What does qt in bitcoin-qt stand for? - Bitcoin Stack Exchange

Large-scale updates of Tkeycoin. What’s next? — listing on the crypto exchange. Are you with us?

Large-scale updates of Tkeycoin. What’s next? — listing on the crypto exchange. Are you with us?

https://preview.redd.it/ojtx6mauve151.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=8dd727076d495d4b624a307775e64ae83ce31c76
Hello, everyone, It’s been a long time since you heard our team, someone thought we were gone, someone was waiting, and someone disappeared himself.
All this time we have worked hard to bring you good news. We will tell you what we have prepared for you, what events will be soon, what you can use right now and what else will be new in the year. And so, let’s go!

Preparing for listing on the exchange

The pandemic period played into the hands of the entire team and we managed to build beauty in our services. In anticipation of the exchange, the team tidied up the sites and services and connected new tools. First of all, we paid attention to the preparation of all services for a foreign audience, taking into account its mentality.
New sections, localizations, nice things, and much more to ensure the most efficient use of the TKEY resource. In addition to the new tabs, the services that we will talk about in this material, there is a special page for representatives of the exchange with the necessary documentation for listing — https://tkeycoin.com/en/documentation/.

https://preview.redd.it/63a1cmdwve151.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=0a064bff4acd1c1e3171f2c72ff79533b87aa3e1

Full localization

Already today the official website tkeycoin.com available in 5 languages: Russian, English, Korean, Chinese (Simplified), Chinese (Traditional).

https://preview.redd.it/xbiodqixve151.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=dd81e99cb792d62a3ebb397d2181a2f1d0de5ac8
We made adjustments to the Russian and English versions of the site, including support for Korean and Chinese for each section of the site. Professionals in their field, native speakers translated and adapted the information as it should be, and we, in turn, structured and framed it properly. So welcome!

https://preview.redd.it/hcnhws2zve151.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=30b53c5c4f3c192c39518f66941dcfdfc5b420f5
We will update language support for the site, and soon it will include support for all languages that are available in the mobile app.

QR Codes for Asian Audience


https://preview.redd.it/bv08bzm0we151.png?width=496&format=png&auto=webp&s=338ba001c3a5d6999347165e7bd725b5be7f4913
Our friends and residents of Asian countries actively use QR codes in their lives, both when paying in stores and when working with websites. QR codes are used almost everywhere when renting a car or bike, we just open the phone, scan and the mode of transport becomes available for use, anything is available for rent, even a battery, even an umbrella.
“It was a hot May day. Seven-year-old Wang Jiaozui came out of school and saw his grandfather, who came to pick him up. He was standing in the sun, and his shirt was soaked with sweat. Jiaozui invited the grandfather to buy a cold Cola in the shop, but he forgot her purse at home. It turned out that this is not important — the boy took his grandfather’s smartphone and called the payment app with a QR code on the screen.” ©
What to say if QR codes are used even to identify entire farms. By pasting QR codes on farm buildings and then scanning them, government inspectors can quickly figure out who owns the building and whether its owners are violating any laws.

https://preview.redd.it/jsw2tza2we151.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=38cbb849b6c2a2aecd8b42c7d786a397d901b2cf
We must be on the trend! Now a special library generates QR codes for the desired page, any tab on the site tkeycoin.com in Chinese and Korean-accompanied by a QR code that leads to the requested page: fast, convenient, and simple.
https://preview.redd.it/73rscop3we151.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=c83229e56d612450370b43b06910225701454c60
Providing this opportunity to our colleagues and future users of Tkeycoin from Asia is a friendly approach and most importantly, a strategic step on our part. After implementing QR codes, we are undoubtedly drawn into the convenience of this function, which we recommend to You:) If you like it, we will make QR codes on the Russian and English versions of the site.

Buying and withdrawing cryptocurrency to a Bankcard


https://preview.redd.it/9i8ykpv5we151.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=3a31d0a463de5e08f94a5b27a472fb8b53ab044e
On the site, you can now buy Bitcoin for pound, dollars, euro, and any other currency. This is a powerful automated service for instant exchange of fiat currencies for cryptocurrencies. The system works around the clock and seven days a week, allowing everyone to conduct exchanges at any time of the day and in the shortest possible time.
Withdrawal to a Bank card will be available until the end of the month, we finish the details, the page is available now, and the withdrawal itself will be activated during this week. You can buy Bitcoin, Ethereum, or any other currency right now.

https://preview.redd.it/o8z0c4b7we151.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=b4d684f09acd914316c986482b8dadf88718c618
These features are the future for the function of purchasing any product or service for TKEY at any point of sale, which will form the basis of the mobile app, quickly, conveniently, and most importantly, observing the letter of the law.
All we do is build an Empire that is being built before your eyes. Every service and product is connected, so any update promises the appearance of even more cool and effective features than before.

Buying cryptocurrency for pound, dollars, euros, and other currencies

At the end of February, we told you that we are working on building a payment service that will include the provision of services: buy cryptocurrencies, sell a cryptocurrency, withdraw cryptocurrency to Bank cards, etc.
This day has come, now you can buy Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), Tether USDT, Basic Attention Token (BAT), Algorand (ALGO), Tron (TRX), OKB (Token Okex.com).

https://preview.redd.it/1pm2cnv8we151.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=69473d2e5ed1b8dc75189362b46906752be29895
The purchase is available in any currency: Russian ruble, US Dollar, Euro, British pound, Ukrainian hryvnia, Indonesian rupiah, South Korean won, Japanese yen, Turkish Lira, Argentine peso.
As you can see, the currency corridors are quite extensive, which allows you to make exchanges fast and at a favorable rate. Just choose the right pair to exchange or buy, available fiat currencies: RUB, USD, EUR, GBP, UAH, IDR, KRW, JPY, TRY, ARS, available cryptocurrencies: BTC, ETH, BAT, USDT, ALGO, TRX, OKB.
Even if this wide list does not include the currency you want to buy, such as Bitcoin or USDT, it’s okay — the service will automatically convert your currency into the payment currency and the Bank will make the exchange. Exchanges take place within 1–3 minutes, it is enough to pass quick verification once, which allows you to work with a volume of > 15,000 euros per month.

https://preview.redd.it/0ln5uttawe151.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=35de9e413db35bb53f39332aa4197cd54a3e211c

Exchange of cryptocurrencies for pound, dollars, euros, and withdrawal of Bankcard

In addition to the fact that you can now easily buy a cryptocurrency for fiat currencies, pound, dollars or any other, during this week we will finish work on the withdrawal to a Bank card and you can easily withdraw your profit to the card, the most important thing is that this is a completely legal method, and all operations pass through banks and jurisdictions where work with digital assets is legalized.
This means that when you buy or make a withdrawal to the card, you get legal funds that are credited to you by the Bank or payment system.
If you are used to working with effective tools that work in a new way, or rather correctly and legally, then this service is for you. Fast crediting, easy exchange, a large selection of currency pairs, that’s what the company is betting on.
We work with the most reliable third-party partners to make your cryptocurrency process easy and convenient, and most importantly safe for You. The service supports plastic and virtual Bank cards VISA, MasterCard, MIR, and other payment systems for fast payment processing.

https://preview.redd.it/x1jnm1ccwe151.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=f86fc353ad5f207db8d233821204b521ba0b3d0e
On the exchange page, you can choose any currency pair to exchange in the opposite direction, for example, GBP to BTC or USD to BTC. Choose a suitable pair for exchange, available fiat currencies: RUB, USD, EUR, GBP, UAH, IDR, KRW, JPY, TRY, ARS, available cryptocurrencies for exchange: BTC, ETH, BAT, USDT, ALGO, TRX, OKB.
How it works
When buying cryptocurrency for the first time, your Bank reserves (holds) the requested amount, then this amount is transferred to the authorization waiting state. As soon as the Bank freezes the fiat funds, the service fixes the exchange rate at the time of creating the application, reserves the cryptocurrency, and provides you with 30–40 minutes to complete verification. After successful verification, the service charges cryptocurrency to the wallet.

Quick verification

Verification takes 2–3 minutes and requires only one time to perform operations every day. The “Know Your Customer” (KYC) procedure is necessary to exchange cryptocurrencies for fiat currencies.

https://preview.redd.it/3y0pmzrdwe151.png?width=597&format=png&auto=webp&s=01a92651b67f2df70f83082cfcd3d1fdee5491b4
As you understand, you need to pass verification 1 time, regardless of whether you withdraw funds or buy currency, after passing verification, all services are available to You without any further confirmation.

New currency

Support for other currencies, including TKEY, will be added gradually and highlighted through service updates. As for the TKEY exchange, it will become available in exchange services after listing on the exchange. Listing on an exchange allows you to automate the exchange process, link the necessary services, and most importantly, the exchange provides liquidity, which is key when we talk about exchanging for a particular currency.
We will tell you more about the operation of the service and its advantages, chips, in a separate material dedicated to the withdrawal and purchase of cryptocurrencies for fiat currencies, as well as touch on various banking issues and tell you how you can combine the SWAP service for more efficient exchange and withdrawal to the card.

Charitable activity

By making an exchange or purchase of cryptocurrency, you help children and people who need our help. We deduct 0.1% of the profit from each transaction to charity funds.
This is the fastest and most comfortable way of charity, which allows you to bring together people who are not indifferent to other people’s problems. TKEY enables people to do good deeds, and the resulting turnover profit of 0.1% is sent to charity funds every month. Together with You, we create new opportunities for people in need who need help — “Big things have small beginnings”.
How does it work?
You have made an exchange or purchase operation, the company has accumulated the volume of these operations for a month->the company has chosen a charity Fund->sent funds to the charity Fund’s account. Priority charity funds are children’s aid funds. You can always suggest a candidate for a particular Fund by sending a message to [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
Why do we write Funds and not a Fund?
This is the first launch of the service, so depending on the monthly volume, we will focus on distributing funds to one charity or several. For example, if we have accumulated $ 10,000, we can distribute $ 5,000 to 2 funds. if we have accumulated $ 100, it is logical that we will only send this amount to 1 Fund. With the development of the service, we will be able to focus on several funds, which we will actively help due to the received volume.

New sections, improvements for existing services

Menu logic and site structure

The menu logic has been revised. now more items are available on the menu and they are divided into sections. Navigation through the sections has become much easier and more convenient. for some sections, QR codes are available for Russian and English-speaking audiences, and for representatives of Asian countries, all sections are available by QR code.

https://preview.redd.it/d9ntj1hfwe151.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=6c068daa450e5f824829a9457bc1bc183615f466

TKEYSPACE Promo Page

New blocks were added, the entire page was fully localized and is available in Chinese, Korean, English and Russian, and QR codes were added for easy navigation for the Asian audience.

Documentation for the exchange

We have already mentioned that there is a section for exchanges with the necessary documentation for listing, now it is available in English. In the next updates, it will be translated into Russian, Chinese (Traditional and Simplified), and Korean.

Market Data (Coin Data)

The market data section has been optimized for mobile apps. Charts are expanded and optimized page borders for most mobile devices, and you can search for cryptocurrencies and tokens that interest you.

https://preview.redd.it/fkuhl0vgwe151.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=67450a04bdba376da59aee1d0e5a0964c896475e

FAQ

Added answers to frequently asked questions in various sections of the site, You can find the information directly on the section page, for example, TKEY-QT, SWAP or Core. Right on the page there is a FAQ section, in which we disclose answers to questions, for example: How are You going to solve the scalability problem, or why did you choose Phoenix as the logo and symbol of the project, or how do you exchange cryptocurrency for pound or dollars? As you can see, you can get answers to different questions, depending on the topic of the site section.

https://preview.redd.it/8utkvv6iwe151.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=d493ec784d74c5982486e36fe3b4bcbcb6d57335

Footer

For convenience, the site’s footer has been expanded and new sections (quick tabs) are included, which are also available in the QR-code format. In addition to various details, the footer is now accompanied by the company’s coat of arms — the Phoenix, which is the symbol of the entire community, the Phoenix Alliance.

https://preview.redd.it/xija83vjwe151.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=dd7ce476b53ebe2a891d32231725650bac7ba181

Page 404

Added page 404, which is also an integral part of the site. now when you go to a non-existent site page, all the necessary menu items are fully available to us, which will quickly Orient You and direct you to the desired section.

https://preview.redd.it/i8f7qi9lwe151.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=02449b35c631bcb0667336edb4f912cbcf1dfb58

What is waiting for us in the nearest future?

In addition to various improvements, connecting services, our team has been working every day on other main areas of the Tkeycoin project, which are already being prepared for the next release and we will tell you what updates, what plans, events, and what else will be interesting this year.

Online conference with management

An online conference in question-answer format will be organized. The main task of the conference, in addition to questions and answers, is to discuss plans, talk about new directions, touch on issues of legislation, and analyze current issues of users.
The online meeting format will allow you to get feedback and discuss a large number of issues in a short time. Questions related to technical support and other questions that can be answered through the administration will not be discussed.
The meeting involves the development, constructive, and suggestions from users for further development of the Tkeycoin project. If you are interested in participating in the conference, you can also make business proposals during it, please use the time to your advantage. We work for you.

New content: reports, new categories, useful information

Based on user feedback, we introduce new categories to our content plan:
Reports This section will be accompanied by information about the work done by the team for the month, the format of submission — abstracts, highlights. This format will help establish feedback between users and developers.
Question-answer
In addition to the content that we produce ourselves, users have questions that arise during the process of working with the project’s services, as well as during interaction with the project itself. To avoid making guesses and making up stories, we have introduced the question-answer category.
Users ask questions in comments, and the company prepares answers based on the questions and they are published in the post. Depending on the number of questions, the post generates all the answers, or the post is divided into parts if the number of questions for the past period was the largest. In addition to asking questions, you can make suggestions to the project, for example, about new features or directions.
This format also builds feedback and helps to improve all services. the most important thing is that it can not only help us but also you, as the offer and questions will help you focus on the tasks that the end-user wants to see.

TKEY-POOL (Tkeycoin pool)

We are completing the work and debugging of the official pool for Tkeycoin, this is a completely new approach for mining Tkeycoin. The pool will feature higher performance and stable architecture, a light interface, and objective commissions.
A pool is a highly loaded system that works 24/7/365, it turns out that such a product hides a sufficient number of lines of code and, most importantly, is built on a reliable architecture that can withstand +50000–100000 miners, not to mention the number of connected devices for this number of miners.
A cryptocurrency pool is a combination of the hardware power of many miners at once to increase the probability of finding a block. The reward for a block obtained by the pool is distributed among all participants.
The TKEY pool is developed taking into account the features of the Tkeycoin blockchain, including multi-blockchain, transaction model, hashing, blocks, and other nuances that are an upgrade of the blockchain among others. Together with the pool, the TKEY network is being tested: high loads, attacks, and other tests that show positive results, proving that the TKEY blockchain can work under any loads and is protected from attacks.
Our task was to: 1. Stable system for handling high loads; 2. Adaptation pool for any software; 3. Connecting any hardware for mining cryptocurrency Tkeycoin; 4. Fair remuneration calculation; 5. Security.
The main goal is for any user, regardless of the software and hardware used, to be able to connect to Tkeycoin mining via a pool. The first releases will be accompanied by a simple user-friendly interface, easy connection, instructions for various mining programs that can be connected.
In future releases, we will optimize the operation of the pool, add new features, as well as tracking functions and other nice things. any suggestions from miners and the community are interesting to us and will be implemented, so do not hesitate to send your suggestions after the launch.

TKEYSPACE updates


https://preview.redd.it/fjy2dkanwe151.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=99dedd6aa59ae7eb4d585d2ef1ddae4cc6dd50f9
Work on the TkeySpace mobile app is also not standing still. We will soon release updates for TkeySpace on Android and iOS.
This release is a complete transition to the most stable version of the mobile wallet. This means that after the update, even with the largest changes, the user will not need to completely reinstall or restore to use the new features, as before, just update the app via the AppStore or GooglePlay.
Between the previous update has been a sufficient amount of time, on average, updates are released once a month. This update will be one of the major ones. We are finishing work on the code to prepare the app for the new features that will be available this year. Besides, we are improving the app’s logic, data processing speed, optimizing the code, restoring order, and preparing for the global market.

