Let's set aside the tickename issue for a second and think as scientists about the upcoming experiment. Assuming there will be a split, I think it's going to be interesting. (If the split is somehow avoided, then all of the following makes no sense, of course) I frankly think the experiment of "hashrate-funded centrally-developed Bitcoin Cash" vs "hodler-funded multi-team-developed Bitcoin Cash" is very interesting. I don't mean "centrally-developed" as an offence here, it's just a fact - ABC will be developing it. Before you start throwing in tomatos, let's think about it. We all have front-row seats - each gets equal amount of both coins, so either coin wins - you have your cut. It might even be that BOTH coins will be winners, since unlike the BSV situation, this is going to be probably developed under MIT license, so either side can copy code from other side. (Unless, of course, ABC goes BSV-way and protects their code with a restrictive license, while the other side will be using MIT/BSD licenses for sure) Let's consider both sides' pros and cons.
I don't really like IFP, but I think what Amaury did was pretty clever and worth considering. With this plan he gets to control his coin fully and impose any rules he sees as best for his coin, be it drift correction, 6-month releases or whatever else. He believes in his power to make this coin the best, so let's see if he can. [+] Corporations are often pretty efficient at what they do. Usually, with capitalism and democracy they will perfect their game like no one, because of competition. [-] But this won't be exactly like capitalism, more like socialism, because ABC/Amaury will get paid no matter their performance. They will always get 8%. That makes people lazy. Why bother if you get your salary anyway? [+] ABC has a track record of 3 years and BCH didn't die, which gives them some credit that they could do it. [+] Amaury and ABC will get paid in their own coin, so the more valuable it is, the richer they get. (Unless they sell for USD immediately) Also, they will get close to $8 million in funding in first year alone (at the current price), which would allow him to hire, well, best of the best in their class (cryptographers, developers, etc...). Amaury knows that and he's right - developers are freaking expensive ($100,000+/year). (Well, again, assuming Amaury will be hiring...) [-] They don't have to listen to the community, so they have no force feedback if what they do is of any value or is it a useless distraction.
BCHN + others
[+] Hodler-funded means that you don't get paid unless you promise to deliver useful value and have proven to provide value in the past. So you have to perfect your game always - that's much closer to capitalism. [-] Very hard to raise funds. Amaury will get $8m/year while BCHN and other nodes barely managed to collect $100-200K, probably for the next year or so. Hodlers don't want to give away their money too much, because it might 10x or 20x in very short amount of time. [+] If BCHN/other nodes do their job well and the coin value raise - their money becomes more valuable, so $100K might become $1M in a year. Assuming they haven't sold for USD. Something tells me they didn't. [-] Grass-roots things can be short-lived. People are free to join and leave any time, so eventually you get tired of everything.
Potential problems with the experiment
Tickename, obviously pretty bad issue;
Reputation/community loss (BCH splitting again);
Confusion for next few years about what Bitcoin Cash is (just like it was with BCH/BTC split);
No replay protection (this one is nasty), so it's hard to split your money at fork time, you need to wait to get some miner dust to mix in with your coins to split them properly;
Potential that one side might be without wallets at first (i.e. if all wallets and services like Fountainhead/rest.bitcoin.com, which are used by wallets, leave ABC - how would you transfer your money?) - that surely will be a blow, but it's fixable. BCH started this way too.
EDIT: Merchant dis-adoption. Many will be tired of non-stop drama and leave. Maybe, stability of BCHN site will lure some back later. (comment about this)
I don't see miners as an issue (I explained why here and here) I'm actually curious. Whether corporate efficiency (but with a bit of socialism) or grass-roots (barely with any funding in comparison) will get ahead. Even though there is already a similar experiment going (BSV), but it's still interesting - each corporation is different and where Apple succeeded, many other phone/computer companies failed. Is listening to market critical? Remember Henry Ford: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." On the other hand we have plenty of coins with a lot of funding not even in Top 10. Get your tickets (coins) ready, we're in for a ride!
