GHash.IO Mining Pool – BitcoinWiki


Aeon (AEON) is a private, secure, untraceable currency. You are your bank, you control your funds, and nobody can trace your transfers.

Flux: Revisiting Near Blocks for Proof-of-Work Blockchains

Cryptology ePrint Archive: Report 2018/415
Date: 2018-05-29
Author(s): Alexei Zamyatin∗, Nicholas Stifter, Philipp Schindler, Edgar Weippl, William J. Knottenbelt∗

Link to Paper

The term near or weak blocks describes Bitcoin blocks whose PoW does not meet the required target difficulty to be considered valid under the regular consensus rules of the protocol. Near blocks are generally associated with protocol improvement proposals striving towards shorter transaction confirmation times. Existing proposals assume miners will act rationally based solely on intrinsic incentives arising from the adoption of these changes, such as earlier detection of blockchain forks.
In this paper we present Flux, a protocol extension for proof-of-work blockchains that leverages on near blocks, a new block reward distribution mechanism, and an improved branch selection policy to incentivize honest participation of miners. Our protocol reduces mining variance, improves the responsiveness of the underlying blockchain in terms of transaction processing, and can be deployed without conflicting modifications to the underlying base protocol as a velvet fork. We perform an initial analysis of selfish mining which suggests Flux not only provides security guarantees similar to pure Nakamoto consensus, but potentially renders selfish mining strategies less profitable.

[1] Bitcoin Cash. Accessed: 2017-01-24.
[2] P2pool. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[3] G. Andersen. Comment in ”faster blocks vs bigger blocks”., 2014. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[4] G. Andersen. [bitcoin-dev] weak block thoughts..., 2015. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[5] E. Androulaki, S. Capkun, and G. O. Karame. Two bitcoins at the price of one? double-spending attacks on fast payments in bitcoin. In CCS, 2012.
[6] J. Becker, D. Breuker, T. Heide, J. Holler, H. P. Rauer, and R. Bohme. ¨ Can we afford integrity by proof-of-work? scenarios inspired by the bitcoin currency. In WEIS. Springer, 2012.
[7] I. Bentov, R. Pass, and E. Shi. Snow white: Provably secure proofs of stake., 2016. Accessed: 2016-11-08.
[8] Bitcoin community. OP RETURN.\RETURN. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[9] Bitcoin Wiki. Merged mining specification. [\]( mining\ specification. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[10] Hashrate Distribution in Bitcoin. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[11] Unconfirmed bitcoin transactions. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[12] J. Bonneau, A. Miller, J. Clark, A. Narayanan, J. A. Kroll, and E. W. Felten. Sok: Research perspectives and challenges for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2015.
[13] V. Buterin. Ethereum: A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform., 2014. Accessed: 2016-08-22.
[14] C. Decker and R. Wattenhofer. Information propagation in the bitcoin network. In Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P), 2013 IEEE Thirteenth International Conference on, pages 1–10. IEEE, 2013.
[15] J. R. Douceur. The sybil attack. In International Workshop on Peer-toPeer Systems, pages 251–260. Springer, 2002.
[16] I. Eyal, A. E. Gencer, E. G. Sirer, and R. Renesse. Bitcoin-ng: A scalable blockchain protocol. In 13th USENIX Security Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI’16). USENIX Association, Mar 2016.
[17] I. Eyal and E. G. Sirer. Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 436–454. Springer, 2014.
[18] J. Garay, A. Kiayias, and N. Leonardos. The bitcoin backbone protocol: Analysis and applications. In Advances in Cryptology-EUROCRYPT 2015, pages 281–310. Springer, 2015.
[19] A. E. Gencer, S. Basu, I. Eyal, R. Renesse, and E. G. Sirer. Decentralization in bitcoin and ethereum networks. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC). Springer, 2018.
[20] A. Gervais, G. Karame, S. Capkun, and V. Capkun. Is bitcoin a decentralized currency? volume 12, pages 54–60, 2014.
[21] A. Gervais, G. O. Karame, K. Wust, V. Glykantzis, H. Ritzdorf, ¨ and S. Capkun. On the security and performance of proof of work blockchains., 2016. Accessed: 2016-08-10.
[22] M. Jakobsson and A. Juels. Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols. In Secure Information Networks, pages 258–272. Springer, 1999.
[23] A. Judmayer, A. Zamyatin, N. Stifter, A. G. Voyiatzis, and E. Weippl. Merged mining: Curse or cure? In CBT’17: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology, Sep 2017.
[24] G. O. Karame, E. Androulaki, M. Roeschlin, A. Gervais, and S. Capkun. ˇ Misbehavior in bitcoin: A study of double-spending and accountability. volume 18, page 2. ACM, 2015.
[25] A. Kiayias, A. Miller, and D. Zindros. Non-interactive proofs of proof-of-work. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/963, 2017. Accessed:2017-10-03.
[26] A. Kiayias, A. Russell, B. David, and R. Oliynykov. Ouroboros: A provably secure proof-of-stake blockchain protocol. In Annual International Cryptology Conference, pages 357–388. Springer, 2017.
[27] Y. Lewenberg, Y. Sompolinsky, and A. Zohar. Inclusive block chain protocols. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 528–547. Springer, 2015.
[28] Litecoin community. Litecoin reference implementation. Accessed: 2018-05-03.
[29] G. Maxwell. Comment in ”[bitcoin-dev] weak block thoughts...”., 2016. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[30] S. Micali. Algorand: The efficient and democratic ledger., 2016. Accessed: 2017-02-09.
[31] S. Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system., Dec 2008. Accessed: 2015-07-01.
[32] Namecoin community. Namecoin reference implementation. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[33] Narayanan, Arvind and Bonneau, Joseph and Felten, Edward and Miller, Andrew and Goldfeder, Steven. Bitcoin and cryptocurrency technologies. bitcoin book.pdf?a=1, 2016. Accessed: 2016-03-29.
[34] K. Nayak, S. Kumar, A. Miller, and E. Shi. Stubborn mining: Generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. In 1st IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2016. IEEE, 2016.
[35] K. J. O’Dwyer and D. Malone. Bitcoin mining and its energy footprint. 2014.
[36] R. Pass and E. Shi. Fruitchains: A fair blockchain., 2016. Accessed: 2016-11-08.
[37] C. Perez-Sol ´ a, S. Delgado-Segura, G. Navarro-Arribas, and J. Herrera- ` Joancomart´ı. Double-spending prevention for bitcoin zero-confirmation transactions., 2017. Accessed: 2017-06-
[38] Pseudonymous(”TierNolan”). Decoupling transactions and pow., 2013. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[39] P. R. Rizun. Subchains: A technique to scale bitcoin and improve the user experience. Ledger, 1:38–52, 2016.
[40] K. Rosenbaum. Weak blocks - the good and the bad. index.php/2016/01/19/weak-blocks-the-good-and-the-bad/, 2016. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[41] K. Rosenbaum and R. Russell. Iblt and weak block propagation performance. Scaling Bitcoin Hong Kong (6 December 2015), 2015.
[42] M. Rosenfeld. Analysis of hashrate-based double spending., 2014. Accessed: 2016-03-09.
[43] R. Russel. Weak block simulator for bitcoin., 2014. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[44] A. Sapirshtein, Y. Sompolinsky, and A. Zohar. Optimal selfish mining strategies in bitcoin., 2015. Accessed: 2016-08-22.
[45] E. B. Sasson, A. Chiesa, C. Garman, M. Green, I. Miers, E. Tromer, and M. Virza. Zerocash: Decentralized anonymous payments from bitcoin. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2014 IEEE Symposium on, pages 459–474. IEEE, 2014.
[46] Satoshi Nakamoto. Comment in ”bitdns and generalizing bitcoin” bitcointalk thread. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[47] Y. Sompolinsky, Y. Lewenberg, and A. Zohar. Spectre: A fast and scalable cryptocurrency protocol. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2016/1159, 2016. Accessed: 2017-02-20.
[48] Y. Sompolinsky and A. Zohar. Secure high-rate transaction processing in bitcoin. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 507–527. Springer, 2015.
[49] Suhas Daftuar. Bitcoin merge commit: ”mining: Select transactions using feerate-with-ancestors”. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[50] M. B. Taylor. Bitcoin and the age of bespoke silicon. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Compilers, Architectures and Synthesis for Embedded Systems, page 16. IEEE Press, 2013.
[51] F. Tschorsch and B. Scheuermann. Bitcoin and beyond: A technical survey on decentralized digital currencies. In IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, volume PP, pages 1–1, 2016.
[52] P. J. Van Laarhoven and E. H. Aarts. Simulated annealing. In Simulated annealing: Theory and applications, pages 7–15. Springer, 1987.
[53] A. Zamyatin, N. Stifter, A. Judmayer, P. Schindler, E. Weippl, and W. J. Knottebelt. (Short Paper) A Wild Velvet Fork Appears! Inclusive Blockchain Protocol Changes in Practice. In 5th Workshop on Bitcoin and Blockchain Research, Financial Cryptography and Data Security 18 (FC). Springer, 2018.
[54] F. Zhang, I. Eyal, R. Escriva, A. Juels, and R. Renesse. Rem: Resourceefficient mining for blockchains., 2017. Accessed: 2017-03-24.
submitted by dj-gutz to myrXiv [link] [comments]

Syscoin Platform’s Great Reddit Scaling Bake-off Proposal

Syscoin Platform’s Great Reddit Scaling Bake-off Proposal
We are excited to participate and present Syscoin Platform's ideal characteristics and capabilities towards a well-rounded Reddit Community Points solution!
Our scaling solution for Reddit Community Points involves 2-way peg interoperability with Ethereum. This will provide a scalable token layer built specifically for speed and high volumes of simple value transfers at a very low cost, while providing sovereign ownership and onchain finality.
Token transfers scale by taking advantage of a globally sorting mempool that provides for probabilistically secure assumptions of “as good as settled”. The opportunity here for token receivers is to have an app-layer interactivity on the speed/security tradeoff (99.9999% assurance within 10 seconds). We call this Z-DAG, and it achieves high-throughput across a mesh network topology presently composed of about 2,000 geographically dispersed full-nodes. Similar to Bitcoin, however, these nodes are incentivized to run full-nodes for the benefit of network security, through a bonded validator scheme. These nodes do not participate in the consensus of transactions or block validation any differently than other nodes and therefore do not degrade the security model of Bitcoin’s validate first then trust, across every node. Each token transfer settles on-chain. The protocol follows Bitcoin core policies so it has adequate code coverage and protocol hardening to be qualified as production quality software. It shares a significant portion of Bitcoin’s own hashpower through merged-mining.
This platform as a whole can serve token microtransactions, larger settlements, and store-of-value in an ideal fashion, providing probabilistic scalability whilst remaining decentralized according to Bitcoin design. It is accessible to ERC-20 via a permissionless and trust-minimized bridge that works in both directions. The bridge and token platform are currently available on the Syscoin mainnet. This has been gaining recent attention for use by loyalty point programs and stablecoins such as Binance USD.


Syscoin Foundation identified a few paths for Reddit to leverage this infrastructure, each with trade-offs. The first provides the most cost-savings and scaling benefits at some sacrifice of token autonomy. The second offers more preservation of autonomy with a more narrow scope of cost savings than the first option, but savings even so. The third introduces more complexity than the previous two yet provides the most overall benefits. We consider the third as most viable as it enables Reddit to benefit even while retaining existing smart contract functionality. We will focus on the third option, and include the first two for good measure.
  1. Distribution, burns and user-to-user transfers of Reddit Points are entirely carried out on the Syscoin network. This full-on approach to utilizing the Syscoin network provides the most scalability and transaction cost benefits of these scenarios. The tradeoff here is distribution and subscription handling likely migrating away from smart contracts into the application layer.
  2. The Reddit Community Points ecosystem can continue to use existing smart contracts as they are used today on the Ethereum mainchain. Users migrate a portion of their tokens to Syscoin, the scaling network, to gain much lower fees, scalability, and a proven base layer, without sacrificing sovereign ownership. They would use Syscoin for user-to-user transfers. Tips redeemable in ten seconds or less, a high-throughput relay network, and onchain settlement at a block target of 60 seconds.
  3. Integration between Matic Network and Syscoin Platform - similar to Syscoin’s current integration with Ethereum - will provide Reddit Community Points with EVM scalability (including the Memberships ERC777 operator) on the Matic side, and performant simple value transfers, robust decentralized security, and sovereign store-of-value on the Syscoin side. It’s “the best of both worlds”. The trade-off is more complex interoperability.

Syscoin + Matic Integration

Matic and Blockchain Foundry Inc, the public company formed by the founders of Syscoin, recently entered a partnership for joint research and business development initiatives. This is ideal for all parties as Matic Network and Syscoin Platform provide complementary utility. Syscoin offers characteristics for sovereign ownership and security based on Bitcoin’s time-tested model, and shares a significant portion of Bitcoin’s own hashpower. Syscoin’s focus is on secure and scalable simple value transfers, trust-minimized interoperability, and opt-in regulatory compliance for tokenized assets rather than scalability for smart contract execution. On the other hand, Matic Network can provide scalable EVM for smart contract execution. Reddit Community Points can benefit from both.
Syscoin + Matic integration is actively being explored by both teams, as it is helpful to Reddit, Ethereum, and the industry as a whole.

Proving Performance & Cost Savings

Our POC focuses on 100,000 on-chain settlements of token transfers on the Syscoin Core blockchain. Transfers and burns perform equally with Syscoin. For POCs related to smart contracts (subscriptions, etc), refer to the Matic Network proposal.
On-chain settlement of 100k transactions was accomplished within roughly twelve minutes, well-exceeding Reddit’s expectation of five days. This was performed using six full-nodes operating on compute-optimized AWS c4.2xlarge instances which were geographically distributed (Virginia, London, Sao Paulo Brazil, Oregon, Singapore, Germany). A higher quantity of settlements could be reached within the same time-frame with more broadcasting nodes involved, or using hosts with more resources for faster execution of the process.
Addresses used: 100,014
The demonstration was executed using this tool. The results can be seen in the following blocks:
It is important to note that this POC is not focused on Z-DAG. The performance of Z-DAG has been benchmarked within realistic network conditions: Whiteblock’s audit is publicly available. Network latency tests showed an average TPS around 15k with burst capacity up to 61k. Zero-latency control group exhibited ~150k TPS. Mainnet testing of the Z-DAG network is achievable and will require further coordination and additional resources.
Even further optimizations are expected in the upcoming Syscoin Core release which will implement a UTXO model for our token layer bringing further efficiency as well as open the door to additional scaling technology currently under research by our team and academic partners. At present our token layer is account-based, similar to Ethereum. Opt-in compliance structures will also be introduced soon which will offer some positive performance characteristics as well. It makes the most sense to implement these optimizations before performing another benchmark for Z-DAG, especially on the mainnet considering the resources required to stress-test this network.

Cost Savings

Total cost for these 100k transactions: $0.63 USD
See the live fee comparison for savings estimation between transactions on Ethereum and Syscoin. Below is a snapshot at time of writing:
ETH price: $318.55 ETH gas price: 55.00 Gwei ($0.37)
Syscoin price: $0.11
Snapshot of live fee comparison chart
Z-DAG provides a more efficient fee-market. A typical Z-DAG transaction costs 0.0000582 SYS. Tokens can be safely redeemed/re-spent within seconds or allowed to settle on-chain beforehand. The costs should remain about this low for microtransactions.
Syscoin will achieve further reduction of fees and even greater scalability with offchain payment channels for assets, with Z-DAG as a resilience fallback. New payment channel technology is one of the topics under research by the Syscoin development team with our academic partners at TU Delft. In line with the calculation in the Lightning Networks white paper, payment channels using assets with Syscoin Core will bring theoretical capacity for each person on Earth (7.8 billion) to have five on-chain transactions per year, per person, without requiring anyone to enter a fee market (aka “wait for a block”). This exceeds the minimum LN expectation of two transactions per person, per year; one to exist on-chain and one to settle aggregated value.

Tools, Infrastructure & Documentation

Syscoin Bridge

Mainnet Demonstration of Syscoin Bridge with the Basic Attention Token ERC-20
A two-way blockchain interoperability system that uses Simple Payment Verification to enable:
  • Any Standard ERC-20 token to be moved from Ethereum to the Syscoin blockchain as a Syscoin Platform Token (SPT), and back to Ethereum
  • Any SPT to be moved from Syscoin to the Ethereum blockchain as an ERC-20 token, and back to Syscoin


  • Permissionless
  • No counterparties involved
  • No trading mechanisms involved
  • No third-party liquidity providers required
  • Cross-chain Fractional Supply - 2-way peg - Token supply maintained globally
  • ERC-20s gain vastly improved transactionality with the Syscoin Token Platform, along with the security of bitcoin-core-compliant PoW.
  • SPTs gain access to all the tooling, applications and capabilities of Ethereum for ERC-20, including smart contracts.

Source code
Main Subprojects


Tools to simplify using Syscoin Bridge as a service with dapps and wallets will be released some time after implementation of Syscoin Core 4.2. These will be based upon the same processes which are automated in the current live Sysethereum Dapp that is functioning with the Syscoin mainnet.


Syscoin Bridge & How it Works (description and process flow)
Superblock Validation Battles
HOWTO: Provision the Bridge for your ERC-20
HOWTO: Setup an Agent
Developer & User Diligence


The Syscoin Ethereum Bridge is secured by Agent nodes participating in a decentralized and incentivized model that involves roles of Superblock challengers and submitters. This model is open to participation. The benefits here are trust-minimization, permissionless-ness, and potentially less legal/regulatory red-tape than interop mechanisms that involve liquidity providers and/or trading mechanisms.
The trade-off is that due to the decentralized nature there are cross-chain settlement times of one hour to cross from Ethereum to Syscoin, and three hours to cross from Syscoin to Ethereum. We are exploring ways to reduce this time while maintaining decentralization via zkp. Even so, an “instant bridge” experience could be provided by means of a third-party liquidity mechanism. That option exists but is not required for bridge functionality today. Typically bridges are used with batch value, not with high frequencies of smaller values, and generally it is advantageous to keep some value on both chains for maximum availability of utility. Even so, the cross-chain settlement time is good to mention here.


Ethereum -> Syscoin: Matic or Ethereum transaction fee for bridge contract interaction, negligible Syscoin transaction fee for minting tokens
Syscoin -> Ethereum: Negligible Syscoin transaction fee for burning tokens, 0.01% transaction fee paid to Bridge Agent in the form of the ERC-20, Matic or Ethereum transaction fee for contract interaction.


Zero-Confirmation Directed Acyclic Graph is an instant settlement protocol that is used as a complementary system to proof-of-work (PoW) in the confirmation of Syscoin service transactions. In essence, a Z-DAG is simply a directed acyclic graph (DAG) where validating nodes verify the sequential ordering of transactions that are received in their memory pools. Z-DAG is used by the validating nodes across the network to ensure that there is absolute consensus on the ordering of transactions and no balances are overflowed (no double-spends).


  • Unique fee-market that is more efficient for microtransaction redemption and settlement
  • Uses decentralized means to enable tokens with value transfer scalability that is comparable or exceeds that of credit card networks
  • Provides high throughput and secure fulfillment even if blocks are full
  • Probabilistic and interactive
  • 99.9999% security assurance within 10 seconds
  • Can serve payment channels as a resilience fallback that is faster and lower-cost than falling-back directly to a blockchain
  • Each Z-DAG transaction also settles onchain through Syscoin Core at 60-second block target using SHA-256 Proof of Work consensus

Source code


Syscoin-js provides tooling for all Syscoin Core RPCs including interactivity with Z-DAG.


Z-DAG White Paper
Useful read: An in-depth Z-DAG discussion between Syscoin Core developer Jag Sidhu and Brave Software Research Engineer Gonçalo Pestana


Z-DAG enables the ideal speed/security tradeoff to be determined per use-case in the application layer. It minimizes the sacrifice required to accept and redeem fast transfers/payments while providing more-than-ample security for microtransactions. This is supported on the premise that a Reddit user receiving points does need security yet generally doesn’t want nor need to wait for the same level of security as a nation-state settling an international trade debt. In any case, each Z-DAG transaction settles onchain at a block target of 60 seconds.

Syscoin Specs

Syscoin 3.0 White Paper
(4.0 white paper is pending. For improved scalability and less blockchain bloat, some features of v3 no longer exist in current v4: Specifically Marketplace Offers, Aliases, Escrow, Certificates, Pruning, Encrypted Messaging)
  • 16MB block bandwidth per minute assuming segwit witness carrying transactions, and transactions ~200 bytes on average
  • SHA256 merge mined with Bitcoin
  • UTXO asset layer, with base Syscoin layer sharing identical security policies as Bitcoin Core
  • Z-DAG on asset layer, bridge to Ethereum on asset layer
  • On-chain scaling with prospect of enabling enterprise grade reliable trustless payment processing with on/offchain hybrid solution
  • Focus only on Simple Value Transfers. MVP of blockchain consensus footprint is balances and ownership of them. Everything else can reduce data availability in exchange for scale (Ethereum 2.0 model). We leave that to other designs, we focus on transfers.
  • Future integrations of MAST/Taproot to get more complex value transfers without trading off trustlessness or decentralization.
  • Zero-knowledge Proofs are a cryptographic new frontier. We are dabbling here to generalize the concept of bridging and also verify the state of a chain efficiently. We also apply it in our Digital Identity projects at Blockchain Foundry (a publicly traded company which develops Syscoin softwares for clients). We are also looking to integrate privacy preserving payment channels for off-chain payments through zkSNARK hub & spoke design which does not suffer from the HTLC attack vectors evident on LN. Much of the issues plaguing Lightning Network can be resolved using a zkSNARK design whilst also providing the ability to do a multi-asset payment channel system. Currently we found a showstopper attack (American Call Option) on LN if we were to use multiple-assets. This would not exist in a system such as this.


Web3 and mobile wallets are under active development by Blockchain Foundry Inc as WebAssembly applications and expected for release not long after mainnet deployment of Syscoin Core 4.2. Both of these will be multi-coin wallets that support Syscoin, SPTs, Ethereum, and ERC-20 tokens. The Web3 wallet will provide functionality similar to Metamask.
Syscoin Platform and tokens are already integrated with Blockbook. Custom hardware wallet support currently exists via ElectrumSys. First-class HW wallet integration through apps such as Ledger Live will exist after 4.2.
Current supported wallets
Syscoin Spark Desktop


Mainnet: (Blockbook)

Thank you for close consideration of our proposal. We look forward to feedback, and to working with the Reddit community to implement an ideal solution using Syscoin Platform!

submitted by sidhujag to ethereum [link] [comments]

ProgPoW resources


May 2, 2018 EIPs/ at master · ethereum/EIPs · GitHub
May 3, 2018 ProgPOW/ at master · ifdefelse/ProgPOW · GitHub
May 3, 2018 EIP-ProgPoW: a Programmatic Proof-of-Work - EIPs - Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians
May 29, 2018 The Problem with Proof of Work - K. L. Minehan - Medium
October 25, 2018 Understanding ProgPoW - IfDefElse - Medium
Nov 17, 2018 progpow-wiki/ at master · MariusVanDerWijden/progpow-wiki · GitHub
December 10, 2018 ProgPoW - A Programmatic Proof of Work by Kristy-Leigh Minehan (Devcon4) - YouTube
January 10, 2019 ProgPoW FAQ - IfDefElse - Medium
January 14, 2019 What GPU miners may not know about ProgPoW - Andrea Lanfranchi - Medium
January 17, 2019 ProgPoW: Progress Update #1 - IfDefElse - Medium
February 14, 2019 Council of Denver - HackMD
February 17, 2019 The Miners Benchmark ProgPoW - Theodor Ghannam - Medium
February 21, 2019 Ethereum ProgPoW Explained - Crypto Mining Blog
March 18, 2019 13 Questions about Ethereum’s Movement to ProgPow by Jon Stevens - Medium
March 20, 2019 Skeptical about #ProgPoW? I am too! - Bryant Eisenbach - Medium
March 27, 2019 Comprehensive ProgPoW Benchmark by Theodor Ghannam - Medium
March 28, 2019 My stance on Progpow by Martin Holst Swende
March 30, 2019 The Cost of ASIC Design - IfDefElse - Medium
April 12, 2019 Ethereum ProgPoW Update - Crypto Mining Blog
September 23, 2019 In Defense of ProgPow : ethereum
February 4, 2020 Antminer E3 Stops Mining Ethereum Classic, Just Over a Month Remaining for Ethereum - Crypto Mining Blog

Ethereum Magicians

August 2, 2108 Final Request From the GPU Mining Community - EIPs - Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians
August 26, 2018 EIP-1355: Ethash 1a - EIPs - Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians
September 3, 2108 What has to be done to get ProgPoW on Ethereum - EIPs - Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians
January 1, 2019 Guidelines for ProgPow Hardware Developers - Primordial Soup - Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians
February 2, 2019 On the progpow audit - Action Item - Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians
March 3, 2019 My technical take on ProgPow’s weakest link - EIPs - Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians
March 4, 2019 Governance concerns after listening to ~all ProgPow discussions on Core Dev calls - Process Improvement - Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians
March 29, 2019 Motion to NOT include ProgPow without audit - EIPs - Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians
March 30, 2109 ProgPoW - A Compilation of Reference Material - Core EIPs - Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians
May 23, 2019 ProgPoW Audit Delay Issue - EIPs - Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians
July 8, 2019 Ensuring ETH 1.x’s Success Without Disenfranchising The Community - Ethereum 1.x Ring - Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians
August 8, 2019 EIP-centric forking - Process Improvement - Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians


October 8, 2018 Cardano Rust Project | Petro Public Sale | ProgPow | WSJ Attacks Shapeshift (October 2nd, 2018) - YouTube
October 23 2018 Ethereum Mining News | FPGA’s Mining | ProgPoW LIKELY | Profitability | Hard Fork Delayed 2019 - YouTube
December 13, 2018 Why ProgPoW is BAD for Ethereum - YouTube
December 19, 2018 Bitcoin Rallies Towards 4k - Why? Ethereum Launches ProgPoW GPU Mining Testnet | New HD Minable Coin - YouTube
January 4, 2019 Ethereum moving to PROGPOW! What’s it mean for Miners? - YouTube
January 4, 2019 Ethereum ProgPoW CONFIRMED! - YouTube
January 5, 2019 Mining on the ProgPoW Gangnam Ethereum Testnet! - YouTube
January 6, 2019 6 x Asus RX 570 4GB ProgPoW Gangnam Ethereum Testnet TEST! - YouTube
January 7, 2019 ProgPOW Explained - A Brave New World for Ethereum Miners? - YouTube
January 20, 2019 CES2019 - North American Bitcoin Conference - GRIN / BEAM - PROGPOW and more! - YouTube
January 23, 2019 Ethereum to ZERO? Eth Chain Split. ProgPow & ETC 51 % Attack. GPU vs ASIC Miners. - YouTube
January 29, 2019 Nick Johnson: Future of the Ethereum Name Service and thoughts on ProgPOW - YouTube
February 19, 2019 Ethereum Hard Fork Soon? ProgPoW Voting? - YouTube
February 20, 2019 ProgPoW Merged Into Parity Ethereum | ETHNews Brief - YouTube
February 25, 2019 How does R7 370, R9 380,380x,390 and more perform on PROGPOW and other Cryptocurrencies in 2019? - YouTube
March 7, 2019 PROGPOW Explained in under 4 min. & why it matters to GPU Miners - YouTube
March 19, 2019 What is BBT doing with PROGPOW, Why all of the testing? - YouTube
March 25, 2019 eVGA RTX 2080Ti FTW3 11GB DDR6 Cryptocurrency Performance Test PROGPOW ETH RVN BEAM GRIN29 GRIN31 - YouTube
March 29, 2019 Ethereum & ProgPoW… What Is Going On? - YouTube
May 2, 2019 Ethereum ProgPow Audit Has Been Funded & Approved - YouTube
July 5, 2019 Mining News! Monero RandomX | Ethereum ProgPoW 2019 Update | Grin Embraces ASIC miners | Zel Zelhash - YouTube
July 24, 2019 Ethereum ProgPoW AUDIT Is Finally Getting Started… - YouTube
September 13, 2019 Ethereum ProgPoW Algorithm Audits Finalized - YouTube
September 24, 2019 An Argument Against ProgPoW a Day - Part 1 - YouTube
October 4, 2019 82 - Defending ProgPoW with Kristy-Leigh Minehan - YouTube
October 10, 2019 #36 - Kristy-Leigh of ProgPow discusses the EIP, Satoshi, Code Contributions, and Crypto Mining 2020 - YouTube
November 24, 2019 Ethereum Classic REJECTS ProgPoW… - YouTube
December 16, 2019 Ethereum ProgPoW Implementation Is STILL Coming Right? - YouTube
December 26, 2019 Panel: Least Authority’s ProgPoW Audit (Devcon5) - YouTube


April 11, 2019
September 10, 2019
September 25, 2019
October 4, 2019

Official Updates

May 18, 2019 Dev Call #38 - May 18, 2018
August 24, 2018 Dev Call #45 - August 24, 2018
September 28, 2018 Dev Call #47 - September 28, 2018
January 4, 2019 Dev Call #52 - January 4, 2019
January 18, 2019 Dev Call#53 - January 18, 2019
February 1, 2019 Dev Call #54 - February 1, 2019
February 11, 2019 Ethereum Cat Herders Update#1 : EthereumCatHerders
March 15, 2019 Dev Call #57 - March 15, 2019
May 24, 2019 Dev Call #62 - May 24, 2019
July 18, 2019 Dev Call #65 - July 18, 2019
September 10, 2019 ProgPoW Audits Released - Ethereum Cat Herders - Medium
September 6, 2019 Dev Call #70 - September 6, 2019
November 1, 2019 Dev Call #74 - November 1, 2019
December 13, 2019 Dev Call #77 - December 13, 2019
January 24, 2019 Dev Call #79 - January 24, 2020
February 21, 2020 Dev Call#81 - February 21, 2020

News Articles

January 4, 2019 Ethereum Core Devs to Move Forward With ASIC-Resistant PoW Algorithm
January 5, 2019 Ethereum (ETH) Developers Plan to Implement ASIC-Resistant Proof of Work Mining Algorithm
January 7, 2019 BREAKING: Ethereum Classic (ETC) Hit With 51 Percent Attack A Week Before Ethereum (ETH) Constantinople Hard Fork – Crypto.IQ | Bitcoin and Investment News from Inside Experts You Can Trust
January 8, 2019 ETH Dev Suggests Moving to ‘ASIC-Friendly Algorithm’ After ProgPoW Decision
January 8, 2019 Ethereum Miner Linzhi Calls Out Project Coders for Proposed ASIC Ban - CoinDesk
January 8, 2019 Ethereum (ETH) Core Developers Propose an ASIC Resistant Upgrade - Ethereum World News
January 9, 2019 Ethereum Classic (ETC) 51% attack proof that shitcoins have no hope of succeeding? | CaptainAltcoin
January 9, 2019 What’s ProgPoW? Meet the hot new debate in the Ethereum community |
January 18, 2019 Ethereum Core Devs Constantinople Meeting to Be Held on Jan 18
February 1, 2019 Ethereum Core Dev Call #54: Waiting for ProgPoW - The Block
February 3, 2019 Will Ethereum Adopt ‘ProgPoW,’ the ASIC-Resistant Mining Algorithm? | CryptoSlate
February 4, 2019 Is Ethereum Going to be Adopting ASIC-Resistant ‘ProgPow’ as a Mining Algorithm?
February 15, 2019 Ethereum Core Dev Call #55: ProgPoW audits and Vitalik’s Phase 2 updates - The Block
February 15, 2019 Recompensas por minería en Ethereum llegan a mínimo histórico | CriptoNoticias
February 28, 2019 Coinhive dice adiós a la minería web por caída del mercado | CriptoNoticias
March 6, 2019 Ethereum Core Dev Meeting : ProgPow Implementation Receives More Than 50 Percent Votes from Miners - CryptoNewsZ
March 7, 2019 The ASIC Resistant Mining Campaign from Ethereum Miners Is Just Getting Started
March 12, 2019 Ethereum’s ProgPoW Proposal: An Expensive Game of Whack-a-Mole - CoinDesk
March 12, 2019 Ethereum’s ProgPoW Mining Change to Be Considered for Istanbul Upgrade - CoinDesk
March 14, 2019 As ProgPoW Aimed at Stopping ASIC Mining Gets Supporting Votes, New Conspiracies and Debates Appear
March 15, 2019 Ethereum’s ProgPow Mining Change Approved Again, But Timeline Unclear - CoinDesk
March 17, 2019 Ethereum Devs Once Again Approve ASIC-Resistant Algorithm ProgPoW
March 18, 2019 Ethereum (ETH) to Be ASIC-Resistant, No Date Set However - Cryptovest
March 27, 2019 Aumentan desacuerdos en Ethereum por decisión de avanzar con ProgPoW | CriptoNoticias
March 29, 2019 Bitmain Co-founder, Jihan Wu: ASIC Miners Makes a Blockchain Network More Decentralized - Coindoo
April 8, 2019 A Fight Over Specialized Chips Threatens an Ethereum Split | WIRED
April 26, 2019 Funding Approved for Audit of Ethereum’s ProgPoW Mining Proposal - CoinDesk
April 28, 2019 Ethereum Core Devs: Funding for ProgPoW 3rd-Party Audit Approved
April 20, 2019 Ethereum’s Recent Decline in Hashrate ‘Not Surprising’: Cyber Threat Expert Explains | CryptoGlobe
June 14, 2019 Proposed Ethereum Istanbul Hard Fork Combed With A Fine Tooth at Cat Herders Meeting
July 13, 2019 ¿Qué es ProgPoW? La propuesta de algoritmo contra mineros ASIC en Ethereum | CriptoNoticias
August 17, 2019 Ethereum: ProgPow will be activated on the mainnet next year as a part of Istanbul 2 - AMBCrypto
August 18, 2019 Ethereum’s ProgPoW To Be Released The First Quarter Of 2020 | UseTheBitcoin
August 19, 2019 Ethereum to Switch to ProgPoW Mining Algorithm in Upcoming Istanbul Hard Fork
September 8, 2019 Ethereum: ProgPoW high level design goals are reasonable towards achieving its intended economic effect - AMBCrypto
September 11, 2019 Chinese Firm Linzhi Set To Mass Produce Ethereum and ETC ASIC Miners As Tests Go Live
September 18, 2019 Ethereum ProgPOW author uninvited from ETC Summit due to Craig Wright association | CryptoSlate
September 19, 2019 Ethereum reveals launch dates for testing Istanbul - Decrypt
September 19, 2019 Hashing Out: ProgPoW Debate Kicks Up in Ethereum Community Again
September 19, 2019 ETC Summit Invitees List Has No Space for Kristy Minehan
September 22, 2019 Ethereum ProgPoW upgrade causing chain split more likely to be from the user side instead of the miner side - AMBCrypto
September 23, 2019 ProgPow advocate uninvited to Ethereum Classic Summit over links to Craig Wright
September 24, 2019 ProgPoW backer steps down from controversial role - Decrypt
September 25, 2019 ProgPOW author steps down as Core Scientific CTO, vows to implement algorithm on Ethereum | CryptoSlate
September 25, 2019 Ethereum ProgPoW proponent Kristy-Leigh Minehan steps down citing perceived conflict of interest - AMBCrypto
September 25, 2019 Core Scientific CTO Steps Down To Push Through Ethereum ProgPOW
September 25, 2019 ProgPoW author Kristy-Leigh Minehan resigns as CTO of Core Scientific | Cryptopolitan
September 26, 2019 New Ethereum ASIC dominates GPU mining performance | CryptoSlate
September 26, 2019 New Ethereum ASIC Fuels Discord Among Ethereum Community
September 28, 2019 The (alleged) plot against the Ethereum network - Decrypt
October 9, 2019 ProgPoW, the Algorithm Dividing the Ethereum Community: a GPU Manufacturer Ploy? - Ethereum World News
October 9, 2019 Ethereum Hard Fork Is Coming — Here’s What You Need to Know About ‘Istanbul’ – BeInCrypto October 27, 2019 Ethereum ProgPoW’s raison d’etre: To be or not to be - AMBCrypto
November 4, 2019 Aragon Opposes Change to Ethereum’s Mining Algorithm Before 2.0 Version
November 7, 2019 Aragon community against Ethereum ProgPOW
November 8, 2019 Ethereum Istanbul Hard Fork Release Date Confirmed By Core Developer
November 16, 2019 Ethereum ProgPoW audit contributors on Gitcoin to be refunded in full - AMBCrypto
November 26, 2019 Ethereum’s Buterin: PoW algorithms offering medium-level ASIC resistance can be created - AMBCrypto
December 17, 2019 Ethereum devs move ProgPoW into ‘Eligible for Inclusion’ list - AMBCrypto
January 1, 2020 [Is the ASIC Resistance dream closer to reality, despite claims of it being a myth? - AMBCrypto](
submitted by greerso to ethereum [link] [comments]

Mining and Dogecoin - Some FAQs

Hey shibes,
I see a lot of posts about mining lately and questions about the core wallet and how to mine with it, so here are some facts!
Feel free to add information to that thread or correct me if I did any mistake.

You downloaded the core wallet

Great! After a decade it probably synced and now you are wondering how to get coins? Bad news: You don't get coins by running your wallet, even running it as a full node. Check what a full node is here.
Maybe you thought so, because you saw a very old screenshot of a wallet, like this (Version 1.2). This version had a "Dig" tab where you can enter your mining configuration. The current version doesn't have this anymore, probably because it doesn't make sense anymore.

You downloaded a GPU/CPU miner

Nice! You did it, even your antivirus system probably went postal and you started covering all your webcams... But here is the bad news again: Since people are using ASIC miners, you just can't compete with your CPU hardware anymore. Even with your more advanced GPU you will have a hard time. The hashrate is too high for a desktop PC to compete with them. The blocks should be mined every 1 minute (or so) and that's causing the difficulty to go up - and we are out... So definitly check what is your hashrate while you are mining, you would need about 1.5 MH/s to make 1 Doge in 24 hours!

Mining Doge

Let us start with a quote:
"Dogecoin Core 1.8 introduces AuxPoW from block 371,337. AuxPoW is a technology which enables miners to submit work done while mining other coins, as work on the Dogecoin block chain."
- langerhans
What does this mean? You could waste your hashrate only on the Dogecoin chain, probably find never a block, but when, you only receive about 10.000 Dogecoins, currently worth about $25. Or you could apply your hashrate to LTC and Doge (and probably even more) at the same time. Your change of solving the block (finding the nonce) is your hashrate divided by the hashrat in sum - and this is about the same for Doge and LTC. This means you will always want to submit your work to all chains available!

Mining solo versus pool

So let's face it - mining solo won't get you anywhere, so let's mine on a pool! If you have a really bad Hashrate, please consider that: Often you need about $1 or $2 worth of crypto to receive a payout (without fees). This means, you have to get there. With 100 MH/s on prohashing, it takes about 6 days, running 24/7 to get to that threshold. Now you can do the math... 1 MH/s = 1000 KH/s, if you are below 1 MH/s, you probably won't have fun.

Buying an ASIC

You found an old BTC USB-miner with 24 GH/s (1 GH/s = 1000 MH/s) for $80 bucks - next stop lambo!? Sorry, bad news again, this hashrate is for SHA-256! If you want to mine LTC/Doge you will need a miner using scrypt with quite lower numbers on the hashrate per second, so don't fall for that. Often when you have a big miner (= also loud), you get more Hashrate per $ spent on the miner, but most will still run on a operational loss, because the electricity is too expensive and the miners will be outdated soon again. Leading me to my next point...

Making profit

You won't make money running your miner. Just do the math: What if you would have bougth a miner 1 year ago? Substract costs for electricity and then compare to: What if you just have bought coins. In most cases you would have a greater profit by just buying coins, maybe even with a "stable" coin like Doges.

Cloud Mining

Okay, this was a lot of text and you are still on the hook? Maybe you are desperated enough to invest in some cloud mining contract... But this isn't a good idea either, because most of such contracts are scams based on a ponzi scheme. You often can spot them easy, because they guarantee way to high profits, or they fake payouts that never happened, etc.
Just a thought: If someone in a subway says to you: Give me $1 and lets meet in one year, right here and I give you $54,211,841, you wouldn't trust him and if some mining contract says they will give you 5% a day it is basically the same.
Also rember the merged mining part. Nobody would offer you to mine Doges, they would offer you to buy a hashrate for scrypt that will apply on multiple chains.

Alternative coins

Maybe try to mine a coin where you don't have ASICs yet, like Monero and exchange them to Doge. If somebody already tried this - feel free to add your thoughts!

Folding at Home (Doge)

Some people say folding at home (FAH - still the best. I just installed the tool and it says I would make 69.852 points a day, running on medium power what equates to 8 Doges. It is easy, it was fun, but it isn't much.
Thanks for reading
submitted by _nformant to dogecoin [link] [comments]

Namecoin and the future of self-sovereign digital identity.

Namecoin's motto is "Bitcoin frees money – Namecoin frees DNS, identities, and other technologies."
biolizard89 has done fantastic work on the DNS part, but let's focus on the identity use case here. Recent events have convinced me that digital identity on the internet is broken. Consider:
What was true in 1993 when cartoonist Peter Steiner wrote "On the internet, nobody knows you are a dog" is still true today. The only difference is that identity is increasingly being weaponized using AI/ML so "On the internet, nobody knows you are a bot" would perhaps be more apt.
I read the following comment from a user on slashdot yesterday:
For the time being, you can assume that this comment was written by a human being. You can click on my username, look back at my history of posts, and go, "OK, here's a bunch of posts, by a person, going back more than a decade, to the TIME BEFORE BOTS." That is, before the first year of 2020.
Since humans are likely to adopt the majority opinion, bad actors find real value in being able to control the narrative online by surrounding the reader with manufactured opinions by bots that due to advances in ML/AI are quickly becoming indistinguishable from real users. This amounts to a Sybil attack on the minds of digital content consumers and poses major threat to the integrity of our social fabric.
Apart from the recent twitter incident used for scamming, nation states have been known to create massive bot armies of fake and hijacked user accounts to try and shift the narratives regarding the Hong Kong independence protests as well as national elections. This will only increase.
Currently, our digital identity is fragmented into silo's largely controlled by government institutions and mega corporations (FAANG) based on a "Trust us" model. As recent events have proven, this is a bad model and in dire need of improvement/replacement. IMHO we need to move from "Trust us" to a "Trust but verify" model where the user is in full control of their digital identity.
Namecoin can and should play an important role in building this 'web of trust composed of self-sovereign identities" as it is neutral (no owner), permissionless and secure (merge-mined). Daniel already developed a proof of concept with NameID but what can we do to take this further?
Personally I'd like to see users create Namecoin identities and link them to their social identities (e.g. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc). Then whenever they create content, they sign it with their private keys. This would allow a reader to verify the content was created by the user. Content verification would have stopped the recent twitter hack, because even if the hackers would have access to internal admin tools they would not have the private keys that the users produce valid content with. "Not your keys, not your content"
Content verification is only one part. Ideally a user would like to verify the integrity of the content creator as well. E.g. has this user passed human verification in any of the linked platforms? Does a trusted linked entity vouch for the reputation or integrity of this user (e.g. a government entity, financial entity or non-governmental organization?). This would require those platforms to allow linking of Namecoin ID with their Platform ID and allow lookup and signing of metadata provided by these platforms. (e.g. UserID Y is linked to PlatformID X and completed human verification on date Z, signed Twitter).
I image users could install an extension similar to uBlock or Privacy Badger that contains human curated blacklists and heuristics that operate on Namecoin entities to perform these checks and flag or filter content and users that fail integrity checks. This would allow a users to automatically weed out potential bots and trolls but keep full control of this process themselves, avoiding potential censorship if this task would fall on the platform owners themselves (something governments are pushing for).
We could take this even further and integrate Namecoin ID's in software and hardware devices as well. This could create chains of trust to verify the entire chain of content creation and manipulation to the final content posted on a social platform. Where every entity signs the resulting content. (E.g. camera -> photoshop -> twitter post)
Apart from signing content/messages (PGP style). Namecoin could perhaps also be used for managing identity tokens in a users 'Identity wallet'. Looking into my physical wallet this could include things like credit cards, insurance cards, government issued IDs, membership cards, transportation cards, key cards, etc. This could be done similar to 'colored coins' on Bitcoin. But would have to support some type of smart contract functionality to be useful (e.g. expiring tokens, etc).
I'm not a developer nor a technical writer, but I do think we need to think long and hard about how we can solve digital identity in a way that empowers users to trust and verify the content and identities of the peers we interact with online while also respecting privacy and preventing censorship by external parties. Namecoin could be the better path to building this web of trust, but given the current pace of AI/ML and the willingness by bad actors to weaponize it at scale against users interests we might not have much time. (Apologies for the rant!)
submitted by rmvaandr to Namecoin [link] [comments]

Constructing an Opt-In alternative reward for securing the blockchain

Since a keyboard with a monero logo got upvoted to the top I realized I should post various thoughts I have and generate some discussion. I hope others do the same.
Monero is currently secured by a dwindling block reward. There is a chance that the tail emission reward + transaction fees to secure the blockchain could become insufficient and allow for a scenario where it is profitable for someone to execute a 51% attack.
To understand this issue better, read this:
In Game Theory, Tragedy of the Commons is a market failure scenario where a common good is produced in lower quantities than the public desires, or consumed in greater quantities than desired. One example is pollution - it is in the public's best interest not to pollute, but every individual has incentive to pollute (e.g. because burning fossil fuel is cheap, and individually each consumer doesn't affect the environment much). The relevance to Bitcoin is a hypothetical market failure that might happen in the far future when the block reward from mining drops near zero. In the current Bitcoin design, the only fees miners earn at this time are Transaction fees. Miners will accept transactions with any fees (because the marginal cost of including them is minimal) and users will pay lower and lower fees (in the order of satoshis). It is possible that the honest miners will be under-incentivized, and that too few miners will mine, resulting in lower difficulty than what the public desires. This might mean various 51% attacks will happen frequently, and the Bitcoin will not function correctly. The Bitcoin protocol can be altered to combat this problem - one proposed solution is Dominant Assurance Contracts. Another more radical proposal (in the sense that the required change won't be accepted by most bitcoiners) is to have a perpetual reward that is constant in proportion to the monetary base. That can be achieved in two ways. An ever increasing reward (inflatacoin/expocoin) or a constant reward plus a demurrage fee in all funds that caps the monetary base (freicoin). This scenario was discussed on several threads: - Tragedy of the Commons - Disturbingly low future difficulty equilibrium - Stack Exchange Currently there is no consensus whether this problem is real, and if so, what is the best solution. 

I suspect that least contentious solution to it is not to change code, emission or artificially increase fees (which would actually undermine the tail emission and lead to other problems, I believe: but rather use a Dominant Assurance Contract that makes it rational for those who benefit from Monero to contribute to the block reward.

Dominant assurance contracts
Dominant assurance contracts, created by Alex Tabarrok, involve an extra component, an entrepreneur who profits when the quorum is reached and pays the signors extra if it is not. If the quorum is not formed, the signors do not pay their share and indeed actively profit from having participated since they keep the money the entrepreneur paid them. Conversely, if the quorum succeeds, the entrepreneur is compensated for taking the risk of the quorum failing. Thus, a player will benefit whether or not the quorum succeeds; if it fails he reaps a monetary return, and if it succeeds, he pays only a small amount more than under an assurance contract, and the public good will be provided.
Tabarrok asserts that this creates a dominant strategy) of participation for all players. Because all players will calculate that it is in their best interests to participate, the contract will succeed, and the entrepreneur will be rewarded. In a meta-game, this reward is an incentive for other entrepreneurs to enter the DAC market, driving down the cost disadvantage of dominant assurance contract versus regular assurance contracts.
Monero doesn't have a lot of scripting options to work with currently so it is very hard for me to understand how one might go about creating a Dominant Assurance Contract using Monero, especially in regards to paying out to a miner address.
This is how it could work in Bitcoin:
This scheme is an attempt at Mike Hearn's exercise for the reader: an implementation of dominant assurance contracts. The scheme requires the use of multisignature transactions, nLockTime and transaction replacement which means it won't work until these features are available on the Bitcoin network.
A vendor agrees to produce a good if X BTC are raised by date D and to pay Y BTC to each of n contributors if X BTC are not raised by date D, or to pay nY BTC if X BTC are raised and the vendor fails to produce the good to the satisfaction of 2 of 3 independent arbitrators picked through a fair process
The arbitrators specify a 2-of-3 multisignature script to use as an output for the fundraiser with a public key from each arbitrator, which will allow them to judge the performance on actually producing the good
For each contributor:
The vendor and the contributor exchange public keys
They create a 2-of-2 multisignature output from those public keys
With no change, they create but do not sign a transaction with an input of X/n BTC from the contributor and an input of Y BTC from the vendor, with X/n+Y going to the output created in 3.2
The contributor creates a transaction where the output is X+nY to the address created in step 2 and the input is the output of the transaction in 3.3, signs it using SIGHASH_ALL | SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY, with version = UINT_MAX and gives it to the vendor
The vendor creates a transaction of the entire balance of the transaction in 3.3 to the contributor with nLockTime of D and version < UINT_MAX, signs it and gives it to the contributor
The vendor and contributor then both sign the transaction in 3.3 and broadcast it to the network, making the transaction in 3.4 valid when enough contributors participate and the transaction in 3.5 valid when nLockTime expires
As date D nears, nLockTime comes close to expiration.
If enough (n) people contribute, all of the inputs from 3.4 can combine to make the output valid when signed by the vendor, creating a valid transaction sending that money to the arbitrators, which only agree to release the funds when the vendor produces a satisfactory output
If not enough people ( Note that there is a limit at which it can be more profitable for the vendor to make the remaining contributions when D approaches
Now the arbitrators have control of X (the payment from the contributors) + nY (the performance bond from the vendor) BTC and pay the vendor only when the vendor performs satisfactorily
Such contracts can be used for crowdfunding. Notable examples from Mike Hearn include:
Funding Internet radio stations which don't want to play ads: donations are the only viable revenue source as pay-for-streaming models allow undercutting by subscribers who relay the stream to their own subscribers
Automatically contributing to the human translation of web pages

Monero has these features:
  1. Multisig
  2. LockTime (but it is much different then BTCs)
  3. A possibility to do MoJoin (CoinJoin) like transactions, even if less then optimally private. There is hope that the MoJoin Schemes will allow for better privacy in the future:
I have a draft writeup for a merged-input system called MoJoin that allows multiple parties to generate a single transaction. The goal is to complete the transaction merging with no trust in any party, but this introduces significant complexity and may not be possible with the known Bulletproofs multiparty computation scheme. My current version of MoJoin assumes partial trust in a dealer, who learns the mappings between input rings and outputs (but not true spends or Pedersen commitment data).

Additionally, Non-Interactive Refund Transactions could also be possible in Monero's future.
I can't fully workout how all of these could work together to make a DAC that allows miners to put up and payout a reward if it doesn't succeed, or how we could make it so *any* miner who participated (by putting up a reward) could claim the reward if it succeeded. I think this should really be explored as it could make for a much more secure blockchain, potentially saving us if a "crypto winter" hits where the value of monero and number of transactions are low, making for a blockchain that is hard to trust because it would be so cheap to perform a 51% attack.

I am still skeptical of Dominant Assurance Contracts, despite success in an initial test
it still remains questionable or at least confusing:
submitted by Vespco to Monero [link] [comments]

Nano How 2: Blocks and Lattices

tl:dr: The Nano block lattice is made up of blocks. Each complete transaction requires two blocks representing send and receive. Changing your representative requires only a single block. A block contains all the information required for managing your Nano and are signed with a private key so only the owner can make changes. They are assigned a unique code called a hash.

What is a block?
Blocks are one of the fundamental concepts in cryptocurrency, they are groups of data that are linked together and usually include the data that represents transactions and interactions. These blocks are verified by the network and committed into a distributed ledger after being confirmed. For example, in Bitcoin, blocks are verified and committed to the ledger through the mining process, and each block is linked to the next to form a chain.

Blocks in Nano
The Nano ledger is different; instead of a single chain for the whole ledger (where each block contains multiple transactions), in Nano each account has its own chain of blocks which are woven together through the process of making transactions to create a block lattice. The blocks in a Nano chain represent the changes that its owner, who holds the private key, has made to their account. These changes take one of the following forms:

Fig 1. Comparison between Bitcoin Blockchain and Nano Block Lattice
How does it work?
Originally Nano had 4 different block types: Open, Send, Receive and Change, each with slightly different layouts. However, these have been merged into a single block type called a State block. Each state block contains all the details of that single account, including the account’s address and balance, as well as details to help place the block in the correct position in its chain. A block is then authorised by a signature, created using the block details and the account’s private key.

Fig. 2 Components that go into a state block

The most recent block is called the head or frontier block as its at the front. With the introduction of state blocks it means that you only need this frontier block to know everything about the current state of account (apart from its pending blocks).
With all this data grouped together it is easy to make changes:
Notice that the amount transacted is not directly present in any block. To obtain this value, you need to subtract the block’s balance value, from the previous block’s balance.
Each block needs a proof of work value; this is the resulting value following a time consuming mathematical calculation and will be discussed in detail in a future Nano How), The basis of this system is that it is hard to generate the value but easy to check if the value is valid. Interestingly, the proof of work value is actually not included in the signature of the block and could be calculated after the block is generated (but it needs to be present before the block is broadcast).
An example of a state block:
{"block":"{"type":"state", "account":"xrb_3igf8hd4sjshoibbbkeitmgkp1o6ug4xads43j6e4gqkj5xk5o83j8ja9php", "previous": "597395E83BD04DF8EF30AF04234EAAFE0606A883CF4AEAD2DB8196AAF5C4444F", "representative":"xrb_3p1asma84n8k84joneka776q4egm5wwru3suho9wjsfyuem8j95b3c78nw8j", "balance":"3000000000000000000000000000001", "link":"5C2FBB148E006A8E8BA7A75DD86C9FE00C83F5FFDBFD76EAA09531071436B6AF", "signature":"D7975EE2F6FAE1FC7DA336FB9DD5F7E30FC1A6825021194E614F0588073D1A4901E34E3CAE8739F1DE2FD85A73D2A0B26F8BE6539E0548C9A45E1C1887BFFC05", "work":"0000000000000000"}"}
It is important to note that the nodes in the network check the blocks to make sure that all the details line up and will reject an incorrect block - it is not possible to just create a new block with a larger balance then has been sent to you.

Why does Nano have a Send and Receive block?
Every account has its own chain and this chain can only be changed with blocks signed by the private key. Therefore when someone sends you Nano they create a new block with a reduced balance and a destination address but they can not change your chain, instead the funds remain in limbo (known as pending) until you create a corresponding receive block and increase your balance proportionally. There is no limit to how long the funds can stay pending.

Links and further reading

Next Time
Nano How 3: Light Wallets - How do they work?

Thanks to all the feedback and also to DotcomL for revisions and proofreading.
submitted by jayycox to nanocurrency [link] [comments]

EasyMine: WTF Happened?

UPDATE: VTC mining on Easymine back to normal, payouts have resumed. Zero fees for the rest of the month.
Here's a more detailed response to - bear with me and put on your nerd hat for a few mins.
The stratum server for all EasyMine pools is node-merged-pool - a merge mining fork of node-stratum-pool. See my repo here @
This is what miners connect to for work and to submit valid shares on the search for blocks. The information that is exchanged in hex digits, and the data coming back from the miner includes the time, the job, ExtraNonce2 and nonce (see All of these fields are used to notify the server of valid work exceeding a specific difficulty.
Hex digits are not case-sensitive. So 'FF00AA11' is the same as 'ff00aa11'. Both equate to decimal 4278233617. So for the purposes of construction a block header, it doesn't matter if the hex digits are uppercase, lowercase, or a mixture of both - it all works out the same, and produces the same hash. Hold this thought.
The stratum server knows what shares each miner has submitted, it keeps a track of all of the data in an array. It checks every time that work is submitted that the same work hasn't been submitted before whilst searching for the next block. If it was submitted, then the new submission is rejected as duplicate work.
Now, where this has all gone wrong is that the way the data is stored in this array was a string containing the four fields mentioned above. Strings are case-sensitive and when making comparisons 'FF00AA11' != 'ff00aa11', as well as 'ff00aA11' and 'ff00AA11' and so on.... This allowed our attacker to submit the same work many many times, altering only the case of the hex digits (he was doing it to the nonce, but the other fields are also susceptible to the attack), so the logic to check for duplicate work wasn't firing, the shares were valid (as they produced a valid hash above difficulty), and our attacker was faking most of his hash-rate. A lot. A shit-ton of it.
I have fixed this in my fork of node-stratum-pool - the fix is very easy, we just make all the characters lower case before testing for duplicate shares. See for my fix.
My big concern is that the other forks I've seen for node-stratum-pool are susceptible to the attack, and quite possibly other pool software is too possibly even p2pool? I've not looked. If someone can check and let me know and I'll update this. p2pool has been confirmed as resilient to this type of attack.
So, Who-The-F&*k did this. This is what I have so far:
He's used the following VTC and NIX addresses:
I've seen connections coming in from the following IP addresses:
He is still attacking EasyMine, but it's not having any effect now. Actually the server keeps banning him now as it's detecting that he's submitting too many invalid shares. Take that.
The path forward
I have a big mess to clean up, he's made off with about 652 VTC and about 3576 NIX, essentially stolen from you miners. I will see what I can do to recover some of this (not all of it has been paid to him yet), but there is going to be a substantial shortfall. Mr Attacker, feel free to PM me and we can arrange a settlement :)
Payouts on both the VTC & NIX pools are suspended until i can clean this up, I hope this won't take more than a couple of days.
submitted by nzsquirrell to vertcoin [link] [comments]

As part of my ongoing effort to develop stupid shit for Garlicoin, I present you: W-addresses!

“Wait, what?!” I hear you asking? Well…(buckle up, this is another one of my technical posts that goes on, and on…)
For some time now, I have been using native SegWit (Pay-to-Witness-Public-Key-Hash, P2WPKH) transactions for myself. Mostly because they have a 75% fee subsidy on signature data (which comes out on ~50% fee subsidy on the entire transaction, depending on the type of transaction) and I am dutch after all ;-)
It turns out that Garlicoin Core kind of supports them and kind of does not. If you manually register the transaction redeem script to your wallet (using the addwitnessaddress command) it will start recognizing them on the blockchain but gets kind of confused on how to deal with them, so it registers them all as ‘change’ transactions. Still, this means you can receive coins using these types of transactions and pay with them in all ways you can with regular Garlicoins, except your transactions are cheaper.
However, sending coins using native SegWit is quite a hassle. You can basically only do it by creating your own raw transactions (createrawtransaction, edit it to make it native SegWit, fundrawtransaction, signrawtransaction, sendrawtransaction). On top of this, any change address the wallet creates are still legacy/normal Garlicoin addresses, so you will end up with a bunch of unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) for which you have to pay full fee anyway. I decided we (I) could do better than this.
But first a few steps back. What is this native SegWit anyway and weren’t people already using SegWit? Wasn’t there a user that just after mainnet launched accidentally made a SegWit transaction? So what the hell am I talking about?
To understand this, you will need to know a few things about what SegWit is and how Bitcoin Garlicoin transactions work in general. Note that this bit gets really technical, so if you are not interested, you might want to skip ahead. A lot.
First thing to understand is that addresses are not really a thing if you look at the blockchain. While nodes and explorers will interpret parts of a transaction as addresses, in reality addresses are just an abstraction around Bitcoin Script and an easy way send coins instead of asking people “hey, can you send some coins to the network in such a way that only the private key that corresponds to public key XYZ can unlock them?”. Let’s look at an example: say I ask you to send coins to my address GR1Vcgj2r6EjGQJHHGkAUr1XnidA19MrxC. What ends up happening is that you send coins out a transaction where you say that the coin are locked in the blockchain and can only be unlocked by successfully executing the following script:
OP_DUP OP_HASH160 4e9856671c3abb2f03b7d80b9238e8f5ecd9f050 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
Now, without getting too technical, this means something like this:
As you can see, the address actually represents a well-known piece of script. This start making sense if you look at the decoded address:
26 4E9856671C3ABB2F03B7D80B9238E8F5ECD9F050 F8F1F945
The first byte (0x26, or 38) is the version byte. This tells the clients how the interpret the rest of the script. In our case 38 means Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash (P2PKH), or in other words the script mentioned above. The part after that is just the SHA1 hash of the public key and the final 4 bytes are a checksum to verify you did not make a typo when entering the address.
Enter SegWit. What SegWit exactly is depends on who you are talking to, however it mostly is a different transaction format/protocol. The main change of SegWit is that signature data is not longer included in the transaction (fixing transaction malleability). Instead transaction data is sent separate from the transaction itself and outside of the (main) blocks.
This is not really that much of an issue, except for the fact that people wanted to enable SegWit as a soft-fork instead of a hard-fork. This means that somehow unupgraded nodes needed a way to deal with these new transaction types without being able to verify them.
The solution turned out to be to make use of an implementation detail of Bitcoin Script: if a piece of script executes without any errors, the last bit of data determines whether the transaction is valid (non-zero) or invalid (zero). This is what they used to implement SegWit.
So what does this look like? Well, you might be surprised how simple a P2WPKH (the SegWit way of doing a P2PKH transaction) script looks:
00 4e9856671c3abb2f03b7d80b9238e8f5ecd9f050
Yes. That’s it.
The first byte is the Witness program version byte. I.e. it tells you how the other data should be interpreted (very similar to how addresses work). Then there is the hash of the public key. As you can see, SegWit does not actually use Bitcoin Script. Mostly because it needs old nodes to ‘just accept’ its transactions. However interestingly enough, while the transaction format changed, the transaction data is pretty much the same:
This means that these kind of SegWit transactions need a new way of addressing them. Now, you might think that this is where the ‘3’ addresses on Bitcoin or the ‘M’ addresses on Garlicoin come in. However, that is not the case.
These addresses are what are called Pay-to-Script-Hash (P2SH) addresses. There scrypt is like this:
OP_HASH160 35521b9e015240942ad6b0735c6e7365354b0794 OP_EQUAL
Huh? Yeah, these are a very special type of transactions, that kind of go back to the “hey, can you send some coins to the network in such a way that only the private key that corresponds to public key XYZ can unlock them?” issue.
These transactions are a way to have arbitrary smart contracts (within the limits of Bitcoin Script) to determine whether a transaction output can be spend or not without the sender of the coins having to deal with your scripts. Basically they use a hash of the “real” script, which whoever owns the coins has to provide when they want to spend them, as well as the specific inputs required for a script. This functionality is for example used in multi-signature (MultiSig) wallets, without requiring someone sending money to these wallets having to deal with random bits of information like how many signatures are required, how many private keys belong to the wallet, etc.
This same method is used for so called P2SH-wrapped SegWit transactions (or P2SH-P2WPKH). Consider our earlier SegWit transaction output script:
00 4e9856671c3abb2f03b7d80b9238e8f5ecd9f050
Or 00144e9856671c3abb2f03b7d80b9238e8f5ecd9f050 in low-level hex. The P2SH script for this would be:
OP_HASH160 a059c8385124aa273dd3feaf52f4d94d42f01796 OP_EQUAL
Which would give us address MNX1uHyAQMXsGiGt5wACiyMUgjHn1qk1Kw. This is what is now widely known and used as SegWit. But this is P2SH-wrapper SegWit, not native or "real" SegWit. Native would be using the data-only SegWit script directly.
The reason for using the P2SH variant is mostly about compatibility. While SegWit nodes understand these newer transactions, they were never officially assigned a way to convert them to addresses. Hence, they will show up in blockchain explorers as Unparsed address [0] or something similar. Then there is also the whole thing about old nodes and relaying non-standard transactions, but I will skip that bit for now.
Bitcoin is using/going to use new BECH32 addresses for native SegWit transactions, which looks completely different from the old Base-58 encoded addresses. However, right now, especially on Garlicoin, you cannot really use them and have to use the P2SH variant. But why not use these new cool transaction types without having to deal with all that useless and complex P2SH wrapping, right? Right? …
Well, I went ahead and gave them their (unofficial) address space.
So last thursday I made some changes to Garlicoin Core, to make dealing with these native SegWit transaction a lot easier. In short, the changes consist of:
  • Assigning address version byte 73 to them, in other words addresses starting with a ‘W’ (for ‘witness’).
  • Allowing the use of ‘W’ addresses when sending coins.
  • Make the wallet automatically recognize the SegWit transaction type for any newly generated address.
  • Add the getwitnessaddress command, which decodes a version 38 ‘G’ address and re-encodes the same data as a version 73 ‘W’ address (unfortunately it is not as simple as just changing the first letter). Note that this can be any address, not just your own. (That said, you should not send SegWit transactions to people not expecting them, always use the address given to you.)
  • Added the usewitnesschangeaddress configuration setting, to automatically use the cheaper SegWit transaction outputs for transaction change outputs.
  • (Since using the 'W' address only changes the way coins are sent to you and the private key used for both transaction types is the same:) When receiving coins they show all up under the original ‘G’ address, whether a SegWit or legacy/normal transaction type was used. The idea behind this is that both are actually the same "physical" (?) address, just to the way to coins to it differs. Address book entries are also merged and default to the ‘G’ address type.
Anyway, I don’t expect people to actually use this or it getting merged into mainline or anything. I actually mostly made this for myself, but thought I should share anyway. I guess it was also a nice opportunity to talk a bit about transactions and SegWit. :-)
Btw, I also changed my pool to allow mining to ‘W’ addresses, to make coin consolidation cheaper (due to the SegWit fee subsidy). Right now this is only for instant payout though (as I would have to update the wallet node the pool is using for daily payout, which I haven’t done yet).
Also note that you can actually mine to a ‘W’ address (and therefore use cheaper transactions) even if you are running the official, non-patched version of Garlicoin Core, however:
  • You need to manually convert your ‘G’ address to a ‘W’ address.
  • You need to run the addwitnessaddress command (Help -> Debug Window -> Console) to make the wallet recognize SegWit transactions (you can ignore the ‘M’ address it produces).
  • The wallet might get a bit confused as it does not really understand how it got the coins. This is mostly notable in the ‘Coin Control’ window if you have it enabled. Apart from that everything should still work though.
submitted by nuc1e4r5n4k3 to garlicoin [link] [comments]

Decred Journal — June 2018

Note: You can read this on GitHub, Medium or old Reddit to see the 207 links.


The biggest announcement of the month was the new kind of decentralized exchange proposed by @jy-p of Company 0. The Community Discussions section considers the stakeholders' response.
dcrd: Peer management and connectivity improvements. Some work for improved sighash algo. A new optimization that gives 3-4x faster serving of headers, which is great for SPV. This was another step towards multipeer parallel downloads – check this issue for a clear overview of progress and planned work for next months (and some engineering delight). As usual, codebase cleanup, improvements to error handling, test infrastructure and test coverage.
Decrediton: work towards watching only wallets, lots of bugfixes and visual design improvements. Preliminary work to integrate SPV has begun.
Politeia is live on testnet! Useful links: announcement, introduction, command line voting example, example proposal with some votes, mini-guide how to compose a proposal.
Trezor: Decred appeared in the firmware update and on Trezor website, currently for testnet only. Next steps are mainnet support and integration in wallets. For the progress of Decrediton support you can track this meta issue.
dcrdata: Continued work on Insight API support, see this meta issue for progress overview. It is important for integrations due to its popularity. Ongoing work to add charts. A big database change to improve sorting on the Address page was merged and bumped version to 3.0. Work to visualize agenda voting continues.
Ticket splitting: 11-way ticket split from last month has voted (transaction).
Ethereum support in atomicswap is progressing and welcomes more eyeballs. revamped Press page with dozens of added articles, and a shiny new Roadmap page. a new Decred dashboard by lte13. Reddit announcement here.
Dev activity stats for June: 245 active PRs, 184 master commits, 25,973 added and 13,575 deleted lines spread across 8 repositories. Contributions came from 2 to 10 developers per repository. (chart)


Hashrate: growth continues, the month started at 15 and ended at 44 PH/s with some wild 30% swings on the way. The peak was 53.9 PH/s.
F2Pool was the leader varying between 36% and 59% hashrate, followed by holding between 18% and 29%. In response to concerns about its hashrate share, F2Pool made a statement that they will consider measures like rising the fees to prevent growing to 51%.
Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 94.7 DCR (+3.4). The price was steadily rising from 90.7 to 95.8 peaking at 98.1. Locked DCR grew from 3.68 to 3.81 million DCR, the highest value was 3.83 million corresponding to 47.87% of supply (+0.7% from previous peak).
Nodes: there are 240 public listening and 115 normal nodes per Version distribution: 57% on v1.2.0 (+12%), 25% on v1.1.2 (-13%), 14% on v1.1.0 (-1%). Note: the reported count of non-listening nodes has dropped significantly due to data reset at It will take some time before the crawler collects more data. On top of that, there is no way to exactly count non-listening nodes. To illustrate, an alternative data source, showed 690 reachable nodes on Jul 1.
Extraordinary event: 247361 and 247362 were two nearly full blocks. Normally blocks are 10-20 KiB, but these blocks were 374 KiB (max is 384 KiB).


Update from Obelisk: shipping is expected in first half of July and there is non-zero chance to meet hashrate target.
Another Chinese ASIC spotted on the web: Flying Fish D18 with 340 GH/s at 180 W costing 2,200 CNY (~340 USD). (asicok.comtranslated, also on asicminervalue)
dcrASIC team posted a farewell letter. Despite having an awesome 16 nm chip design, they decided to stop the project citing the saturated mining ecosystem and low profitability for their potential customers.

Integrations is a new mining pool spotted on
Exchange integrations:
Two OTC trading desks are now shown on exchanges page.
BitPro payment gateway added Decred and posted on Reddit. Notably, it is fully functional without javascript or cookies and does not ask for name or email, among other features.
Guarda Wallet integrated Decred. Currently only in their web wallet, but more may come in future. Notable feature is "DCR purchase with a bank card". See more details in their post or ask their representative on Reddit. Important: do your best to understand the security model before using any wallet software.


BlueYard Capital announced investment in Decred and the intent to be long term supporters and to actively participate in the network's governance. In an overview post they stressed core values of the project:
There are a few other remarkable characteristics that are a testament to the DNA of the team behind Decred: there was no sale of DCR to investors, no venture funding, and no payment to exchanges to be listed – underscoring that the Decred team and contributors are all about doing the right thing for long term (as manifested in their constitution for the project).
The most encouraging thing we can see is both the quality and quantity of high calibre developers flocking to the project, in addition to a vibrant community attaching their identity to the project.
The company will be hosting an event in Berlin, see Events below.
Arbitrade is now mining Decred.



Media a new website by @mm:
Hey guys! I'd like to share with you my latest adventure: Stakey Club, hosted at, is a website dedicated to Decred. I posted a few articles in Brazilian Portuguese and in English. I also translated to Portuguese some posts from the Decred Blog. I hope you like it! (slack)
@morphymore translated Placeholder's Decred Investment Thesis and Richard Red's write-up on Politeia to Chinese, while @DZ translated Decred Roadmap 2018 to Italian and Russian, and A New Kind of DEX to Italian and Russian.
Second iteration of Chinese ratings released. Compared to the first issue, Decred dropped from 26 to 29 while Bitcoin fell from 13 to 17. We (the authors) restrain ourselves commenting on this one.
Featured articles:

Community Discussions

Community stats: Twitter followers 40,209 (+1,091), Reddit subscribers 8,410 (+243), Slack users 5,830 (+172), GitHub 392 stars and 918 forks of dcrd repository.
An update on our communication systems:
Jake Yocom-Piatt did an AMA on CryptoTechnology, a forum for serious crypto tech discussion. Some topics covered were Decred attack cost and resistance, voting policies, smart contracts, SPV security, DAO and DPoS.
A new kind of DEX was the subject of an extensive discussion in #general, #random, #trading channels as well as Reddit. New channel #thedex was created and attracted more than 100 people.
A frequent and fair question is how the DEX would benefit Decred. @lukebp has put it well:
Projects like these help Decred attract talent. Typically, the people that are the best at what they do aren’t driven solely by money. They want to work on interesting projects that they believe in with other talented individuals. Launching a DEX that has no trading fees, no requirement to buy a 3rd party token (including Decred), and that cuts out all middlemen is a clear demonstration of the ethos that Decred was founded on. It helps us get our name out there and attract the type of people that believe in the same mission that we do. (slack)
Another concern that it will slow down other projects was addressed by @davecgh:
The intent is for an external team to take up the mantle and build it, so it won't have any bearing on the current c0 roadmap. The important thing to keep in mind is that the goal of Decred is to have a bunch of independent teams on working on different things. (slack)
A chat about Decred fork resistance started on Twitter and continued in #trading. Community members continue to discuss the finer points of Decred's hybrid system, bringing new users up to speed and answering their questions. The key takeaway from this chat is that the Decred chain is impossible to advance without votes, and to get around that the forker needs to change the protocol in a way that would make it clearly not Decred.
"Against community governance" article was discussed on Reddit and #governance.
"The Downside of Democracy (and What it Means for Blockchain Governance)" was another article arguing against on-chain governance, discussed here.
Reddit recap: mining rig shops discussion; how centralized is Politeia; controversial debate on photos of models that yielded useful discussion on our marketing approach; analysis of a drop in number of transactions; concerns regarding project bus factor, removing central authorities, advertising and full node count – received detailed responses; an argument by insette for maximizing aggregate tx fees; coordinating network upgrades; a new "Why Decred?" thread; a question about quantum resistance with a detailed answer and a recap of current status of quantum resistant algorithms.
Chats recap: Programmatic Proof-of-Work (ProgPoW) discussion; possible hashrate of Blake-256 miners is at least ~30% higher than SHA-256d; how Decred is not vulnerable to SPV leaf/node attack.


DCR opened the month at ~$93, reached monthly high of $110, gradually dropped to the low of $58 and closed at $67. In BTC terms it was 0.0125 -> 0.0150 -> 0.0098 -> 0.0105. The downturn coincided with a global decline across the whole crypto market.
In the middle of the month Decred was noticed to be #1 in onchainfx "% down from ATH" chart and on this chart by @CoinzTrader. Towards the end of the month it dropped to #3.

Relevant External

Obelisk announced Launchpad service. The idea is to work with coin developers to design a custom, ASIC-friendly PoW algorithm together with a first batch of ASICs and distribute them among the community.
Equihash-based ZenCash was hit by a double spend attack that led to a loss of $450,000 by the exchange which was targeted.
Almost one year after collecting funds, Tezos announced a surprise identification procedure to claim tokens (non-javascript version).
A hacker broke into Syscoin's GitHub account and implanted malware stealing passwords and private keys into Windows binaries. This is a painful reminder for everybody to verify binaries after download.
Circle announced new asset listing framework for Poloniex. Relevant to recent discussions of exchange listing bribery:
Please note: we will not accept any kind of payment to list an asset.
Bithumb got hacked with a $30 m loss.
Zcash organized Zcon0, an event in Canada that focused on privacy tech and governance. An interesting insight from Keynote Panel on governance: "There is no such thing as on-chain governance".
Microsoft acquired GitHub. There was some debate about whether it is a reason to look into alternative solutions like GitLab right now. It is always a good idea to have a local copy of Decred source code, just in case.
Status update from @sumiflow on correcting DCR supply on various sites:
To begin with, none of the below sites were showing the correct supply or market cap for Decred but we've made some progress.,,,, - corrected!, - awaiting fix - refused to fix because devs have coins too? (slack)

About This Issue

This is the third issue of Decred Journal after April and May.
Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research.
The new public Matrix logs look promising and we hope to transition from Slack links to Matrix links. In the meantime, the way to read Slack links is explained in the previous issue.
As usual, any feedback is appreciated: please comment on Reddit, GitHub or #writers_room. Contributions are welcome too, anything from initial collection to final review to translations.
Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee and Richard-Red. Special thanks to @Haon for bringing May 2018 issue to medium.
submitted by jet_user to decred [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: CryptoTechnology top posts from 2017-12-23 to 2020-01-20 15:51 PDT

Period: 758.36 days
Submissions Comments
Total 956 13660
Rate (per day) 1.26 18.01
Unique Redditors 584 3144
Combined Score 21553 44566

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 1166 points, 43 submissions: Neophyte-
    1. "Do you need a Blockchain?" - this paper is fantastic, everyone should read this before evaluating a coin and if requires a block chain to solve a solution the coin is promising to solve. (136 points, 41 comments)
    2. Do any of you foresee a crypto being widely adopted as a general purpose payment coin? nano, btc, btccash etc (take your pick). I think it won't happen for reasons in this post. What do you think? (59 points, 54 comments)
    3. Noticed the huge rise of EOS lately what does it have over NEO and ethereum and to a lesser extent Cardano? I tried researching it, but wasn't sold. (54 points, 55 comments)
    4. Hard Problems in Cryptocurrency: Five Years Later ~Vitalik (46 points, 1 comment)
    5. I had a Q&A with Bruno head architect / CEO of oyster, thought you guys might like it. (45 points, 2 comments)
    6. A good article that explains in simple terms how Eth2 works, how it will be rolled out and migrated from eth1 (42 points, 4 comments)
    7. DAI the stablecoin can now be transferred GAS free (article explaining how it works via new MCD DAI contract). This holds alot of promise for the so called "Web3" (40 points, 8 comments)
    8. Veriblock is consuming 27% of bitcoins block space - what does this mean for bitcoins future? (39 points, 16 comments)
    9. Vitalik: Alternative proposal for early eth1 <-> eth2 merge (38 points, 3 comments)
    10. Is launching a PoW permissionless blockchain still possible today? or would it be too susceptible to a 51% attack? (37 points, 37 comments)
  2. 578 points, 16 submissions: crypto_ha
    1. Why is Ripple considered a cryptocurrency (by many)? (109 points, 63 comments)
    2. So reportedly there are serious vulnerabilities found in EOS’ code. And it seems like those are more than just random software bugs. (97 points, 29 comments)
    3. Guide: How to get started with Blockchain development? (60 points, 6 comments)
    4. A newly found vulnerability in Nano's Android wallet (44 points, 12 comments)
    5. The history and state of Ethereum's Casper research - Vitalik Buterin (39 points, 4 comments)
    6. What is the difference between Sidechain vs Child Chain vs Off Chain? (39 points, 12 comments)
    7. EOS mainnet is official live (finally), but... (36 points, 24 comments)
    8. Bitcoin's "doomsday" economics - Bank of International Settlements (34 points, 23 comments)
    9. How Wall Street’s embrace could undermine Bitcoin (30 points, 9 comments)
    10. Ethereum ERC 1497: DApp Dispute Evidence Standard (24 points, 0 comments)
  3. 513 points, 20 submissions: ndha1995
    1. Ethereum Classic is currently being 51% attacked (103 points, 31 comments)
    2. Why are there so many garbage posts the past 24 hours? (58 points, 10 comments)
    3. Google Unveils 72-Qubit Quantum Processor With Low Error Rates (48 points, 24 comments)
    4. IOTA's Network-Bound PoW consensus, is it feasible? (42 points, 13 comments)
    5. The Challenges of Investigating Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Related Crime (29 points, 7 comments)
    6. Deep dive into zk-STARKs with Vitalik Buterin's blog posts (26 points, 3 comments)
    7. Tether discussion thread (26 points, 21 comments)
    8. Vitalik Buterin Proposes a Consensus Algorithm That Requires Only 1% to Be Honest (24 points, 8 comments)
    9. Can somebody compare Qtum vs. NEO, technology-wise? (E.g. PoS vs. PoW; smart contract protocols...) (21 points, 15 comments)
    10. Introduction to Non Fungible Tokens (NFTs) (21 points, 9 comments)
  4. 377 points, 16 submissions: turtleflax
    1. Around 13% of DASH's privateSends are traceable to their origin (69 points, 3 comments)
    2. "Big Bang" attack could leverage Monero's dynamic blocksize to bloat the blockchain to 30TB in only 36 hours (52 points, 3 comments)
    3. The case for the obsolescence of Proof of Work and why 2018 will be the year of Proof of Stake (41 points, 29 comments)
    4. Monero vs PIVX: The First Scheduled Privacy Coin Debate Thread on /CryptoCurrency (38 points, 12 comments)
    5. Introducing the Privacy Coin Matrix, a cross-team collaboration comparing 20 privacy coins in 100 categories (26 points, 25 comments)
    6. Do permissioned blockchains have any merits? (25 points, 23 comments)
    7. The State of Hashing Algorithms — The Why, The How, and The Future (21 points, 4 comments)
    8. How Zerocoin Works in 5 Minutes (19 points, 5 comments)
    9. Errors made by Satoshi (17 points, 8 comments)
    10. How Much Privacy is Enough? Threats, Scaling, and Trade-offs in Blockchain Privacy Protocols - Ian Miers (Cornell Tech, Zerocoin, Zerocash) (17 points, 4 comments)
  5. 321 points, 6 submissions: Qwahzi
    1. Technical comparison of LIGHTNING vs TANGLE vs HASHGRAPH vs NANO (133 points, 37 comments)
    2. Addressing Nano's weaknesses (bandwidth usage and disk IO). Nano voting traffic to be reduced by 99.9% by implementing vote by hash, lazy bootstrapping, and reduced vote rebroadcasting (x-post CryptoCurrency) (78 points, 8 comments)
    3. Emergent centralization due to economies of scale (PoW vs DPoS) – Colin LeMahieu (52 points, 37 comments)
    4. Nano community member developing a distributed "mining" service to pay people to do PoW for third-parties (e.g. exchanges, light wallet services, etc) (32 points, 20 comments)
    5. What do you think about OpenCAP, the cryptocurrency alias protocol that mirrors traditional email addresses? (15 points, 12 comments)
    6. Bitcoin would be a calamity, not an economy (11 points, 52 comments)
  6. 256 points, 4 submissions: rockyrainy
    1. Bitcoin Gold hit by Double Spend Attack (51% attack). The Attacker reversed 22 blocks. (179 points, 102 comments)
    2. ZK-starks white paper published (44 points, 16 comments)
    3. [Q] How does a network reach consensus on what time it is? (21 points, 17 comments)
    4. Stateless (no history) Cryptocurrency via snapshots? (12 points, 7 comments)
  7. 244 points, 3 submissions: HSPremier
    1. From a technical standpoint: Why does every blockchain projects need their own coins? (181 points, 50 comments)
    2. What is Reddit's obsession with REQ? (61 points, 43 comments)
    3. What is the technological difference between a privacy coin and a privacy coin platform? Won't a privacy coin platform be more superior than a privacy coin? (2 points, 3 comments)
  8. 234 points, 2 submissions: Realness100
    1. A Guided Reading of Bitcoin’s Original White Paper (202 points, 10 comments)
    2. A Guided Reading of Ethereum's Original White Paper! (32 points, 5 comments)
  9. 185 points, 4 submissions: tracyspacygo
    1. My brief observation of most common Consensus Algorithms (159 points, 49 comments)
    2. What are the main Trends/Challenges for Bitcoin and whole crytpocurrencies industry? (12 points, 33 comments)
    3. Guideline for Newbies: Trying out Bitcoin transactions with TESTNET (7 points, 1 comment)
    4. Most advanced Cryptocurrencies Comparison Table (7 points, 8 comments)
  10. 177 points, 9 submissions: benmdi
    1. What's the best argument against cryptotechnology? I.e. Steelman the cryptocurrency skeptic (43 points, 42 comments)
    2. Would there be interest from this community in crypto resources aimed at developers? If so, what topics? (29 points, 14 comments)
    3. Has the window for bootstrapping a new PoW coin closed? (24 points, 57 comments)
    4. What can we, as a community, learn from the rise & acquisition of GitHub (23 points, 8 comments)
    5. 🍱 Rollup Roundup: Understanding Ethereum's Emerging Layer 2 (19 points, 1 comment)
    6. Video Tutorial: Introducing An Experience Dev To Smart Contract Coding (17 points, 3 comments)
    7. Do we need a blockchain to be decentralized? What questions would you ask a self described fan of decentralization, but blockchain skeptic? (11 points, 19 comments)
    8. ETH Block Rewards And Second Order Effects On Hardware Availability (7 points, 8 comments)
    9. Which Of The Big Tech Companies Is Most Likely To Bring Crypto Mainstream? Here's Why I Think It's Apple (4 points, 7 comments)
  11. 175 points, 9 submissions: galan77
    1. Is the Lightning Network a massive threat to the blockchain? (49 points, 66 comments)
    2. TPS of Lightning Network vs. Sharding, which one does better? (28 points, 7 comments)
    3. Are there any major downsides to sharding? (21 points, 33 comments)
    4. What's the difference between trustlessness and permissionlessness (19 points, 7 comments)
    5. Which consensus algorithm is the best, PoW, PoS, PoAuthority, PoAsset? (18 points, 57 comments)
    6. How can XRP reach 50,000 TPS when they have no sharding and every node has to validate every single transaction. (15 points, 14 comments)
    7. A few questions about the Lightning Network (14 points, 6 comments)
    8. Pascalcoin can do 72,000 tps apparently. Is this legit? The new Nano? (8 points, 39 comments)
    9. How does Ripple's (XRB's) consensus algorithm Proof of Correctness work, are there any downsides? (3 points, 23 comments)
  12. 175 points, 1 submission: ilielezi
    1. Why white papers in crypto world are so unprofessional? (175 points, 88 comments)
  13. 165 points, 6 submissions: CryptoMaximalist
    1. Facebook's Libra (48 points, 55 comments)
    2. “Fake Stake” attacks on some Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies responsibly disclosed by researchers from the Decentralized Systems Lab at UIUC (31 points, 9 comments)
    3. Quantum Computing and the Cryptography in Crypto (27 points, 14 comments)
    4. PING and REJECT attacks on ZCash (Patch available) | Stanford Applied Crypto Group (22 points, 1 comment)
    5. Introduction to Cryptography: Part 1 - Jinglan Wang (19 points, 1 comment)
    6. New site shows the amount of time and confirmations of Proof of Work coins to match 6 confirmations on Bitcoin (18 points, 11 comments)
  14. 163 points, 10 submissions: GainsLean
    1. Videos For Developers Who Want To Learn Blockchain In A Practical Way (36 points, 17 comments)
    2. What Do You Want To Learn? (32 points, 20 comments)
    3. Get Involved With The Smart Contract Coding Challenge (25 points, 4 comments)
    4. Solution To $10K Art Prize (25 points, 3 comments)
    5. Blockchain Course Outline Has Been Released - Feedback warranted (22 points, 12 comments)
    6. Introduction To Distributed Systems And Consensus Protocols (9 points, 2 comments)
    7. Are there any closed source crypto wallets? (4 points, 19 comments)
    8. Are there any successful proof of identity projects? (4 points, 8 comments)
    9. SPV Wallets Vs API Wallets (4 points, 1 comment)
    10. 12 Popular Consensus Algorithms - Explained (2 points, 0 comments)
  15. 163 points, 7 submissions: QRCollector
    1. Part 5. I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the fifth part of the series talking about an advanced vulnerability of BTC. (43 points, 43 comments)
    2. I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the third part of the series introducing Quantum resistant blockchains. (36 points, 4 comments)
    3. Part 4B. I’m writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the fourth part of the series explaining the special quality of going quantum resistant from genesis block. (25 points, 21 comments)
    4. Part 6. (Last part) I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. Failing shortcuts in an attempt to accomplish Quantum Resistance (24 points, 38 comments)
    5. I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the first part of the series introducing the basic concept of blockchain and what makes it reliable. (23 points, 10 comments)
    6. I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the fourth part of the series explaining the special quality of going quantum resistant from genesis block. (7 points, 1 comment)
    7. Part 2. I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the second part of the series: An accessible description of hashing and signature schemes. (5 points, 0 comments)
  16. 162 points, 3 submissions: FashionistaGuru
    1. How do we change the culture around cryptocurrency? (118 points, 54 comments)
    2. Which cryptos have the best new user experience? (30 points, 34 comments)
    3. Why does Apple prevent many crypto apps from entering the App Store? (14 points, 8 comments)
  17. 157 points, 7 submissions: SamsungGalaxyPlayer
    1. Breaking Monero Episodes 1-3: Introduction, Ring Signatures, 0-Decoy and Chain Reactions (45 points, 1 comment)
    2. "No, dPoW Isn't a Perfect Solution" (35 points, 48 comments)
    3. Breaking Mimblewimble’s Privacy Model - Dragonfly Research (27 points, 10 comments)
    4. Breaking Monero (and Zcash) Episodes 7-9: Remote Nodes, Timing Attacks, Poisoned Outputs (EAE Attack) (21 points, 2 comments)
    5. "Attacker Collection of IP Metadata" (18 points, 10 comments)
    6. "Tracing Transactions Across Cryptocurrency Ledgers" Using Shapeshift and Changelly (6 points, 4 comments)
    7. Breaking Monero Episodes 4-6: Chain Splits (Key Image Attack), Input Selection Algorithm, Unusual Ringsize (5 points, 2 comments)
  18. 147 points, 1 submission: shunsaitakahashi
    1. Proof-of-Approval: Stake Based, 1 Block Finality & History Attack Defense (147 points, 4 comments)
  19. 146 points, 6 submissions: themoderndayhercules
    1. "The selfish mining fallacy" explained and debunked (60 points, 8 comments)
    2. A Discussion of Stable coins and Decentralized Oracles (35 points, 8 comments)
    3. A Selfish Mining Double Spending attack Simulator (25 points, 2 comments)
    4. Why reputation systems don't work (15 points, 12 comments)
    5. A better incentivization for Swarm (6 points, 0 comments)
    6. When Mises met Szabo - A Discussion of the value of Bitcoin (5 points, 16 comments)
  20. 143 points, 7 submissions: KomodoWorld
    1. Komodo Platform's core developer and founder jl777 has started his own blog on Medium. The blog is aimed for senior developers who want to learn about blockchain. (46 points, 15 comments)
    2. Delayed Proof of Work (dPoW) security explained (36 points, 46 comments)
    3. Proof-of-Gameplay (19 points, 3 comments)
    4. Good guide for getting started with the Custom Consensus tech for Komodo-based blockchains (17 points, 0 comments)
    5. Cross-chain migration of coins with Crypto Conditions - by smk762 (12 points, 0 comments)
    6. A step-by-step example of working with a Crypto Conditions based Oracle - by smk762 (10 points, 0 comments)
    7. Changing consensus rules on the fly with Crypto Conditions (3 points, 0 comments)
  21. 141 points, 8 submissions: Stormy1997
    1. What technical/business advantages does a private blockchain have over a SQL server? (49 points, 79 comments)
    2. Is sharding to scale bad? (24 points, 28 comments)
    3. How would one create a fiat gateway theoretically? (19 points, 19 comments)
    4. Looking for Stellar smart contract/side chain code examples (16 points, 1 comment)
    5. Question - Securing personal information on a centralized server with user-owned keys (13 points, 3 comments)
    6. How do blockchains/smart contracts communicate with oracles? (10 points, 4 comments)
    7. Bandwidth scaling for TPS (8 points, 2 comments)
    8. Best method to transmit detailed data between two parties via existing platforms (2 points, 1 comment)
  22. 141 points, 3 submissions: seventyfiver
    1. Why does Ethereum use Solidity while other ecosystems like NEO stick with popular ones like Java and C#? (94 points, 26 comments)
    2. Chainlink's initial Go implementation went live this morning. Has anyone reviewed the code and can comment on it's quality? (40 points, 3 comments)
    3. What are some great books on cryptoeconomics or blockchain technology? (7 points, 4 comments)
  23. 134 points, 6 submissions: johnny_milkshakes
    1. Sub dedicated to DAG based coins (42 points, 8 comments)
    2. Thoughts on this? (28 points, 38 comments)
    3. This is very interesting (24 points, 19 comments)
    4. Educational presentation by Clara Shikhelman (18 points, 0 comments)
    5. Ethics question. (12 points, 40 comments)
    6. How to scale on chain? (10 points, 30 comments)
  24. 127 points, 4 submissions: sukitrebek
    1. What are you currently obsessed with, and why? (58 points, 150 comments)
    2. Crypto-based social network without a cryptocurrency. (42 points, 23 comments)
    3. How does underlying architecture affect what kinds of applications are possible? (17 points, 3 comments)
    4. Holochain vs. Radix DLT (10 points, 11 comments)
  25. 126 points, 1 submission: RufusTheFirefly
    1. Everytime I try to investigate the technology behind Cardano(Ada), I come across the words "scientific" and "peer-reviewed" over and over but almost no actual details. Can someone fill how this coin actually works and where they are in development? (126 points, 49 comments)
  26. 112 points, 1 submission: rocksolid77
    1. Can we have a real debate about the Bitcoin scaling issue? (112 points, 89 comments)
  27. 110 points, 4 submissions: kelluk
    1. What one can learn from browsing 30 million Ethereum addresses (72 points, 21 comments)
    2. I wanted to categorize all coins/tokens, and this is my proposal (23 points, 33 comments)
    3. Should whitepapers be understood by ordinary people? (10 points, 41 comments)
    4. Querying the Ethereum blockchain: how to & what to? (5 points, 5 comments)
  28. 107 points, 1 submission: NewDietTrend
    1. Outside of currency and voting, blockchain is awful and shouldnt be used. Can anyone explain where blockchain is worth the cost? (107 points, 166 comments)
  29. 105 points, 1 submission: insette
    1. /CryptoTech PSA: there are broadly TWO TYPES of Decentralized Exchanges. Which type are you investing in? (105 points, 55 comments)
  30. 103 points, 3 submissions: dtheme
    1. How to accept crypto payments for digital downloads if you are a small business? Solutions, e-commerce sites are lacking (46 points, 38 comments)
    2. How many 24 letter seeds and "Bitcoin" keys can there be? (34 points, 24 comments)
    3. Is there any reason why the big tech companies are not getting into crypto? (23 points, 36 comments)
  31. 103 points, 3 submissions: dvnielng
    1. Why do so many of these businesses need a token? (Unsure) (61 points, 86 comments)
    2. DAPPS - Only coins that have intrinsic value? Ethereum , Neo? (31 points, 10 comments)
    3. How could blockchain work for expensive purchases/escrow? (11 points, 2 comments)
  32. 101 points, 1 submission: kickso
    1. Is NANO everything it says it is? (101 points, 96 comments)
  33. 98 points, 3 submissions: heart_mind_body
    1. How can we breathe some life into this sub? (56 points, 22 comments)
    2. Can anyone give an example for a technology that provides a "public permissioned blockchain"? (28 points, 16 comments)
    3. Can we do a discussion on ICON and "clusters of private chains connected to a public chain" ? (14 points, 13 comments)
  34. 97 points, 8 submissions: kelraku
    1. Thoughts on Mimblewimble? (23 points, 13 comments)
    2. Has anyone looked at the lelantus protocol? (18 points, 6 comments)
    3. How much control do developers have over the coins (18 points, 6 comments)
    4. Lesser known protocols? (11 points, 17 comments)
    5. Zerocoin and Blockchain Analysis (9 points, 5 comments)
    6. Zerocoin vs Cryptonote (7 points, 14 comments)
    7. Lightning network privacy (6 points, 13 comments)
    8. Integrity of the DAG (5 points, 17 comments)
  35. 96 points, 6 submissions: blockstasy
    1. How to Get to One Million Devs (32 points, 12 comments)
    2. The Decade in Blockchain — 2010 to 2020 in Review (27 points, 4 comments)
    3. Ethereum by the Numbers – The Year of 2019 (26 points, 9 comments)
    4. Knowledge Drop: Mining and the role it plays with the Ethereum blockchain (5 points, 0 comments)
    5. A great article that explains Ethereum’s Muir Glacier Update (4 points, 0 comments)
    6. Youtube Silences Crypto Community (2 points, 6 comments)
  36. 93 points, 3 submissions: OneOverNever
    1. Which is the last WHITE PAPER you've read that's truly impacted you? (77 points, 81 comments)
    2. [CMV] Bitcoin's intrinsic technological value. (14 points, 29 comments)
    3. What are some weak points that still hold XVG back from becoming a top player in crypto? (Technically speaking, not marketing and etc.) (2 points, 19 comments)
  37. 93 points, 3 submissions: ryano-ark
    1. (ARK) ACES Completes Integration of ARK Channels for Two-way Transfers for Easy ICOs When Paired With ARK Deployer (Push-Button-Blockchains) (57 points, 5 comments)
    2. (ARK) ACES Releases Fast (Ansible) Deployments for all ACES Applications. (23 points, 4 comments)
    3. A Future of Cryptocurrencies and Blockchains (13 points, 3 comments)
  38. 92 points, 2 submissions: BobUltra
    1. Our blockchains are all centralized! (51 points, 34 comments)
    2. List of qualities needed to dethrone Bitcoin. (41 points, 43 comments)
  39. 90 points, 1 submission: refreshx2
    1. CMV: It doesn't make sense for (crypto)companies to create coins linked to their tech (90 points, 18 comments)
  40. 89 points, 1 submission: perceptron01
    1. What does Nano do better than Steem? (89 points, 55 comments)
  41. 87 points, 1 submission: Shuk
    1. How does one begin to develop an employable skill in blockchain development? (87 points, 25 comments)
  42. 87 points, 1 submission: conorohiggins
    1. I spent three weeks researching and writing a huge guide to stablecoins. Enjoy! (87 points, 36 comments)
  43. 86 points, 1 submission: Bacon_Hero
    1. ELI5: Why did it take so long for blockchain technology to be created? (86 points, 66 comments)
  44. 85 points, 3 submissions: theFoot58
    1. If crypto now is like 'the Internet' of the past, where are we? (65 points, 53 comments)
    2. If the Internet had its Genesis Block, what would it be? (14 points, 9 comments)
    3. Coin grouping - ruby and CryptoCompare API (6 points, 1 comment)
  45. 85 points, 1 submission: youngm2
    1. Which decentralised exchange has the most promise for 2018? (85 points, 89 comments)
  46. 84 points, 4 submissions: bLbGoldeN
    1. On Mass Adoption of Cryptocurrencies (28 points, 68 comments)
    2. Join the Bloom team for our first tech AMA tomorrow (Tuesday, March 13th) at 7 PM GMT! (23 points, 2 comments)
    3. Join the Decred team for an AMA - Friday, June 1st from 19:00 to 22:00 UTC (17 points, 10 comments)
    4. Join the district0x team for an AMA Monday, April 2nd at 5:00 PM (GMT) (16 points, 0 comments)
  47. 82 points, 2 submissions: SubsequentDownfall
    1. Has a 51% attack ever been witnessed? (45 points, 46 comments)
    2. Is a DAG coin like RaiBlocks able to be private like Monero? (37 points, 40 comments)
  48. 82 points, 2 submissions: guidre
    1. Tron and other source Code (42 points, 24 comments)
    2. Why Will companies adopt blockchain, the user interface is complex and i'm not sure that many companies want all their internal dealings made public. (40 points, 19 comments)
  49. 81 points, 4 submissions: solar128
    1. New Atomic Swap Tools Released (35 points, 4 comments)
    2. Using Blockchain to make a censorship-resistant Reddit (28 points, 14 comments)
    3. Best security practices for addressing Spectre & Meltdown (13 points, 0 comments)
    4. Influence of on-chain governance weighted by wealth - good or bad? (5 points, 2 comments)
  50. 81 points, 2 submissions: Blockchainsapiens
    1. Blockchain study finds 0.00% success rate and vendors don't call back when asked for evidence (47 points, 30 comments)
    2. The elephant in the room: would the public ever use a volatile currency over a stable currency? (34 points, 45 comments)
  51. 81 points, 1 submission: Mycryptopedia
    1. Understanding the Tech Behind RaiBlocks (81 points, 7 comments)
  52. 81 points, 1 submission: davidvanbeveren
    1. Article thoroughly analysing / comparing IOTA and RaiBlocks (x-post /CryptoCurrency) (81 points, 10 comments)
  53. 77 points, 4 submissions: DeleteMyOldAccount
    1. HD Wallets Explained: What they are, and how to make them coin agnostic (28 points, 11 comments)
    2. Bitcoin Cash May 15th fork (23 points, 22 comments)
    3. So you want to build a Bitcoin HD wallet? Part 1 (23 points, 3 comments)
    4. Applications of Blockchain in Supply Chain (3 points, 9 comments)
  54. 76 points, 3 submissions: kryptofinger
    1. Why would anyone bother using any DPOS coins for dapps like Eos over normal systems like AWS? (44 points, 104 comments)
    2. Could a state backed privacy coin work? (22 points, 32 comments)
    3. Thoughts on Elastos? (10 points, 8 comments)
  55. 76 points, 1 submission: francohab
    1. 55% of the Nano representative nodes are "official representatives", presumably held by developers. How big of an issue is that? (76 points, 46 comments)
  56. 75 points, 2 submissions: MerkleChainsaw
    1. The biggest challenge for cryptocurrencies and how to mitigate it (73 points, 37 comments)
    2. Short and long term design tradeoffs in crypto (2 points, 2 comments)
  57. 75 points, 1 submission: jatsignwork
    1. Raiblocks & Spam (75 points, 60 comments)
  58. 74 points, 1 submission: behindtext
    1. Hello, this is Jake Yocom-Piatt. Ask me anything about Decred! (74 points, 49 comments)
  59. 73 points, 2 submissions: TexasRadical83
    1. Why use a new "currency" at all? (40 points, 48 comments)
    2. Why are big price increases for crypto a good thing? (33 points, 41 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. Neophyte- (1649 points, 746 comments)
  2. ndha1995 (583 points, 98 comments)
  3. turtleflax (406 points, 116 comments)
  4. senzheng (326 points, 193 comments)
  5. holomntn (294 points, 40 comments)
  6. manly_ (286 points, 43 comments)
  7. signos_de_admiracion (250 points, 18 comments)
  8. fgiveme (231 points, 77 comments)
  9. crypto_kang (222 points, 45 comments)
  10. jatsignwork (220 points, 37 comments)
  11. GainsLean (218 points, 76 comments)
  12. benthecarman (211 points, 48 comments)
  13. rockyrainy (200 points, 39 comments)
  14. hungryforitalianfood (197 points, 58 comments)
  15. rocksolid77 (190 points, 20 comments)
  16. bannercoin (189 points, 11 comments)
  17. insette (181 points, 47 comments)
  18. DiogenicOrder (175 points, 41 comments)
  19. islanavarino (173 points, 51 comments)
  20. behindtext (172 points, 14 comments)
  21. takitus (171 points, 25 comments)
  22. sukitrebek (170 points, 42 comments)
  23. UnknownEssence (170 points, 31 comments)
  24. crypto_ha (170 points, 26 comments)
  25. AlexCoventry (167 points, 17 comments)
  26. DragonWhsiperer (165 points, 38 comments)
  27. stop-making-accounts (164 points, 57 comments)
  28. KnifeOfPi2 (157 points, 13 comments)
  29. Edgegasm (156 points, 42 comments)
  30. ippond (152 points, 15 comments)
  31. dontlikecomputers (151 points, 61 comments)
  32. QRCollector (150 points, 46 comments)
  33. alexrecuenco (145 points, 18 comments)
  34. BobUltra (144 points, 88 comments)
  35. SpamCamel (135 points, 22 comments)
  36. InterdisciplinaryHum (133 points, 107 comments)
  37. theglitteringone (132 points, 10 comments)
  38. ChocolateSunrise (128 points, 23 comments)
  39. PM_ME_UR_QUINES (125 points, 4 comments)
  40. narwhale111 (122 points, 15 comments)
  41. pepe_le_shoe (121 points, 47 comments)
  42. Darius510 (119 points, 39 comments)
  43. glen-hodl (118 points, 21 comments)
  44. HOG_ZADDY (117 points, 23 comments)
  45. coranos2 (116 points, 44 comments)
  46. etherenvoy (116 points, 15 comments)
  47. johnny_milkshakes (115 points, 55 comments)
  48. galan77 (115 points, 52 comments)
  49. hybridsole (113 points, 40 comments)
  50. funciton (113 points, 8 comments)
  51. Mr0ldy (110 points, 24 comments)
  52. Corm (109 points, 42 comments)
  53. cryptoscopia (109 points, 7 comments)
  54. ReportFromHell (106 points, 39 comments)
  55. broscientologist (105 points, 26 comments)
  56. straytjacquet (104 points, 28 comments)
  57. Quadling (101 points, 24 comments)
  58. BlockEnthusiast (101 points, 17 comments)
  59. thats_not_montana (99 points, 37 comments)
  60. TheRealMotherOfOP (98 points, 27 comments)
  61. yarauuta (96 points, 11 comments)
  62. pegasuspect93 (96 points, 1 comment)
  63. andrew_bao (93 points, 40 comments)
  64. samdotla (93 points, 6 comments)
  65. melodious_punk (91 points, 34 comments)
  66. Mquantum (91 points, 31 comments)
  67. TJ_Hooker15 (91 points, 27 comments)
  68. NoFaptain99 (91 points, 3 comments)
  69. ilielezi (87 points, 10 comments)
  70. Raapop (87 points, 2 comments)
  71. Allways_Wrong (86 points, 36 comments)
  72. bLbGoldeN (86 points, 19 comments)
  73. ResIpsaLoquiturrr (86 points, 15 comments)
  74. kabelman93 (85 points, 29 comments)
  75. no_pants_gamer (84 points, 9 comments)
  76. AnkurTechracers (83 points, 16 comments)
  77. ric2b (83 points, 11 comments)
  78. Big_Goose (83 points, 10 comments)
  79. Lifeistooshor1 (82 points, 21 comments)
  80. vornth (82 points, 11 comments)
  81. Sargos (81 points, 25 comments)
  82. refreshx2 (81 points, 16 comments)
  83. Qwahzi (78 points, 27 comments)
  84. StupidRandomGuy (77 points, 35 comments)
  85. WikiTextBot (77 points, 24 comments)
  86. SnootyEuropean (77 points, 5 comments)
  87. cryptogainz (76 points, 14 comments)
  88. frequentlywrong (76 points, 4 comments)
  89. the_defiant (76 points, 4 comments)
  90. BrangdonJ (75 points, 28 comments)
  91. hendrik_v (75 points, 7 comments)
  92. solar128 (74 points, 18 comments)
  93. foobazzler (74 points, 8 comments)
  94. ginger_beer_m (73 points, 35 comments)
  95. kAhmij (73 points, 25 comments)
  96. DeleteMyOldAccount (73 points, 20 comments)
  97. sn0wr4in (73 points, 9 comments)
  98. Dyslectic_Sabreur (72 points, 5 comments)
  99. X7spyWqcRY (71 points, 8 comments)
  100. Krapser (70 points, 5 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. A Guided Reading of Bitcoin’s Original White Paper by Realness100 (202 points, 10 comments)
  2. From a technical standpoint: Why does every blockchain projects need their own coins? by HSPremier (181 points, 50 comments)
  3. Bitcoin Gold hit by Double Spend Attack (51% attack). The Attacker reversed 22 blocks. by rockyrainy (179 points, 102 comments)
  4. Why white papers in crypto world are so unprofessional? by ilielezi (175 points, 88 comments)
  5. My brief observation of most common Consensus Algorithms by tracyspacygo (159 points, 49 comments)
  6. Proof-of-Approval: Stake Based, 1 Block Finality & History Attack Defense by shunsaitakahashi (147 points, 4 comments)
  7. "Do you need a Blockchain?" - this paper is fantastic, everyone should read this before evaluating a coin and if requires a block chain to solve a solution the coin is promising to solve. by Neophyte- (136 points, 41 comments)
  8. Technical comparison of LIGHTNING vs TANGLE vs HASHGRAPH vs NANO by Qwahzi (133 points, 37 comments)
  9. Everytime I try to investigate the technology behind Cardano(Ada), I come across the words "scientific" and "peer-reviewed" over and over but almost no actual details. Can someone fill how this coin actually works and where they are in development? by RufusTheFirefly (126 points, 49 comments)
  10. How do we change the culture around cryptocurrency? by FashionistaGuru (118 points, 54 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 160 points: holomntn's comment in ELI5: Why did it take so long for blockchain technology to be created?
  2. 121 points: KnifeOfPi2's comment in How do we change the culture around cryptocurrency?
  3. 105 points: theglitteringone's comment in Outside of currency and voting, blockchain is awful and shouldnt be used. Can anyone explain where blockchain is worth the cost?
  4. 102 points: benthecarman's comment in If crypto now is like 'the Internet' of the past, where are we?
  5. 96 points: pegasuspect93's comment in If crypto now is like 'the Internet' of the past, where are we?
  6. 95 points: bannercoin's comment in Realistically, why would anybody expect the startup crypto platforms to beat out the corporate giants who are developing their own Blockchain as a Service (BaaS) solutions? Ex. IBM, SAP, JP Morgan...
  7. 83 points: AlexCoventry's comment in Ethereum private key with all zeroes leads to an account with 5000$ on it
  8. 82 points: deleted's comment in Is blockchain really useful ?
  9. 81 points: signos_de_admiracion's comment in Why white papers in crypto world are so unprofessional?
  10. 78 points: NoFaptain99's comment in Why do so many of these businesses need a token? (Unsure)
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

BitcoinExpo2015 LONDON - Merged Mining Panel (TXC) Explained: Crown Network security - Merge mining Elastos and Merged Mining Explained (Part 1/2) Bitcoin-Mine: Hier werden Millionen verdient  Galileo ... What is Merge Mining? (Elastos)

From BitcoinWiki: Merged mining is the act of using work done on another block chain (the Parent) on one or more Auxiliary block chains and to accept it as valid on its own chain, using Auxiliary Proof-of-Work (AuxPoW), which is the relationship between two block chains for one to trust the other's work as their own. This page was last edited on 4 June 2020, at 22:45. Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 unless otherwise noted.; Privacy policy; About Bitcoin ... From Bitcoin Wiki. Jump to: navigation, search. Merge Mining, also known as, is a merge mining pool that allows mining bitcoins BTC - Bitcoin, CRW - Crowncoin, DVC - Devcoin, HUC - Huntercoin, I0C - I0Coin, XMY/MYR - Myriad, NMC - Namecoin, SYS - Syscoin, UNO - Unobtainium, TRC - Terracoin, ARG - Argentum Contents. 1 Reward distribution; 2 Extra Features; 3 See Also; 4 ... Reward distribution []. 1.5% fee with Double geometric method for bitcoin rewards. PPS method for merged mining rewards of Namecoin, Devcoin, ixcoin, i0coin and groupcoin.; Payout available as soon as a block is found for bitcoin and immediately a share is submitted for the merge mined coins. I'll use the example of Bitcoin and Namecoin, where Namecoin supports merged mining and Bitcoin doesn't: First, the miner must assemble a transaction set for both block chains. He then assembles the final Namecoin block and hashes it. He then creates a transaction containing this hash that is valid in the Bitcoin chain and inserts it in the Bitcoin transaction set at the tip of the tree. He ...

[index] [17999] [44761] [11627] [16315] [19343] [32351] [5112] [25999] [33210] [42378]

BitcoinExpo2015 LONDON - Merged Mining Panel (TXC)

Learn More: Buy Bitcoin: Store Bitcoin: http://NanosWallet.c... Merged mining technology panel from Bitcoin Expo 2015 in London demonstrated on Transaction Coin (TXC), digital currency minable with Bitcoin and Dogecoin. What is Bitcoin? With the Bitcoin price so volatile everyone is curious. Bitcoin, the category creator of blockchain technology, is the World Wide Ledger yet... p2pool node setup with merged mining Kiefff RC. Loading... Unsubscribe from Kiefff RC? ... DIY Bitcoin Mining: Hardware (part1) - Duration: 7:45. Fred Yen 1,599,212 views. 7:45 . Create Your Own ... What Is Bitcoin? Learn about Bitcoin. This animated video is an introduction to Bitcoin Explained in Bangla. What Is Bitcoin? BTC Online What Is Bitcoin & ea...