Exchange, purchase of cryptocurrency and withdrawal to the Debit/Credit Card


https://preview.redd.it/1maxjrqowe151.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=cefd5bf1ec823049eeb25640c470024a41c0430c
In addition to pleasant optimizations, the app will display the exchange and withdrawal to a Bankcard, tab with an optimized page for exchange, withdrawal, and the purchase will be available directly in the mobile app. This upgrade will also capture the cryptocurrency exchange SWAP page, which can be evaluated after the update. Other features and new features will be announced by the developers immediately after the release.

SWAP Update

The development team is finishing work on optimizing the SWAP service. Regardless of updates, it is available in working mode 24/7/365. The team is working on improving the operation, optimizing the page, changing the interfaces, improving navigation, and speeding up query processing. This update is also among the upcoming ones, along with the pool, mobile wallets, and other news that will excite.

Network Statistics

In the network statistics section, there are several sections that will be fixed — this is the hash rate of the network and the volume of Tkeycoin. Now the volume of Tkeycoin is displayed by mTKEY, and the graph itself indicates M TKEY, the user may incorrectly understand the volume of transactions in the network, so, given the current volume, it is advisable to switch the display to TKEY, and in the future switch to mTKEY for large volumes.
TKEY is divided into cryptograms (CryptoGramm, cgr), uTKEY (keys), and mTKEY. 1 TKEY = 100 000 000 cryptograms. 1 mTKEY = 100,000 cryptograms. 1 TKEY contains 1000 mTKEY. 1 mTKEY = 0.00100000 TKEY 1 uTKEY =100 cryptograms 1 TKEY contains 1,000,000 utkeys. 1 uTKEY (keys) = 0.00000100 TKEY 1 cgr = 0.00000001 TKEY

Cryptocurrency Exchange

This issue has become the cause of mass discussions, disputes, investigations, the subject of memes, kitchen, and online conversations, that just did not happen, that TKEY is not taken anywhere, someone made guesses that we are waiting for everyone to run away, or TKEY is a world conspiracy and around some actors, you can write a book or shoot a great series, not worse than Breaking Bad.
Jokes, jokes, but the question is serious. Since the 4th quarter of last year, the company has been actively working on the issue of listing, prepared the necessary platform for this, held several meetings, negotiations, released the necessary products, figured out various transfers of funds to the blockchain, worked out many small things, many major issues that were behind the scenes. Everything is ready, and it’s time to start soon. This will be a surprise, believe it or not, and we will meet you on the stock exchanges :)

What other plans does the company have?

Enabling payment at retail outlets

After entering the exchange, we will actively engage in connecting payments to implement them and link them to TKEY. The plan, strategy, and legal component are ready.

Payment development

This implies the development of payments and services that will expand the use of digital currencies in the commercial sphere. Application on the territory of Russia will depend on the Federal law on the CFA, in any case, we plan to analyze the law, after its release, to find a legal way to implement payments based on blockchain and digital assets. Therefore, until the law is released, we are keeping this initiative in the future, and we will work on other jurisdictions that will support it.
We left some plans behind the scenes, because they will make the greatest impact on the market and the value of our asset, and this — likes silence.

What useful materials will be released soon?

How to effectively use the SWAP service together with the exchange and purchase of cryptocurrency from a Bank card?

We will tell you in detail how to use these 2 services, how to save on payments and purchases, how to exchange tokens that are very difficult to exchange, how to quickly get money for them to the card, and much more.

The law CFA

Our opinion about the law of cryptocurrencies in Russia, what to pay attention to, what to prepare for, how to act if there is a complete ban. Let’s talk about legal nuances and banking practices.

TKEY blockchain

In this material, we will talk about the blockchain, analyze the issues of the system, expand the questions on attacks, payment processing, and touch on the system of multiple chains. The article suggests your suggestions, perhaps someone will have ideas that we will implement in the chain.
At the end,
Don’t forget to ask questions in the comments or send suggestions to [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) we will be happy to respond and consider your requests for any of our services. Collaboration, feedback, help us make the whole platform better.
Thank you for being with us! Until new meetings, stay tuned for news, updates, because the most unexpected news comes spontaneously.
submitted by tkeycoin to Tkeycoin_Official [link] [comments]

All About Zcoin

All About Zcoin

https://preview.redd.it/hixbz9f3lxm31.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=43896de84a3693d840c84057c0314af71718f0a3
What is Zcoin?
Zcoin, also referred to as XZC or Zerocoin, is an open source decentralized cryptocurrency that provides privacy and anonymity for its users when making transactions.
To achieve its privacy and anonymity, Zcoin uses zero-knowledge proofs via the Zerocoin protocol, which is at this moment in time one of the most cited cryptography papers.
According to Wikipedia, in cryptography, a zero-knowledge proof or zero-knowledge protocol is a method in which one party proves to another party (the verifier) that a given statement is actually true.
In other words, in a transaction with Bitcoin or Ethereum or something similar, your transaction history is always linked to your coins by default, leaving you vulnerable. All it takes is one link to your personal information or IP to find out the origin of the coins.
However, when you trade with Zcoin’s Zercoin feature, your transaction history is not linked to the actual coins. Only the receiver and sender know that the funds have actually been exchanged.

How Does Zcoin Work?

Zcoin works on the Zerocoin protocol by enforcing Zero-knowledge proofs. Here are the components of Zcoin to explain how it works.
Mint: When sending a private transaction with Zcoin, all you need to do is select the number of coins you want to mint. Post that your normal Zcoin balance would reduce automatically and you will be credited with new coins and no transaction history. In essence, your old coins are burned cryptographically, which prevents anyone else from using them again and being directed to your transaction history. You get credited with new coins with no history, while the total supply is maintained.
For now, you can only mint in denominations of 1, 10, 25, 50 and 100. If you choose ‘100’ coins to be minted, for instance, you will instantly be credited with 100 new Zcoins with no history attached to them.
  • Spend: When you want to make a private transaction, you will be required to use these ‘100’ newly minted coins. From this pool of funds, you can now send any amount in any denomination to anyone anonymously because no history is attached to it.
  • Repeat: You can ‘mint’ and ‘send’ Zcoins any number of times at anytime with your privacy intact.

Zcoin’s Vision

Zcoin seeks to improve things that Bitcoin hasn’t been able to so far, some of which include fungibility, privacy and miner’s centralization.
Users of Zcoin can enjoy full fungibility and privacy along with demolishing miner’s centralization by implementing a better proof of work algorithm called MTP.
Total Zcoin supply
Only 21 million units of Zcoin will ever be produced. Currently, there are about 3.4 million units in circulation, with the rest yet to be mined.
But the total supply has increased by 388450 XZC units after a Zcoin code bug, which the team refused to roll back due to economic reasons, which is why the total supply stands at approximately 21.4 million.
Every 10 minutes, a Zcoin block is mined and 50 coins are generated, making 72,000 Zcoins per day.
Market cap of Zcoin
According to CoinMarketCap, the total circulating supply of Zcoin is 5,757,841 XZC and the current unit price is $9.6. That makes the market cap approximately $55 million*.*
https://preview.redd.it/qw2igvupoxm31.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=cfaa195d5d75ba8f20e5894d0351b2eabf76825a

How To Buy Zcoin Cryptocurrency

If you are looking to get some Zcoin, here is a list of resources where it can be bought from.
  • Atomars – Supported pairs are XZC/BTC, XZC/ETH, XZC/USDT
  • Binance - Supported pairs are XZC/BTC, XZC/ETH, XZC/BNB
  • Huobi - Supported pairs are XZC/BTC, XZC/ETH
  • Bittrex - Supported pairs are XZC/BTC
  • Cryptopia - Supported pairs are XZC/BTC, XZC/LTC, XZC/DOGE
  • CoinExchange - Supported pairs are XZC/BTC
  • LiteBit.eu - Supported pairs are XZC/EUR
Note: At the moment, buying XZC in fiat currencies such as USD, EUR, or GBP is quite difficult.
https://preview.redd.it/rrwao97woxm31.png?width=1460&format=png&auto=webp&s=442bf152f86a63300c5c4a029bb07369a69e6f70
Zcash:
Zcash is a decentralized and open-source peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that provides strong privacy protections. It was created as a fork of Bitcoin and, like bitcoin, it also has a hard limit of 21 million coins. Unlike bitcoin, however, Zcash offers total privacy for its users maintaining the absolute anonymity behind each transaction along with the parties and the amounts involved in it.
PIVX:
PIVX, which stands for Private Instant Verified Transaction, is an open-source, decentralized form of digital online money that uses blockchain technology. This makes it easy to transfer all around the world in an instant with low transaction fees with market leading security & privacy. PIVX focuses on privacy, security, anonymity, and instant transactions.
Monero:
Monero is a fast, private, secure and untraceable digital currency system that uses a special kind of cryptography to keep all its transactions 100% unlinkable and untraceable. With Monero, you are your own bank. You can spend safely, knowing that others cannot see your balances or track your activity.
Some Zcoin misconceptions
There are some misconceptions regarding Zcoin:
  • Some believe that, since Zcoin has a trusted setup that allows indefinite minting of coins, it is not safe. This is untrue. Of course, to start with they had to use a trusted setup because they have an auditable total coin supply that prevents any form of cheating. This downside however, is being taken care of by removing this trusted setup in the near future and when that happens, Zcoin will be one of the serious coins to count on for privacy.
  • Zcoin has been considered as Zcash’s fork but that is also not true because Zcash is based on the Zerocash protocol whereas Zcoin was started from scratch by applying Zerocoin tech.
Now that some of the Zcoin’s misconceptions have been cleared, here’s a look into its future.

Zcoin’s Future & Roadmap

Zcoin’s future is quite promising and worth watching based on these interesting milestones on their roadmap:
  • Zcoin is the first coin to implement MTP proof of work, which makes it possible for general masses to mine Zcoin with GPUs and CPUs. MTP doesn’t allow costly ASIC-like miners to mine XZC coins.
  • Zcoin is also implementing Znodes to make their cryptocurrency more decentralized and anonymous. These Znodes will be like masternodes and facilitate anonymous transactions as making an anonymous transaction single-handedly is quite computational.
  • Znodes will be incentivized by reducing some portion of the founder’s reward. Also, the surplus funds that get generated from the founder’s reward reduction would be used for hiring new developers and increased marketing efforts.
  • Another agenda on their roadmap is to bring inbuilt Tor or some IP obfuscation mechanism that will make it completely anonymous.
  • Apart from these, some innovative and exciting things like sigma protocol, decentralized anonymous voting and Zcoin Labs are on their roadmap, making this project worth checking out.
  • Last but not least, its recent price is a good indicator of its healthy market sentiment and shows that there are people who understand this project’s worth. Just to put things into perspective – a unit of Zcoin was priced $2 in March 2017 and now it is $37*.*

Zcoin Team & Progress

Zerocoin is a cryptocurrency proposed by professor Matthew D. Green, a professor of Johns Hopkins University, and graduate students Ian Miers and Christina Garman. It was proposed as an extension to the Bitcoin protocol that would add true cryptographic anonymity to Bitcoin transactions.
Zerocoin was first implemented into a fully functional cryptocurrency and released to the public by Poramin Insom, the lead developer, as Zcoin in September 2016.
Some of the notable dev members of the team are listed below.
Poramin Insom
Founder and Core Developer
Poramin Insom created what was the world's 4th most valuable cryptocurrency in February 2014. He is also the world's first person to implement stealth addresses in QT-Wallets, improving cryptocurrency anonymity. He earned a master’s degree in Information Security from Johns Hopkins University, where he wrote a paper on a proposed practical implementation of the Zerocoin protocol.
Alexander N.
Developer
Alexander N. aka Aizensou is a full-stack developer who has experience in many programming languages (C++, C#, Python, Perl, Java etc.) and has been involved in the cryptocurrency space since 2013. He has a broad development portfolio from low level APIs in Python and C++ to Android native applications in Java. In addition to his involvement in cryptocurrencies, Alexander was doing his P.h.D. in machine learning at a German university from 2012 to 2016.
Saran Siriphantnon
Developer
Saran Siriphantnon is the CTO of Satang.co/Satoshift, a fintech company focusing on creating an open financial system for Southeast Asia. He served as President of the Computer System Administrator Group at King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang.
Tadhg Riordan
Solidity Developer
Tadhg Riordan is a 24 year old Software Developer from Wexford, Ireland. He recently completed his MSc from Trinity College Dublin, where he worked with Blockchain privacy mechanisms, focusing particularly on Zero-Knowledge Proofs and the Ethereum platform. He is a strong advocate for the adoption of cryptocurrency and for complete financial privacy.
Apart from these, their team comprises of other developers, community managers, support personnel and advisors who maintain the required balance.

Advisors:

Aram Jivanyan (Cryptography Advisor): Co-Founder at Skycryptor & KMSchai
Torphop Korgtadam (It Security Consultant): Senior Vice President, Head Of Internal Audit Strategy, Innovation and Decision Science at United Overseas Bank Limited
Alexander N. aka Aizensou (Advisor)

Unique/Key Features Against Its Competitors:

  • Anonymous transactions. The project establishes a notably higher level of anonymity and seeks to bypass current analysis techniques which governments use to reveal the identity of users.
  • Not subject to transaction graph analysis. Zcoin has an anonymity set that encompasses all minted coins in a particular RSA accumulator that can scale to many thousands.
  • Innovative process. Tokens are burned cryptographically and replaced with new coins without a transaction history. This actively prevents anyone else from using the tokens again and stops the public from being directed to a user's transaction history.
  • Transparency focused. Zcoin's main advantage is its auditable money supply.
submitted by atomarsofficial to Atomars [link] [comments]

RaiBlocks AMA Summary!

I posted this under /cryptocurrency and /cryptomarkets as well! Might be less useful under this subreddit... but I'm using it for purposes of helping people become aware of this coin.
Summation of RaiBlocks lead developer AMA. I'm very excited about this coin, and if you're asking why I did this...I'm trying out my AMA consolidating script that I wrote for fun :) I'm interested in seeing what people think about this coin! You can read the responses directly from this link: https://www.reddit.com/RaiBlocks/comments/7ko5l7/colin_lemahieu_founder_and_lead_developer_of/
 
What are your top priorities atm? Both in developing areas itself and in terms of integration?
 
The top priorities right now are:
These basically need to happen in a sequence because each item isn't useful unless the previous one is complete.
 
 
Do you have any plans to have your source code peer reviewed? By peer review I mean sending your source code down to MIT for testing and review.
Where do you see Raiblocks 5-10 years from now? (For instance do you envision people using a Raiblocks mobile phone app to transfer value between each other, or buy stuff at the store?
 
We definitely need peer and code reviews and we're open to anyone doing this. We have ideas for people in universities that want to analyze the whitepaper or code so we'll see what comes of that. In my opinion code security guarantees can only be given with (eyes * time) and we need both.
I'd like to see RaiBlocks adopted as an internet RFC and basically become an ubiquitous background technology like http. I think you're probably right and a mobile app would be the most user-friendly way to do this so people don't need to carry around extra cards in their wallet etc.
 
 
Is there a list of the team readily available? Are there firm plans to expand, and if so, in which directions?
The roadmap indicated a website redesign scheduled for November 2017. Is there an update?
 
We have about 12 people in the core team; about half are code and half are business developers. On the redesigned website we're going to include bios for sure, no one in our team is anonymous. I think we have pretty good coverage of what we need right now, we could always use more people capable of contributing to the core code.
The website design is well underway, we wanted to streamline and add some more things to it so it took longer than originally estimated. It'll looking like after the new year we'll have it ready.
 
 
Would you ever consider renaming the coin to simply "Rai" or any other simplified form other than RaiBlocks?
2. What marketing strategy do you think will push XRB forward from now on as a fully working product. Instant and free, the green coin, "it just works" coin, etc?
3. Regarding security, is "quantum-proofing" a big concern at the moment and how do you guys plan to approach this when the time comes. And how possible would it be for bad actors to successfully implement a 51% attack.
 