New England New England 6 States Songs: https://www.reddit.com/newengland/comments/er8wxd/new_england_6_states_songs/ NewEnglandcoin Symbol: NENG NewEnglandcoin is a clone of Bitcoin using scrypt as a proof-of-work algorithm with enhanced features to protect against 51% attack and decentralize on mining to allow diversified mining rigs across CPUs, GPUs, ASICs and Android phones. Mining Algorithm: Scrypt with RandomSpike. RandomSpike is 3rd generation of Dynamic Difficulty (DynDiff) algorithm on top of scrypt. 1 minute block targets base difficulty reset: every 1440 blocks subsidy halves in 2.1m blocks (~ 2 to 4 years) 84,000,000,000 total maximum NENG 20000 NENG per block Pre-mine: 1% - reserved for dev fund ICO: None RPCPort: 6376 Port: 6377 NewEnglandcoin has dogecoin like supply at 84 billion maximum NENG. This huge supply insures that NENG is suitable for retail transactions and daily use. The inflation schedule of NengEnglandcoin is actually identical to that of Litecoin. Bitcoin and Litecoin are already proven to be great long term store of value. The Litecoin-like NENG inflation schedule will make NewEnglandcoin ideal for long term investment appreciation as the supply is limited and capped at a fixed number Bitcoin Fork - Suitable for Home Hobbyists NewEnglandcoin core wallet continues to maintain version tag of "Satoshi v0.8.7.5" because NewEnglandcoin is very much an exact clone of bitcoin plus some mining feature changes with DynDiff algorithm. NewEnglandcoin is very suitable as lite version of bitcoin for educational purpose on desktop mining, full node running and bitcoin programming using bitcoin-json APIs. The NewEnglandcoin (NENG) mining algorithm original upgrade ideas were mainly designed for decentralization of mining rigs on scrypt, which is same algo as litecoin/dogecoin. The way it is going now is that NENG is very suitable for bitcoin/litecoin/dogecoin hobbyists who can not , will not spend huge money to run noisy ASIC/GPU mining equipments, but still want to mine NENG at home with quiet simple CPU/GPU or with a cheap ASIC like FutureBit Moonlander 2 USB or Apollo pod on solo mining setup to obtain very decent profitable results. NENG allows bitcoin litecoin hobbyists to experience full node running, solo mining, CPU/GPU/ASIC for a fun experience at home at cheap cost without breaking bank on equipment or electricity. MIT Free Course - 23 lectures about Bitcoin, Blockchain and Finance (Fall,2018) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP63UUkfL0onkxF6MYgVa04Fn CPU Minable Coin Because of dynamic difficulty algorithm on top of scrypt, NewEnglandcoin is CPU Minable. Users can easily set up full node for mining at Home PC or Mac using our dedicated cheetah software. Research on the first forked 50 blocks on v1.2.0 core confirmed that ASIC/GPU miners mined 66% of 50 blocks, CPU miners mined the remaining 34%. NENG v1.4.0 release enabled CPU mining inside android phones. Youtube Video Tutorial How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in Windows 10 Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdOoPvAjzlE How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in Windows 10 Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHnRJvJRzZg How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in macOS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj7NLMeNSOQ Decentralization and Community Driven NewEnglandcoin is a decentralized coin just like bitcoin. There is no boss on NewEnglandcoin. Nobody nor the dev owns NENG. We know a coin is worth nothing if there is no backing from community. Therefore, we as dev do not intend to make decision on this coin solely by ourselves. It is our expectation that NewEnglandcoin community will make majority of decisions on direction of this coin from now on. We as dev merely view our-self as coin creater and technical support of this coin while providing NENG a permanent home at ShorelineCrypto Exchange. Twitter Airdrop Follow NENG twitter and receive 100,000 NENG on Twitter Airdrop to up to 1000 winners Graphic Redesign Bounty Top one award: 90.9 million NENG Top 10 Winners: 500,000 NENG / person Event Timing: March 25, 2019 - Present Event Address: NewEnglandcoin DISCORD at: https://discord.gg/UPeBwgs Please complete above Twitter Bounty requirement first. Then follow Below Steps to qualify for the Bounty: (1) Required: submit your own designed NENG logo picture in gif, png jpg or any other common graphic file format into DISCORD "bounty-submission" board (2) Optional: submit a second graphic for logo or any other marketing purposes into "bounty-submission" board. (3) Complete below form. Please limit your submission to no more than two total. Delete any wrongly submitted or undesired graphics in the board. Contact DISCORD u/honglu69#5911 or u/krypton#6139 if you have any issues. Twitter Airdrop/Graphic Redesign bounty sign up: https://goo.gl/forms/L0vcwmVi8c76cR7m1 Milestones
Sep 3, 2018 - Genesis block was mined, NewEnglandcoin created
Sep 8, 2018 - github source uploaded, Window wallet development work started
Sep 11,2018 - Window Qt Graphic wallet completed
Sep 12,2018 - NewEnglandcoin Launched in both Bitcointalk forum and Marinecoin forum
Sep 14,2018 - NewEnglandcoin is listed at ShorelineCrypto Exchange
Sep 17,2018 - Block Explorer is up
Nov 23,2018 - New Source/Wallet Release v1.1.1 - Enabled Dynamic Addjustment on Mining Hashing Difficulty
Nov 28,2018 - NewEnglandcoin became CPU minable coin
Nov 30,2018 - First Retail Real Life usage for NewEnglandcoin Announced
Dec 28,2018 - Cheetah_Cpuminer under Linux is released
Dec 31,2018 - NENG Technical Whitepaper is released
Jan 2,2019 - Cheetah_Cpuminer under Windows is released
Jan 12,2019 - NENG v1.1.2 is released to support MacOS GUI CLI Wallet
Jan 13,2019 - Cheetah_CpuMiner under Mac is released
Feb 11,2019 - NewEnglandcoin v1.2.0 Released, Anti-51% Attack, Anti-instant Mining after Hard Fork
Mar 16,2019 - NewEnglandcoin v220.127.116.11 Released - Ubuntu 18.04 Wallet Binary Files
Apr 7, 2019 - NENG Report on Security, Decentralization, Valuation
Apr 21, 2019 - NENG Fiat Project is Launched by ShorelineCrypto
Sep 1, 2019 - Shoreline Tradingbot project is Launched by ShorelineCrypto
Dec 19, 2019 - Shoreline Tradingbot v1.0 is Released by ShorelineCrypto
Jan 30, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG v1.3.0 Hardfork Proposed
Feb 24, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG core v1.3.0 Released
Jun 19, 2020 - Linux scripts for Futurebit Moonlander2 USB ASIC on solo mining Released
Jul 15, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0 Released for Android Mining and Ubuntu 20.04 support
Jul 21, 2020 - NENG v18.104.22.168 Released for MacOS Wallet Upgrade with Catalina
Jul 30, 2020 - NENG v22.214.171.124 Released for Linux Wallet Upgrade with 8 Distros
Aug 11, 2020 - NENG v126.96.36.199 Released for Android arm64 Upgrade, Chromebook Support
Aug 30, 2020 - NENG v188.8.131.52 Released for Android/Chromebook with armhf, better hardware support
2018 Q3 - Birth of NewEnglandcoin, window/linux wallet - Done
2018 Q4 - Decentralization Phase I
Blockchain Upgrade - Dynamic hashing algorithm I - Done
Cheetah Version I- CPU Mining Automation Tool on Linux - Done
2019 Q1 - Decentralization Phase II
Cheetah Version II- CPU Mining Automation Tool on Window/Linux - Done
Blockchain Upgrade Dynamic hashing algorithm II - Done
2019 Q2 - Fiat Phase I
Assessment of Risk of 51% Attack on NENG - done
Launch of Fiat USD/NENG offering for U.S. residents - done
Initiation of Mobile Miner Project - Done
2019 Q3 - Shoreline Tradingbot, Mobile Project
Evaluation and planning of Mobile Miner Project - on Hold
Initiation of Trading Bot Project - Done
2019 Q4 - Shoreline Tradingbot
Shoreline tradingbot Release v1.0 - Done
2020 Q1 - Evaluate NENG core, Mobile Wallet Phase I
NENG core Decentralization Security Evaluation for v1.3.x - Done
Light Mobile Wallet Project Initiation, Evaluation
2020 Q2 - NENG Core, Mobile Wallet Phase II
NENG core Decentralization Security Hardfork on v1.3.x - Scrypt RandomSpike
Light Mobile Wallet Project Design, Coding
2020 Q3 - NENG core, NENG Mobile Wallet Phase II
Review on results of v1.3.x, NENG core Dev Decision on v1.4.x, Hardfork If needed
Light Mobile Wallet Project testing, alpha Release
2020 Q4 - Mobile Wallet Phase III
Light Mobile Wallet Project Beta Release
Light Mobile Wallet Server Deployment Evaluation and Decision
What is Masternode? Why Is XinFin Masternode a Good Alternative to Proof of Work
Taking into account current market conditions more and more crypto enthusiasts are gaining interest in being rewarded for holding tokens. Ain’s it’s beneficial than patiently waiting for the moon? Traditional Proof-of-Work (PoW) mining is not in the best shape. Therefore miners are not an exception as it’s getting harder to stay profitable. Plus, PoW mining isn’t friendly for mass adoption and requires huge network consumption. Another important fact is that you do not have to be a trading guru to start gaining additional income. These are just a few reasons why more buzz have been around the Proof-of-Stake (PoS) and Masternodes (MN). We have to admit that they are eye-catching nowadays, and considered as the future of cryptocurrency. Now you might be asking yourself “What is the Masternode?” Let’s get down to business! Well, in a nutshell, masternode is a server on a decentralized network. Some blockchain protocols provide for the creation of particular nodes that perform additional work on the verification of transactions and bring their owners regular profits. Such nodes are called masternodes. They regularly get rewards for completing such actions. Builds a curiosity? Move on! Why Do You Need to Launch a XinFin Masternode Now, Until it’s Not Too Late? XinFin Masternode is a good option for passive income, and there are several reasons why it might be the right time to start running a XinFin masternode or a few at once. First of all, XinFin masternodes are not so famous for now. However, this is likely to change soon. The same applies to rewards, which will decrease every year. Secondly, the XinFin XDC coin is cheaper, which means that the entry threshold at the moment is much lower than before. It won’t cost you a fortune. Finally, it’s better to hold and get rewards than merely hope for prices to go up. Although according to the CoinGecko 2018 report the numbers of both masternodes and masternode coins increased significantly during the past year, there is still a substantial drop in overall value. The total market cap for masternodes coins dropped from over $12 billion in January 2018 to just over $500 million by 2018’s end — a double-digit drop quarter-on-quarter. Nevertheless, it’s just the beginning of the XinFin. Remember, the early bird gets the worm! What is the Average XinFin Masternode ROI? Take in mind, that ROI is a relative term in the context of cryptocurrency space. We got used to the practice that ROI in crypto space is a bit another term, unlike the traditional markets where XinFin ROI measures per year around 10%+ as per the past few months’ data. How to Setup Masternode: It’s very easy to setup XinFin Masternode compare to setting us crypto mining facility for Bitcoin and ethereum. XinFin vs bitcoin mining: XinFin Masternode needs the lowest hardware configuration to run masternode while bitcoin needs the high configuration of hardware to run bitcoin mining and this also results in high depreciation every month with high risk. While XinFin Masternode runs with a tiny VPS hosting plan with the lowest cost of operation. Before the launch of XinFin main-net i used to do bitcoin and ethereum mining And now shifted to XinFin network after the launch of main-net Disclaimer: Digital asset investment, Mining comes with high risk. This article is not for the purpose of investment, tax or legal advice. The author is not responsible for any review of the assets. Please consult with your financial advisor before Crypto Investment or starting mining facilities Useful link for XinFin Masternode Here is a link on How to setup masternode. IndSoft System partnership with XinFin for hosting masternode: Click here to know more about partnership. Guide to setup node with one click installer For any instant support join XinFin Telegram Group.
Thai Nhat Minh | Stably: First of all, can you have a brief introduction about yourself as well as about Chromia? Henrik_hjelte, Sergelubkin Henrik Hjelte: Hello. My name is Henrik Hjelte. I am Co-Founder and CEO of Chromia. I have more than 30 years of experience in programming and a degree in Economics from Uppsala University. BTW economics and computers = blockchain, so finally found a job that fits me. I was introduced to the blockchain by the leader of the colored-coins project Alex Mizrahi in 2013 Colored coins project was a very influential thing It was the first way for user created tokens bolted on to the only blockchain at the time (almost) bitcoin We started ChromaWay 2014, with Or Perelman too, to explore if the world was interested in “tokens” and those kind of applications We worked with enterprise blockchain for some time, but now we are focused on Chromia, a new public platform for mainstream decentralized applications using relational blockchain technology. Ok, maybe I should tell something about Chromia and not myself too. Chromia is a better blockchain for building decentralized Apps. better because it follows the “normal worlds” way of managing data. A little history: I found a text/description to paste: Chromia is a brainchild of ChromaWay. ChromaWay has a long record of delivering pioneering projects around the world. We issued Euros on the Bitcoin blockchain with LHV bank, allowed investors to invest in startups in a wholly decentralized way with Funderbeam, digitized the title transfer process with the Swedish land registry, and mediated the green bond market. ChromaWay’s core team created the world’s first protocol to issue tokens already in 2012, when blockchain was called “bitcoin 2.0”. Then ChromaWay introduced the relational model to enterprise blockchains with a consortium database called Postchain. Now Postchain is going public as the foundation for Chromia, a better blockchain for building decentralised Apps. Chromia is a new public blockchain based on the idea of integrating traditional databases, Relational databases with blockchain security. Chromia is a general purpose blockchain with full smart contract capabilities, just that it is a lot easier to code, even complex applications. You code with an easy to learn new programming language that combines the power of SQL and normal languages but makes it secure in a blockchain context. Up to 1/10 the code-lines vs other blockchains. If you don’t believe me, check this blog (later, stay in the chat): https://blog.chromia.com/reasons-for-rell-compactness/ The aim of Chromia is to combine relational databases, which exist in every kind of organization, with blockchains. We want to provide a platform for our users to develop totally decentralized apps securely. Our goal is for Chromia to be seen as the number one infrastructure for decentralized applications. Think about it: blockchain is about managing data (in a shared context). And… What do we use to manage data? A Database! Serge: Sure! My name is Serge! And I work in Chromia marketing department. Also, I help coordinate various projects inside the company My background is in Economics and Marketing Thai Nhat Minh | Stably: Question 1️⃣ DApp is currently mainly concentrated in the field of games, and its life cycle is basically short, just like the Crypto Kitty is only hot for a while, how to dig the application of DApp in more fields and how to improve the utilization rate of DApp? u/henrik_hjelteu/sergelubkin Serge: Good one, let me answer Gaming is quite a challenging target because good UX is expected, it needs to be fast, responsive, etc. If we can do that, then we can also do all sorts of other stuff. Also, it lets us experiment with things without a lot of hassle, it’s easier to get users, and so on. It’s also a growing niche within blockchain. You can check our latest game, Mines of Dalarnia https://www.minesofdalarnia.com We also have Enterprise projects already, for example Green Assets Wallet https://greenassetswallet.org/about that already launched on the first Mainnet version called Bootstrap Net,we also have https://capchap.se built on our tech, more projects like non-profit review platform Impactoria, public land registries, medical projects and so on Also don’t forget about our fully decentralized social network/forum that is live already on the testnet https://testnet.chromunity.com. Thai Nhat Minh | Stably: Question 2️⃣ How will dapp face the world change after the epidemic? u/henrik_hjelteu/sergelubkin Henrik Hjelte: Nobody can say for sure, but maybe people will tend to be online more than offline, so demand on online products and dapps as well will increase. I just came in from an internal demo of a secret project we do, and it can be seen as a way to hang out online (a bit cryptic answer) There are also interesting use cases of dapps in the medical field. For example, we participated in the world-wide hackathon Hack for Sweden. Where our submission was to create an app on Chromia blockchain that increases the coordination between countries and hospitals especially during the hard time and COVID19. Chromia wants to help the European Union (and the world, but we saw problems in the EU…) and its citizens to provide transparency over the necessary medical and protective devices and appliances of which we see shortage during this emergency crisis. You can watch our promo here https://twitter.com/chromaway/status/1247557274337447938?s=20. For me it was a fun Hackathon too because for once I got the opportunity to code… I told everyone else I will not do any bossing… We try to continue this path on medical applications a bit. Thai Nhat Minh | Stably: Question 3️⃣ DApps are still not directly embedded in mobile phones like Apps at this moment, and DApps have also been flooded with bet content. How can guests increase the use of DApps and lower the threshold for using DApps? u/henrik_hjelteu/sergelubkin Serge: The answer is — better User Experience. We believe that in order for a DApp to be usable and become more widely accepted it has to feel like a normal App. A DApp needs to have quick transactions, scale well & shouldn’t require users to pay for each transaction. This is something that is possible now with using Chromia. It’s an extremely exciting time since we are going to see a new generation of DApps. On top of that, we think that we might have an ace coming up. We have built a game to demonstrate the powers and possibilities of Chromia. A little bit about the game: In Mines of Dalarnia (https://www.minesofdalarnia.com), players get to explore the vast expanses of interplanetary treasure mines. With an innovative Dalarnia Token system, players can purchase virtual mining plots, and put them up for rent into the community, allowing for real-estate tycoons to earn more Tokens. Mining plots can also undergo their own upgrades, making them more lucrative to explore, as well as a hot property for rental by miners. The game takes advantage of these NFT-based tokens to securely track exchanges, and provide a sense of ownership and wealth to players as they grow their mining and resource empire. Watch our trailer https://youtu.be/bDXKOp1Asqw and sign-up for the TestNet on the website! Thai Nhat Minh | Stably: Question 4️⃣ Many practitioners think that the main reason for restricting the development of DApp is “incomplete infrastructure”. How effective is the current “cross-chain” and “side-chain” solution? u/henrik_hjelteu/sergelubkin Serge: Our infrastructure resembles Alibaba Cloud, so a DApp developer just goes and deploys his DApp’s blockchain into it, it’s easy. Also our language Rell https://rell.chromia.com/en/maste is more robust than any other blockchain programming language.Or Azure or AWS Rell combines the following features:
Relational data modeling and queries similar to SQL. People familiar with SQL should feel at home once they learn the new syntax.
Normal programming constructs: variables, loops, functions, collections, etc.
Constructs which specifically target application backends and, in particular, blockchain-style programming including request routing, authorization, etc.
We want people to join our channels such as telegram, twitter, email also our decentralized forum https://testnet.chromunity.com and participate in discussions
We want people to try our dapps such as Mines of Dalarnia
We want to get feedback and understand the most important issues people care about Chromia and the blockchain industry in general
We want to get more developers building on top of Chromia
LBTS: What was your motivation for creating RELL and not use other languages? What benefits? Why name it RELL also? Henrik Hjelte: We have a private/federated relational blockchain called Postchain, and it allows SQL. But that can work in a small environment when you know all parties, and if you are really careful in checking code. But not for a more secure, distributed on the web setup, so we had to make it more secure (Deterministic, statically typed). In the process, we also took the opportunity to make it cool and nice. Also: it is simply not possibly to use evm, jvm, or web assembly. We need/want a database in the bottom. Postgresql is our virtual machine. You do not reimplement that…. 10+ years codebase…. Lee: Being part of the gamer community, I would like to know what you would think about collaborating with a MOBA, RPG or Arcade game or some kind of project? Henrik Hjelte: We are already collaborating with some smaller studios. For bigger fish, we want to show them what is completely unique and visionary with Chromia, and we think we need various examples. So, first arcade game MoD (linked above) is one example, it is not the full potential or anything but a start. In this summer, krystopia 2 a puzzle game from Antler Interactive will be released. What is even cooler is the “demo project” we do together with them, where we will show how a mutliplayer game with real blockchain features will work. I just saw it an hour ago and was blown away OH, and there is another studio releasing something very cool. Full logic on chain strategy game. Chain of Alliance. oyibo pepper: Do you encourage HACKATHON programs for intending Developers to test their skills and build on RELL Can you explain more about CHROMIA AMBASSADORS PROGRAM, CAN I BECOME AN AMBASSADOR Serge: Yes, you can, but you will need to change your avatar 🤣 Seriously, we are growing our Chromians community if you want to become one please ping our admins in Chromia telegram group. Also, we are planning virtual hackathons soon, please subscribe to stay updated Infinite Crypto: Since the Chromia project is currently working on the Ethereum blockchain ERC20 standard! But we know that there are a lot of scalability issues with Ethereum, so why would you choose the Ethereum blockchain over other scalable blockchains? Do you have any plans for Mainnet launch of Chromia? Henrik Hjelte: ETH is just used in a pre-phase for tokens. We will have our own mainnet tokens interchangable with ETH. Oyinbo pepper What’s CHROMIA SSO and SDK, how can I get started Henrik Hjelte Both are 3 letters. That is what they have in common. SDK = software development kit, check docs on https://rell.chromia.com SSO = single sign on. A unique UX improvement. You approve an app in your wallet (vault) with super ease. no need to remember codes sso: https://blog.chromia.com/chromia-sso-the-whys-and-the-whats/ We have a fundamentally different model from bitcoin and ethereum and the likes. The blockchain is not run by anonymous computers in basement and student dorms across the world. We have more of known identities, so 51% attacks is protected not by PoW/PoS but other consensus. Please see our whitepaper. Note that we are not noobs when it comes to this, our CTO Alex has published papers in academic journals on consensus etc. from 2013, and done several important ideas for blockchain. Sidechains we think he was first with, tokens too. Sheron Fernando: Is there any plan to makes partnership with local cryptocurrency developers from each country to make $CHR usage more worldwide? Serge: Yes, we are looking for cooperation with more external developers. Send me a message if you are interested in developing something on Chromia. Stella: What are the underlying problems in the Dapps today that can be solved with the Chromia protocol? Serge:
Scalability — on Chromia your dapp can have unlimited numbers of users thanks to parallel scaling
Easiness of use — you don’t need external wallets, no need to buy crypto to pay for gas etc
Cost — in general to deploy the dapp and to use the dapp
Marcel Lagacé: Why build this platform? What is Chromia mission? What are the most prominent features of the platform? Can you clarify the use case for this feature? Henrik Hjelte: We build the platform to fix the problems with blockchains, that we ourselves have experienced since 2014 (before ethereum existed). LBTS: Can you tell us about Chromia developers? How motivated and experienced are they to always deliver the best products? Henrik Hjelte: I can tell you that we recruit developers that are really good, from all parts of the world. Vietnam has been a hub because we found many good, so in Ukraine. How can we say “we have so good developers”? First one thing that is a bit different is that we are pretty experienced in leadership team of development. I do not code much anymore since I’m a CEO. But I do have now over 30 years of experience. