Since Thursday, tweeting the “#CRO” hashtag automatically add the Crypto.com logo to it, similar to what happens when tweeting “#Bitcoin” or
Btc Double your bitcoin balance in 2 minute script in blockchain Crypto invester ... beginner, best, hash, bitcoin gold, how to earn, what is bitcoin mining, bitcoin mining hardware, bitcoin gold ... Hola de nuevo, vamos a realizar una continuación del análisis de Bitcoin y tocaremos el tema del Hash Ribbon pero antes de continuar! NO ES UN VIDEO mandándote a comprar sólamente porque el ... How to Mine Bitcoin on Nicehash from start to finish ubit pci risers affiliate link https://amzn.to/2mG73Df Easy way to get started mining crypto download Cudominer Dualcoin, bitcoin doubler 2020, bitcoin hourly doubler, double your bitcoin, bitcoin double, bitcoin double 2020, dualmine, bitcoin investment site, bitcoin investment, bitcoin cloudmining, earn ... For context, that’s double what the hash rate was at one year ago and 1,000% higher than the hash rate at Bitcoin’s $20,000 high. Bitcoin’s network difficulty, which regulates how fast ...