  1. Yea there are a few difficulties people have pointed out with our name. People don't know if it's "ray" or "rye". "Blocks" doesn't have a meaning to a lot of people and the name reference might be too esoteric to be meaningful. I'm not prideful so I'm not stuck on a particular name, we'll take a look at what our marketing and business developers say peoples' impressions are and if they have any naming recommendations.
  2. Our marketing strategy is to focus on complete simplicity. Instant and free resonates with enthusiasts and mass adoption will only come when using xrb is absolutely the same experience as using a banking or other payment app. People aren't going to tolerate jargon or confusing workflows when sending or receiving payments.
  3. Quantum computing is going to be an amazing leap for humanity but it's also going to cause a lot of flux in cryptography. The plan I see is the similar to what I did in selecting the cryptographic algorithms we're using right now: look for leaders in academia and industry that have proven implementations and use those as they recommend migration based on computing capability. Quantum vulnerabilities can be an issue in the future but a vulnerable implementation would be an issue right now.
 
 
Hi Colin, lately XRB has been getting frequently compared to and contrasted with Iota. I was hoping that you could give us your thoughts on the differences between the two and what your general vision for the future of Raiblocks is.
 
It's flattering to be compared to IOTA, they have a very talented team building ambitious technology. When looking at design goals I think one thing we're not attempting to approach is transferring a data payload, we're only looking to be a transfer of value.
There are lots of ideas and technology to be developed in the cryptocurrency space and I want RaiBlocks to solve one section of that industry: the transfer of value. I think the best success would be if RaiBlocks was adopted as the global standard for this and crypto efforts could move to non-value-transfer use-cases.
 
 
Do you see XRB becoming the new payment method for commerce. As in, buying coffee, groceries, etc? Do you have plans for combating the HODL mentality so this currency can actually be used in the future of buying and selling?
 
Being a direct transactional payment method is our goal and we're trying to build software that's accessible to everyone to make that happen. I see holding as a speculative tactic anticipating future increases and you're right, it's not in line with day-to-day transactions. I think as market cap levels off to a more consistent value the reason for holding and speculating goes away and people can instead focus on using it as a value exchange.
 
 
Are you planning to expand the RaiBlocks team over the next 12 months? If so, what types of positions are you hoping to fill?
 
Right now we have about 12 people, half core and half business developers. I think this count is good for working on what we're doing right now which is getting wallets and exchanges worked on. Ideally people outside our team will start developing technology around xrb taking advantage of the network effect to build more technology faster than we could internally. That being said we're going to look in a few months to see if there's anything out there people aren't developing that should be and we'll see what people we need to make it happen.
 
 
At what point did you make the decision to make RaiBlocks your full time job? What was the decision making process like?
 
It was after the week where the core team met here in Austin to brainstorm our next steps. I saw how much enthusiasm there was from crypto-veterans with having a working system capable of being scaled up to what's needed for massive adoption and it seemed the risk needed to be taken.
It was hard decision to make, working in the crypto and finance is rough and I like using my leisure time to work on inventions. Of all the projects ideas I have this one seemed to have a high chance of success and the benefits of having a working, decentralized currency would be huge.
 
 
Hi Colin, what prevents great cryptos like XRB from being listed on bigger exchanges?
 
It's good to understand where the biggest headaches for exchanges lie: support tickets, operations, and development. If a technology is different from what they already have, that takes development time. If the software is new and not widely run, that's potential operations time to fix it which results in support tickets and community backlash. Adding BitCoin clones or Ethereum ICO coins is easy because they don't have these associated risks or costs.
 
 
What can the average RaiBlocks-Fan do to help XRB getting adopted / growing / expanding?
 
I think the best thing an average fan could do is word of mouth and telling people about RaiBlocks. More people being aware of it means there's the possibility someone who's never heard of it before would be interested in contributing as a vendor, developer, exchange etc.
Good advertising or marketing will never be able to reach everyone as well as someone reaching out within their own network.
 
 
Ray or Rye?
 
Ray hehe. It comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones Lots of people don't know the answer though >_<
 
 
Are you looking at incorperating a datamarket like iota in the future? Given the speed of the network a data exchange for highly accurate sensors could be a game changer.
Further more, are there any plans to increase the Dev team in the future? I read on the FAQ you'd like RaiBlocks to be somewhat of a protocol which is a huge ambition. A Dev from say the Mozilla foundation or other could further cement this ambitious project.
 
Transmitting data payloads is something we probably won't pursue. The concern is adding more features like this could cause us to make decisions that compromise the primary focus points of low-cost and speed for transferring value.
We can add people to the dev team though I think we'll get the most traction by teaching teams in these other organization how to use RaiBlocks so they can be the experts on the subject in their companies.
 
 
Does the actual RaiBlocks version require "Each node in the network must be aware of all transactions as they occur" part? This was in the old white paper and is asked here:
https://www.reddit.com/RaiBlocks/comments/7ksl81/some_questions_regarding_raiblocks_consensus/?st=jbdmgagc&sh=d1c93cca
 
If a node wants to independently know the balances of all accounts in the system, it must at a minimum have storage to hold accounts and all their balances. In order to know all balances it must either listen to transactions as they're happening or bootstrap from someone else to catch up as what happens on startup.
 
 
There is no incentive to run nodes. Some people will do it because it is cheap as fuck (as I read an raspberry pie can run it). But I think not many people will do it.
1. How important are the nodes in terms of further scaling?
2. On which network conditions where the 7000 transactions met?
3. What happens if the transactions per day tenfolds but the nodes don't?
4. How much better will Rai scale if someone sets up, lets say, 100 nodes with awesome hardware and network?
5. How many nodes could be enough for visa level scaling?
6. Which further improvements can be made for Rai IF there needs to be other improvements than setting up new nodes? Are there other concepts like 2nd layer solutions planned?
7. How will Rai defend network attacks?
I know there is an PoW part. But since there a also large attacks on high cap coins on which people invest millions of $ to congest a network..Is it possible that the Rai network will be unusable for several days because of this?
 
I think the out-of-protocol incentives to running a node are under-referenced yet I see them as the primary driving factor for participating as a whole. Node rewards come at the expense of other network participants and in this closed loop the incentives aren't enough to keep a cryptocurrency alive. Long-term there needs to be a system-level comparative advantage to what people are already using for a transfer of value. If someone is using xrb and it saves them hundreds or thousands of dollars per month in fees and customer irritation in delayed payments, they have a direct monetary incentive to using xrb and a monetary incentive in the health of the system.
1) More nodes provides transaction and bootstrapping redundancy. More representatives provides decentralization.
2) The 7k TPS was a profile how fast commodity hardware could eat transactions. All of the real-world limits are going to be something hardware related, either bandwidth, IO, or CPU.
3) The scaling is more related to the hardware the nodes are using rather than the node count. If there was 10x increase in transactions it would use 10x the bandwidth and IO as nodes observe transactions happening.
4) If someone made 100 representative nodes the network would be far more decentralized though the tx throughput would be unchanged since that's a per-node requirement.
5) Scaling to Visa will have high bandwidth and IO requirements on representatives associated with doing 10k IOPS. Datacenter and business class hardware will have to be enough to handle the load.
6) Second layer solutions are always an option and I think a lot of people will use them for fraud protection and insurance. Our primary focus is to make the 1st layer as efficient and high speed as possible so a 2nd layer isn't needed for daily transactions.
7) Defending against network attacks will be an ongoing thing, people like breaking the network for lulz or monetary gain i.e. competing cryptos. If there are attacks we haven't defended against or considered it'll be a matter of getting capable people to fix issues.
 
 
Are you open to changes to the name? (Rai)
What are your plans with regards to marketing?
 
I'm open to it, people get confused on ray/rye pronunciation, not the greatest first impression.
As far as timing I think marketing works best after a more user friendly wallet and integration in to more exchanges otherwise we're sending traffic to something people can't use. We're going to start by focusing on the initial adopters which will likely be enthusiasts and going forward work on the next set of users that aren't enthusiasts but want to drive savings for their business through lower payment processing costs.
 
 
A recent tweet(https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/942961006614945792) from Vitalik Buterin. Could this be a case with testing the scalability of RaiBlocks as well and in reality we wouldn't come close to 7000tx/s?
 
I think he's definitely right, a lot of the TPS numbers are synthetic benchmarks usually on one system. The biggest thing hindering TPS are protocol-specific limits like hard caps or high contention design. The next biggest thing will be bandwidth and then disk IO. Some of these limits can be improved by profiling and fixing code instead of actual limits in the hardware.
We want to get better, real world numbers but our general opinion is that the RaiBlocks protocol is going to be limited by hardware, rather than design.
 
 
Are you planning to add a fiat gateway to the main website and mobile wallet?
 
If we can make it happen for sure, that seems like a very user-focused feature people would want.
The difficulty at least in the US is the money-transmitter licenses which are hard to obtain. More than likely if this functionality was added it'd be a partnership with an established financial company that has procedures in place to operate within countries' regulations.
 
 
I saw a post on /iota that claims that their quantum resistance is a main benefit over raiblocks. Can you go into detail about this? explain any plans you have to let XRB persevere through upcoming quatum revolution?
 
I think everyone with cryptography in their programs is keeping an eye on quantum cryptography because we're all in the same boat. I don't have cryptanalysis credentials so I didn't feel comfortable building an implementation and instead chose to use one off-the-shelf from someone with assuring credentials.
There are some big companies that have made small mistakes that blow up the usefulness of the entire algorithm, it's incredibly easy to do. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/12/ps3-hacked-through-poor-implementation-of-cryptography/
 
 
Hello Colin, is any security audit to the source code planned?
 
We don't have one contracted though both internally and externally this is an important thing people want completed.
 
 
Do you have plans to radically change the interface of the desktop wallet, and to develop a universal, cross-platform, clean and simple UX design for the wallet? This will be huge for mass adoption in my humble opinion
 
I completely agree, we do plan on completely redoing the desktop wallet, both from a UX standpoint and maintainability so UI code doesn't need to be in C++. This could also remove out dependency on QT which is the least permissive license in the code right now.
I write code better than I design GUIs ;)
 
 
It seems like Raiblocks is aiming to be a true currency with it's lacking of transaction fees and fast confirmation times, which is great! If Raiblocks can add some kind of support for privacy then I think it got the whole picture figured out in terms of being "digital cash". Do you currently have any plans to implement privacy features into RaiBlocks?
If Raiblocks is unable to do this, it will still be a straight improvement over things like LTC which are currently being used as currency, but I don't think it will be able to become THE cryptocurrency without privacy features.
 
I love the concept of privacy in the network and it's a hard thing to do right. Any solution used would need to be compatible with our balance-weighted-voting method which means at least we'd have to know how much weight a representative has even if we're hiding actual account balances.
To be fully anonymous it would have to be hide accounts, amounts, endpoints, and also timing information; with advanced network analysis the timing is the hardest thing to hide. Hopefully some day we can figure out an efficient privacy solution though the immediate problem we can solve is making a transactional cryptocurrency so we're focusing on that.
 
 
Could you provide an analysis on the flaws of RaiBlocks? Is it in any way, shape, or form at a disadvantage compared to a blockchain based ledger like bitcoin? There has to be drawbacks, but I haven’t found any.
Do you plan on expanding the dev team and establishing a foundation? Also, how much money is in the development pool?
 
One drawback is to handle is our chain-per-account model and asynchronous updates it takes more code and design. This means instead of one top-block hash for everything there's one for each account. This gives us the power of wait-free asynchronous transactions at the cost of simplicity.
After we finish up things like the wallet, website, and exchange integration we'll be looking at seeing what dev resources we need to build tech if no one else is already working on a particular thing. We have about 6 million XRB right now so we've made the existing dev funds go a long way. If something expensive to build came along and dev funds wouldn't cut it we could look at some sort of external funding.
 
 
How big of a problem is PoW for exchanges and what are potential solutions?
 
Considering how much exchanges stand to make through commission I don't see the cost as a barrier, it's just an abnormal technology request compared to other cryptocurrencies.
We're working on providing a service exchanges can use in the interim until they set up their own infrastructure to generate the work. Other options are containers people can use on cloud services to get the infrastructure they need until they want to invest in their own.
 
 
It's my understanding that since everything works asynchronously, in the case of double spending there is a chance a merchant would receive the block that would be later invalidated and have it shown in it's wallet, even if a little later (1 minute?) the amount would correct when the delegates vote that block invalid. Is there any mechanism to avoid this? Maybe tag the transactions in the wallet as "confirming" and then "confirmed" after that minute? Is there actually any certain way for a wallet to know, in a deterministic/programable way, at what moment a transaction is 100% legit? (for example if the delegates are DoS'ed I guess that minute could be much longer). I know this is an improbable case, but still...
 
Yea you're hitting a good point, the consensus algorithm in the node is designed to wait for the incoming transaction to settle before accepting it in to the local chain for the exact reason you listed, if their transaction were to be rolled back the local account would be rolled back as well.
We can trend the current weight of all representatives that are online and voting and make sure we have >50% of the vote weight accounted for before considering it settled.
 
 
Hey Colin, will you eventually have support for a Trezor or other hard wallet?
 
Yea we'll definitely work with companies like Trezor that are interested in being a hardware wallet for xrb. It's just a matter of making sure they support the signing algorithms and integrating with their API.
 
EDIT: I'm getting a lot of messages asking me how to buy XRB. I used this guide which was very helpful: https://www.reddit.com/RaiBlocks/comments/7i0co0/the_definitive_guide_to_buying_and_storing/
In short -- buy BTC on coinbase, open up an account on bitgrail, transfer that BTC from coinbase to bitgrail, then trade your BTC for XRB. It's a pain right now because it's such a new coin, but soon it will be listed on more exchanges, and hopefully on things like shapeshift/changelly. After that it will be much easier... but until then, the inconvenience is what we have to pay in order to get into XRB while its still early.
EDIT: BAD SCRIPT, BAD!
submitted by atriaxx to RaiBlocks [link] [comments]

COSS Exchange and COSS Token - A Full Summary

Let me get started by stating I am no way involved with the COSS team. I simply am a COSS holder who wants to share this coin with others. Please note, I am writing this without an opinion and just stating facts (I will include a portion below with my opinions and an explanation of my thought process). Everything I say can be double checked with some DD and if I have time, I will come back and link said facts!
What is COSS?
What does COSS do?
What is the payout formula?
When are payouts?
How do you receive payouts?
What is the total supply?
What is the current marketcap?
Where can I buy COSS?
My opinions:
1) COSS, based on numbers, is simply undervalued. For a token that already has an existing functional product, its marketcap is well below what it should be. Trading volume has also increased significantly in the past few days! Imagine receiving profits from an exchange like Bittrex or Binance I urge you to browse their website and look at everything for yourself to make your own judgement!
2) There is a lot of work to be done on the exchange, but it is just getting started and is still in Beta. Good things take time. I remember when Binance first began and the struggles it went through, and look at it now. I have faith COSS can do that same. Currently, the things I believe that need to be fixed are exchange UI upgrades to make them more appealing to the eye and deposit/withdrawal times.
3) There is a lot of concern about COSS being a scam due to the team's association with VRS. I definitely had to look into this and found that Rune, on of the founders, addressed this concern. For me it was a satifactory explantion stating that VRS was not a scam, but a failed project. Please read bullet 4 to get the link to the full statement and other FAQ's
4) There are tons of FAQ's and known issues that are being asked about COSS. These two links pretty much cover them all at the moment. Each link has some different information, so please read both!
FAQ - 1 https://www.reddit.com/COSS/comments/74pw7h/all_info_to_clear_up_confusion/?st=j8gjl9jz&sh=b777583e
FAQ - 2 https://www.reddit.com/COSS/comments/7471mv/fqa_for_coss/?st=j8gawdbq&sh=d4cf9518
If you would like to register for COSS, please use the link below!
https://sso.coss.io/api/invite/C1IEVF318Q
If you would like to join the Slack, please use the link below!
https://join.slack.com/t/cosstokenswap/shared_invite/enQtMjUxNDc0ODE4NzU5LTNiNmQ1NjYwOTM3N2QyMDg0MGE3ZDkwMjZmOWFiNjdlMzM2YTk1NmY2NGZiZjg3NmQ4ZjE4Y2YwZjJmOGE5NTM
submitted by ychok to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

RaiBlocks AMA Summation!

Summation of RaiBlocks lead developer AMA. I'm very excited about this coin, and if you're asking why I did this...I'm trying out my AMA consolidating script that I wrote for fun :) I'm interested in seeing what people think about this coin! You can read the responses directly from this link: https://www.reddit.com/RaiBlocks/comments/7ko5l7/colin_lemahieu_founder_and_lead_developer_of/
 
What are your top priorities atm? Both in developing areas itself and in terms of integration?
 
