SLP158 John Lee Quigley – How Does a Bitcoin Price Crash ...

Slack log of AIP19 discussion - 16-08-18

Please find below the slack log for discussion relating AIP19 as presented here https://github.com/ArkEcosystem/AIPs/issues/26
I will try to write a blog post explaining in further detail the AIP19 for non-technical individuals however due to current obligations it will be delayed and finish some time in September.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew_DC [3:43 PM]
I think AIP 18/19 has some merit and I had a chance to look at it before he published. He gave Francois and I a chance to review the idea as he was hesitant to post it publicly in fear that a competitor might steal it, which I can appreciate. There are a lot of things in there that I find interesting. The proposal in AIP18 makes a lot of sense and would solidify the price discovery and help create a streamlined system for the wallet for token swaps. We can make it intuitive and easy to use. The AIP19 proposal is where I think we all need to slow down and seriously consider both the impact it would have on ARK and what ARK is trying to accomplish, as well as the complications that might arise from the system. For starters, AIP19 turns ARK into a decentralized delegate services network. In other words, Consensus-As-A-Service (CAAS). This is something we actually discussed at Crypti and had a model for, which I believe Lisk is still planning on implementing. That model looks very similar to what Komodo has already tried to implement in regards to storing data on the main chain (hashes) relevant to the sidechain as an added security layer. I'm not sure that solution is the best model and I think there is a major problem that needs solved, which AIP19 is partially trying to address. That problem is the security of early stage bridge chains who have yet to build a strong following. Finding a way to use the "hash power", or in this case, vote based security, of the main chain, is something I've been very interested in and would love to find a proper solution for. What needs to be considered is the impact that the system has on up-time and reliability of the network (for starters). Let's say I'm an attacker and I want to just really hose up the works. If I create a script that moves large chunks of voting wait all over the place consistently for multiple blocks or rounds, how will that impact the delegates assignments, will they all switch to the appropriate network in time, will blocks be missed as the transition occurs, etc. Consider that every 1-2 cent change in price could drastically move delegates between networks and if you couple that with voter swings, you are looking at a lot of moving parts. For all of that complexity, what added security do you really gain? New bridge chains will still be very low on the list for delegates due to price which makes them easy targets. However, for an attacker, it would potentially randomize the order of delegates to a point where it would make it very hard to put yourself in position to take over a network which would add a lot of difficulty to an attack. To try and gauge exactly the amount of votes, the price of the token, and what 27 spots you would need to control would be almost impossible.
The complicated part would be smoothing out the delegate transitions in a way that doesn't cause total constant chaos among delegates as votes, prices, and registrations are constantly changing. Imagine 5 years from now if there are 100 bridge chains, some with 101 delegates, some with 501, some with 51, etc. What if someone comes in and registers a network with 1,000,000,000 delegates, does it shut down the system? How does it react? There are a lot of things like that which have to be considered before you can move forward with something like this.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea and I think it's a really intriguing use of the system, especially for DPoS, but there is a lot that has to be mapped out.
You can't just start coding it and hope for the best.
cj (azek) [3:55 PM]
@Matthew_DC ++
Matthew_DC [4:12 PM]
On a side note, I think that the CAAS model fits directly with the desire to have the ARK core technology power startups and enterprises blockchain solutions while providing a strong avenue for the public decentralized applications to take hold and grow. By keying their consensus and security into one main chain, it does provide added security and allow for a use case other than "currency" for the main net, but it does do it at the cost of some decentralization. Part of why ARK is being developed to allow bridged but separate chains is to avoid one central point of failure (the point of all of this). By making so many systems globally dependent on the ARK main chain for their consensus mechanism to function, you do sacrifice decentralization for security in this case. If the ARK network were to end up with a critical bug or suffer from some kind of attack, etc, it could cause all subsequent reliant network to stop forging as well. This is something we are always thinking about.
vdeurzen (blockport) [4:20 PM]
joined #trading_altcoins.
bangomatic [4:23 PM]
order books finally on Delta.
:allthethings:
Jarunik [4:38 PM]
For AIP18 I have my doubts concerning price finding. Free market will likely beat a stable coin formula. I would rather see each token valued individually. Didn‘t analyse the formulas in detail but looks like a weak point. A market based pricing would be more interesting.
Blazeron [4:39 PM]
why wouldn't it just use the market value automatically?
Jarunik [4:39 PM]
Because there is none
Check persona as example
Whats the Ark-Prs market rate?
tk0n (thefoundry) [4:43 PM]
price is also susceptible to manipulation
bangomatic [4:43 PM]
polymath making some BIG announcements today. www.twitter.com/polymathnetwork
Blazeron [4:48 PM]
hmm true, it wouldn't work with very small tokens that aren't widely listed
Matthew_DC [5:11 PM]
That's the same problem you have right now with any exchange. There are hundreds of tokens you could spike by 200% in 5 mins for like $200
The point isn't whether or not all of his math is perfect or whether or not his formula is even the one that gets used, its about whether or not it is a good idea to create "liquidity gates" for atomic swaps and separately, should they be used for price discovery
even if an AIP isn't taken and implemented wholesale, it may provide value through some of the ideas involved
Obviously, the system he proposes in AIP19 doesn't work without proper price discovery and some kind of oracle
Keep in mind, he specifically proposes a stable coin formula as an example as well as an exponential priced ICO token wherein the creator would be using it as a system to fund an ICO, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't have free market price discovery through some form of order book function.
pieface [5:19 PM]
Would AIP19 deem the ArkVM chain as not needed anymore?
Matthew_DC [5:20 PM]
To avoid major shuffling issues it almost makes sense to have a superblock either every round or x number of rounds with a longer block time to allow the delegate system to perform averages on price/position of bridge chains for delegate assignment and allow a longer period of adjustment
pieface [5:20 PM]
One of the benefits of the ArkVM chain is that you don't have to find delegates to run your chain, AIP19 sounds like it solves the same problem in a different way
Matthew_DC [5:21 PM]
It would be a completely separate consideration from VM and VM would still be something we want/need
Jarunik [5:22 PM]
If we need super blocks ... then it will slow down the mainnet the more sidechains we have. Wouldn't it be better to use decentralized ACES?
Matthew_DC [5:25 PM]
You could probably do it with 1 longer block at the end of each round to allow time for the shuffling. So one longer block every 7 mins or so. That's just a random thought and is something that would have to be tested. In some sense, this system IS ACES, just upgraded to take into account the added features of v2/AIP11 like webhooks, multi-sig, time locks, etc
just re-organized into a dex with some form of order book and then used for price discovery
Jarunik [5:26 PM]
yes ... but it should run outside of the Ark mainnet and just connect to it
Matthew_DC [5:26 PM]
Well, like I said above, in his proposal, you exchange decentralization for security/valuation
Which is one of the considerations (edited)
It's the same argument we've been having all along
brodinson [5:27 PM]
I'd like some extra security and valuation :evil:
Matthew_DC [5:27 PM]
Do you potentially sacrifice principal for token valuation?
Security would be for bridge chains
Jarunik [5:28 PM]
it will increase the risk for the main chain ...
brodinson [5:28 PM]
That's fine too right
Matthew_DC [5:28 PM]
At some point, you have to ask are you just recreating the current financial system with you as the central bank
brodinson [5:28 PM]
I mean ark being an ecosystem and all
Want all that good security stuffs for the bridgechains
Jarunik [5:29 PM]
I am against Ark being the "master" chain. :slightly_smiling_face:
brodinson [5:29 PM]
Also extra reasons for a higher valuation can only attract more investors and thus more attention.
Matthew_DC [5:29 PM]
The more bridge chains that rely on the ARK main chain for security and in order for their applications to work, the more you risk incentivizing collusion and extortion by the delegates and increase their personal power over people's money (edited)
Jarunik [5:30 PM]
If you do something directly for "high valuation" ... then you will take that profit from someone else ...
Who will lose ?
brodinson [5:30 PM]
Find countermeasures to possible collusion?
Jarunik [5:30 PM]
Unlikely to work.
brodinson [5:30 PM]
Maybe some random factors?
Jarunik [5:30 PM]
Power corrupts
Matthew_DC [5:30 PM]
I mean, at the end of the day, what he is suggesting, and what AIP19 boils down to, is turning the ARK Main Chain into a decentralized Delegate Marketplace for ARK Bridge Chains.
It's a pivot for the purpose of the main chain for sure.
Jarunik [5:31 PM]
And my point is that a bridgechain not good enough to create a delegate incentive and market is not good enough anyway.
Matthew_DC [5:32 PM]
The delegate marketplace was always meant to be a completely open free market system where people could find delegates for their bridge chains and make offers/promote their chains, but never force tie-in to the ARK main chain and 100% exclusively rely on it for security and validation.
Jarunik [5:32 PM]
If the bridge chain does offer utility and functionality ... then it will be no problem to pay the delegates.
Matthew_DC [5:33 PM]
He doesn't shy away from it in the proposal and outright says that a large motivating factor for the proposal is to create valuation for the ARK token and a use case.
Jarunik [5:33 PM]
So this kind of ark mainchain market place sounds like a concept to push up "unhealthy" sidechains for higher valuation (similar like shittokens of eth)
spghtzzz(ark.party is not a website) [5:33 PM]
ARK already has those
Matthew_DC [5:34 PM]
If it were me personally and only me and I wasn't relying on the ARK token to make me rich and I could make decisions based on my fundamentals and what was right in staying true to the nature of ARK and decentralization, I would whole heartedly say no way.
But the delegates decide what happens to the network in the end, not me.
vela_nova [5:34 PM]
No it sound like a way to incentivize adoption
Matthew_DC [5:34 PM]
There are lots of driving forces and for many, that driving force is token valuation, whether we like it or not.
Having every delegate for every bridge chain be required to register and receive payment on the main chain isn't really adoption in the way we want it. (edited)
spghtzzz(ark.party is not a website) [5:35 PM]
Marketplaces seem like a good idea, but I think ARKVM will probably stop people from having to delegate every single function they want to create, using tokens and leveraging someone elses blockchain as a service.
Jarunik [5:36 PM]
we already have a delegate market place ... if you offer good enough incentives and a convincing project ... easy to find dpos delegates.
pieface [5:38 PM]
Couldn't there be a compromise somewhere?
Continue with the Ark Mainchain like now.
An ArkVM chain which the Arkcoin is pegged to
An ArkDM (Ark delegate marketplace) chain which the Ark coin is also pegged to. (edited)
Matthew_DC [5:38 PM]
The truth is, a large part of the valuation and use of the token relies on our ability to create easy swapping mechanisms for ARK->Bridge Chains so that we can incorporate easy, simple to use, GUI driven interaction with bridge chains without anyone ever needing to own the other token. That involves ACES or something like AIP18, it involves creating multi-sig and time lock style transactions, that allow the network to use something similar to liquidity gates (for the sake of argument) to allow the ARK wallet or application store to carry out the bridge chain functions with the ARK balance, invisible to the user.
@pieface There is nothing to stop someone from creating any possible use case, whether that be a delegate marketplace or 3 or 4 VM focused chains with different flavors and incentives, etc
vela_nova [5:44 PM]
You can’t expect potential clients to identify a use case, the actors involved, and where that use case starts and ends without some kind of built in framework and enough momentum/adoption to ensure dependability. (edited)
Matthew_DC [5:45 PM]
This is the tricky part of decentralized business and a decentralized world, you have to come to consensus. It's why there are so many forks out there. If we asked every delegate, odds are it would be split on AIP19
If a potential client hasn't identified a use case then how are they a client? We absolutely can expect a potential client to identify a use case or they have no business. That's step #1. As far as finding delegates, we had always planned a marketplace, just not tied to the ARK main chain in the way described in AIP19. As far as examples and frameworks, we are building out new documentation and have some partners who will be helping us do just that.
vela_nova [5:55 PM]
It sounds like you’re relying too much on an audience that has already accepted ark as a solution to their needs. That’s problematic when it comes strengthening the ecosystem and encouraging adoption.
I look forward to this new documentation though (edited)
zebedee [5:57 PM]
lol Lisk up 30% , mainnet pump
vela_nova [6:02 PM]
:shrugs:
vela_nova [6:15 PM]
So the lisk community is convinced that their resources are dedicated to a productive cause. Maybe we could use some positive speculation too for a change. A little shade is one thing, but y’all are some walking palm trees :palm_tree: up in here. This culture of scrutinizing lisk or any other project but the one one we’re here for is ironically weakening the ark.
SuperCool (The Golden Horde) [6:16 PM]
The we already have a market place argument is an inside argument imo. From the ‘outside’ aip19 would sound really nice. While there is some truth in the ‘shitcoin argument’ I feel it almost the same as the ‘bitcoin is used by criminals’ argument
Djenny Floro (Ark Tribe) [6:16 PM]
What's the golden horde ?
SuperCool (The Golden Horde) [6:17 PM]
Our marketing failed :cripes:
Djenny Floro (Ark Tribe) [6:17 PM]
If it was on Reddit, I'm sorry. I don't follow the Reddit much because of the time Ark Tribe takes.
tk0n (thefoundry) [6:17 PM]
you have marketing?
SuperCool (The Golden Horde) [6:18 PM]
@Djenny Floro (Ark Tribe) Colby made a really nice introduction: https://medium.com/the-golden-horde-blog/the-golden-horde-announces-ark-delegation-merchandise-business-e3f1a4162a60?source=linkShare-b6b32376193e-1534436290
Medium
The Golden Horde Announces Ark Delegation & Merchandise Business
After being in the Ark community for more than a year, we have seen a lot of great people coming together and discussing all things…
Reading time
6 min read
Jul 26th
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/1*HOBm_aB5iJ4XUCV5y9Ls7g.png
SuperCool (The Golden Horde) [6:19 PM]
replied to a thread:
This is really offensive, we should remove tk0n
vela_nova [6:20 PM]
Ya little too much behind closed doors for my taste.
SuperCool (The Golden Horde)
The we already have a market place argument is an inside argument imo. From the ‘outside’ aip19 would sound really nice. While there is some truth in the ‘shitcoin argument’ I feel it almost the same as the ‘bitcoin is used by criminals’ argument
Posted in #trading_altcoinsToday at 6:16 PM
Highjhacker (The Golden Horde) [6:20 PM]
replied to a thread:
DELETE :angry:
arkenstone [6:39 PM]
Slack outage
This message was deleted.
tk0n (thefoundry) [6:41 PM]
You can take away my GIFs but you can never take away my freedom :allthethings:
SuperCool (The Golden Horde)
This is really offensive, we should remove tk0n
From a thread in #trading_altcoinsToday at 6:19 PM
arkenstone [6:43 PM]
This was strange ..was on officia slack .. they said servers were down ..was getting error messages when sending text ..
SuperCool (The Golden Horde) [6:44 PM]
Yeah slack was down for me aswell
I wanted to ad to my argument that aip19 or a similar solution would make ‘push click blockchain’ a real thing
Msk [6:55 PM]
joined #trading_altcoins.
Matthew_DC [6:58 PM]
I had a reply but couldn't post it and now I forgot :shrugs:
SuperCool (The Golden Horde) [7:04 PM]
Haha
I also wrote that a lot smarter the first time
mak [7:14 PM]
Thanks for the feedback @Matthew_DC. Some of the points you mention up have been brought up in the last week by @skeuo as well. Such as someone changing votes frequently in order to mess with the system and someone creating a chain with 10,000 delegates. For the first problem I suggested that vote recount could happen every few hours instead of every block but it's possible there is a better way to handle this. In the second case I think a bridgechain with so many delegates wouldn't be able to sustain any significant token value since the blockreward would be diminished so much or would be unable to pay out because the liquidity gate ran out of ark. I agree these are technical hurdles related to implementation that we need to consider but I don't see them as critical issues.
Regarding your last point i.e someone breaking ark main chain would break the entire ecosystem I acknowledge that it is a concern. Which is why the token economic incentive is useful to make it more difficult to execute a 51% attack on the main chain. On the other hand since the bridgechains depend on the main chain's security for theirs, it makes the bridge chains more secure. In the end I see this as a mechanism design problem where the best approaches can be proven mathematically using game theory and if there's a better way to achieve the same effects then I'd be glad to check them out.
Matthew_DC [7:18 PM]
You also have to consider the consensus mechanisms and individual components and modules used by bridge chains. A given bridge chain may require a specific set of modules for their applications purpose. In that sense, their node software may be vastly different for providing consensus when compared to the ARK core model. In this case, let's say delegates ABC are providing consensus for Bridge Chain X and after vote re-shuffle, ABC are now required to provide consensus for the use case of Bridge Chain Y. This may require a completely different software package for the node and you have to determine a model for those delegates to not just re-shuffle to new peers for consensus, but also potentially download and implement new modules or entire new packages in order to provide consensus for the given bridge chain to which they are assigned. (edited)
Jarunik [7:19 PM]
Did anyone check the sidechain forging from mainchain that blockpool is developing?
Matthew_DC [7:20 PM]
I haven't
mike [7:20 PM]
I like the proposals but prefer pie's approach of implementing them on bridged chains. The main chain needs to be simple and reliable like TCP/IP. We then build on top of in modular fashion, like adding email and http on top of TCP/IP instead of adding them to it.
Djenny Floro (Ark Tribe) [7:23 PM]
@mike the point was to make Ark the reward system, if they're on the bridged chain how would they receive Ark as the token reward for their forging chain?
It was also meant as an incensitive for non-forging node, as for now, they're running a node for free.
Matthew_DC [7:24 PM]
Maybe instead you do a dual voting system that somehow ties into a core delegate market network or the ARK Main Chain that allows for voting on a given bridge chain using a bridge chain ID# and Delegate# and every ARK accounts gets 1 vote per bridge chain and then that holds 60% weight and the bridge chain votes hold 40% and the bridge chain has a mechanism built into their node through a module that pulls votes from main net
So you provide additional security without the main net delegates providing consensus so packages aren't an issue and it's not as susceptible to being completely taken down by ark main net going down as a secondary voting system exists (bridge chain votes) (edited)
mak [7:25 PM]
That was also one of the suggestions that @skeuo came up with but from what I could work up it would have adverse effects on scaling since all main chain delegates now need to have a full node running for every bridgechain in order to know bridgechain only delegates (edited)
However if we could provide hard SPV guarantees then maybe it's possible
Matthew_DC [7:27 PM]
OK, no need to map that out further I think you know what I'm saying on that one and it sounds like it was mentioned.
Well, how do you trust any values from any network truly.
If you want to vote on a bridge chain, then your wallet has to connect to a relay or node on that network
through the same way we do now on ARK
no need to download the entire chain necessarily
goldenpepe [7:28 PM]
How does one provide SPV guarantees in dpos?
mak [7:30 PM]
the block headers leading up to the required transaction are provided though I'm not sure if the chance of correctness in DPoS is the same as in PoW (edited)
Matthew_DC [7:30 PM]
Delegates on the bridge chain could still convert and payout forging rewards to main net voters with a little work to the scripts
JayCrypto [7:32 PM]
You guys need a new white paper
Matthew_DC [7:33 PM]
Way to break the flow
mak [7:34 PM]
the main issue IMO would be with main chain delegates accepting the threshold signatures
if some of the delegates have been selected only on the bridgechain
then the main chain can't know for certain about them without SPV or a fullnode
and like I mentioned I don't have the expertise to figure out how reliable SPV is in a DPoS system
JayCrypto [7:35 PM]
Why does it matter
Why can't the nodes run their own delegates (edited)
mak [7:36 PM]
the bridge chain could either go 100% delegates voted on their own chain or 100% delegates voted on main chain but not a mixture of both
JayCrypto [7:37 PM]
Why
mak [7:37 PM]
it would require main chain delegates to run full nodes for all bridgechains
not scalable
you run into the same situation that ethereum has currently
JayCrypto [7:41 PM]
I'm not a tech person but I always envisioned ark as bridge chains not connected to main chain but able to communicate with them through arkVM or some aces module. I never thought the bridge chains would need the security of ark. As for ICO, I was under the impression that through arkVM or aces, companies can raise money through ark/Eth/btc... And eventually some arkVM Dex would be available to trade between tokens
Matthew_DC [7:41 PM]
Maybe I'm being naive here, but why does the main chain care? It's up to the bridge chain to properly implement the dual voting for the added security and to require voting from main net to impact their voting mechanism. Main net should just store a vote value. If it's 60/40 main chain voting to bridge chain voting to determine delegates, then you still have a ton of added security. IF the bridge chain isn't properly implementing it, then people should consider whether or not they really want to put their money into the token/bridge chain. It would require the bridge chain delegates run an ARK node but that's better for us and creates a larger ARK main network by adding more relays.
Sorry, maybe I'm missing something and I'm just thinking out loud while doing a bunch of other stuff
mak [7:42 PM]
main chain needs to approve/disapprove remote liquidity gate transactions based on it's knowledge of current bridgechain delegates
Matthew_DC [7:42 PM]
I'm not talking about the liquidity gate right now
mak [7:42 PM]
can't have AIP18 working without it
Matthew_DC [7:42 PM]
I'm talking about dual voting chains for added security
and then we don't need price discovery for vote shuffles
JayCrypto [7:43 PM]
What's a liquidity gate
mak [7:43 PM]
@JayCrypto please read the AIP 18 :slightly_smiling_face: https://github.com/ArkEcosystem/AIPs/issues/25
GitHub
AIP 18: On chain price discovery using liquidity gates · Issue #25 · ArkEcosystem/AIPs
AIP: 18 Title: Token price discovery and creating high liquidity decentralized exchange in the Ark ecosystem using instant crosschain atomic swaps Authors: Moazzam Abdullah Khan Status: Draft Type:...
Matthew_DC [7:44 PM]
and it provides utility because the voting from main chain provides security to side chain and also potentially if main chain accounts get 1 vote on every bridge chain it provides for additional forging rewards exponentially as the network grows
but without adding a bunch of complex activity on the main chain
just more voting transactions really
mak [7:44 PM]
We could make it so that the bridgechain only delegates aren't part of the k-threshold signature for the liquidity gate
that way it would work
Matthew_DC [7:45 PM]
ark tokens wouldn't dilute bridge chain circulation as they aren't actual tokens, but they provide for voting to expand capability and security of bridge chain through their use
mak [7:45 PM]
but then those delegates are 2nd class delegates that don't share the full responsibility
Matthew_DC [7:45 PM]
and voters on main chain could be paid out from converted forging rewards
Aren't they though?
ARK main net provides 100% of security of its main chain and 60% of all bridge chains that implement, bridge chains hold 40% of responsibility which is reasonable but allows for much more expensive 51% attacks if main net votes are being used on bridge chains providing added security for new chains just spinning up
mak [7:47 PM]
how do you propose we create the threshold signatures to control liquidity gates when the delegates are split like this?
Maybe I'm missing something here
Matthew_DC [7:47 PM]
I'm not concerned at all with liquidity gates right now
I'm talking about a system in which bridge chains get added security, main chain gets added utility, by adding very little to main chain bloat and using vendor field
then you are back to the idea of just having a decentralized exchange for swaps, atomic swaps, and traditional methods of moving funds between
for that matter, any DPoS chain could tie in to the main chain for added security using that method by registering a chain and allowing voting
mak [7:49 PM]
Let me ask you this then. Do you agree that the bridgechain's delegates should be responsible for handling it's liquidity gate? You have to keep in mind there are potentially billions of dollars worth of tokens stored in them.
I think that delegates should be responsible for it because the community trusted them with their votes.
Matthew_DC [7:50 PM]
just create an atomic swap marketplace
mak [7:51 PM]
can't have price discovery without liquidity gates though. So there would be no rank ladder to figure out delegate-bridgechain match
Matthew_DC [7:51 PM]
no ladder necessary
no convoluted hot swapping delegates
main chain accounts choose who they want to vote for
and can register 1 vote per bridge chain
mak [7:52 PM]
well then you have the same issue of delegates speculating on future token price and negotiating with team to become a delegate
too much social friction
Matthew_DC [7:53 PM]
I disagree. People said our version of DPoS wouldn't work because of social this and that and bribes and blah blah
Delegates can't negotiate with the team for votes if the main chain votes outweigh the bridge chain funds 60/40
mak [7:54 PM]
Ohh I think it works. Just that there is a lot of unnecessary headache involved which can be taken out completely. (edited)
JayCrypto [7:54 PM]
@Matthew_DC are you saying that ark holders can vote on bridhechain delegates even though they have no bridhechain tokens?
Matthew_DC [7:54 PM]
you are creating checks and balances on manipulation by the team in a sense
@JayCrypto yes, as an added security measure for the bridge chain to avoid 51% attacks in their infant stages
you would essentially have to take over ARK main chain, plus a % of bridge chain tokens to gain control
JayCrypto [7:55 PM]
Or you could issue 1 trillion of your own tokens
Is there a yes no option for this
Matthew_DC [7:56 PM]
It doesn't matter if % is 60/40 in delegate appointment 60% of weight from ARK main net and 40% from bridge chain net voting
mak [7:56 PM]
"you are creating checks and balances on manipulation by the team in a sense"
I disagree with that assessment. I am creating a decentralized protocol that manages the financial layer across multiple chains. The team should only have to worry about their product and not about convincing delegates to join them by offering rewards outside of the blockrewards.
Matthew_DC [7:56 PM]
so no matter how many tokens you make, it still holds in the calculation
They aren't offering outside rewards of any kind
JayCrypto [7:57 PM]
Is there a yes no option for this
Cos I wouldn't want it
Matthew_DC [7:57 PM]
They build their product, delegates need to worry about convincing people to vote for them
yes or no option for what?
mike [7:57 PM]
Implementing AIP18 and 19 on a bridge chain would make a lot of sense. It can operate with a 2 way peg to ark even, so delegate rewards would be the same, and convertible to Ark, or let the market decide the conversion rate, or use a liquidity gate. Many of the same delegates would operate on it, as has been the case with Persona.
mak [7:57 PM]
Eventually it's going to happen. Why would a delegate want to run the 100th chain in the ark ecosystem when it's expected market cap would never reach a million dollars.
JayCrypto [7:58 PM]
For this 60 034'3!5 thing
Matthew_DC [7:58 PM]
Why would anyone run as a delegate on any network
JayCrypto [7:58 PM]
Percent
Matthew_DC [7:58 PM]
at some point the team has to do some form of work
Crypto needs to get away from this entitlement stage
mak [7:58 PM]
@mike it could be done that way for convenience but it's functionally equivalent to having the voting on main ark chain.
Matthew_DC [7:58 PM]
if your product is stupid and no one believes it will ever have value and you aren't making any progress or building anything
then your network SHOULD die
mike [7:59 PM]
also, Rob has set up multiple chains to run on the same servers, so lower volume chains can be run very cost effectively.
Djenny Floro (Ark Tribe) [8:00 PM]
But then again, even with a great product, starting isn't always easy, so this marketplace of delegate could enable great project effectively.
mike [8:00 PM]
yes, mainchain voting could be mirrored over to the bridged aip19 chain.
Djenny Floro (Ark Tribe) [8:00 PM]
It would reduce risks for delegates too when they actually help a starting project, before they decide if they will run a full delegate on the chain or not.
Matthew_DC [8:01 PM]
AIP19 doesn't solve the "I don't want to be a delegate on a useless network" problem either
why would someone sit in spots 1,000-2,000 and run a node at a loss?
same problem
mike [8:01 PM]
i've never seen a new project having problems recruiting delegates, but they do sometimes have a problem retaining them if interest in the project fades due to failure to execute.
Djenny Floro (Ark Tribe) [8:02 PM]
@mike but so far there isn't many projects.
mak [8:02 PM]
I think you misunderstood my point @Matthew_DC. I think delegates are service providers that get paid to ensure decentralization to your bridgechain. They may or may not provide additional services to remain competitive but that's irrelevant for now. What I'm saying is that we can streamline the back and forth that is required currently to get delegates and keep them running (look at KAPU).
Djenny Floro (Ark Tribe) [8:02 PM]
When the number multiplies, there will be much more to chose from, and this might become another kind of trouble.
mak [8:03 PM]
However if you don't agree with that perspective then that's fine. Someone will eventually come in and implement AIP19 on their forked chain and we will let the market decide if it's useful or not.
vela_nova [8:03 PM]
Dunno ark the product can have everything but a driving purpose and still fail economically
Matthew_DC [8:03 PM]
You just need a central place for delegates to market themselves and their services and for projects to find them
Master [8:03 PM]
What’s the debate :eyes:
vela_nova [8:03 PM]
That is why I like what mak is getting at
Matthew_DC [8:03 PM]
You can do that without massive changes to the ARK Main net
JayCrypto [8:03 PM]
I'm just shocked that ark bridgechains have to use ark main chain delegates
Jarunik [8:04 PM]
A normal website is enough as delegate market place. I would have to run different servers for different chains anyway ... no need to integrate delegate operation into one mainchain.
Matthew_DC [8:04 PM]
And I agree the market should decide so you won't find any argument there. I would love to see multiple models challenge one another because in the end it makes the winner much stronger
Jarunik [8:05 PM]
More delegate tools that come out of the box and are easy to port over would help though.. :wink:
Matthew_DC [8:05 PM]
but anyone struggling to find delegates right now, it is most likely because their idea just sucks
Jarunik [8:06 PM]
Let's first have a good and stable payment solution for all bridge chains without the need for every delegate to code some script himself ... will already make delegate recruitement easier.
Matthew_DC [8:06 PM]
That's not going to happen. Delegate payouts won't be coded into the network itself by us at any point.
Jarunik [8:06 PM]
Things like that are much easier to implement and much less invasive.
I didn't say that ...
Brian already made a good plugin.
Matthew_DC [8:07 PM]
That I'm fine with
Djenny Floro (Ark Tribe) [8:07 PM]
@Jarunik something like that implemented in the Ark Commander?
Matthew_DC [8:07 PM]
but no baking it into the network core itself
Jarunik [8:07 PM]
If that becomes well tested and easy to use ... will help all bridge chains
Matthew_DC [8:07 PM]
for previously stated reasons
Jarunik [8:07 PM]
i don't want anything in the core :stuck_out_tongue:
i love the bare bone approach of v2
Matthew_DC [8:07 PM]
shit guys, I'm really enjoying this but I was supposed to leave 7 minutes ago to take my kids somewhere
try to capture some of the convo if you can and post a pastebin link in the github maybe
just for the sake of saving it
Jarunik [8:08 PM]
complex stuff tends to fail too easily
mak [8:08 PM]
have fun :slightly_smiling_face:
I think I've laid out all of my points. It's upto the delegates to decide if the idea holds merit and should be implemented.
JayCrypto [8:09 PM]
Is this 60/40 thing a slider which new bridgechains can use @Matthew_DC
spghtzzz(ark.party is not a website) [8:09 PM]
I always thought the ArkVM was meant to address this, if a person who is starting a new bridge does not **need** to change any node code, or **want** to run any delegates they can just create a token. Perhaps I am wrong though.
mike [8:09 PM]
i think implementing aip19 on a forked chain is best approach, and let market decide. i think there are some very good ideas to try in aip18 and 19, which is the advantage of ark's modular approach. ideas like this can be tried without risking the main chain, or having to hardfork it to add them in. By allowing a token swap or doing an airdrop, ark holders can have a stake in its success if it really does take off.
mak [1 hour ago]
If there's a 1:1 peg with ark on the new chain then there's no economic incentive for people to hold the new chain. However it will split the votes so it would be easier to attack the new network that's hosting the bridgechain delegate voting system.
mak [1 hour ago]
So if we want to experiment with it then we can't have the peg there.
mike [1 hour ago]
so you can mirror the voting from the main chain, just ignore votes for delegates that aren't running on the bridged chain.
mak [1 hour ago]
At that point is it a different chain anymore?
submitted by moazzam2k to ArkEcosystem [link] [comments]

DD on Crypto. Just kidding Allin AMD

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

POW

I did a write up on POW to try and understand it better. What do you think?
Advantages of POW
I decided to start writing my thoughts about some of the more debated aspects of cryptocurrencies in general. Today I am going to focus on “Proof of Work” or the consensus mechanism employed by BTC and other cryptocurrencies.
What is Proof of Work?
POW is the original consensus algorithm that governs the Bitcoin network. The mechanism is used to verify new transactions and create new blocks. The process of verifying transactions and creating new blocks in the blockchain is referred to as mining. Mining is basically having some “ASIC” mining equipment solving very difficult mathematical equations that would take a human years to complete (see the following link for more information on mining https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/mining/hardware/). These “miners” can complete the equation in a relatively short period of time. But the mining equipment is competing with miners all around the globe to solve the equations. Every ten minutes (on average) a block is filled with transactions approved by miners. Now this doesn’t mean that every block occurs in 10 minute intervals, but instead it means that the average is 10 mins. So there are some blocks that take 1 minute and some that take 15 minutes to be completed. The difficulty involved with BTC mining is adjusted every 2016 block or roughly every 2 weeks to ensure the mining process doesn’t become to difficult or easy. When a new block is formed 12.5 BTC are distributed to miners for their work. Every block that is created makes the BTC network more robust and more secure. Now some miners have a better “hash rate” than others due to more mining equipment. This means they will likely receive more BTC than a small time mining operation, but that doesn’t mean small time miners cant make some BTC for their troubles. The amount of BTC one receives for each block mined varies. Depending on how much you contributed to discovering the hash (answer) The equation that the mining equipment must solve are similar to what you saw in high school, except much more difficult. (EX: A = B + 3 * 25) To mine a block, a miner needs to hash (answer) the block’s header (mathematical equation) in a way that it is less than or equal to the “target.” Bitcoin uses an algorithm that is called “SHA-256” which is basically a 256 digit alpha numeric code that is a big part of the BTC network and is important to understand if you want to be a miner. (Secure Hash Algorithm) SHA was created by the National Institute of Standards & Technology, and they came with an improved version called SHA-256 where the number is represented as the hash length in bits. No matter what the input the output will always be represented by the 256 alpha numeric code. There is a website that you can actually see how this works by entering any word, from your name to the longest word you can come up with and it will show you exactly what the word you entered is in SHA-256 encryption. I entered my first name (Tim) and this was the results: “aac09a648fc382b6f78897595486e691d00de9dfc742f3ba1930464b56eecda6” So that is my name in SHA-256. (Just wanted to give you an idea of what we are dealing with) Here is the website I used to figure that information out https://md5hashing.net/hash/sha256/aac09a648fc382b6f78897595486e691d00de9dfc742f3ba1930464b56eecda6 Just for comparison I also entered “Mississippi” and the results were “8584ecbb1ea76935b74c3c313980c410cbe26b2ff48806950f2a70ff2ec82493”So the output was different, but the same amount of alpha numeric digits. The website can also decode the encrypted messages as well. So, if you copied and pasted the code I just shared you would see it decoded as Mississippi. This is how encryption works. There is a lot to discuss when it comes to SHA-256, but I feel we have spent enough time on that, so let’s move on to rewards. When Bitcoin was first created the mining rewards were set in stone. Every 4 Years roughly (Its really every 210,000 blocks) there is a “halving” that reduces mining rewards by half. The first halving occurred on 11/28/2012.The reward was reduced from 50 BTC mined per block to 25 BTC mined per block. There was a 2nd halving on 7/9/2016. The reward was cut in half then as well from 25 to 12.5 BTC produced every 10 minutes. The next halving will occur mid 2020. Reducing the reward from 12.5 BTC to 6.25 BTC produced with each block mined. The reason Bitcoin halves the rewards for mining is to basically stretch the mining process out and ensure not all BTC gets mined in 2 years. There are multiple reasons for the halving, but in my opinion keeping miners paid for their work is crucial. Of course, mining BTC is not all about the rewards you receive, but also about the transaction fees you get from the multiple transactions that occur on the BTC network. Many people fret over what will happen when mining rewards are so small that it becomes hard to imagine anyone would want to mine with the reward system being reduced every 4 years and the answer to that is transaction fees. People claim that miners wont work for only transaction fees, which is a valid point, but it fails to consider the growth of BTC. By the time the mining rewards are 0 the transactions on the BTC network will be immense. Not to mention transaction fees may
be raised if necessary. The difficulty in mining 1 block is astronomical. As of December 2018 your chances of mining 1 block was roughly 1 in 7 trillion. This level gets adjusted every 2016 blocks or every 2 weeks approximately. The more miners that are competing with one another the more difficult the “problem” or Bitcoin mining becomes. It also works the other way as well. If miners decide to stop mining the difficulty will then decrease. Now if this wasn’t tough enough for miners, they must also come up with the hash faster than the other miners to receive a reward. This has a lot to do with mining equipment and how much you have. The more mining equipment (“asic miners” or application specific integrated circuit) you have the more hashes you can put out and you obviously would stand a better chance of solving the hash and getting the block reward over someone with 1 asic machine running. Bitcoin once could be mined via a personal computer or laptop, but this has now become impractical and not profitable with the new and faster asic mining equipment that was designed specifically for mining BTC. This mining equipment requires plenty of electricity and it isn’t cheap to operate the equipment. Electrical costs alone could cost more than your net profits from mining. This has caused many small time mining operations to close either temporarily until it becomes profitable to mine once again or entirely and sell off their equipment. We discussed this earlier, but when miners leave it makes the difficulty become easier. It’s a perfectly balanced system if you ask me.
Now there is another option if you want to mine but cant afford the 1000 asic mining machines needed to be competitive. You could join “cloud mining” which is essentially a group of individual miners that pool their hash power together to become competitive and it gives them a better shot at solving the hash. The profit in mining pools is divvied up depending on many factors, but the main factor would be the amount of hash power you add to the pool. So if I had one asic and my friend Phil has 10, he would receive a bigger payout than me thanks to his contribution (which is larger obviously) Mining pools have become a popular way for small time mining operations to become more profitable. This is how the reward system works for BTC miners.
Proof of work is the only true way to be decentralized as control is not centralized in a server somewhere, but instead is distributed across the globe in an immutable “blockchain” that is transparent and not reversible. Naysayers claim POW is inefficient and claim POW is susceptible to “51% attacks” Which is accurate to a degree. People point out coins like Ethereum Classic and Verge as examples of how a 51% attack can occur on the BTC network. This fails to take into consideration the fundamentals of BTC and why it is so difficult and unlikely to be attacked. So, every ten minutes (approximately) a block is produced by the mining process, and when the block is produced it is distributed lightning fast to nodes across the globe and the chain is updated. The speed one would need to work at to attack BTC is astronomical. And the likelihood of failure is likely. Too much risk. But, achieving this feat is easy with smaller chains like Ethereum Classic, but when you consider the difficulty involved when attempting to attack Bitcoin one must consider the cost in mining equipment and electricity which makes an attack on the BTC blockchain so unlikely. Why attack BTC when you can go after smaller chains for much less overhead costs and walk away with quite a bit (like with Ethereum Classic) Im not saying it will never happen, but it will take a lot of work. Every block that gets mined makes BTC more robust and secure along with hash power. People point to mining pools as a likely suspect for future attacks on BTC, but those mining via cloud would all need to agree to attack BTC, all the while needing over half the hash rate of the entire network. Every scenario involving a 51% attack on BTC is extremely difficult and costly. Proof of Work is the only consensus mechanism that can be considered truly decentralized. With that being said not all POW coins are decentralized. Bitcoin is a beautiful example of how decentralized Blockchains should function. Secure and decentralized.
Written by Tim Pace 2/5/2019
submitted by HeisenbergBTC to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Nexus FAQ - part 1

Full formatted version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16KKjVjQH0ypLe00aoTJ_hZyce7RAtjC5XHom104yn6M/
 

Nexus 101:

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

The Nexus Currency:

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

Types of Mining or Minting:

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

Nexus 101:

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

The Nexus Currency (NXS):

1. How can I get Nexus?
There are two ways you can obtain Nexus. You can either buy Nexus from an exchange, or you can run a miner and be rewarded for finding a block. If you wish to mine Nexus, please follow our guide found below.
Currently, Nexus is available on the following exchanges:
Nexus is actively reaching out to other exchanges to continue to be listed on cutting edge new financial technologies..
 
2. How much does a transaction cost?
Under Nexus, the fee structure for making a transaction depends on the size of your transaction. A default fee of 0.01 NXS will cover most transactions, and users have the option to pay higher fees to ensure their transactions are processed quickly.
When the 3D chain is complete and the initial 10-year distribution period finishes, Nexus will absorb these fees through inflation, enabling free transactions.
 
3. How fast does Nexus transfer?
Nexus reaches consensus approximately every ~ 50 seconds. This is an average time, and will in some circumstances be faster or slower. NXS currency which you receive is available for use after just 6 confirmations. A confirmation is proof from a node that the transaction has been included in a block. The number of confirmations in this transaction is the number that states how many blocks it has been since the transaction is included. The more confirmations a transaction has, the more secure its placement in the blockchain is.
 
4. Did Nexus hold an ICO? How is Nexus funded?
The Nexus Embassy, a 501(C)(3) not-for-profit corporation, develops and maintains the Nexus blockchain software. When Nexus began under the name Coinshield, the early blocks were mined using the Developer and Exchange (Ambassador) addresses, which provides funding for the Nexus Embassy.
The Developer Fund fuels ongoing development and is sourced by a 1.5% commission per block mined, which will slowly increase to 2.5% after 10 years. This brings all the benefits of development funding without the associated risks.
The Ambassador (renamed from Exchange) keys are funded by a 20% commission per block reward. These keys are mainly used to pay for marketing, and producing and launching the Nexus satellites.
When Nexus introduces developer and ambassador contracts, they will be approved, denied, or removed by six voting groups namely: currency, developer, ambassador, prime, hash, and trust.
Please Note: The Nexus Embassy reserves the sole right to trade, sell and or use these funds as required; however, Nexus will endeavor to minimize the impact that the use of these funds has upon the NXS market value.
 
5. Is there a cap on the number of NXS in existence?
After an initial 10-year distribution period ending on September 23rd, 2024, there will be a total of 78 million NXS. Over this period, the reward gradient for mining Nexus follows a decaying logarithmic curve instead of the reward halving inherent in Bitcoin. This avoids creating a situation where older mining equipment is suddenly unprofitable, encouraging miners to continue upgrading their equipment over time and at the same time reducing major market shocks on block halving events.
When the distribution period ends, the currency supply will inflate annually by a maximum of 3% via staking and by 1% via the prime and hashing channels. This inflation is completely unlike traditional inflation, which degrades the value of existing coins. Instead, the cost of providing security to the blockchain is paid by inflation, eliminating transaction fees.
Colin Cantrell - Nexus Inflation Explained
 
6. What is the difference between the LLD wallet and the Oracle wallet?
Due to the scales of efficiency needed by blockchain, Nexus has developed a custom-built database called the Lower Level Database. Since the development of the LLD wallet 0.2.3.1, which is a precursor to the Tritium updates, you should begin using the LLD wallet to take advantage of the faster load times and improved efficiency.
The Oracle wallet is a legacy wallet which is no longer maintained or updated. It utilized the Berkeley DB, which is not designed to meet the needs of a blockchain. Eventually, users will need to migrate to the LLD wallet. Fortunately, the wallet.dat is interchangeable between wallets, so there is no risk of losing access to your NXS.
 
7. How do I change from Oracle to the LLD wallet?
Step 1 - Backup your wallet.dat file. You can do this from within the Oracle wallet Menu, Backup Wallet.
Step 2 - Uninstall the Oracle wallet. Close the wallet and navigate to the wallet data directory. On Windows, this is the Nexus folder located at %APPDATA%\Nexus. On macOS, this is the Nexus folder located at ~/Library/Application Support/Nexus. Move all of the contents to a temporary folder as a backup.
Step 3 - Copy your backup of wallet.dat into the Nexus folder located as per Step 2.
Step 4 - Install the Nexus LLD wallet. Please follow the steps as outlined in the next section. Once your wallet is fully synced, your new wallet will have access to all your addresses.
 
8. How do I install the Nexus Wallet?
You can install your Nexus wallet by following these steps:
Step 1 - Download your wallet from www.nexusearth.com. Click the Downloads menu at the top and select the appropriate wallet for your operating system.
Step 2 - Unzip the wallet program to a folder. Before running the wallet program, please consider space limitations and load times. On the Windows OS, the wallet saves all data to the %APPDATA%\Nexus folder, including the blockchain, which is currently ~3GB.
On macOS, data is saved to the ~/Library/Application Support/Nexus folder. You can create a symbolic link, which will allow you to install this information in another location.
Using Windows, follow these steps:
On macOS, follow these steps:
Step 3 (optional) - Before running the wallet, we recommend downloading the blockchain database manually. Nexus Earth maintains a copy of the blockchain data which can save hours from the wallet synchronization process. Please go to www.nexusearth.com and click the Downloads menu.
Step 4 (optional) - Extract the database file. This is commonly found in the .zip or .rar format, so you may need a program like 7zip to extract the contents. Please extract it to the relevant directory, as outlined in step 2.
Step 5 - You can now start your wallet. After it loads, it should be able to complete synchronization in a short time. This may still take a couple of hours. Once it has completed synchronizing, a green check mark icon will appear in the lower right corner of the wallet.
Step 6 - Encrypt your wallet. This can be done within the wallet, under the Settings menu. Encrypting your wallet will lock it, requiring a password in order to send transactions.
Step 7 - Backup your wallet.dat file. This can be done from the File menu inside the wallet. This file contains the keys to the addresses in your wallet. You may wish to keep a secure copy of your password somewhere, too, in case you forget it or someone else (your spouse, for example) ever needs it.
You should back up your wallet.dat file again any time you create – or a Genesis transaction creates (see “staking” below) – a new address.
 

Types of Mining or Minting:

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

Coin-a-Year: Nyancoin

Hello cryptocurrency lovers! Welcome to Coin-a-Year, the laziest series yet in the Coin-a-Day publishing empire. This year's coin is Nyancoin (NYAN). I originally covered Nyancoin in an article here in /cryptocurrency published January 4th, 2015.
Without (much) further ado, I'm going to include the original report next, unmodified. This is unlike my Coin-a-Week series, where I use strikeout and update in-text. Because this is going to be a longer update, I'll just make all further comments and updates below, just realize that all information below is as of January 4th, 2015 and thus is more than a year out of date as of posting now, at the end of February 2016.
Since I use horizontal rules as internal dividers in the original post, I'll use a double horizontal rule to divide the original text from this prelude and the following update.
Coin-a-Day Jan 4th
Welcome to the fourth installment of Coin-a-Day! To see convenient links to the introduction and the previous entries, please see /coinaday. Today's coin is Nyancoin (NYAN).
Summary
• ~173.6 million available currently [1]; 337 million limit [2]
• All-time high: ~0.000024 BTC on February 16, 2014 [1]
• Current price: ~3 satoshi [1]
• Current market cap: ~$1,275 [1]
• Block rate (average): 1 minute [1] [3]
• Transaction rate: ~25? / last 24 hours; estimated $3-4 [4]
• Transaction limit: 70 / second [5]
• Transaction cost: 0 for most transactions [6]
• Rich list: ??? [7]
• Exchanges: Cryptsy [8]
• Processing method: Mining [10]
• Distribution method: proof-of-work block rewards and 1% premine for "bounties, giveaways & dev support" [2] [10]
• Community: Comatose [9]
• Code/development: https://github.com/nyancoin-release/nyancoin ; there hasn't been a released code change in 10 months. The new developer has talked about some changes, but has not made a new release. He has given advice about how to keep the network running and operate the client. [10]
• Innovation or special feature: First officially licensed cryptocurrency (from Nyancat) [2]; "zombie"-coin [11]
Description / Community:
So you're probably wondering why in the world we're talking about a coin which has been declared dead and already written off. I actually first selected this coin to illustrate a "deadcoin", but the more I dug into it, the more I was amazed at the shambles I discovered. I am combining the description and community sections for this coin, because the community (or lack thereof) is the central issue for Nyancoin.
Substantially all, if not literally all, of the original infrastructure is gone. From the announcement post, the original website has expired. The nyan.cat site itself survives, but has no reference to the coin. The github repo remains, but then there was never much changed from the bitcoin/litecoin original. In fact, the COPYING file doesn't even list "Nyancoin Developers". None of the original nodes seem to be running anymore. @Nyan_Coin hasn't tweeted since July 6th. And that was just to announce posting an admittedly cute picture to facebook which makes a claim for a future which seems never to have developed. Of the original 15 pools, I think all are dead except p2pool, for which at least one node still supports NYAN. The original blockchain explorer, nyancha.in, is still running. The faucet is dead or broken. The original exchanges no longer list it (two of the three having died; SwissCEX having ended its trading as of the first of this year). And so forth.
And yet:

I'm not dead! I'm getting better!

No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
[Of course, that scene finishes with knocking out the "recovering" patient so he can be taken away...not to mention the absurdity of including Monty Python in a financial article, but moving right along.]
There is still just enough left to Nyancoin to keep it twitching, even if it is on life-support. Whether it's an individual node or whether it's a pool, there are blocks being produced at a steady rate as intended. Transactions are being processed. There is still a market. There is still a block explorer. And there is a dev. It is like a case study in the absolute minimum necessary to keep a coin alive. The most likely outcome is almost certainly a final collapse when one critical piece or another of the infrastructure goes away. And yet in the meantime, a person can own a million NYAN for $8 [12], and then move this coin quickly and easy, albeit with no particular external demand. It's like the world's most hyped testnet.
I think this case presents an interesting example of what happens to an altcoin when its initial support dries up. NYAN coin is more fortunate than some, actually, as there are some where there are no longer any nodes running it nor the original announcement thread (in fact, there was actually a second Nyancoin launched around the same time. But it died hard and its original announcement thread was deleted and at this point I would have no idea how to access it; so "Nyancoin" thus illustrates how hard a coin can die (Nyancoin 2) as well as how it can hang around despite being proclaimed dead, with far more justification behind that pronouncement than there has been for bitcoin (NYAN) ).
Footnotes
[1] http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nyancoin/
[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=402085.0 Regarding the premine, it's unclear to me where this money is now, since the original poster hasn't been active on BCT since May and the original site is down. However, given that it's only 1%, and about $25 in value right now, there seem to be more significant concerns for NYAN.
[3] http://nyancha.in/chain/Nyancoin - Nyan blockchain explorer; blocks are somewhat inconsistent but somewhere around the 1 minute average
[4] There doesn't seem to be anything automatically doing these stats, so I did visual inspection on about 1500 blocks (about one day) excluding the block generation reward (~250k/day). Most blocks are otherwise empty. I counted about 24 transactions or so scrolling through, with an outlier around 300k NYAN and another around 100k NYAN. In total, about 500k NYAN, excluding the block rewards. This is very approximately $3-4.
[5] Nyancoin is a basically unmodified, slightly out-of-date bitcoin as far as code goes, and ignoring the change in block rate and total coin supply, as well as the difficulty retarget after every block. So for purposes of estimating maximum possible transaction throughput, I start with bitcoin's estimated 7 transactions per second, and multiply by 10 for having a block on average every minute rather than every 10 minutes. In any event, this limit is not likely to be reached in the foreseeable future.
[6] Like bitcoin, transaction fees appear to be optional in Nyancoin. Unlike bitcoin, there is almost no transaction volume, and coins tend to sit for a relatively long time before being moved. So zero-fee transactions appear to be the norm from looking at a couple transactions on the block explorer.
[7] I couldn't find one. See the disclosure section of this article: your humble correspondent is likely represented in some way on a top 100 if one were to be made or if one exists, despite not holding it directly, depending on how the exchange holds it.
[8] I could not find any other exchanges still listing Nyancoin. SwissCex appears to have disabled it as of a couple days ago. Cryptsy has a notice that the NYAN/BTC market will be closing, but its NYAN/LTC market appears strong.
[9] Essentially all of the original sites, pools, faucets, etc. are dead and there has been very little to replace it. There is basically a single node, or perhaps a very few, which are running the blockchain. However, there is a developer still trying to hold things together, maxvall_dev, maxvall on BCT. He is the last hope for the NYAN.
[10] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=597877.0 This is the thread where maxvall took over as dev, and it also discusses switching to PoS, which hasn't happened as far as I know.
[11] "zombie"-coin: Not to be confused with ZMB (my god, does it ever end?). This is my term to describe a coin which is "undead": by rights it should be dead. And yet it's still walking around and acting like it's alive. What is it? What's going on? It's quite debatable whether this gives it any special value, but I find it an interesting state, and it's why this was chosen for early coverage. There are plenty of actually popular and successful coins, and we will go onto covering more normal selections; we're looking for variety rather than repetition. But I think this is an interesting example for what can go wrong, and yet in the midst of that, how little it takes for a coin to survive. In fact, it's almost like an alternate history bitcoin to me; this shows the concept that "it was run on one computer before; it can be run on one computer again" to some extent. And there are even some strange pragmatic benefits as well, like having no competition for getting a transaction into a block and thus zero transaction fees.
[12] And, in fact, the author chose to do so today, spending about 0.03 BTC for about 1 million NYAN.
Additional Reading
/nyancoins - Like NYAN: mostly dead, but not quite
http://nyan-coin.org/ - new official website
BCT thread listing nodes, xpool (p2pool), for mining information.
americanpegasus predicting in February that NYAN will hit $1; always an entertaining read
Giveaway
Instead of a challenge today, since NYAN has enough challenges, I decided I would give away 10,000 NYAN to at least the first ten people who ask for it. This still remains at my discretion, but honestly, if you really want, say, 50,000 NYAN and create four new accounts to do so, I'll probably be too amused to say no. I don't expect to get ten requests. If I get more, I'll probably still fulfill them, but as with everything else, this is left to my whim.
Donations and Disclosure
Okay, this is an important one today because of the tiny market here. I actually hold less USD value in NYAN than in BTC, DOGE, and PPC (although my value in PPC might be about equivalent actually), but I hold more of the total market in NYAN than any of those three. And I'll probably be buying more. So I have a conflict of interest in writing this article.
I am not providing financial advice and I do not make any recommendations of any sort on any matters. Make your own decisions; do your own research. Please, I do not want to hear about anyone doing anything "on my advice." I am not offering advice.
I personally hold just over 1 million NYAN on Cryptsy right now.
Perhaps it would be better if I didn't write any articles about anything I were invested inspeculating on, but I started this series for my own education to further my speculation, so unfortunately, dear reader, your needs come second to my own. tanstaafl; you get what you pay for, and I'm giving you my thoughts.
If by some strange quirk of fate you actually own NYAN and enjoyed this article and wished to donate some to me, K7Ho9HghBF6xWwS6JsepE6RAEPyAXbsQCV is mine (first non-empty account I've posted; transferred 1000 NYAN into here earlier from Cryptsy to test that the network and my wallet were actually working).
Thank you all for reading and commenting! I've already learned a lot from this process and I look forward to more!
Upcoming coins:
• January 5th: Nxt
• January 6th: Darkcoin
• January 7th: Namecoin
I'll use alphabetic labeling for footnotes in the updates to avoid any confusion with the footnotes in the original. For simplicity, unchanged items, like the 337 million limit and the 1 minute will not be mentioned, and we'll start with the summary changes.
Updates:
Summary
  • ~263.7 million NYAN currently exist [a]
  • Current price: ~7 satoshi [b]
  • Current market cap: ~$8,000 [c]
  • Transaction rate: ~185 / last 24 hours; ~3,300,000 NYAN (~$100) [d]
  • Exchanges: Cryptopia [e]
  • Community: We're not quite dead yet; in fact, I think we're getting better! [f]
  • Code/Development: I have an early draft of NYAN2, but I'm about six months past my initial goal for having it available to use. Life/work/lack of build machine/procrastination. NYAN2 will be a rebase onto a modern LTC codebase which will soft fork to fix a current vulnerability to a fork bug. For now, the network still runs on the same code that it did when I wrote the first article.
Discussion
I'm going to consider the community first, since I pointed it out as the weakness and central topic in the last one, then talk about the technical situation briefly, and then review the financial results.
The community has been excellent, if I do say so myself. We've got working infrastructure going thanks to the contributions of many Nekonauts (see [f]). Some original Nekonauts have returned or at least popped in from time to time, and new ones like myself have found Nyancoin (I would say given what I wrote in the original, I was still a skeptic of it at that point. Not that skeptics can't be Nekonauts, but I think I'd put my conversion to the cult of nyan shortly after writing that, even though I was already a nillionaire then for the heck of it.)
While I do look forward to seeing the community continue to grow in future years and consider that important, I don't think the community is our weakest point any longer; I think it's now our strongest point. I've tried to encourage the community's revival as best I could, including giving away tens of nillions in total, and lots of long rambling articles on my views on ethics and philosophy and frankly it's worked better than I would've really expected (or at least it has coincided with an effective recovery of the community). The community also helped me through at least a couple hard times personally in there as well.
The technical situation in Nyancoin is mostly unchanged but slightly improved, although with two additional known vulnerabilities. It's unchanged in that it's the same client. It's improved in that we have an active nyanchain explorer host (nyan.space), and we have a public draft of a plan for a soft forking security fix update in the near future (hopefully by the end of March (although I've slipped these deadlines before and may well miss March for release by a bit, I do think I'm inching closer now and then)).
The most serious vulnerability is to forking. This is the bug which hit Peercoin if I recall correctly. NYAN2 is intended to solve this through its soft fork from the LTC fix upstream (from the BTC fix upstream). In the meantime, we've been lucky we haven't been attacked. The tiny marketcap probably helps with not being a particularly attractive attack target. We're not exactly about to pay ransom to move faucet outputs. But that's no excuse; we want this fixed and should have it finally done "soon" (tm).
The less serious vulnerability is to a time warp attack in the difficulty function (Kimoto Gravity Well), which relates to general weaknesses it has and issues we've had with large gaps in the block chain because of spikes in the difficulty function causing it to be unprofitable and driving away most of the hash, and then low difficulty and price rise making it attractive to more hash, creating a spike and causing it again. While this is irritating, the chain still works, even if there are fits and starts at times. An important part of the reason I can get away with this is because there is at least one Nekonaut-supporting miner, CartmanSPC, who rescues us from time to time, and did so during the course of this article being written. We have a bunch of pools, but sometimes the hash just isn't there to get us unstuck when the difficulty goes high enough. Another part of the reason I consider it not an especially serious issue is because there's a workaround which works for me (classic bad developer logic): I use a large transaction fee (generally 337 NYAN, although I might have halved it after the most recent halving, I'll probably use 337 again) on my personal wallet by default. If necessary, I use a couple of them. It can make NYAN profitable to mine again despite the higher difficulty and "unstick" the chain. The difficulty function can go back down again in the next block if the gap has been long enough, so that can be enough to keep it going again for a while (although it can also get stuck again irritatingly fast at times). A fix for this will be putting in a better difficulty function for NYAN3, which will require a hard fork. This is tentatively scheduled for feature freeze around the middle of this year, coding to follow, activation sometime early 2017.
Financial has been our most disappointing performance. A graph of the 1 year performance right now on coinmarketcap looks pretty sad, showing our fall from a little over 60 satoshi down to around 7 satoshi now.
We rose too high, too fast, and I didn't stick with the safe high paying job like a sane person. Instead I hit the road, went to jail, and worked minimum wage. That doesn't sound like a sentence from a cryptocurrency financial review, does it? But the performance of NYAN since the article has been the story of my personal finances, which is the story of my life since then.
So, autobiographical coinaday interlude, trying to keep it generally to the most salient points. Well, in 2014 I had been on my way home to Minnesota from California when I was pulled over leaving Eureka, Nevada for speeding (got sloppy and went 45 approaching the 45 sign and thus technically still in the 35; bored cop seeing out-of-state plates). My vehicle reeked of weed, what with having been in Mendocino County previously with no intention of traveling out of the county much less state anytime soon but family emergency brought me back, and the end result was a citation for possession of cannabis and paraphernalia along with the speeding.
Fast forward to the beginning of 2015, I'm settled into a good software position and start looking more at cryptocurrency in my spare time. I write the coin-a-day series for a bit and then got annoyed and quit after a while when trying to do one a day on top of an actual job was too much for me (along with some annoyance over criticism; I can be rather thin-skinned at times). But I had gotten interested in Nyancoin, and started buying it up more and more with extra money I was making.
And then comes the crash. I had to stop putting as much in as I realized that where I was living and what I was working on wasn't going to work out for me and I needed to figure something else out. So, as I seem wont to do, I went on a roadtrip. I quit my job. And I went back for the court date for my citations and refused to pay, instead spending 10 days in jail rather than pay ~$1400 (I actually had the money in cash available to me if I chose to pay as a backup if I chickened out, but the judge annoyed me enough that I really preferred to be jailed instead of paying, as stupid as that sounds since I'm quite sure the judge didn't care in the least one way or another).
After that, I went back to roadtrip lifestyle for a while. It was a nice period. A lot of beautiful scenery; a lot of reading. Eventually, I busted up my car pretty badly...a couple times actually, the second time for good. Fast forwarding through the rest of the year, I worked a couple minimum wage jobs to pay bills and avoid cubicle life and kill some time until I figured out what I was going to do next. Just recently I quit as delivery boy after getting a speeding ticket (I swear, I'm not as horrible of a driver as this makes me sounds, although I have had a bad tendency to speed in the past, which I really have curbed to almost nothing; but I'm clearly not good enough) and am currently writing a Coin-a-Year article with a friend's incentive and applying to do documentation and development with the Nu project.
Okay, so what did any of that have to do with NYAN? Well, it's the mess of a life that has led to the fall of the price from 60 satoshi to 7 satoshi. If instead my life history for the time since the article had been simply "I was happily employed writing software", then I don't believe we would have dropped below 20 satoshi. It's easy to see in hindsight. If anyone can lend me a time machine, I'm sure I can get some condensed instructions which should improve performance significantly. Otherwise, just going to have more chalked up for the "character building" tally.
So, lessons learned if you are the major buy support for your coin: you need long-term reserves. Whatever you put in bids can be taken out in a moment by a dump for no apparent reason. This is particularly true if you may be quitting your cushy, high-paying job and wandering around without income for an extended period of time. Rather obvious, but hey, maybe someone else can learn from my mistakes. If I'd been bidding as cautiously as I am now from the beginning, I think the price would probably be somewhere from 10-20 satoshi now instead of around 7 satoshi.
It's especially unfortunate given that I wanted to be able to demonstrate the more consistent growth possible building a stable store of value, as opposed to the pump and dumps common in altcoins. And instead we had a pump-and-dump looking graph ourselves after I bid up higher than I was able to sustain, and a large (10+ nillion) instadump crashed the market all the way back down to 1 satoshi momentarily. We've had a few large (2+ nillion) dumps since, but nothing that large. We haven't generally had that large of bids though either.
It's hard to know when I've exhausted the supply at a price level, when it sometimes waits for a couple weeks or even more and then fills all the bids at once. But I want to maximize the minimum price paid because I think that's important for building confidence in a store of value long-term, which is one of my core goals for NYAN.
At the same time, we're still up from the lowest parts of the floor and where I found it. Since I own about 30% [g], the very cheapest supply has been taken off the market. I plan to keep on buying up "cheap NYAN" as much as I can. I've bought up to 60 satoshi before, I'll probably buy up that high this time around. I've got a token 100,000 NYAN ask at 300 satoshi; I hope never to sell lower.
Conclusions
Now I try to wrap it all together as if I saw this all coming and am the wise expert, despite having had about 90% drop in price in the last year after bidding too high. My original concept was taking the "minimum viable coin" and reviving it to a powerhouse as a textbook example in how to do it.
Part of my core concept in this is the arbitrariness of value: throughout history, humans have chosen any number of things as a store of value for the time: salt, large rocks, certain metals, disks, marked sticks, and so forth. While there has generally been a certain logic in the choice, in that there is a locally restricted supply in one way or another, and so forth, from the perspective of other centuries or cultures the choices can seem quite strange. Growing up, I was always struck by how strange the notion of salt being limited and valuable seemed in a world where people were trying to reduce intake and large amounts could be bought for trivial sums. And yet, a key nutrient necessary for life fundamentally makes more sense as being valuable than notched sticks or printed paper or a piece of plastic with some encoded information.
Humans have perpetually come up with stranger and stranger ways of storing and transferring value. Each new step, as always, comes with its own disadvantages and, frankly, has generally appeared nonsensical at best and fraudulent at worst to the status quo. Which doesn't mean that each new attempt is valuable. The gold bugs always like to point out that every fiat currency ultimately returns to its true value of zero. And the skeptics of cryptocurrency argue that all cryptocurrencies will eventually return to their true value of zero.
It's certainly possible. And it's possible the USD will hyperinflate someday. I tend to try the moderate view for a plausible guess of the future. By that type of logic, I would guess that over the course of decades, USD will in general lose value, and cryptocurrency will tend to slowly gain value. That might not seem the moderate view, but USD not losing value over decades would be truly shocking. And hyperinflation has been predicted since the USD went off the gold standard, or before. So some amount of inflation less than hyperinflation seems like the safe guess (but then, the Titanic arriving would also have seemed like the safe guess to me). And with cryptocurrency, I think it's clear by now the technology will continue to survive. So my first question is with what overall value as a market? It could go down, of course, but that seems unlikely in an already small, young market. Even if all the current crop die off and are replaced, whatever cryptocurrencies are around should be able to do better than a handful of billion in market cap in my view.
I believe that cryptocurrency has a bright future ahead of it. The best coins should ultimately survive and thrive. But I've been wrong on most of my major calls so far, like for instance when I thought BTC was over-priced around $5-$10.
I think Nyancoin can have an important role to play in the future of cryptocurrency in the years and decades to come, but it's a massively speculative long-shot. See also Nyancoin risks document. But like Linus Torvalds' autobiography, I try to keep "Just for Fun" as a core motto and principle. It's makes for a good hobby project because there will always be more to work on, with a core community motto of
TO INFINITY AND BEYOND!
Disclaimers / Sponsorship:
As I said before:
I am not providing financial advice and I do not make any recommendations of any sort on any matters. Make your own decisions; do your own research. Please, I do not want to hear about anyone doing anything "on my advice." I am not offering advice.
And I'll reiterate that I own about 30% [g] of the current supply of NYAN, which makes me by definition maximally biased.
Also, I'm not sure what's up with the address from the first post. It doesn't show up in my current wallet as a recognized address. So, anyhow, don't send there. :-) If you'd like to donate, please consider sponsoring a coin-a-day or coin-a-week article.
This is the first sponsored article. This Coin-a-Year article has been brought to you by spydud22 's generous patronage. I'd been meaning to do a Coin-a-Week article on Nyancoin for a while, but between wanting to "wait until the price recovered a bit" and general procrastination, then it seemed like it would make a good Coin-a-Year article, and then I wanted to wait until the price recovered a bit more...anyhow, so thank you spydud22, for causing me to finally do this. :-)
Footnotes
  • [a] nyan.space/chain/Nyancoin ; as of block 1091430, 263738786.71890615 NYAN outstanding. This is slightly over 50% more than the last report, which is what we would expect, since it had existed for about a year then, and has approximately annual halvings. The first year generated about 50% of total supply; the second year generated about 25% of total supply. We should expect in a year to have about 17% (one-sixth) more than we have now.
  • [b] https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Exchange?market=NYAN_BTC ; this is the only market reflected in coinmarketcap and it is the primary one on which I trade. Cryptopia also has other base pairs which operate at significantly higher spreads (lower bids; higher asks) and have minimal volume. In the time since the last report, NYAN has traded as high as 60 satoshi (and briefly a little higher at times), but over the last almost twelve months since a peak about a year ago, the price has been generally declining overall, as a gross oversimplification of a lot of movements. This has been an effect of me not being able to keep buying as much and there being large dumps I wasn't expecting from time-to-time. Now I'm taking the approach of building large (one or more nillion (million NYAN)) bids on each price as I slowly work my way back up again in order to be able to handle possible dumps with less price shock.
  • [c] coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nyancoin/ ; as noted in [b], this only reflects the /BTC basepair on Cryptopia but that's where most of the volume is anyhow. Of course, the market is also not particularly liquid since I'm the primary buyer and have rather limited means currently.
  • [d] I haven't setup a script to count this yet, among many things on my to-do list for someday, so I went through by hand from what was the then-latest block of 1091430 on nyan.space back to 1089766 which was the first block generated less than 24 hours before. There was actually a three and a half hour block gap at that point, such that the next prior block was about 24 hours and 15 minutes before 1091430 while 1089766 was only about 20 hours and 45 minutes prior, and has a disproportionate number of transactions and value compared to a typical block (8 and ~313,000 NYAN respectively) from the build-up during the gap. But since that gap conveniently started right about at the start of the 24 hour period, doesn't really skew our results here.
Note that there are often times where the UTXO created during one transaction during the day is spent during a later transaction in the day. This can be considered the "same" Nyancoin being "spent" twice in the same day in our total. But in practice, I believe what's happening here is the faucet is breaking off small (10-50 NYAN) pieces from a larger (~40,000 NYAN) chunk, and so that pops up a bunch of times. So the total NYAN blockchain volume as counted for this topline number should not be interpreted as "NYAN spent in the day" but "NYAN moved on the chain", where the "same coin" can move many times. So it's a very easily gamed metric and not a strong / resistant metric like the market price tends to be (at least relatively speaking), but it's a fun number to calculate and provides a little bit of information.
The transaction count can also be easily inflated and certainly, for instance, having the faucet does generate transactions which are a very common transaction.
And this is also just an arbitrary 24 hour period compared to a previous arbitrary 24 hour period. Nonetheless, I do think there's clearly a bit more activity on the Nyanchain, even though the typical block is still empty and the number of transactions and volume is still tiny compared to the major cryptocurrencies.
Here's an arbitrary example of the faucet transactions Note the zero transaction fee, which I love that the miners support (the defaults are all quite low as well).
Here's an example of what may be the smallest transaction by NYAN volume of the day; but no, I followed its small, spent output, and it led to this gem which also links to this. I have no idea what's going on here, but it's hilarious and I love it. How's that for microtransaction support? :-)
  • [e] Obviously Cryptsy went down. We had had more than enough red flags with Cryptsy (including one time where I was able to withdraw 6 nillion more than I had in my balance) and got onto Cryptopia. spydud22 basically accomplished that for us, although I helped out in the tail end of the campaigning.
  • [f] Our community is still small (I wish there were literally dozens of us!) but we've had valuable activity from multiple people, including, just as highlights, vmp32k who hosts nyan.space, a clone of the original nyancha.in, jwflame who created the excellent nyancoin.info intro site, with the awesome status page (which currently notes that "the last 500 blocks actually took 111 minutes, which is approaching the speed of light, causing the universe to become unstable"), KojoSlayer who runs the faucet and dice, spydud22 who got us on Cryptopia, and many other Nekonauts have made worthy contributions, and the Nekonauts mentioned have done more than just that listed. So while we are small, we are active at least from time to time and technically capable.
Even though our posting rate is still around 1 post a day or so on average, and so still a relatively quiet subreddit (and it is our main (only?) hub), it's still a very noticeable and significant difference from how /nyancoins looked when I was reviewing it for the original piece here. Here's an attempt to approximate what was there using Reddit search ; archive.org has a snapshot on January 19th, 2015, which is well into the early revival mania and one from August 14th, 2014, before four and a half months of little to no activity. Apparently archive.org unsubscribed to /nyancoins in that interval itself...
  • [g] Maybe up to around 35% by now; maybe still around 30%. I haven't updated hodling report lately; it was 30% last time I recall, but I've bought more and more has been made since.
submitted by coinaday to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Proof of work

I did a write up on POW to try and understand it better. What do you think?
Advantages of POW
I decided to start writing my thoughts about some of the more debated aspects of cryptocurrencies in general. Today I am going to focus on “Proof of Work” or the consensus mechanism employed by BTC and other cryptocurrencies.
What is Proof of Work?
POW is the original consensus algorithm that governs the Bitcoin network. The mechanism is used to verify new transactions and create new blocks. The process of verifying transactions and creating new blocks in the blockchain is referred to as mining. Mining is basically having some “ASIC” mining equipment solving very difficult mathematical equations that would take a human years to complete (see the following link for more information on mining https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/mining/hardware/). These “miners” can complete the equation in a relatively short period of time. But the mining equipment is competing with miners all around the globe to solve the equations. Every ten minutes (on average) a block is filled with transactions approved by miners. Now this doesn’t mean that every block occurs in 10 minute intervals, but instead it means that the average is 10 mins. So there are some blocks that take 1 minute and some that take 15 minutes to be completed. The difficulty involved with BTC mining is adjusted every 2016 block or roughly every 2 weeks to ensure the mining process doesn’t become to difficult or easy. When a new block is formed 12.5 BTC are distributed to miners for their work. Every block that is created makes the BTC network more robust and more secure. Now some miners have a better “hash rate” than others due to more mining equipment. This means they will likely receive more BTC than a small time mining operation, but that doesn’t mean small time miners cant make some BTC for their troubles. The amount of BTC one receives for each block mined varies. Depending on how much you contributed to discovering the hash (answer) The equation that the mining equipment must solve are similar to what you saw in high school, except much more difficult. (EX: A = B + 3 * 25) To mine a block, a miner needs to hash (answer) the block’s header (mathematical equation) in a way that it is less than or equal to the “target.” Bitcoin uses an algorithm that is called “SHA-256” which is basically a 256 digit alpha numeric code that is a big part of the BTC network and is important to understand if you want to be a miner. (Secure Hash Algorithm) SHA was created by the National Institute of Standards & Technology, and they came with an improved version called SHA-256 where the number is represented as the hash length in bits. No matter what the input the output will always be represented by the 256 alpha numeric code. There is a website that you can actually see how this works by entering any word, from your name to the longest word you can come up with and it will show you exactly what the word you entered is in SHA-256 encryption. I entered my first name (Tim) and this was the results: “aac09a648fc382b6f78897595486e691d00de9dfc742f3ba1930464b56eecda6” So that is my name in SHA-256. (Just wanted to give you an idea of what we are dealing with) Here is the website I used to figure that information out https://md5hashing.net/hash/sha256/aac09a648fc382b6f78897595486e691d00de9dfc742f3ba1930464b56eecda6 Just for comparison I also entered “Mississippi” and the results were “8584ecbb1ea76935b74c3c313980c410cbe26b2ff48806950f2a70ff2ec82493”So the output was different, but the same amount of alpha numeric digits. The website can also decode the encrypted messages as well. So, if you copied and pasted the code I just shared you would see it decoded as Mississippi. This is how encryption works. There is a lot to discuss when it comes to SHA-256, but I feel we have spent enough time on that, so let’s move on to rewards. When Bitcoin was first created the mining rewards were set in stone. Every 4 Years roughly (Its really every 210,000 blocks) there is a “halving” that reduces mining rewards by half. The first halving occurred on 11/28/2012.The reward was reduced from 50 BTC mined per block to 25 BTC mined per block. There was a 2nd halving on 7/9/2016. The reward was cut in half then as well from 25 to 12.5 BTC produced every 10 minutes. The next halving will occur mid 2020. Reducing the reward from 12.5 BTC to 6.25 BTC produced with each block mined. The reason Bitcoin halves the rewards for mining is to basically stretch the mining process out and ensure not all BTC gets mined in 2 years. There are multiple reasons for the halving, but in my opinion keeping miners paid for their work is crucial. Of course, mining BTC is not all about the rewards you receive, but also about the transaction fees you get from the multiple transactions that occur on the BTC network. Many people fret over what will happen when mining rewards are so small that it becomes hard to imagine anyone would want to mine with the reward system being reduced every 4 years and the answer to that is transaction fees. People claim that miners wont work for only transaction fees, which is a valid point, but it fails to consider the growth of BTC. By the time the mining rewards are 0 the transactions on the BTC network will be immense. Not to mention transaction fees may
be raised if necessary. The difficulty in mining 1 block is astronomical. As of December 2018 your chances of mining 1 block was roughly 1 in 7 trillion. This level gets adjusted every 2016 blocks or every 2 weeks approximately. The more miners that are competing with one another the more difficult the “problem” or Bitcoin mining becomes. It also works the other way as well. If miners decide to stop mining the difficulty will then decrease. Now if this wasn’t tough enough for miners, they must also come up with the hash faster than the other miners to receive a reward. This has a lot to do with mining equipment and how much you have. The more mining equipment (“asic miners” or application specific integrated circuit) you have the more hashes you can put out and you obviously would stand a better chance of solving the hash and getting the block reward over someone with 1 asic machine running. Bitcoin once could be mined via a personal computer or laptop, but this has now become impractical and not profitable with the new and faster asic mining equipment that was designed specifically for mining BTC. This mining equipment requires plenty of electricity and it isn’t cheap to operate the equipment. Electrical costs alone could cost more than your net profits from mining. This has caused many small time mining operations to close either temporarily until it becomes profitable to mine once again or entirely and sell off their equipment. We discussed this earlier, but when miners leave it makes the difficulty become easier. It’s a perfectly balanced system if you ask me.
Now there is another option if you want to mine but cant afford the 1000 asic mining machines needed to be competitive. You could join “cloud mining” which is essentially a group of individual miners that pool their hash power together to become competitive and it gives them a better shot at solving the hash. The profit in mining pools is divvied up depending on many factors, but the main factor would be the amount of hash power you add to the pool. So if I had one asic and my friend Phil has 10, he would receive a bigger payout than me thanks to his contribution (which is larger obviously) Mining pools have become a popular way for small time mining operations to become more profitable. This is how the reward system works for BTC miners.
Proof of work is the only true way to be decentralized as control is not centralized in a server somewhere, but instead is distributed across the globe in an immutable “blockchain” that is transparent and not reversible. Naysayers claim POW is inefficient and claim POW is susceptible to “51% attacks” Which is accurate to a degree. People point out coins like Ethereum Classic and Verge as examples of how a 51% attack can occur on the BTC network. This fails to take into consideration the fundamentals of BTC and why it is so difficult and unlikely to be attacked. So, every ten minutes (approximately) a block is produced by the mining process, and when the block is produced it is distributed lightning fast to nodes across the globe and the chain is updated. The speed one would need to work at to attack BTC is astronomical. And the likelihood of failure is likely. Too much risk. But, achieving this feat is easy with smaller chains like Ethereum Classic, but when you consider the difficulty involved when attempting to attack Bitcoin one must consider the cost in mining equipment and electricity which makes an attack on the BTC blockchain so unlikely. Why attack BTC when you can go after smaller chains for much less overhead costs and walk away with quite a bit (like with Ethereum Classic) Im not saying it will never happen, but it will take a lot of work. Every block that gets mined makes BTC more robust and secure along with hash power. People point to mining pools as a likely suspect for future attacks on BTC, but those mining via cloud would all need to agree to attack BTC, all the while needing over half the hash rate of the entire network. Every scenario involving a 51% attack on BTC is extremely difficult and costly. Proof of Work is the only consensus mechanism that can be considered truly decentralized. With that being said not all POW coins are decentralized. Bitcoin is a beautiful example of how decentralized Blockchains should function. Secure and decentralized.
Written by Tim Pace 2/5/2019
submitted by HeisenbergBTC to u/HeisenbergBTC [link] [comments]

Here is a transcript from the Ripple Consensus Presentation (May 22nd)

https://www.xrpchat.com/topic/5203-ripples-big-demo-and-why-you-missed-the-big-deal/?do=findComment&comment=49659
MY TRANSCRIPTION... 0:19
PATRICK GRIFFIN: All right I think we're gonna get started. There's total capacity. People at the door - there's a little room over here inside. There's chairs here - there’s chairs over here don't be shy. All right in case you don't know this, you are in “XRP In Action,” a live demo and expert Q & A.
I’m Patrick Griffin [with] David Schwartz and Stefan Thomas. We've got an hour today. We'll walk you through, we’ll do a quick round of introductions. Stefan is going to do a demo. We have a self-guided Q&A where I basically tee up some questions for these guys that will all be softballs don't worry! Then we'll turn it over to you guys to ask questions for the technical experts. Maybe we'll do it the quick round of intros, starting with Stefan:
1:07 STEFAN THOMAS: Yeah so, my name is Stefan Thomas I am CTO with Ripple. Before Ripple I was involved with BitCoin for several years and now I work on the vision and technical direction for Ripple.
1:22 DAVID SCHWARTZ: My name is David Schwartz. I'm the chief cryptographer at Ripple. I’ve been working on Ripple since 2011 and public ledger tech. Before that I was working on cryptographic messaging systems and cloud storage for government and military applications.
1:35 PATRICK GRIFFIN: I am Patrick Griffin. I’m the head of business development. I don’t know why I’m up here, but there’s our CTO and our head of cryptography, but actually I think we are the, to be honest here, I think we are the, we are the one two and three first employees of Ripple. Well, two one and three. We've been here for quite some time and it's been a long journey. So why don't we first start off with the demo and I think I'll tee it up: This is a demo that demonstrates our technical our technology start of the inter ledger protocol, moving payments in and out of XRP and Stefan will do a better job of articulating what you are about to see.
2:22 STEFAN THOMAS: All right thanks Patrick. So here we're gathered to have a quick round table on XRP. I want to go through the demo pretty quickly so we can get to the actual discussion Q&A which I thin is the meat of this session. Basically, what we're trying to do at Ripple is we're trying to make money move like information. This has been our mission since day one, and it has never changed and so we're building a number of different technologies that all integrate to make this vision a reality. And so what we think about how information actually moves I think it's really it's really this chart that captures it.
So what's happened is that the cost of moving information has really declined over the last couple decades and very strongly so. And as a result the volume of information that’s been moving has exploded. And so, very often you know, our customers will be talking to me about, you know:
Oh are you focused on corporate payments? Are you focused on consumer payments?
I think what you have to realize is that we're somewhere down here in that curve and so you know when you say like two-thirds of all payments are corporate payments you're really talking about two-thirds of almost nothing. I think what we're focused on is this growth that you can create if you increase the efficiency of the system enough.
And so the way that we're kind of approaching that is we want to streamline the way that liquidity works today. So today you have 27 trillion dollars in float sitting around the world that is essentially there to facilitate real-time payments when the underlying systems are not real time.
3:59 STEFAN THOMAS: So, for instance, I swipe my credit card somewhere there has to be an actual creditor or money available to pay that merchant if that's supposed to happen instantly if the underlying money can't move in real time. And so that's been the case ever since we were using gold and fiat currencies in order to move money internationally, but with digital assets there's actually opportunity to improve upon that and actually move real assets in real time.
So if you have something like XRP you don't need to pre-fund float all around the world. You can actually just have this digital asset and if you want to transfer value to somebody, you want to transfer value internationally, you can just transfer that asset and that moves instantly okay?
4:40 STEFAN THOMAS: So that's really the improvement. So with that I want to give you sort of a case example in a demo. This is something that already happens on blockchains today where there are money sources business that are using, businesses they're using block chain in order to move funds so they might sort of offer this as a service to small and medium businesses where if I want to let's say pay somebody in a different country I can go to one of these companies and they will move that money for me.
5:09 STEFAN THOMAS: So, in this example, we're kind of pretending that we're a publisher, we have a reporter in the field. and we’d like to pay them. And so, you know we don't really build apps, but we enable banks and other money service businesses to build apps on top of our platform. So this is kind of a mock-up that we’ve developed where, you can imagine, this would be just built into the the particular app of that company. And so I can basically pick any amount, so let’s say I want to send, say $7, and what happens is that you can see is that amount updates so what happens during that time is that we actually try to find the cheapest path from where the sender is to which are provided at the recipient uses and then once we found that cheapest path, we figure out what the exact cost is going to be, so we have that transparency upfront. What is the cost of this payment and this is all powered by the open source protocol InterLedger. Now, when I send this payment, it goes through right away. I don't have to wait for a ton of confirmations and so on.
6:11 STEFAN THOMAS: So let's talk a little bit about what is happening there in the background. So first, we basically look at the topology of the network and then we try to find a path. So say it found a path through XRP. Once we select the path, we basically send a code request to figure out what we think that cost is going to be and then we send the money through in two phases as per InterLedger Protocol, and that's enabled on XRP using a feature called escrow that we just launched earlier this year and so now XRP is it's fully InterLedger enabled.
6:50 STEFAN THOMAS: So, if we look at the kind of a cost calculation, this is kind of some fictional numbers but it's correct in terms of order of magnitude, right. So you have Bitcoin, you have Theory, we have XRP, we have Swift, and so our algorithm basically goes in and it tries to select the best option and so people often ask me like why does InterLedger help XRP? or why are you guys working on InterLedger as a completely neutral protocol when you actually have this vested interest in XRP?
7:18 STEFAN THOMAS: Well, because the reason is that XRP is right now by far the best digital asset but it's not being used as much as Bitcoin, for instance, and so in order to close that gap we want to get to a point where the selection of asset is kind of automated and you have algorithms to just pick the best one in which case, right now, XRP would get picked all the time. So that's why we have such a vested interest in just enabling more efficient selection. All right. So as you can see, it's the lowest fee right now and it’s the fastest turn right.
7:48 STEFAN THOMAS: Now, going a little bit further into the future, I was kind of talking about that huge explosion in volume and I think where that comes from is completely new user inter faces that we don't necessarily think about today. So one example would be, you have something like a publisher and a reader and a reporter and the reader is actually browsing an article and they're not having to sign up and go through a paywall in order to do that Their browser just pays them on their behalf automatically and then as a publisher I can see the money sort of coming in, in real time as users are browsing my website. And so you're basically providing the sort of metered access to your content. There's just one example. I think there's a lot of cases of APIs and other parts the industry that could benefit from micro-payments as a more granular way of transacting. So I don't have time to talk about that, but with that I hope you've got sort of a taste of both what XRP looks like today as well as what the future holds in terms of doing micro payments through payment channels, and so on, on InterLedger. So with that, I'll hand it over to Patrick to start the discussion.
9:00 PATRICK GRIFFIN: Very cool. So maybe it’s worth stepping back and also looking at our company strategy and having a conversation around what it means when we talk about an Internet of Value, which I think well this is a Silicon Valley company and for most people that doesn't mean a whole lot so maybe we can take a first stab at trying to explain what is an Internet of Value and Stefan, I’ll start with you. Actually, why don’t we start with David and give you a break.
9:24 DAVID SCHWARTZ: Yeah, so what is the Internet of Value and what are we working on? Well, the Internet has brought connectivity to billions of people around the world. They have smart phones. They have easy access to the movement of information but money is still siloed. It's still trapped in systems that don't talk to each other. Moving payments are expensive. They're slow. There's high friction. There's trillions of dollars that moves across borders and that's moved mostly by financial institutions, and we need to move that money more efficiently. We need to know where it is. We need to improve that flow.
10:02 DAVID SCHWARTZ: I don't know if any of you have made international payments or most of you have on traditional systems and you know that it's very hard to know where that money is. It’s very hard to know how much it's going to cost you ahead of time. The user experience is not great. A significant fraction of those payments fail. It takes several days. It's almost easier to ship money than it is to use our existing payment system. So we want to provide an Internet of Value where there is instant payment. Payment on demand, without failure. When you know ahead of time how much money is going to deliver. You know what path is going to take and because that transaction is set up using modern internet protocols you know ahead of time exactly what the requirements are at the destination so you don't have a failure because you didn't have the right information at the beginning.
10:45 STEFAN THOMAS: Yeah so um whenever I think of the Internet of Value, I think the number one thing that happened with the internet was that it kind of commoditized reach. So, before the Internet, if you wanted to be an online service provider like AOL or CompuServe the number one thing that you needed to have in order to be competitive is a lot of users. And if the main thing you're competing over is just having a lot of users it's very hard to get into that market for obvious reasons because you start out with zero users so how do you attract the first couple? But once you have something like the internet where all the different networks are actually tied together, suddenly the number of users you have is completely irrelevant, right? Because all of the networks are tied together you can reach all the websites, you can email all the people on the internet and so the competition has to be about something else and what does it become about? It becomes about about the efficiency of the system.
11:35: STEFAN THOMAS: And so, this fundamental transition has not happened with money yet. Like right now the the biggest consumer payment systems are things like Visa and MasterCard and they're very much competing on: We’re the biggest. We have the most merchants. We have the most customers, and so how are you going to compete with us, right? We would not even have to try to be efficient, necessarily, right? Because we're only competing with each other. It's very hard to get into that market, and so what we're trying to do with InterLedger, by creating an internet working protocol we're allowing you to go across multiple hops across multiple steps through the financial system and as a result you can tie a lot of smaller providers, a lot of smaller banks together and as a result make a system that’s much more competitive.
12:15: PATRICK GRIFFIN: I’ll just add my two cents in. I when I talk about the Internet of Value with customers it's typically the conversation on the cost and opportunities and for us you know, one of the analogies it's overused in the internet I think the Internet of Value, at least for me, is the function of bringing the marginal cost of payment processing down to as close to zero as possible. Now you can do that in one of two ways: Lower the cost of payment processing. Just for the sake of conversation these two things are 50/50. Payment processing: the messaging going between institutions and the cost of reconciling transactions as they go from one siloed network to another siloed network. Those are huge costs that the system currently bears just as a function of tracking down lost payments or fixing mistakes and broken transactions.
13:00 PATRICK GRIFFIN: Something like 12% of all international wires fail. That is an astonishing number if you come from Silicon Valley where you're typically used to five nines of reliability. The financial system isn’t working even with one nine of reliability. The other side of the equation so that it’s a processing function. We are able to achieve better processing by starting that sort of settlement layer, it’s a little bit academic, but then ultimately what our customers are buying from us today is just a payment processing capability.
13:30 PATRICK GRIFFIN: The second stool, leg of the stool, if you will, this two-legged stool, for this Internet of Value, is liquidity. And this iquidity cost is a huge component of the payments that infrastructure today. And so, when you think about the cost that you pay when you wire money internationally, it's not just processing costs and fees. Banks and financial institutions and payment processors have to cover their cost of capital. They are laying out a massive amount of cash in different overseas accounts to make sure that when you send a payment to Japan there's cash on hand in Japan to service your payment.
14:05 PATRICK GRIFFIN: The whole visual that we saw here with XRP that's really where we see there being a large opportunity to bring the liquidity costs down if you can fund your payment instantly on demand without pre-floating cash or opening up credit lines with your counter-parties you can really bring down this component of that cost so those two things together in my mind at least that's that is what really comprises the internet of value. You tackle those two things: processing and liquidity really starts to open up and level the playing field. And on leveling the playing field maybe a question back to you Stefan is and a little bit about the strategy so as we go out and roll out these new APIs for bank to bank or financial institution processing, this narrative around using the digital assets upon payment certainly there's no reason why you couldn't insert Bitcoin in there or Etherium or some other digital assets do you view this as maybe leveling the playing field for all digital assets and creating an opportunity for other digital assets to come in and basically compete for that case?
STEFAN THOMAS: 15:12 Yeah so, we definitely look at it as as a way to create more competition I think that I'm just looking at the market today, most of the digital assets out there are not really designed for enterprising spaces, right? There they're coming from a background of direct to consumer use. They're kind of designed in a way that maybe isn't always necessarily totally in line with how regulators think about the financial system and as a result it’s quite difficult for companies to use these assets, so I think maybe some of people in the room are Bitcoin entrepreneurs and so you may know some of these struggles and you know some of these difficulties of using an asset like Bitcoin. I think you know me, speaking as CTO, more from the technical side, there are definitely big differences between the different digital assets, and so if you look at things like settlement speed on Ripple you get below four seconds most of the time four seconds on average. On Bitcoin you have to wait nine minutes between just to get one confirmation.
16:14 STEFAN THOMAS: There's things like finality. On Ripple when you get one confirmation you can hundred percent trust it, it cannot get reversed because the set of validators that are known so it can't be some validator you've never heard of suddenly coming up with a different answer. Whereas on Bitcoin, there can always be a longer chain that you just haven't heard of yet so you have to wait for multiple confirmations to gain more confidence. Another difference is that you know Ripple is non-deterministic and so bitcoin is is random so what that means is that the actual delay between blocks on Ripple is pretty consistent. It's four seconds with the standard deviation of 0.8 seconds so it's almost always exactly four seconds. And so, with Bitcoin it's more variable, right? So you could have a block after a minute. You can have a block after half an hour. And so, it's much harder for businesses to kind of rely on a system that has that high variability because it increases your risk as you holding an asset.
17:12 STEFAN THOMAS: So these are just some examples of why we think that XRP is best suited for payments use cases. And I think I'll give, be giving a talk later today on on going into a bit more depth on some of these differences
17:28 DAVID SCHWARTZ: And and we're not afraid of a level playing field. As Stefan said we think we can succeed on a level playing field but also you can get people to build a level playing field. It's very hard to get other people to stand behind something that has a built-in bias in favor of one company. Twitter doesn’t, it doesn't mind the fact that the internet wasn't built for Twitter. Facebook doesn't mind. They like the fact that there's an open platform that everybody can support and use and they're willing to compete on that level playing field and if they lose on that level playing field you know, so be it, somebody else will win and the world will be a better place for it. We believe that we have the advantages today and we believe that we can get the industry behind an open standard that facilitates these types of instantaneous payments.
18:07 PATRICK GRIFFIN: So David, this is a question coming back to you. In this level playing field obviously there are digital assets can compete on different characteristics. Obviously I think that Bitcoin as scalability challenges have been I think very famous recently could you comment a little bit on Bitcoin’s recent lows some of the things that have come up around resiliency scalability and maybe draw a contrast to XRP and how XRP is working.
18:32 DAVID SCHWARTZ: Sure. I think the idea that you don't need governance. The idea that you can just have this decentralized system that magically government itself doesn't really work. The internet is a decentralized system it has governance. Bitcoin currently is experiencing a little bit of a governance failure due to with dis-alignment of incentives. Historically the minerss have had an incentive to keep the system working. Everybody needs the Bitcoin system to work, whether you hold, whether you try to do payment’s, whether you're mining. This system has to work or nobody has anything. Everybody's benefited from the value of Bitcoin going up. If you’re a miner, you want the value to go up. If you hold Bitcoin, you want the value to go up. If you're using it for payments having more liquidity and lower risk and holding bitcoins is good for you.
19:11 DAVID SCHWARTZ: So everybody's incentives were aligned. They're starting to become dis-aligned recently because miners have been getting a lot of revenue from transaction fees Miners like high transaction fees. Users obviously would prefer to pay less for their payments. People who want to use Bitcoin as a payment platform want frictionless payments and they're not getting them because of the fees. So there's been a little bit of a governance breakdown due to that misalignment of incentives and it's not clear how you resolve that. It's not really clear how the stakeholders can realign their incentives.
19:39 DAVID SCHWARTZ: I’m confident that Bitcoin will come out come through it but I think it shows that governance is important. You should understand how a system is governed whatever system it is because there is going to have to be governance. It’s not going to magically govern itself. Now Ripple, the stakeholders are the validators and the validators are sort of chosen by the other validators, so right now Ripple is obviously very big in that space. We’re the major stakeholder on the network, but the recent interest into the price increase has begun diversifying the stakeholders and so we hope to see different jurisdictions, different companies and those will be the people who will be the stakeholders and they'll make the decision if there are going to be changes in the rules behind in that market. We think that that will work better and I think if you, once you accept that there has to be governance, you really want it to be the people who are using the network. You don't want the technology to force you into having other stakeholders whose interest may be adverse to the people who just want to use the system to store value and make payments.
20:32 PATRICK GRIFFIN: So what stuff, I mean do you have anything to add just in terms of the underlying design of the systems and how they're confirming transactions? I think when you go way way way back to our company's beginning it was billed as Bitcoin 2.0. And you know we felt like there was another way you could build a decentralized digital asset without without mining. So maybe talk a little about the confirmation engine behind XRP and some of its advantages over other systems
21:04 STEFAN THOMAS: Yeah, so as I mentioned in the introduction, I was fairly involved in the in the Bitcoin community back in 2010-2011 and one of the features that I contributed to was paid to script hash as a reviewer it was one of the first people to re-implement Bitcoin and I pointed out some flaws and you know we ended up with a much better solution. And so, through that experience going through the cycle of new feature on Bitcoin, even back then when the committee was much smaller I realized that it was actually very painful to do even a uncontroversial improvement to the system and that was partly because people had a very strong tendency to be conservative which is a good thing, for any, like whenever you're modifying a live system. But there was also just like no good process for introducing changes.
22:00 STEFAN THOMAS: We had to come up with a process ad hoc. We came up with this whole voting on mining power and so on. Now, from that experience I remember going back to a wiki page on the big part of working called the hard fork wish list and I kind of looked at and is sort of the list of things other things that we wanted to do and a lot of them were in my opinion, in my humble opinion, must haves for any kind of mainstream or enterprise adoption and so I was kind of like putting numbers next to them like this would take eight months this would take 12 months this would take two years and it started to add up like I'm not going to see this get to that point if we go at this rate.
22:38 STEFAN THOMAS: And then you know Ripple approached me and they had a lot of that hard fork wish list already implemented but maybe more importantly they had a different idea on the governance structure and I think there's sort of two key differences: The first key difference is there is an entity that's actually funding the development of the asset and all the technology behind the asset. And so you know, I was looking at the Bitcoin foundation website the other day and they're currently, their most recent blog post is to promote this lawsuit in New York to try to strike down the bit license and apparently the foundation feels that it's strategically important for Bitcoin to kind of fund this lawsuit and they looked at how many people had actually donated to the donation address that they were giving and it was just over a thousand dollars basically. Almost nothing
23:31 STEFAN THOMAS: And I was thinking like well if XRP you know had any strategic issue like that there would be millions of dollars immediately that just Ripple would put behind the issue and so as a holder of the asset that's really important for me to know that, you know, there is some some entity that's actually defending it from a technical standpoint, from a legal standpoint, from a business standpoint. That makes a big difference
23:53 STEFAN THOMAS: And then the second big difference that I saw was how features and how generally the evolution of the technology is managed. So on Ripple, there's voting among the validators, which is not too dissimilar from you know the kind of mining voting that we're doing on Bitcoin. However the validators on Ripple are largely chosen by the users or they are chosen by the users. And so they're not chosen by so this algorithm or just by their virtue of being very efficient in mining. And so as David pointed out earlier, the incentives are very different. On Ripple, the incentives are you know I want the people who are appointing me to be validators to be happy with my validations because otherwise you know there's what they will stop paying me. And so you know there's a much more closely aligned incentive for the value of some Ripple to do what the actual users want to do.
24:46 DAVID SCHWARTZ: And I would add that there there are sort of vulnerabilities in both types of systems. Like with the miners, it would be a double spend. With the validators, they could simply stop validating and the network would halt, but one tremendous difference is that you know how to fix one and it's not clear how you would fix the other so if you had the miners that were being pressured, let's say by a friend in government, or they were double spending or for whatever reason they are holding transaction fees high, let's say the block size issue got to the point where it was absolutely critical and there was no ability to come up with an agreement. It's not clear how you solve that. You change the mining algorithm? Like that's the nuclear option? Nobody knows what you do. With the system on consensus it is clear what you do. You can, you can change the validators. The validators work at the pleasure of the users, the holders, the real stakeholders of the network.
25:33 DAVID SCHWARTZ: That, I think that is a fairly significant advantage once you realize how important governance is. And it's not just a handle of failure as Stefan pointed out there's going to be evolution of the system unless you think the systems are absolutely perfect today. Well bitcoin is already proven that there they're not absolutely perfect today. I can’t, I certainly wouldn't try to claim the Ripple is perfect today. We have a wish list of features too, limited by engineering time, but we have to get people to agree to implement those features and I think that's also an argument why you can't have one blockchain to rule them all. There are features that also have costs and every feature has a cost because if you have a public blockchain everybody that uses that public blockchain, at a minimum, when there's a new feature they have to do a security review and make sure that that feature doesn't create a vulnerability for them. So there's a fixed cost that's fairly high. There's a huge bug bounty on Bitcoin and on Ripple right? Billions of dollars if you could steal money on the system. So the cost to implement a feature is high. So if there's a feature that somebody really wants it would be really useful for them they're probably not going to get that's not enough to get any feature on the system, so you're going to have a diversified system of multiple block chains and multiple ledger systems of all kinds competing with each other for share. that's why I think InterLedger is important because InterLedger will permit people who use different block chains and different systems, for good reasons, to be able to make payments to each other quickly seamlessly and without the risk associated with little pays problem.
26:53 PATRICK GRIFFIN: hmm Maybe just a last question before we turn it over to the audience and you've mentioned InterLedger. Stefan is the creator of InterLedger or the chief architect of it. When you walk around the conference today, you'll see a lot of companies that have blockchain offering. So, sort of going back to 2014, now if you remember, the the terminology and the marketing was all about it's not about Bitcoin it's about the blockchain. And so now we have some sound perspective on that. What's your take on the fundamental premise of a de-centralized distributed database without a digital asset and what's the trade-offs in terms of functionality versus utility? What's your opinion given the architecture IOP.
27:42 STEFAN THOMAS: Well that's a question I could easily spend hours on, so let me try to summarize. So as you mentioned, my colleague Evan Schwartz and I, we we came up with this protocol InterLedger and that came out of actually in a couple of different work streams but one in particular I remember was I was trying to figure out how to make Ripple more scalable and I was thinking about a particular kind of scalability which is similar to what David just mentioned, which was scalability in terms of functionality not just in terms of how many transactions can you do per second. Like how do I serve very different use cases that have you know mutually conflicting trade-offs. So as I was thinking about that problem I was kind of saying well maybe you don't even have to keep that one set of global state. Maybe you can have state in different places and a lot of that is honestly just rediscovering database knowledge that we've had since the 70s. Now just looking at Jim Gray's papers and just oh yeah that works for blockchains too
28:41 STEFAN THOMAS: So we took those ideas and we combined them with ideas around from the internet from the internet background in terms of networking and the concept of internet working and so on. And so, when I look at these private blockchains type approaches I think they are doing the first of those two steps namely they're applying sort of modern data, modern database thinking or classical database thinking to blockchain but I don't think they're really applying the Internet thinking yet because they're if they're attempting to achieve interoperability just by homogeneity which does not give you that diversity of use cases and so if you want that you have to think about what are the simple stateless protocols they can actually tie these different systems together without dictating how they work internally. So I can have my private blockchains that has all these like special features and it works in this way and you can have your private box and it works in the other way but we can still talk through a neutral protocol and you know the way that we're thinking about InterLedger, we're not married to InterLedger being a thing like I'm completely happy if it's lightning or if it's something else but I think as an industry to agree on some kind of standard on that layer.
29:51 STEFAN THOMAS: I think one of the reasons that we can is because unlike a blockchain a standard is neutral you know there's no acid anyone's getting rich off of. There's no there's a lot less to agree on. The list of decisions you have to make is a lot shorter. You know my colleague Evan, he makes a point, a very good point about with InterLedger only like seven eight major decisions that you have to make in the architecture to really arrive at it and so I think we have really good reasons for each one of them and so we think that there will be a certain convergence on on one standard protocol for again not just blockchains, but like any kind of ledger.
30:26 DAVID SCHWARTZ: I just ant to add that InterLedger is completely neutral to how the ledger works internally. Any ledger that can support a very short list of very simple operations. Every banking ledger can perform those operations. Almost anything the tracks ownership of value of any kind is capable of confirming that value exists, putting that value on hold, transferring that value between two people and those are the only primitives that InterLedger builds on. It's just by the clever combination of those operations in a way that provides insurance that all of the stakeholders get out of the transaction the thing that they're supposed to get out and get back whatever they were going to put in if they don't get out what they're supposed to get out. It’s, it's astonishingly simple at the protocol level.
31:08 PATRICK GRIFFIN: Okay, with that I will turn it over to the room for questions and some Q&A Aany questions in the back?
QUESTION: Yeah, I’m kind of new to this and I just have some really basic questions. I read something recently where, Ripple was now the second most funded, or invested. Bitcoin was first, and Etherium was third. Can you tell me how you got to that position? You seem like you’re poking up about Bitcoin and how Ripple probably is more efficient and better. Then I had a second question - Where do I get a Ripple T-Shirt?
32:06 PATRICK GRIFFIN: The first question is how did, how did we get to this position we're in and does that generally capture the essence of that question and then Ripple t-shirts I'm not sure about that (Come work for us!) I will attempt to answer the first question and if you guys want to jump in. I think that is a function of one: Silicon Valley companies do one thing I think very well, they pick a lane and they go deep on it. For us, what we've been very very focused on it the use case. as a company we but we picked a long time ago to go deep on cross-border payments and in particular wholesale cross-border payments that’s financial institution to institution. It’s at the enterprise level and so when we look at digital assets today we think that there is a very very very use case around the consolidation of capital to fund payments overseas, which is exactly what we just demonstrated. Being able to transfer an asset from a server in one country to a server in another country and basically allow for payments companies to operate with much less capital deployed overseas. It's a, it's a quantifiable use case. Today there's 27 and a half trillion dollars in float in the banking system just wait sitting idly waiting for payments to arrive. That's compounded when you go to look at corporates and you look at payment service companies. So there's a very very very very very big number and I think that the recent traction that we've gotten has been an acknowledgement of the use case how it fits into our overall product offering. Ssome of the technical benefits of XRP itself and then when you look around, I mean I think that its head, you're hard-pressed to find another digital asset with as clearly articulated the use case that where the time horizon is now. I think there's lots of really exciting things going on in IOT and device-to-device payments and sort of the future some of things that I that Etherium people talk about for example, but it still feels like it's still at the horizon and I think this is being deployed today. There is a a path to commercial production and ultimately I think that's part of the reason why we're getting some traction.
34:18 DAVID SCHWARTZ: I think we also sort of crossed an important threshold. If an asset doesn't have value and it doesn't have liquidity you can't really use it even if it has the properties that are perfect for your use case simply because you can't you can't get enough of it without moving the market and I think we crossed a threshold (not the end) -
*use the link above to view the entire transcript.**
submitted by ripcurldog to Ripple [link] [comments]

Following Bitcoin’s Hash Rate Network Difficulty Is About to Set a New What Does Hashrate Mean?  Hashrate Mining Explained It's Never Been So Difficult to Mine Bitcoin; Miners Offload More BTC Cryptocurrency Day Trading - BitcoinCash The Forkning China Will Control The Bitcoin Network... (At Current Prices)

You want your value of hash rate to go up because you own a hundred units of hash rate. Well at the same time you are long price so you want the price to go up because the price going up improves the value of your hash rate and at the same time you are short difficulty. You want the price or you want the difficulty to go down because it improves the value of your hash rate. Digital money that’s instant, private, and free from bank fees. Download our official wallet app and start using Bitcoin today. Read news, start mining, and buy BTC or BCH. An Equation for the Lower-bound Value of Bitcoin. The math in this case is simple: we want to find a “lower-bound” for Bitcoin’s price, which implies we want to find the “best case” for mining Bitcoin and apply it to the network as a whole. Simulated Miners. Let’s say the hash rate is ĥ, and use an example of ĥ = 22,659,264.79 TH/s. What is the algebraic relationship between Total Network Hash-Rate and Difficulty? difficulty hash. share improve this question follow asked Nov 30 '12 at 18:35. Kinnard Hockenhull Kinnard Hockenhull. 2,325 3 3 gold badges 21 21 silver badges 36 36 bronze badges. add a comment 1 Answer Active Oldest Votes. 20. Short answer: difficulty = hashrate / (2^256 / max_target / intended_time ... Bitcoin adjusts the mining difficulty parameter every 2016 blocks, but on August 1, 2017, Bitcoin Cash added an Emergency Difficulty Adjustment (EDA) algorithm that ran alongside the DAA.

[index] [48282] [14087] [22293] [18693] [45021] [43939] [30290] [39345] [24645] [29581]

Following Bitcoin’s Hash Rate Network Difficulty Is About to Set a New

Latest Bitcoin News: 1. BitcoinCash Hard Fork. Algorithm Difficulty Adjustment 2. Miners will be moving their hash rate from the Bitcoin network to the BitcoinCash network until the next hash rate ... Bitcoin mining difficulty, which is the measure of how hard it is to compete for mining rewards, just jumped by 9.89%, climbing above 17 T for the first time and reaching 17.35 T. Last time it ... After Bitcoin dropped from $8,000 to $3,600 the hash rate dropped by almost 50%. The difficulty level, that only adjusts every 2 weeks, dropped by 16%. The second biggest drop in Bitcoin's history. This usually relates to the difficulty of generating a new hash address, also known as mining. This is a variable that the Bitcoin system is using to keep the growth of new Bitcoins on a ... Hash rate is used as the speed indicator of a machine that mines Bitcoin on the Blockchain. The higher the hashrate number on a machine, the faster it will solve complex equations and find blocks ...

#