The top priorities right now are:
These basically need to happen in a sequence because each item isn't useful unless the previous one is complete.
 
 
Do you have any plans to have your source code peer reviewed? By peer review I mean sending your source code down to MIT for testing and review.
Where do you see Raiblocks 5-10 years from now? (For instance do you envision people using a Raiblocks mobile phone app to transfer value between each other, or buy stuff at the store?
 
We definitely need peer and code reviews and we're open to anyone doing this. We have ideas for people in universities that want to analyze the whitepaper or code so we'll see what comes of that. In my opinion code security guarantees can only be given with (eyes * time) and we need both.
I'd like to see RaiBlocks adopted as an internet RFC and basically become an ubiquitous background technology like http. I think you're probably right and a mobile app would be the most user-friendly way to do this so people don't need to carry around extra cards in their wallet etc.
 
 
Is there a list of the team readily available? Are there firm plans to expand, and if so, in which directions?
The roadmap indicated a website redesign scheduled for November 2017. Is there an update?
 
We have about 12 people in the core team; about half are code and half are business developers. On the redesigned website we're going to include bios for sure, no one in our team is anonymous. I think we have pretty good coverage of what we need right now, we could always use more people capable of contributing to the core code.
The website design is well underway, we wanted to streamline and add some more things to it so it took longer than originally estimated. It'll looking like after the new year we'll have it ready.
 
 
Would you ever consider renaming the coin to simply "Rai" or any other simplified form other than RaiBlocks?
2. What marketing strategy do you think will push XRB forward from now on as a fully working product. Instant and free, the green coin, "it just works" coin, etc?
3. Regarding security, is "quantum-proofing" a big concern at the moment and how do you guys plan to approach this when the time comes. And how possible would it be for bad actors to successfully implement a 51% attack.
 
  1. Yea there are a few difficulties people have pointed out with our name. People don't know if it's "ray" or "rye". "Blocks" doesn't have a meaning to a lot of people and the name reference might be too esoteric to be meaningful. I'm not prideful so I'm not stuck on a particular name, we'll take a look at what our marketing and business developers say peoples' impressions are and if they have any naming recommendations.
  2. Our marketing strategy is to focus on complete simplicity. Instant and free resonates with enthusiasts and mass adoption will only come when using xrb is absolutely the same experience as using a banking or other payment app. People aren't going to tolerate jargon or confusing workflows when sending or receiving payments.
  3. Quantum computing is going to be an amazing leap for humanity but it's also going to cause a lot of flux in cryptography. The plan I see is the similar to what I did in selecting the cryptographic algorithms we're using right now: look for leaders in academia and industry that have proven implementations and use those as they recommend migration based on computing capability. Quantum vulnerabilities can be an issue in the future but a vulnerable implementation would be an issue right now.
 
 
Hi Colin, lately XRB has been getting frequently compared to and contrasted with Iota. I was hoping that you could give us your thoughts on the differences between the two and what your general vision for the future of Raiblocks is.
 
It's flattering to be compared to IOTA, they have a very talented team building ambitious technology. When looking at design goals I think one thing we're not attempting to approach is transferring a data payload, we're only looking to be a transfer of value.
There are lots of ideas and technology to be developed in the cryptocurrency space and I want RaiBlocks to solve one section of that industry: the transfer of value. I think the best success would be if RaiBlocks was adopted as the global standard for this and crypto efforts could move to non-value-transfer use-cases.
 
 
Do you see XRB becoming the new payment method for commerce. As in, buying coffee, groceries, etc? Do you have plans for combating the HODL mentality so this currency can actually be used in the future of buying and selling?
 
Being a direct transactional payment method is our goal and we're trying to build software that's accessible to everyone to make that happen. I see holding as a speculative tactic anticipating future increases and you're right, it's not in line with day-to-day transactions. I think as market cap levels off to a more consistent value the reason for holding and speculating goes away and people can instead focus on using it as a value exchange.
 
 
Are you planning to expand the RaiBlocks team over the next 12 months? If so, what types of positions are you hoping to fill?
 
Right now we have about 12 people, half core and half business developers. I think this count is good for working on what we're doing right now which is getting wallets and exchanges worked on. Ideally people outside our team will start developing technology around xrb taking advantage of the network effect to build more technology faster than we could internally. That being said we're going to look in a few months to see if there's anything out there people aren't developing that should be and we'll see what people we need to make it happen.
 
 
At what point did you make the decision to make RaiBlocks your full time job? What was the decision making process like?
 
It was after the week where the core team met here in Austin to brainstorm our next steps. I saw how much enthusiasm there was from crypto-veterans with having a working system capable of being scaled up to what's needed for massive adoption and it seemed the risk needed to be taken.
It was hard decision to make, working in the crypto and finance is rough and I like using my leisure time to work on inventions. Of all the projects ideas I have this one seemed to have a high chance of success and the benefits of having a working, decentralized currency would be huge.
 
 
Hi Colin, what prevents great cryptos like XRB from being listed on bigger exchanges?
 
It's good to understand where the biggest headaches for exchanges lie: support tickets, operations, and development. If a technology is different from what they already have, that takes development time. If the software is new and not widely run, that's potential operations time to fix it which results in support tickets and community backlash. Adding BitCoin clones or Ethereum ICO coins is easy because they don't have these associated risks or costs.
 
 
What can the average RaiBlocks-Fan do to help XRB getting adopted / growing / expanding?
 
I think the best thing an average fan could do is word of mouth and telling people about RaiBlocks. More people being aware of it means there's the possibility someone who's never heard of it before would be interested in contributing as a vendor, developer, exchange etc.
Good advertising or marketing will never be able to reach everyone as well as someone reaching out within their own network.
 
 
Ray or Rye?
 
Ray hehe. It comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones Lots of people don't know the answer though >_<
 
 
Are you looking at incorperating a datamarket like iota in the future? Given the speed of the network a data exchange for highly accurate sensors could be a game changer.
Further more, are there any plans to increase the Dev team in the future? I read on the FAQ you'd like RaiBlocks to be somewhat of a protocol which is a huge ambition. A Dev from say the Mozilla foundation or other could further cement this ambitious project.
 
Transmitting data payloads is something we probably won't pursue. The concern is adding more features like this could cause us to make decisions that compromise the primary focus points of low-cost and speed for transferring value.
We can add people to the dev team though I think we'll get the most traction by teaching teams in these other organization how to use RaiBlocks so they can be the experts on the subject in their companies.
 
 
Does the actual RaiBlocks version require "Each node in the network must be aware of all transactions as they occur" part? This was in the old white paper and is asked here:
https://www.reddit.com/RaiBlocks/comments/7ksl81/some_questions_regarding_raiblocks_consensus/?st=jbdmgagc&sh=d1c93cca
 
If a node wants to independently know the balances of all accounts in the system, it must at a minimum have storage to hold accounts and all their balances. In order to know all balances it must either listen to transactions as they're happening or bootstrap from someone else to catch up as what happens on startup.
 
 
There is no incentive to run nodes. Some people will do it because it is cheap as fuck (as I read an raspberry pie can run it). But I think not many people will do it.
1. How important are the nodes in terms of further scaling?
2. On which network conditions where the 7000 transactions met?
3. What happens if the transactions per day tenfolds but the nodes don't?
4. How much better will Rai scale if someone sets up, lets say, 100 nodes with awesome hardware and network?
5. How many nodes could be enough for visa level scaling?
6. Which further improvements can be made for Rai IF there needs to be other improvements than setting up new nodes? Are there other concepts like 2nd layer solutions planned?
7. How will Rai defend network attacks?
I know there is an PoW part. But since there a also large attacks on high cap coins on which people invest millions of $ to congest a network..Is it possible that the Rai network will be unusable for several days because of this?
 
I think the out-of-protocol incentives to running a node are under-referenced yet I see them as the primary driving factor for participating as a whole. Node rewards come at the expense of other network participants and in this closed loop the incentives aren't enough to keep a cryptocurrency alive. Long-term there needs to be a system-level comparative advantage to what people are already using for a transfer of value. If someone is using xrb and it saves them hundreds or thousands of dollars per month in fees and customer irritation in delayed payments, they have a direct monetary incentive to using xrb and a monetary incentive in the health of the system.
1) More nodes provides transaction and bootstrapping redundancy. More representatives provides decentralization.
2) The 7k TPS was a profile how fast commodity hardware could eat transactions. All of the real-world limits are going to be something hardware related, either bandwidth, IO, or CPU.
3) The scaling is more related to the hardware the nodes are using rather than the node count. If there was 10x increase in transactions it would use 10x the bandwidth and IO as nodes observe transactions happening.
4) If someone made 100 representative nodes the network would be far more decentralized though the tx throughput would be unchanged since that's a per-node requirement.
5) Scaling to Visa will have high bandwidth and IO requirements on representatives associated with doing 10k IOPS. Datacenter and business class hardware will have to be enough to handle the load.
6) Second layer solutions are always an option and I think a lot of people will use them for fraud protection and insurance. Our primary focus is to make the 1st layer as efficient and high speed as possible so a 2nd layer isn't needed for daily transactions.
7) Defending against network attacks will be an ongoing thing, people like breaking the network for lulz or monetary gain i.e. competing cryptos. If there are attacks we haven't defended against or considered it'll be a matter of getting capable people to fix issues.
 
 
Are you open to changes to the name? (Rai)
What are your plans with regards to marketing?
 
I'm open to it, people get confused on ray/rye pronunciation, not the greatest first impression.
As far as timing I think marketing works best after a more user friendly wallet and integration in to more exchanges otherwise we're sending traffic to something people can't use. We're going to start by focusing on the initial adopters which will likely be enthusiasts and going forward work on the next set of users that aren't enthusiasts but want to drive savings for their business through lower payment processing costs.
 
 
A recent tweet(https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/942961006614945792) from Vitalik Buterin. Could this be a case with testing the scalability of RaiBlocks as well and in reality we wouldn't come close to 7000tx/s?
 
I think he's definitely right, a lot of the TPS numbers are synthetic benchmarks usually on one system. The biggest thing hindering TPS are protocol-specific limits like hard caps or high contention design. The next biggest thing will be bandwidth and then disk IO. Some of these limits can be improved by profiling and fixing code instead of actual limits in the hardware.
We want to get better, real world numbers but our general opinion is that the RaiBlocks protocol is going to be limited by hardware, rather than design.
 
 
Are you planning to add a fiat gateway to the main website and mobile wallet?
 
If we can make it happen for sure, that seems like a very user-focused feature people would want.
The difficulty at least in the US is the money-transmitter licenses which are hard to obtain. More than likely if this functionality was added it'd be a partnership with an established financial company that has procedures in place to operate within countries' regulations.
 
 
I saw a post on /iota that claims that their quantum resistance is a main benefit over raiblocks. Can you go into detail about this? explain any plans you have to let XRB persevere through upcoming quatum revolution?
 
I think everyone with cryptography in their programs is keeping an eye on quantum cryptography because we're all in the same boat. I don't have cryptanalysis credentials so I didn't feel comfortable building an implementation and instead chose to use one off-the-shelf from someone with assuring credentials.
There are some big companies that have made small mistakes that blow up the usefulness of the entire algorithm, it's incredibly easy to do. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/12/ps3-hacked-through-poor-implementation-of-cryptography/
 
 
Hello Colin, is any security audit to the source code planned?
 
We don't have one contracted though both internally and externally this is an important thing people want completed.
 
 
Do you have plans to radically change the interface of the desktop wallet, and to develop a universal, cross-platform, clean and simple UX design for the wallet? This will be huge for mass adoption in my humble opinion
 
I completely agree, we do plan on completely redoing the desktop wallet, both from a UX standpoint and maintainability so UI code doesn't need to be in C++. This could also remove out dependency on QT which is the least permissive license in the code right now.
I write code better than I design GUIs ;)
 
 
It seems like Raiblocks is aiming to be a true currency with it's lacking of transaction fees and fast confirmation times, which is great! If Raiblocks can add some kind of support for privacy then I think it got the whole picture figured out in terms of being "digital cash". Do you currently have any plans to implement privacy features into RaiBlocks?
If Raiblocks is unable to do this, it will still be a straight improvement over things like LTC which are currently being used as currency, but I don't think it will be able to become THE cryptocurrency without privacy features.
 
I love the concept of privacy in the network and it's a hard thing to do right. Any solution used would need to be compatible with our balance-weighted-voting method which means at least we'd have to know how much weight a representative has even if we're hiding actual account balances.
To be fully anonymous it would have to be hide accounts, amounts, endpoints, and also timing information; with advanced network analysis the timing is the hardest thing to hide. Hopefully some day we can figure out an efficient privacy solution though the immediate problem we can solve is making a transactional cryptocurrency so we're focusing on that.
 
 
Could you provide an analysis on the flaws of RaiBlocks? Is it in any way, shape, or form at a disadvantage compared to a blockchain based ledger like bitcoin? There has to be drawbacks, but I haven’t found any.
Do you plan on expanding the dev team and establishing a foundation? Also, how much money is in the development pool?
 
One drawback is to handle is our chain-per-account model and asynchronous updates it takes more code and design. This means instead of one top-block hash for everything there's one for each account. This gives us the power of wait-free asynchronous transactions at the cost of simplicity.
After we finish up things like the wallet, website, and exchange integration we'll be looking at seeing what dev resources we need to build tech if no one else is already working on a particular thing. We have about 6 million XRB right now so we've made the existing dev funds go a long way. If something expensive to build came along and dev funds wouldn't cut it we could look at some sort of external funding.
 
 
How big of a problem is PoW for exchanges and what are potential solutions?
 
Considering how much exchanges stand to make through commission I don't see the cost as a barrier, it's just an abnormal technology request compared to other cryptocurrencies.
We're working on providing a service exchanges can use in the interim until they set up their own infrastructure to generate the work. Other options are containers people can use on cloud services to get the infrastructure they need until they want to invest in their own.
 
 
It's my understanding that since everything works asynchronously, in the case of double spending there is a chance a merchant would receive the block that would be later invalidated and have it shown in it's wallet, even if a little later (1 minute?) the amount would correct when the delegates vote that block invalid. Is there any mechanism to avoid this? Maybe tag the transactions in the wallet as "confirming" and then "confirmed" after that minute? Is there actually any certain way for a wallet to know, in a deterministic/programable way, at what moment a transaction is 100% legit? (for example if the delegates are DoS'ed I guess that minute could be much longer). I know this is an improbable case, but still...
 
Yea you're hitting a good point, the consensus algorithm in the node is designed to wait for the incoming transaction to settle before accepting it in to the local chain for the exact reason you listed, if their transaction were to be rolled back the local account would be rolled back as well.
We can trend the current weight of all representatives that are online and voting and make sure we have >50% of the vote weight accounted for before considering it settled.
 
 
Hey Colin, will you eventually have support for a Trezor or other hard wallet?
 
Yea we'll definitely work with companies like Trezor that are interested in being a hardware wallet for xrb. It's just a matter of making sure they support the signing algorithms and integrating with their API.
 
EDIT: I'm getting a lot of messages asking me how to buy XRB. I used this guide which was very helpful: https://www.reddit.com/RaiBlocks/comments/7i0co0/the_definitive_guide_to_buying_and_storing/
In short -- buy BTC on coinbase, open up an account on bitgrail, transfer that BTC from coinbase to bitgrail, then trade your BTC for XRB. It's a pain right now because it's such a new coin, but soon it will be listed on more exchanges, and hopefully on things like shapeshift/changelly. After that it will be much easier... but until then, the inconvenience is what we have to pay in order to get into XRB while its still early.
EDIT: BAD SCRIPT, BAD!
submitted by atriaxx to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

Inadvisably small full node config

Disclaimer: As the subject implies, this is about an inadvisable config. The following is of zero practical use, but like cross-stitch, may be appealing to the random few people interested in such things. Opinions on the futility of this exercise can be considered already noted. Any suggestions to make this more ridiculously small are very welcome. Obviously I'm not running my primary wallet off of this config. It's just for fun.
TLDR: Wow look, my full node fit on a 0.5 CPU with 0.6 GB memory and 25 GB drive... yeah for me!

Background

I used to run a full node a good ways back, but stopped when the old 3rd string laptop I was using to run it was having drive issues. Still the early interest paid dividends as the price has gone exponential. Missing the good ol' days, I wanted to run another node, but really didn't want to do it on any of my work or lab units. My company took a hard stand years ago to prevent interns from mining on spare HW, so running even a full node on my corporate gear is kinda a capitol punishment. Round about this time, I got some spam for some free VPS service for a year. The promotion were really (I mean really wimpy VPSs). Crappy VPS + bitcoind performance tuning = my kind of waste of time.

Goal

My goal (perverse though it may be), is to get bitcoin or other forks running in very small VPSs. Maybe some of the tuning parameters could be used for a docker container or some whipy SOC. The system I was targeting has 0.5 CPU, 0.6 GB of memory and 25 GB of disk.

Observations

I found some interesting things out along the way that may be of interest to people tweeking bitcoind.

dbcache limits

Since I don't have the requisite memory required to run the node, I've limited memory using the dbcache parameter. Settings range from 100 to 150 depending on what other settings I have in place.

0.15.1 mallocs

I don't know what changed in 0.15.1 but it seems much more memory hungry than previous releases. Throughout the tuning process, I continually had either bitcoind quit due to memory allocation failures (logged in debug.log), or the kernel oom_killer take maters into its own hands (logged in /valog/syslog). This looks very similar to an issue that was logged against 0.14.0 that was patched in 0.14.1. My ultimate solution was to downgrade to 0.14.2 which seems to work great.

prune compromise

My initial thoughts were to use prune=550 to use the least amount of disk space possible. I found out that even on 0.14.2 this causes memory to fill up quick. I found making the pruning less aggressive with a setting of prune=10240 seems to be a good compromise for what I need done. This could possibly be an observation error, but the results seemed very reproducable.

blocksonly avoidance

I had thought to save some memory by using blocksonly. For some reason, on 0.14.2, this causes more problems than it solves. I had a hard time finding any config where blocksonly would work. Surprisingly, maxmempool=5 does effectively the same thing for the miserly cost of 5MiB of memory.

serial consoles

Seems ridiculous, but on my VPS, if bitcoind was running full speed, I would have a hard time connecting through SSH. There were other SSH clients and connection methods that seemed to work better. By far the quickest connections when under heavy utilization was to connect directly to serial ports. I wrote a small snippet to enable extended serial console on my systemd install.

canary log

Since logging into my system gobbles up memory, I wanted this config to be as low-touch as possible once in motion. After tooling up the serial ports, I found all the system log messages where peekable without logging into my VPS through my VPS provider. I wrote a small canary script to simply chirp to the serial port every 5 minutes to confirm that bitcoind was indeed alive and kicking.

Scripts

I made a few scripts during the process as the needs arose. They are very utilitarian, and could do with some major overhauls, but they did what I needed done at the time I needed it.
Scripts:

Final config

Here is my final config, that is still syncing, but seems to be stable on 0.14.2
/usbin/nice -n 15 bitcoind \ -dbcache=115 \ -prune=10240 \ -maxmempool=5 \ -daemon /usbin/nohup $HOME/canary.sh $1 300 $USER >/dev/null 2>/dev/null & cPid=$! sudo /usbin/renice -n -5 -p $cPid echo "Canary @ $cPid" 
Memory utilization while syncing seems to be at about 400MiB. Once I'm synced, I expect to retune for dbcache=60 and maxmempool=60.
Projected full blockchain sync completion in (gulp) 30 days. CPU utilization is currently reported between 30-60% but my provider offers boost periods where they unmeeter the VMs. I've gotten it up to 110% on their dashboard, for what its worth.
I'm well beyond the word limit so I'll drop off here, but I'll eventually put the snipits in a github repo in the near future.
PS If anyone knows of some free VPS or Docker hosting services, please chime in.
EDIT: s/VSP/VPS/g - lysdexia
submitted by brianddk to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Inadvisably small full node config

Disclaimer: As the subject implies, this is about an inadvisable config. The following is of zero practical use, but like cross-stitch, may be appealing to the random few people interested in such things. Opinions on the futility of this exercise can be considered already noted. Any suggestions to make this more ridiculously small are very welcome. Obviously I'm not running my primary wallet off of this config. It's just for fun.
TLDR: Wow look, my full node fit on a 0.5 CPU with 0.6 GB memory and 25 GB drive... yeah for me!

Background

I used to run a full node a good ways back, but stopped when the old 3rd string laptop I was using to run it was having drive issues. Still the early interest paid dividends as the price has gone exponential. Missing the good ol' days, I wanted to run another node, but really didn't want to do it on any of my work or lab units. My company took a hard stand years ago to prevent interns from mining on spare HW, so running even a full node on my corporate gear is kinda a capitol punishment. Round about this time, I got some spam for some free VPS service for a year. The promotion were really (I mean really wimpy VPSs). Crappy VPS + bitcoind performance tuning = my kind of waste of time.

Goal

My goal (perverse though it may be), is to get bitcoin or other forks running in very small VPSs. Maybe some of the tuning parameters could be used for a docker container or some whipy SOC. The system I was targeting has 0.5 CPU, 0.6 GB of memory and 25 GB of disk.

Observations

I found some interesting things out along the way that may be of interest to people tweeking bitcoind.

dbcache limits

Since I don't have the requisite memory required to run the node, I've limited memory using the dbcache parameter. Settings range from 100 to 150 depending on what other settings I have in place.

0.15.1 mallocs

I don't know what changed in 0.15.1 but it seems much more memory hungry than previous releases. Throughout the tuning process, I continually had either bitcoind quit due to memory allocation failures (logged in debug.log), or the kernel oom_killer take maters into its own hands (logged in /valog/syslog). This looks very similar to an issue that was logged against 0.14.0 that was patched in 0.14.1. My ultimate solution was to downgrade to 0.14.2 which seems to work great.

prune compromise

My initial thoughts were to use prune=550 to use the least amount of disk space possible. I found out that even on 0.14.2 this causes memory to fill up quick. I found making the pruning less aggressive with a setting of prune=10240 seems to be a good compromise for what I need done. This could possibly be an observation error, but the results seemed very reproducable.

blocksonly avoidance

I had thought to save some memory by using blocksonly. For some reason, on 0.14.2, this causes more problems than it solves. I had a hard time finding any config where blocksonly would work. Surprisingly, maxmempool=5 does effectively the same thing for the miserly cost of 5MiB of memory.

serial consoles

Seems ridiculous, but on my VPS, if bitcoind was running full speed, I would have a hard time connecting through SSH. There were other SSH clients and connection methods that seemed to work better. By far the quickest connections when under heavy utilization was to connect directly to serial ports. I wrote a small snippet to enable extended serial console on my systemd install.

canary log

Since logging into my system gobbles up memory, I wanted this config to be as low-touch as possible once in motion. After tooling up the serial ports, I found all the system log messages where peekable without logging into my VPS through my VPS provider. I wrote a small canary script to simply chirp to the serial port every 5 minutes to confirm that bitcoind was indeed alive and kicking.

Scripts

I made a few scripts during the process as the needs arose. They are very utilitarian, and could do with some major overhauls, but they did what I needed done at the time I needed it.
Scripts:

Final config

Here is my final config, that is still syncing, but seems to be stable on 0.14.2
/usbin/nice -n 15 bitcoind \ -dbcache=115 \ -prune=10240 \ -maxmempool=5 \ -daemon /usbin/nohup $HOME/canary.sh $1 300 $USER >/dev/null 2>/dev/null & cPid=$! sudo /usbin/renice -n -5 -p $cPid echo "Canary @ $cPid" 
Memory utilization while syncing seems to be at about 400MiB. Once I'm synced, I expect to retune for dbcache=60 and maxmempool=60.
Projected full blockchain sync completion in (gulp) 30 days. CPU utilization is currently reported between 30-60% but my provider offers boost periods where they unmeeter the VMs. I've gotten it up to 110% on their dashboard, for what its worth.
I'm well beyond the word limit so I'll drop off here, but I'll eventually put the snipits in a github repo in the near future.
PS If anyone knows of some free VPS or Docker hosting services, please chime in.
EDIT: s/VSP/VPS/g - lysdexia
submitted by brianddk to BitcoinDiscussion [link] [comments]

Of Wolves and Weasels - Day 191 - Barking Mad

Hey all! GoodShibe here!
I'm technically still on vacation, but in light of the news out of New York... I feel the need to comment.
If you're not aware of what's going on, the New York State Department of Financial Services is proposing a new regulatory framework for how all Cryptocurrencies work for the residents of New York State.
However, the way that it's worded, the way that it's been presented, it's incredibly vague in some areas while being incredibly strict in others.
They're designed to take 'untraceable digital cash' and, at pretty much every point along the chain, put someone's face and name to who had what and when.
This, of course, weakens Cryptos immediately in compared to, well, cold, hard cash -- which is largely untraceable. This bill, as it has been designed, seems to try and have a massive chilling effect on cryptocurrencies in general.
You can use cryptos, sure, but by the time they're done with them... why would you want to?
You can read the proposed Regulations here.
AmericanBitcoin has put together a TL;DR of the proposed reglations
goldcakes has put together a TL;DR of some of the ramifications
If you'd like to see a quick breakdown of exactly what's wrong with the proposal, I highly recommend you read this comment by MrMadden over in /Bitcoin, which is utterly fantastic.
dalovindj also has a great post on how this would effect our fellow Shibes.
Here's the thing: We always knew that this was going to be a problem. The idea that somehow the old, established system would just roll over and let the next generation step up to the plate without a fight is laughable.
And now we've seen the first volley. The warning shot off the port bow, so to speak.
The regulations that are coming out are, well, typical government overreach designed, specifically, to elicit the reaction that they are. They're big and scary and over-reaching.
But they're also designed so that, IF there's a public outcry, at a large enough scale, they can 'pull back' the more offensive over-steps and still come out of this with the regulation that they REALLY want.
If nobody stands up to complain or fight back about it... then bonus for them. The city of New York then gets global over-reach on a massive scale all under the guise of 'protecting it's citizens'.
Incidentally, if you hadn't noticed, Canada set the wheels in motion recently, with the first 'Bitcoin Law' which caused quite an uproar (remember when DogeDice closed down rather than meet the Canadian Government's new regulations?).
Here's the thing - and it's a truth that's as immutable as time itself:
Governments are going to Govern.
They will always move to exact as much power as we let them have over any new or emerging technology, especially where money is involved.
So... what can we do about it?
For those who don't live in the US, the best thing you can do is learn about this regulation - because, whether you like it or not, the Government of the State of New York is making it your business. Because anyone who does business with residents of the State of New York will have to submit to these regulations as well.
Meaning that if you do business with a business that does business with the state of New York, you will be subject to those same overreaches.
The long and short of the problem is this:
You have 45 days, starting on July 23rd, once the Regulations are formally published, to make a case to the people of New York that, whether they realize it or not, this bill is trampling their rights.
Because, that's how you defeat this issue.
We need to get NEW YORKERS to care about this issue.
If you're not in New York, your job is now to find a way to help make New Yorkers care about this issue.
I don't care which banner your coin flies - Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, Reddcoin, Potcoin... this is effects us all and it's only just getting started.
How will this bill effect them? It might not, directly, lots of people aren't using cryptos yet. But it's the first step in something larger.
If this goes through unchallenged, then I foresee a whole new legal arms race to 'protect' ones citizens from, well, anything they like.
Because this is '... but think of the children!' for a whole new era.
This is classic government overreach.
If you're living in New York, you need to get in touch with your local representatives and let them know, unequivocally, that this is a voting issue for you.
That you will be watching to find out if they support this bill, and that if they do, you will be voting for the other guy.
The best way to deal with this problem is not to 'get angry'.
It's to 'get angry and get to work'.
Forget waiting for the Lobbyists and their big money to tell you how it's going to be.
If you want cryptos to survive - and this legislation, as stated, would make illegal having a QT wallet/node running on your computer - then -- every crypto-user on this planet -- is now a Lobbyist.
And, for my fellow Shibes, if there's one thing that /Dogecoin has proven good at, it's in getting the word out there.
We're smart, we're media savvy - we know how to get attention!
So, let's get organized.
Bring everyone on board - every coin, every crypto-user in every corner of the world.
Let's get active.
Because we've still got time to fight this.
Together!
It's 8:50AM EST and we've found 87.62% of our initial 100 Billion DOGEs -- only 12.38% remains until our period of Hyper-inflation ends! Our Global Hashrate is up from ~44 to ~46 Gigahashes per second and our Difficulty is up from ~641 to ~815.
As always, I appreciate your support!
GoodShibe
EDIT: I've created this brainstorming thread to try and help get ideas moving. Come join me!
EDIT 2: I've also started this post to ask for the community's permission/support to reach out to /bitcoin and other communities to try and organize a crypto-wide response to these regulations.
submitted by GoodShibe to dogecoin [link] [comments]

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

You can read here part I (by americanpegaus). This is the post that motivated me to make the part II. Now i'm doing a third part, and there'll be a final 4th part. This is probably too much but i wasn't able to make it shorter. Some will be interested in going through all them, and maybe someone is even willing to make a summary of the whole serie :D.
Monero - an anonymous coin based on CryptoNote technology
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.0
Comentarios de interés:
-4: "No change, this is just a renaming. In the future, the binaries will have to be changed, as well as some URL, but that's all. By the way, this very account (monero) is shared by several user and is meant to make it easier to change the OP in case of vacancy of the OP. This idea of a shared OP comes from Karmacoin.
Some more things to come:
"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6362672#msg6362672)
-5: “Before this thread is too big, I would like to state that a bug has been identified in the emission curve and we are currently in the process of fixing it (me, TFT, and smooth). Currently coins are emitted at double the rate that was intended. We will correct this in the future, likely by bitshifting values of outputs before a certain height, and then correcting 1 min blocks to 2 min blocks. The changes proposed will be published to a Monero Improvement Protocol on github.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6363016#msg6363016)
[tacotime make public the bug in the emission curve: token creation is currently 2 times what was intended to be, see this chart BTC vs the actual XMR curve, as it was and it is now, vs the curve that was initially planned in yellow see chart]
-14: “Moving discussion to more relevant thread, previous found here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=578192.msg6364026#msg6364026
I have to say that I am surprised that such an idea [halving current balances and then changing block target to 2 min with same block reward to solve the emission curve issue] is even being countenanced - there are several obvious arguments against it.
Perception - what kind of uproar would happen if this was tried on a more established coin? How can users be expected to trust a coin where it is perceived that the devs are able and willing to "dip" into people's wallets to solve problems?
Technically - people are trying to suggest that this will make no difference since it applies to reward and supply, which might be fair enough if the cap was halved also, but it isn't. People's holdings in the coin are being halved, however it is dressed up.
Market price - How can introducing uncertainty in the contents of people's wallets possibly help market price? I may well be making a fool of myself here, but I have never heard of such a fix before, unless you had savings in a Cypriot bank - has this ever been done for another coin?”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364174#msg6364174)
-15: “You make good points but unfortunately conflicting statements were made and it isn't possible to stick to them all. It was said that this coin had a mining reward schedule similar to bitcoin. In fact it is twice as fast as intended, even even a bit more than twice as fast as bitcoin.
If you acquired your coins on the basis of the advertised reward schedule, you would be disappointed, and rightfully so, as more coins come to into existence more quickly than you were led to believe.
To simply ignore that aspect of the bug is highly problematic. Every solution may be highly problematic, but the one being proposed was agreed as being the least bad by most of the major stakeholders. Maybe it will still not work, this coin will collapse, and there will need to be a relaunch, in which case all your coins will likely be worthless. I hope that doesn't happen.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364242#msg6364242)
[smooth tries to justify his proposal to solve the emission curve issue: halve every current balance and change block target to 2 min with same block reward]
-16: “This coin wasn't working as advertised. It was supposed to be mined slowly like BTC but under the current emission schedule, 39% would be mined by the first year and 86% by the fourth year. Those targets have been moved out by a factor of 2, i.e. 86% mined by year 8, which is more like BTC's 75% by year 8. So the cap has been moved out much further into the future, constraining present and near-term supply, which is what determines the price.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364257#msg6364257)
[eizh supports smooth’s plan]
-20: “So long as the process is fair and transparent it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone. Correcting this now will avoid people accusing the coin of a favourable premine for people who mined in the first week.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364338#msg6364338)
[random user supporting smooth’s idea]
-21: “Why not a reduction in block reward of slightly more than half to bring it into line with the proposed graph? That would avoid all sorts of perceptual problems, would not upset present coin holders and be barely noticeable to future miners since less than one percent of coins have been mined so far, the alteration would be very small?”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364348#msg6364348)
-22: “Because that still turns into a pre-mine or instamine where a few people got twice as many coins as everyone else in the first week.
This was always a bug, and should be treated as such.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364370#msg6364370)
[smooth wants to be sure they can’t be stigmatized as “premine”]
-23: “No, not true [answering to "it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone"]. Your share of the 18,000,000 coins is being halved - rightly or wrongly.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364382#msg6364382)
[good point made by a user that is battling “hard” with smooth and his proposal]
-28: “+1 for halving all coins in circulation. Would they completely disappear? What would the process be?”
-31: “I will wait for the next coin based on CryptoNote. Many people, including myself, avoided BMR because TFT released without accepting input from anyone (afaik). I pm'ed TFT 8 days before launch to help and didn't get response until after launch. Based on posting within the thread, I bet there were other people. Now the broken code gets "fixed" by taking away coins.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364531#msg6364531)
-32: “What you say is true, and I can't blame anyone from simply dropping this coin and wanting a complete fresh start instead. On the other hand, this coin is still gaining in popularity and is already getting close to bytecoin in hash rate, while avoiding its ninja premine. There is a lot done right here, and definitely a few mistakes.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364574#msg6364574)
[smooth stands for the project legitimacy despite the bugs]
-37: “Since everything is scaled and retroactive, the only person to be affected is... me. Tongue Because I bought BMR with BTC, priced it with incorrect information, and my share relative to the eventual maximum has been halved. Oh well. The rest merely mined coins that never should have been mined. The "taking away coins" isn't a symptom of the fix: it's the fundamental thing that needed fixing. The result is more egalitarian and follows the original intention. Software is always a work-in-progress. Waiting for something ideal at launch is pretty hopeless. edit: Let me point out that most top cryptocurrencies today were released before KGW and other new difficulty retargeting algorithms became widespread. Consequently they had massive instamines on the first day, even favorites in good standing like LTC. Here the early miners are voluntarily reducing their eventual stake for the sake of fairness. How cool is that?”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364886#msg6364886)
[this is eizh supporting the project too]
-43: “I'm baffled that people are arguing about us making the emission schedule more fair. I'm an early adopter. This halves my money, and it's what I want to do. There's another change that needs to be talked about too: we don't believe that microscopic levels of inflation achieved at 9 or 10 years will secure a proof-of-work network. In fact, there's a vast amount of evidence from DogeCoin and InfiniteCoin that it will not. So, we'd like to fix reward when it goes between 0.25 - 1.00 coins. To do so, we need to further bitshift values to decrease the supply under 264-1 atomic units to accommodate this. Again, this hurts early adopters (like me), but is designed to ensure the correct operation of the chain in the long run. It's less than a week old, and if we're going to hardfork in economic changes that make sense we should do it now. We're real devs turning monero into the coin it should have been, and our active commitment should be nothing but good news. Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6366134#msg6366134)
[tacotime brings to the public for first time the tail emission proposal and writes what is my favourite sentence of the whole monero history: “Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use”]
-51: “I think this is the right attitude. Like you I stand to "lose" from this decision in having my early mining halved, but I welcome it. Given how scammy the average coin launch is, I think maximizing fairness for everyone is the right move. Combining a fair distribution with the innovation of Cryptonote tech could be what differentiates Monero from other coins.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6366346#msg6366346)
-59: “Hello! It is very good that you've created this thread. I'm ok about renaming. But I can't agree with any protocol changes based only on decisions made by bitcointalk.org people. This is because not all miners are continiously reading forum. Any decision about protocol changes are to be made by hashpower-based voting. From my side I will agree on such a decision only if more than 50% of miners will agree. Without even such a simple majority from miners such changes are meaningless. In case of hardfork that isn't supported by majority of miners the network will split into two nets with low-power fork and high-power not-forking branches. I don't think that this will be good for anybody. Such a voting is easy to be implemented by setting minor_version of blocks to a specific value and counting decisions made after 1000 of blocks. Do you agree with such a procedure?”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368478#msg6368478)
[TFT appears after a couple days of inactivity]
-63: “In few days I will publish a code with merged mining support. This code will be turned ON only by voting process from miners. What does it mean:
The same procedure is suitable for all other protocol changes.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368720#msg6368720)
[And now he is back, TFT is all about merged mining]
-67: “We don't agree that a reverse split amounts to "taking" coins. I also wouldn't agree that a regular forward split would be "giving" coins. It's an exchange of old coins with new coins, with very nearly the exact same value. There is a very slight difference in value due to the way the reward schedule is capped, but that won't be relevant for years or decades. Such a change is entirely reasonable to fix an error in a in coin that has only existed for a week.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368861#msg6368861)
-68: “There were no error made in this coin but now there is an initiative to make some changes. Changes are always bad and changes destroy participant confidence even in case these changes are looking as useful. We have to be very careful before making any changes in coins”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368939#msg6368939)
[TFT does not accept the unexpected emission curve as a bug]
-72: “You are wrong TFT. The original announcement described the coin as having a reward curve "close to Bitcoin's original curve" (those are your exact words). The code as implemented has a reward curve that is nothing like bitcoin. It will be 86% mined in 4 years. It will be 98% mined in 8 years. Bitcoin is 50% mined in 4 years, and 75% in 8 years.
With respect TFT, you did the original fork, and you deserve credit for that. But this coin has now gone beyond your initial vision. It isn't just a question of whether miners are on bitcointalk or not.
There is a great team of people who are working hard to make this coin a success, and this team is collaborating regularly through forum posts, IRC, PM and email. And beyond that a community of users who by and large have been very supportive of the efforts we've taken to move this forward.
Also, miners aren't the only stakeholders, and while a miner voting process is great, it isn't the answer to every question. Though I do agree that miners need to be on board with any hard fork to avoid a harmful split.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369137#msg6369137)
[smooth breaks out publicily for first time against TFT]
-75: “I suppose that merged mining as a possible option is a good idea as soon as nobody is forced to use it. MM is a possibility to accept PoW calculated for some other network. It helps to increase a security of both networks and makes it possible for miners not to choose between two networks if they want both:
Important things to know about MM:
Actually the only change that goes with MM is that we are able to accept PoW from some other net with same hash-function. Each miner can decide his own other net he will merge mine BMR with.
And this is still very secure.
This way I don't see any disadvantage in merged mining. What disadvantages do you see in MM?”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369255#msg6369255)
[TFT stands for merged mining]
-77: “Merged mining essentially forces people to merge both coins because that is the only economically rational decision. I do not want to support the ninja-premined coin with our hash rate.
Merged mining makes perfect sense for a coin with a very low hash rate, otherwise unable to secure itself effectively. That is the case with coins that merge mine with bitcoin. This coin already has 60% of the hash rate of bytecoin, and has no need to attach itself to another coin and encourage sharing of hash rate between the two. It stands well on its own and will likely eclipse bytecoin very soon.
I want people to make a clear choice between the fair launched coin and the ninja-premine that was already 80% mined before it was made public. Given such a choice I believe most will just choose this coin. Letting them choose both allows bytecoin to free ride on what we are doing here. Let the ninja-preminers go their own way.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369386#msg6369386)
[smooth again]
-85: “One of you is saying that there was no mistake in the emission formula, while the other is. I'm not asking which I should believe . . I'm asking for a way to verify this”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369874#msg6369874)
[those that have not been paying attention to the soap opera since the beginning do not understand anything at all]
-86: “The quote I posted "close to Bitcoin's original curve" is from the original announcement here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563821.0
I think there was also some discussion on the thread about it being desirable to do that.
At one point in that discussion, I suggested increasing the denominator by a factor of 4, which is what ended up being done, but I also suggested retaining the block target at 2 minutes, which was not done. The effect of making one change without the other is to double the emission rate from something close to bitcoin to something much faster (see chart a few pages back on this thread).”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369935#msg6369935)
[smooth answers just a few minutes later]
-92: “I'm happy the Bitmonero attracts so much interest.
I'm not happy that some people want to destroy it.
Here is a simple a clear statement about plans: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582670
We have two kind of stakeholders we have respect: miders and coin owners.
Before any protocol changes we will ask miners for agreement. No changes without explicit agreement of miners is possible.
We will never take away or discount any coins that are already emitted. This is the way we respect coin owners.
All other issues can be discussed, proposed and voted for. I understand that there are other opinions. All decisions that aren't supported in this coin can be introduced in any new coin. It's ok to start a new fork. It's not ok to try to destroy an existsing network.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6370324#msg6370324)
[TFT is kinda upset – he can see how the community is “somehow” taking over]
-94: “Sounds like there's probably going to be another fork then. Sigh.
I guess it will take a few tries to get this coin right.
The problem with not adjusting existing coins is that it make this a premine/instamine. If the emission schedule is changed but not as a bug fix, then earlier miners got an unfair advantage over everyone else. Certainly there are coins with premines and instamines, but there's a huge stigma and such a coin will never achieve the level of success we see for this coin. This was carefully discussed during the team meeting, which was announced a day ahead of time, and everyone with any visible involvement with the coin, you included, was invited. It is unfortunate you couldn't make it to that meeting TFT.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6370411#msg6370411)
[smooth is desperate due to TFT lack of interest in collaboration, and he publicly speaks about an scission for first time]
-115: “Very rough website online, monero.cc (in case you asked, the domain name was voted on IRC, like the crypto name and its code). Webdesigner, webmaster, writers... wanted.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6374702#msg6374702)
[Even though the lack of consensus and the obvious chaos, the community keeps going on: Monero already has his own site]
-152: “Here's one idea on fixing the emissions without adjusting coin balances.
We temporarily reduce the emission rate to half of the new target for as long as it takes for the total emission from 0 to match the new curve. Thus there will be a temporary period when mining is very slow, and during that period there was a premine.
But once that period is compete, from the perspective of new adopters, there was no premine -- the total amount of coins emitted is exactly what the slow curve says it should be (and the average rate since genesis is almost the same as the rate at which they are mining, for the first year or so at least).
This means the mining rewards will be very low for a while (if done now then roughly two weeks), and may not attract many new miners. However, I think there enough of us early adopters (and even some new adopters who are willing to make a temporary sacrifice) who want to see this coin succeed to carry it through this period.
The sooner this is done the shorter the catch up period needs to be.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6378032#msg6378032)
[smooth makes a proposal to solve the “emission curve bug” without changing users balances and without favoring the early miners]
-182: “We have added a poll in the freenode IRC room "Poll #2: "Emission future of Monero, please vote!!" started by stickh3ad. Options: #1: "Keep emission like now"; #2: "Keep emission but change blocktime and final reward"; #3: "Keep emission but change blocktime"; #4: "Keep emission but change final reward"; #5: "Change emission"; #6: "Change emission and block time"; #7: "Change emission and block time and final reward"
Right now everyone is voting for #4, including me.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6379518#msg6379518)
[tacotime announces an ongoing votation on IRC]
-184: “ change emission: need to bitshift old values on the network or double values after a certain block. controversial. not sure if necessary. can be difficult to implement. keep emission: straightforward, we don't keep change emission or block time. change final reward is simple. if (blockSubsidy < finalSubsidy) return finalSubsidy; else return blockSubsidy;”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6379562#msg6379562)
-188: “Yeah, well. We need to change the front page to reflect this if we can all agree on it.
We should post the emissions curve and the height and value that subsidy will be locked in to.
In my opinion this is the least disruptive thing we can do at the moment, and should ensure that the fork continues to be mineable and secure in about 8 years time without relying on fees to secure it (which I think you agree is a bad idea).”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6379871#msg6379871)
[tacotime]
-190: “I don't think the proposed reward curve is bad by any means. I do think it is bad to change the overall intent of a coin's structure and being close to bitcoins reward curve was a bit part of the intent of this coin. It was launched in response to the observation that bytecoin was 80% mined in less than two years (too fast) and also that it was ninja premined, with a stated goal that the new coin have a reward curve close to bitcoin.
At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:
  1. No GUI
  2. No web site
  3. Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
  4. No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
  5. No effective team behind it at launch
  6. No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)
I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure.
I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.).
We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6380065#msg6380065)
[smooth is disappointed]
-191: “The website does exist now, it's just not particularly informative yet. :) But, I agree that thankful_for_today has severely mislead everyone by stating the emission was "close to Bitcoin's" (if he's denying that /2 rather than /4 emission schedule was unintentional, as he seems to be). I'm also against BCN merge mining. It works against the goal of overtaking BCN and if that's not a goal, I don't know what we're even doing here. I'll dedicate my meagre mining to voting against that.
That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6380235#msg6380235)
[eizh tries to keep smooth on board]
-196: “BCN is still growing as well. It is up to 1.2 million now. If merged mining happens, (almost) everyone will just mine both. The difficulty on this coin will jump up to match BCN (in fact both will likely go higher since the hash rate will be combined) and again it is an instamine situation. (Those here the first week get the benefit of easy non-merged mining, everyone else does not.) Comments were made on this thread about this not being yet another pump-and-dump alt. I think that could have been the case, but sadly, I don't really believe that it is.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6380778#msg6380778)
-198: “There's no point in fragmenting talent. If you don't think merge mining is a good idea, I'd prefer we just not add it to the code.
Bitcoin had no web site or GUI either initially. Bitcoin-QT was the third Bitcoin client.
If people want a pool, they can make one. There's no point in centralizing the network when it's just began, though. Surely you must feel this way.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6381866#msg6381866)
[tacotime also wants smooth on board]
-201: “My personal opinion is that I will abandon the fork if merge mining is added. And then we can discuss a new fork. Until then I don't think Monero will be taken over by another fork.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6381970#msg6381970)
[tacotime opens the season: if merged mining is implemented, he will leave the ship]
-203: “Ditto on this. If the intention wasn't to provide a clearweb launched alternative to BCN, then I don't see a reason for this fork to exist. BCN is competition and miners should make a choice.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6382097#msg6382097)
[eizh supports tacotime]
-204: “+1 Even at the expense of how much I already "invested" in this coin.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6382177#msg6382177)
[NoodleDoodle is also against merged mining]
This is basically everything worth reading in this thread. This thread was created in the wrong category, and its short life of about 2 days was pretty interesting. Merged mining was rejected and it ended up with the inactivity of TFT for +7 days and the creation of a new github repo the 30th of April. It is only 12 days since launch and a decentralized team is being built.
Basically the community had forked (but not the chain) and it was evolving and moving forward to its still unclear future.
These are the main takeaways of this thread:
  • The legitimacy of the "leaders" of the community is proven when they proposed and supported the idea of halving the balances for the greater good to solve the emission curve issue without any possible instamine accusation. Also their long-term goals and values rejecting merged-mining with a "primined scam"
  • It is decided that, as for now, it is “too late” to change the emission curve, and finally monero will mint 50% of its coin in ~1.3 years (bitcoin did it after 3.66 years) and 86% of its coins in 4 years (bitcoin does it in ~11 years) (was also voted here) (see also this chart)
  • It is decided that a “minimum subsidy” or “tail emission” to incentivize miners “forever” and avoid scaling fees will be added (it will be finally added to the code march 2015)
  • Merged mining is plainly rejected by the future “core team” and soon rejected by "everyone". This will trigger TFT inactivity.
  • The future “core team” is somehow being formed in a decentralized way: tacotime, eizh, NoodleDoodle, smooth and many others
And the most important. All this (and what is coming soon) is a proof of the decentralization of Monero. Probably comparable to Bitcoin first days. This is not a company building a for-profit project (even if on the paper it is not for-profit), this a group of disconnected individuals sharing a goal and working together to reach it.
Soon will be following a final part where i'll collect the bitcointalk logs in the current official announcement threads. There you'll be able to follow the decentralized first steps of develoment (open source pool, miner optimizations and exchanges, all surrounded by fud trolls, lots of excitmen and a rapidly growing collaborative community.
submitted by el_hispano to Monero [link] [comments]

Is anyone else freaked out by this whole blocksize debate? Does anyone else find themself often agreeing with *both* sides - depending on whichever argument you happen to be reading at the moment? And do we need some better algorithms and data structures?

Why do both sides of the debate seem “right” to me?
I know, I know, a healthy debate is healthy and all - and maybe I'm just not used to the tumult and jostling which would be inevitable in a real live open major debate about something as vital as Bitcoin.
And I really do agree with the starry-eyed idealists who say Bitcoin is vital. Imperfect as it may be, it certainly does seem to represent the first real chance we've had in the past few hundred years to try to steer our civilization and our planet away from the dead-ends and disasters which our government-issued debt-based currencies keep dragging us into.
But this particular debate, about the blocksize, doesn't seem to be getting resolved at all.
Pretty much every time I read one of the long-form major arguments contributed by Bitcoin "thinkers" who I've come to respect over the past few years, this weird thing happens: I usually end up finding myself nodding my head and agreeing with whatever particular piece I'm reading!
But that should be impossible - because a lot of these people vehemently disagree!
So how can both sides sound so convincing to me, simply depending on whichever piece I currently happen to be reading?
Does anyone else feel this way? Or am I just a gullible idiot?
Just Do It?
When you first look at it or hear about it, increasing the size seems almost like a no-brainer: The "big-block" supporters say just increase the blocksize to 20 MB or 8 MB, or do some kind of scheduled or calculated regular increment which tries to take into account the capabilities of the infrastructure and the needs of the users. We do have the bandwidth and the memory to at least increase the blocksize now, they say - and we're probably gonna continue to have more bandwidth and memory in order to be able to keep increasing the blocksize for another couple decades - pretty much like everything else computer-based we've seen over the years (some of this stuff is called by names such as "Moore's Law").
On the other hand, whenever the "small-block" supporters warn about the utter catastrophe that a failed hard-fork would mean, I get totally freaked by their possible doomsday scenarios, which seem totally plausible and terrifying - so I end up feeling that the only way I'd want to go with a hard-fork would be if there was some pre-agreed "triggering" mechanism where the fork itself would only actually "switch on" and take effect provided that some "supermajority" of the network (of who? the miners? the full nodes?) had signaled (presumably via some kind of totally reliable p2p trustless software-based voting system?) that they do indeed "pre-agree" to actually adopt the pre-scheduled fork (and thereby avoid any possibility whatsoever of the precious blockchain somehow tragically splitting into two and pretty much killing this cryptocurrency off in its infancy).
So in this "conservative" scenario, I'm talking about wanting at least 95% pre-adoption agreement - not the mere 75% which I recall some proposals call for, which seems like it could easily lead to a 75/25 blockchain split.
But this time, with this long drawn-out blocksize debate, the core devs, and several other important voices who have become prominent opinion shapers over the past few years, can't seem to come to any real agreement on this.
Weird split among the devs
As far as I can see, there's this weird split: Gavin and Mike seem to be the only people among the devs who really want a major blocksize increase - and all the other devs seem to be vehemently against them.
But then on the other hand, the users seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of a major increase.
And there are meta-questions about governance, about about why this didn't come out as a BIP, and what the availability of Bitcoin XT means.
And today or yesterday there was this really cool big-blockian exponential graph based on doubling the blocksize every two years for twenty years, reminding us of the pure mathematical fact that 210 is indeed about 1000 - but not really addressing any of the game-theoretic points raised by the small-blockians. So a lot of the users seem to like it, but when so few devs say anything positive about it, I worry: is this just yet more exponential chart porn?
On the one hand, Gavin's and Mike's blocksize increase proposal initially seemed like a no-brainer to me.
And on the other hand, all the other devs seem to be against them. Which is weird - not what I'd initially expected at all (but maybe I'm just a fool who's seduced by exponential chart porn?).
Look, I don't mean to be rude to any of the core devs, and I don't want to come off like someone wearing a tinfoil hat - but it has to cross people's minds that the powers that be (the Fed and the other central banks and the governments that use their debt-issued money to run this world into a ditch) could very well be much more scared shitless than they're letting on. If we assume that the powers that be are using their usual playbook and tactics, then it could be worth looking at the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins, to get an idea of how they might try to attack Bitcoin. So, what I'm saying is, they do have a track record of sending in "experts" to try to derail projects and keep everyone enslaved to the Creature from Jekyll Island. I'm just saying. So, without getting ad hominem - let's just make sure that our ideas can really stand scrutiny on their own - as Nick Szabo says, we need to make sure there is "more computer science, less noise" in this debate.
When Gavin Andresen first came out with the 20 MB thing - I sat back and tried to imagine if I could download 20 MB in 10 minutes (which seems to be one of the basic mathematical and technological constraints here - right?)
I figured, "Yeah, I could download that" - even with my crappy internet connection.
And I guess the telecoms might be nice enough to continue to double our bandwidth every two years for the next couple decades – if we ask them politely?
On the other hand - I think we should be careful about entrusting the financial freedom of the world into the greedy hands of the telecoms companies - given all their shady shenanigans over the past few years in many countries. After decades of the MPAA and the FBI trying to chip away at BitTorrent, lately PirateBay has been hard to access. I would say it's quite likely that certain persons at institutions like JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs and the Fed might be very, very motivated to see Bitcoin fail - so we shouldn't be too sure about scaling plans which depend on the willingness of companies Verizon and AT&T to double our bandwith every two years.
Maybe the real important hardware buildout challenge for a company like 21 (and its allies such as Qualcomm) to take on now would not be "a miner in every toaster" but rather "Google Fiber Download and Upload Speeds in every Country, including China".
I think I've read all the major stuff on the blocksize debate from Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, Greg Maxwell, Peter Todd, Adam Back, and Jeff Garzick and several other major contributors - and, oddly enough, all their arguments seem reasonable - heck even Luke-Jr seems reasonable to me on the blocksize debate, and I always thought he was a whackjob overly influenced by superstition and numerology - and now today I'm reading the article by Bram Cohen - the inventor of BitTorrent - and I find myself agreeing with him too!
I say to myself: What's going on with me? How can I possibly agree with all of these guys, if they all have such vehemently opposing viewpoints?
I mean, think back to the glory days of a couple of years ago, when all we were hearing was how this amazing unprecedented grassroots innovation called Bitcoin was going to benefit everyone from all walks of life, all around the world:
...basically the entire human race transacting everything into the blockchain.
(Although let me say that I think that people's focus on ideas like driverless cabs creating realtime fare markets based on supply and demand seems to be setting our sights a bit low as far as Bitcoin's abilities to correct the financial world's capital-misallocation problems which seem to have been made possible by infinite debt-based fiat. I would have hoped that a Bitcoin-based economy would solve much more noble, much more urgent capital-allocation problems than driverless taxicabs creating fare markets or refrigerators ordering milk on the internet of things. I was thinking more along the lines that Bitcoin would finally strangle dead-end debt-based deadly-toxic energy industries like fossil fuels and let profitable clean energy industries like Thorium LFTRs take over - but that's another topic. :=)
Paradoxes in the blocksize debate
Let me summarize the major paradoxes I see here:
(1) Regarding the people (the majority of the core devs) who are against a blocksize increase: Well, the small-blocks arguments do seem kinda weird, and certainly not very "populist", in the sense that: When on earth have end-users ever heard of a computer technology whose capacity didn't grow pretty much exponentially year-on-year? All the cool new technology we've had - from hard drives to RAM to bandwidth - started out pathetically tiny and grew to unimaginably huge over the past few decades - and all our software has in turn gotten massively powerful and big and complex (sometimes bloated) to take advantage of the enormous new capacity available.
But now suddenly, for the first time in the history of technology, we seem to have a majority of the devs, on a major p2p project - saying: "Let's not scale the system up. It could be dangerous. It might break the whole system (if the hard-fork fails)."
I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here, maybe someone else could enlighten me, but I don't think I've ever seen this sort of thing happen in the last few decades of the history of technology - devs arguing against scaling up p2p technology to take advantage of expected growth in infrastructure capacity.
(2) But... on the other hand... the dire warnings of the small-blockians about what could happen if a hard-fork were to fail - wow, they do seem really dire! And these guys are pretty much all heavyweight, experienced programmers and/or game theorists and/or p2p open-source project managers.
I must say, that nearly all of the long-form arguments I've read - as well as many, many of the shorter comments I've read from many users in the threads, whose names I at least have come to more-or-less recognize over the past few months and years on reddit and bitcointalk - have been amazingly impressive in their ability to analyze all aspects of the lifecycle and management of open-source software projects, bringing up lots of serious points which I could never have come up with, and which seem to come from long experience with programming and project management - as well as dealing with economics and human nature (eg, greed - the game-theory stuff).
So a lot of really smart and experienced people with major expertise in various areas ranging from programming to management to game theory to politics to economics have been making some serious, mature, compelling arguments.
But, as I've been saying, the only problem to me is: in many of these cases, these arguments are vehemently in opposition to each other! So I find myself agreeing with pretty much all of them, one by one - which means the end result is just a giant contradiction.
I mean, today we have Bram Cohen, the inventor of BitTorrent, arguing (quite cogently and convincingly to me), that it would be dangerous to increase the blocksize. And this seems to be a guy who would know a few things about scaling out a massive global p2p network - since the protocol which he invented, BitTorrent, is now apparently responsible for like a third of the traffic on the internet (and this despite the long-term concerted efforts of major evil players such as the MPAA and the FBI to shut the whole thing down).
Was the BitTorrent analogy too "glib"?
By the way - I would like to go on a slight tangent here and say that one of the main reasons why I felt so "comfortable" jumping on the Bitcoin train back a few years ago, when I first heard about it and got into it, was the whole rough analogy I saw with BitTorrent.
I remembered the perhaps paradoxical fact that when a torrent is more popular (eg, a major movie release that just came out last week), then it actually becomes faster to download. More people want it, so more people have a few pieces of it, so more people are able to get it from each other. A kind of self-correcting economic feedback loop, where more demand directly leads to more supply.
(BitTorrent manages to pull this off by essentially adding a certain structure to the file being shared, so that it's not simply like an append-only list of 1 MB blocks, but rather more like an random-access or indexed array of 1 MB chunks. Say you're downloading a film which is 700 MB. As soon as your "client" program has downloaded a single 1-MB chunk - say chunk #99 - your "client" program instantly turns into a "server" program as well - offering that chunk #99 to other clients. From my simplistic understanding, I believe the Bitcoin protocol does something similar, to provide a p2p architecture. Hence my - perhaps naïve - assumption that Bitcoin already had the right algorithms / architecture / data structure to scale.)
The efficiency of the BitTorrent network seemed to jive with that "network law" (Metcalfe's Law?) about fax machines. This law states that the more fax machines there are, the more valuable the network of fax machines becomes. Or the value of the network grows on the order of the square of the number of nodes.
This is in contrast with other technology like cars, where the more you have, the worse things get. The more cars there are, the more traffic jams you have, so things start going downhill. I guess this is because highway space is limited - after all, we can't pave over the entire countryside, and we never did get those flying cars we were promised, as David Graeber laments in a recent essay in The Baffler magazine :-)
And regarding the "stress test" supposedly happening right now in the middle of this ongoing blocksize debate, I don't know what worries me more: the fact that it apparently is taking only $5,000 to do a simple kind of DoS on the blockchain - or the fact that there are a few rumors swirling around saying that the unknown company doing the stress test shares the same physical mailing address with a "scam" company?
Or maybe we should just be worried that so much of this debate is happening on a handful of forums which are controlled by some guy named theymos who's already engaged in some pretty "contentious" or "controversial" behavior like blowing a million dollars on writing forum software (I guess he never heard that reddit.com software is open-source)?
So I worry that the great promise of "decentralization" might be more fragile than we originally thought.
Scaling
Anyways, back to Metcalfe's Law: with virtual stuff, like torrents and fax machines, the more the merrier. The more people downloading a given movie, the faster it arrives - and the more people own fax machines, the more valuable the overall fax network.
So I kindof (naïvely?) assumed that Bitcoin, being "virtual" and p2p, would somehow scale up the same magical way BitTorrrent did. I just figured that more people using it would somehow automatically make it stronger and faster.
But now a lot of devs have started talking in terms of the old "scarcity" paradigm, talking about blockspace being a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" - which seems kinda scary, and antithetical to much of the earlier rhetoric we heard about Bitcoin (the stuff about supporting our favorite creators with micropayments, and the stuff about Africans using SMS to send around payments).
Look, when some asshole is in line in front of you at the cash register and he's holding up the line so they can run his credit card to buy a bag of Cheeto's, we tend to get pissed off at the guy - clogging up our expensive global electronic payment infrastructure to make a two-dollar purchase. And that's on a fairly efficient centralized system - and presumably after a year or so, VISA and the guy's bank can delete or compress the transaction in their SQL databases.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if some guy buys a coffee on the blockchain, or if somebody pays an online artist $1.99 for their work - then that transaction, a few bytes or so, has to live on the blockchain forever?
Or is there some "pruning" thing that gets rid of it after a while?
And this could lead to another question: Viewed from the perspective of double-entry bookkeeping, is the blockchain "world-wide ledger" more like the "balance sheet" part of accounting, i.e. a snapshot showing current assets and liabilities? Or is it more like the "cash flow" part of accounting, i.e. a journal showing historical revenues and expenses?
When I think of thousands of machines around the globe having to lug around multiple identical copies of a multi-gigabyte file containing some asshole's coffee purchase forever and ever... I feel like I'm ideologically drifting in one direction (where I'd end up also being against really cool stuff like online micropayments and Africans banking via SMS)... so I don't want to go there.
But on the other hand, when really experienced and battle-tested veterans with major experience in the world of open-souce programming and project management (the "small-blockians") warn of the catastrophic consequences of a possible failed hard-fork, I get freaked out and I wonder if Bitcoin really was destined to be a settlement layer for big transactions.
Could the original programmer(s) possibly weigh in?
And I don't mean to appeal to authority - but heck, where the hell is Satoshi Nakamoto in all this? I do understand that he/she/they would want to maintain absolute anonymity - but on the other hand, I assume SN wants Bitcoin to succeed (both for the future of humanity - or at least for all the bitcoins SN allegedly holds :-) - and I understand there is a way that SN can cryptographically sign a message - and I understand that as the original developer of Bitcoin, SN had some very specific opinions about the blocksize... So I'm kinda wondering of Satoshi could weigh in from time to time. Just to help out a bit. I'm not saying "Show us a sign" like a deity or something - but damn it sure would be fascinating and possibly very helpful if Satoshi gave us his/hetheir 2 satoshis worth at this really confusing juncture.
Are we using our capacity wisely?
I'm not a programming or game-theory whiz, I'm just a casual user who has tried to keep up with technology over the years.
It just seems weird to me that here we have this massive supercomputer (500 times more powerful than the all the supercomputers in the world combined) doing fairly straightforward "embarassingly parallel" number-crunching operations to secure a p2p world-wide ledger called the blockchain to keep track of a measly 2.1 quadrillion tokens spread out among a few billion addresses - and a couple of years ago you had people like Rick Falkvinge saying the blockchain would someday be supporting multi-million-dollar letters of credit for international trade and you had people like Andreas Antonopoulos saying the blockchain would someday allow billions of "unbanked" people to send remittances around the village or around the world dirt-cheap - and now suddenly in June 2015 we're talking about blockspace as a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" and partially centralized, corporate-sponsored "Level 2" vaporware like Lightning Network and some mysterious company is "stess testing" or "DoS-ing" the system by throwing away a measly $5,000 and suddenly it sounds like the whole system could eventually head right back into PayPal and Western Union territory again, in terms of expensive fees.
When I got into Bitcoin, I really was heavily influenced by vague analogies with BitTorrent: I figured everyone would just have tiny little like utorrent-type program running on their machine (ie, Bitcoin-QT or Armory or Mycelium etc.).
I figured that just like anyone can host a their own blog or webserver, anyone would be able to host their own bank.
Yeah, Google and and Mozilla and Twitter and Facebook and WhatsApp did come along and build stuff on top of TCP/IP, so I did expect a bunch of companies to build layers on top of the Bitcoin protocol as well. But I still figured the basic unit of bitcoin client software powering the overall system would be small and personal and affordable and p2p - like a bittorrent client - or at the most, like a cheap server hosting a blog or email server.
And I figured there would be a way at the software level, at the architecture level, at the algorithmic level, at the data structure level - to let the thing scale - if not infinitely, at least fairly massively and gracefully - the same way the BitTorrent network has.
Of course, I do also understand that with BitTorrent, you're sharing a read-only object (eg, a movie) - whereas with Bitcoin, you're achieving distributed trustless consensus and appending it to a write-only (or append-only) database.
So I do understand that the problem which BitTorrent solves is much simpler than the problem which Bitcoin sets out to solve.
But still, it seems that there's got to be a way to make this thing scale. It's p2p and it's got 500 times more computing power than all the supercomputers in the world combined - and so many brilliant and motivated and inspired people want this thing to succeed! And Bitcoin could be our civilization's last chance to steer away from the oncoming debt-based ditch of disaster we seem to be driving into!
It just seems that Bitcoin has got to be able to scale somehow - and all these smart people working together should be able to come up with a solution which pretty much everyone can agree - in advance - will work.
Right? Right?
A (probably irrelevant) tangent on algorithms and architecture and data structures
I'll finally weigh with my personal perspective - although I might be biased due to my background (which is more on the theoretical side of computer science).
My own modest - or perhaps radical - suggestion would be to ask whether we're really looking at all the best possible algorithms and architectures and data structures out there.
From this perspective, I sometimes worry that the overwhelming majority of the great minds working on the programming and game-theory stuff might come from a rather specific, shall we say "von Neumann" or "procedural" or "imperative" school of programming (ie, C and Python and Java programmers).
It seems strange to me that such a cutting-edge and important computer project would have so little participation from the great minds at the other end of the spectrum of programming paradigms - namely, the "functional" and "declarative" and "algebraic" (and co-algebraic!) worlds.
For example, I was struck in particular by statements I've seen here and there (which seemed rather hubristic or lackadaisical to me - for something as important as Bitcoin), that the specification of Bitcoin and the blockchain doesn't really exist in any form other than the reference implementation(s) (in procedural languages such as C or Python?).
Curry-Howard anyone?
I mean, many computer scientists are aware of the Curry-Howard isomorophism, which basically says that the relationship between a theorem and its proof is equivalent to the relationship between a specification and its implementation. In other words, there is a long tradition in mathematics (and in computer programming) of:
And it's not exactly "turtles all the way down" either: a specification is generally simple and compact enough that a good programmer can usually simply visually inspect it to determine if it is indeed "correct" - something which is very difficult, if not impossible, to do with a program written in a procedural, implementation-oriented language such as C or Python or Java.
So I worry that we've got this tradition, from the open-source github C/Java programming tradition, of never actually writing our "specification", and only writing the "implementation". In mission-critical military-grade programming projects (which often use languages like Ada or Maude) this is simply not allowed. It would seem that a project as mission-critical as Bitcoin - which could literally be crucial for humanity's continued survival - should also use this kind of military-grade software development approach.
And I'm not saying rewrite the implementations in these kind of theoretical languages. But it might be helpful if the C/Python/Java programmers in the Bitcoin imperative programming world could build some bridges to the Maude/Haskell/ML programmers of the functional and algebraic programming worlds to see if any kind of useful cross-pollination might take place - between specifications and implementations.
For example, the JavaFAN formal analyzer for multi-threaded Java programs (developed using tools based on the Maude language) was applied to the Remote Agent AI program aboard NASA's Deep Space 1 shuttle, written in Java - and it took only a few minutes using formal mathematical reasoning to detect a potential deadlock which would have occurred years later during the space mission when the damn spacecraft was already way out around Pluto.
And "the Maude-NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) Protocol Analyzer (Maude-NPA) is a tool used to provide security proofs of cryptographic protocols and to search for protocol flaws and cryptosystem attacks."
These are open-source formal reasoning tools developed by DARPA and used by NASA and the US Navy to ensure that program implementations satisfy their specifications. It would be great if some of the people involved in these kinds of projects could contribute to help ensure the security and scalability of Bitcoin.
But there is a wide abyss between the kinds of programmers who use languages like Maude and the kinds of programmers who use languages like C/Python/Java - and it can be really hard to get the two worlds to meet. There is a bit of rapprochement between these language communities in languages which might be considered as being somewhere in the middle, such as Haskell and ML. I just worry that Bitcoin might be turning into being an exclusively C/Python/Java project (with the algorithms and practitioners traditionally of that community), when it could be more advantageous if it also had some people from the functional and algebraic-specification and program-verification community involved as well. The thing is, though: the theoretical practitioners are big on "semantics" - I've heard them say stuff like "Yes but a C / C++ program has no easily identifiable semantics". So to get them involved, you really have to first be able to talk about what your program does (specification) - before proceeding to describe how it does it (implementation). And writing high-level specifications is typically very hard using the syntax and semantics of languages like C and Java and Python - whereas specs are fairly easy to write in Maude - and not only that, they're executable, and you state and verify properties about them - which provides for the kind of debate Nick Szabo was advocating ("more computer science, less noise").
Imagine if we had an executable algebraic specification of Bitcoin in Maude, where we could formally reason about and verify certain crucial game-theoretical properties - rather than merely hand-waving and arguing and deploying and praying.
And so in the theoretical programming community you've got major research on various logics such as Girard's Linear Logic (which is resource-conscious) and Bruni and Montanari's Tile Logic (which enables "pasting" bigger systems together from smaller ones in space and time), and executable algebraic specification languages such as Meseguer's Maude (which would be perfect for game theory modeling, with its functional modules for specifying the deterministic parts of systems and its system modules for specifiying non-deterministic parts of systems, and its parameterized skeletons for sketching out the typical architectures of mobile systems, and its formal reasoning and verification tools and libraries which have been specifically applied to testing and breaking - and fixing - cryptographic protocols).
And somewhat closer to the practical hands-on world, you've got stuff like Google's MapReduce and lots of Big Data database languages developed by Google as well. And yet here we are with a mempool growing dangerously big for RAM on a single machine, and a 20-GB append-only list as our database - and not much debate on practical results from Google's Big Data databases.
(And by the way: maybe I'm totally ignorant for asking this, but I'll ask anyways: why the hell does the mempool have to stay in RAM? Couldn't it work just as well if it were stored temporarily on the hard drive?)
And you've got CalvinDB out of Yale which apparently provides an ACID layer on top of a massively distributed database.
Look, I'm just an armchair follower cheering on these projects. I can barely manage to write a query in SQL, or read through a C or Python or Java program. But I would argue two points here: (1) these languages may be too low-level and "non-formal" for writing and modeling and formally reasoning about and proving properties of mission-critical specifications - and (2) there seem to be some Big Data tools already deployed by institutions such as Google and Yale which support global petabyte-size databases on commodity boxes with nice properties such as near-real-time and ACID - and I sometimes worry that the "core devs" might be failing to review the literature (and reach out to fellow programmers) out there to see if there might be some formal program-verification and practical Big Data tools out there which could be applied to coming up with rock-solid, 100% consensus proposals to handle an issue such as blocksize scaling, which seems to have become much more intractable than many people might have expected.
I mean, the protocol solved the hard stuff: the elliptical-curve stuff and the Byzantine General stuff. How the heck can we be falling down on the comparatively "easier" stuff - like scaling the blocksize?
It just seems like defeatism to say "Well, the blockchain is already 20-30 GB and it's gonna be 20-30 TB ten years from now - and we need 10 Mbs bandwidth now and 10,000 Mbs bandwidth 20 years from - assuming the evil Verizon and AT&T actually give us that - so let's just become a settlement platform and give up on buying coffee or banking the unbanked or doing micropayments, and let's push all that stuff into some corporate-controlled vaporware without even a whitepaper yet."
So you've got Peter Todd doing some possibly brilliant theorizing and extrapolating on the idea of "treechains" - there is a Let's Talk Bitcoin podcast from about a year ago where he sketches the rough outlines of this idea out in a very inspiring, high-level way - although the specifics have yet to be hammered out. And we've got Blockstream also doing some hopeful hand-waving about the Lightning Network.
Things like Peter Todd's treechains - which may be similar to the spark in some devs' eyes called Lightning Network - are examples of the kind of algorithm or architecture which might manage to harness the massive computing power of miners and nodes in such a way that certain kinds of massive and graceful scaling become possible.
It just seems like a kindof tiny dev community working on this stuff.
Being a C or Python or Java programmer should not be a pre-req to being able to help contribute to the specification (and formal reasoning and program verification) for Bitcoin and the blockchain.
XML and UML are crap modeling and specification languages, and C and Java and Python are even worse (as specification languages - although as implementation languages, they are of course fine).
But there are serious modeling and specification languages out there, and they could be very helpful at times like this - where what we're dealing with is questions of modeling and specification (ie, "needs and requirements").
One just doesn't often see the practical, hands-on world of open-source github implementation-level programmers and the academic, theoretical world of specification-level programmers meeting very often. I wish there were some way to get these two worlds to collaborate on Bitcoin.
Maybe a good first step to reach out to the theoretical people would be to provide a modular executable algebraic specification of the Bitcoin protocol in a recognized, military/NASA-grade specification language such as Maude - because that's something the theoretical community can actually wrap their heads around, whereas it's very hard to get them to pay attention to something written only as a C / Python / Java implementation (without an accompanying specification in a formal language).
They can't check whether the program does what it's supposed to do - if you don't provide a formal mathematical definition of what the program is supposed to do.
Specification : Implementation :: Theorem : Proof
You have to remember: the theoretical community is very aware of the Curry-Howard isomorphism. Just like it would be hard to get a mathematician's attention by merely showing them a proof without telling also telling them what theorem the proof is proving - by the same token, it's hard to get the attention of a theoretical computer scientist by merely showing them an implementation without showing them the specification that it implements.
Bitcoin is currently confronted with a mathematical or "computer science" problem: how to secure the network while getting high enough transactional throughput, while staying within the limited RAM, bandwidth and hard drive space limitations of current and future infrastructure.
The problem only becomes a political and economic problem if we give up on trying to solve it as a mathematical and "theoretical computer science" problem.
There should be a plethora of whitepapers out now proposing algorithmic solutions to these scaling issues. Remember, all we have to do is apply the Byzantine General consensus-reaching procedure to a worldwide database which shuffles 2.1 quadrillion tokens among a few billion addresses. The 21 company has emphatically pointed out that racing to compute a hash to add a block is an "embarrassingly parallel" problem - very easy to decompose among cheap, fault-prone, commodity boxes, and recompose into an overall solution - along the lines of Google's highly successful MapReduce.
I guess what I'm really saying is (and I don't mean to be rude here), is that C and Python and Java programmers might not be the best qualified people to develop and formally prove the correctness of (note I do not say: "test", I say "formally prove the correctness of") these kinds of algorithms.
I really believe in the importance of getting the algorithms and architectures right - look at Google Search itself, it uses some pretty brilliant algorithms and architectures (eg, MapReduce, Paxos) which enable it to achieve amazing performance - on pretty crappy commodity hardware. And look at BitTorrent, which is truly p2p, where more demand leads to more supply.
So, in this vein, I will close this lengthy rant with an oddly specific link - which may or may not be able to make some interesting contributions to finding suitable algorithms, architectures and data structures which might help Bitcoin scale massively. I have no idea if this link could be helpful - but given the near-total lack of people from the Haskell and ML and functional worlds in these Bitcoin specification debates, I thought I'd be remiss if I didn't throw this out - just in case there might be something here which could help us channel the massive computing power of the Bitcoin network in such a way as to enable us simply sidestep this kind of desperate debate where both sides seem right because the other side seems wrong.
https://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/neil.ghani/papers/ghani-calco07
The above paper is about "higher dimensional trees". It uses a bit of category theory (not a whole lot) and a bit of Haskell (again not a lot - just a simple data structure called a Rose tree, which has a wikipedia page) to develop a very expressive and efficient data structure which generalizes from lists to trees to higher dimensions.
I have no idea if this kind of data structure could be applicable to the current scaling mess we apparently are getting bogged down in - I don't have the game-theory skills to figure it out.
I just thought that since the blockchain is like a list, and since there are some tree-like structures which have been grafted on for efficiency (eg Merkle trees) and since many of the futuristic scaling proposals seem to also involve generalizing from list-like structures (eg, the blockchain) to tree-like structures (eg, side-chains and tree-chains)... well, who knows, there might be some nugget of algorithmic or architectural or data-structure inspiration there.
So... TL;DR:
(1) I'm freaked out that this blocksize debate has splintered the community so badly and dragged on so long, with no resolution in sight, and both sides seeming so right (because the other side seems so wrong).
(2) I think Bitcoin could gain immensely by using high-level formal, algebraic and co-algebraic program specification and verification languages (such as Maude including Maude-NPA, Mobile Maude parameterized skeletons, etc.) to specify (and possibly also, to some degree, verify) what Bitcoin does - before translating to low-level implementation languages such as C and Python and Java saying how Bitcoin does it. This would help to communicate and reason about programs with much more mathematical certitude - and possibly obviate the need for many political and economic tradeoffs which currently seem dismally inevitable - and possibly widen the collaboration on this project.
(3) I wonder if there are some Big Data approaches out there (eg, along the lines of Google's MapReduce and BigTable, or Yale's CalvinDB), which could be implemented to allow Bitcoin to scale massively and painlessly - and to satisfy all stakeholders, ranging from millionaires to micropayments, coffee drinkers to the great "unbanked".
submitted by BeYourOwnBank to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

What Is Bitcoin Core (BTCC) ? And Why Its Important What Does BCH Stand For? (Cryptocurrency) What is Bitcoin Backed By? (Bonus Video) How does Bitcoin actually work? What is Bitcoin?  Crypto ... What Is a Cryptocurrency

Buy Bitcoin Worldwide does not promote, facilitate or engage in futures, options contracts or any other form of derivatives trading. Buy Bitcoin Worldwide does not offer legal advice. Any such advice should be sought independently of visiting Buy Bitcoin Worldwide. Only a legal professional can offer legal advice and Buy Bitcoin Worldwide offers no such advice with respect to the contents of ... Wissenswertes über Bitcoins Unser Bitcoin Chart zeigt Ihnen den aktuellen Bitcoin Kurs in Euro (Kürzel: BTC und XBT) sowie die Bitcoin Kursentwicklung (Bitcoincharts).Wenn Sie Bitcoins kaufen möchten, können Sie sich hier anmelden.In unseren Bitcoin.de FAQs und in unserem Tutorial "Mein erster Bitcoin" erfahren Sie, wie Sie Bitcoins verkaufen oder kaufen können. What does BITCOIN stand for? What does BITCOIN mean? This page is about the various possible meanings of the acronym, abbreviation, shorthand or slang term: BITCOIN. Possible matching categories: Coins. Filter by: Sort by:Popularity Alphabetically Category. Term. Definition. Options. Rating. BITCOIN: Buy It Today Coin! Miscellaneous » Funnies. Rate it: What does BITCOIN mean? Bitcoin Bitcoin ... Bitcoin (BTC) uses the Proof of Work (PoW) consensus algorithm as the basis of its security. This means that like many other cryptocurrencies, a network of cryptocurrency miners is used to discover blocks and add pending transactions to them, to render them irreversible.. The block discovery process, which takes approximately 10 minutes per block, also results in the minting of a fixed number ... Cryptocurrency typically does not have much of an effect on equity prices, he has said, but Bitcoin does stand to benefit from any stimulus caused by the stock market trades extending beyond their usual timeline. “#Bitcoin is a standout fixed-supply asset that should be a primary beneficiary in a period of limited potential further upside in equity and bond prices, in our view. #QE ...

[index] [36348] [46002] [33219] [22705] [15405] [41675] [36686] [21877] [9755] [43484]

What Is Bitcoin Core (BTCC) ? And Why Its Important

Bitcoin for Beginners 6,114 views. 6:53. Is ICON (ICX coin) a good investment? (Price analysis) - Duration: 10:17. CRYPTO CODY 1,466 views. 10:17. Stacked Bar Chart and Stacked Column Chart Power ... In this video you will learn what this cryptocurrency stands for: BTC -Here's is the link mentioned in the video: http://coinbase.com/join/clinge_f?src=ios-l... Learn More About Crypto Investing: http://www.coinslikecody.com As a real estate investor I have always been very traditional with my investments. Preferring... Bitcoin is backed by a computer network, encryption, people who have or support bitcoins, time, energy, notoriety, the demand for a sound digital currency, the free market, etc.. Is there anything ... -PART 1- Video series about "market cap" in cryptocurrencies. What does "Market Cap" mean? It stands for market capitalization. In this video, I explain what...

#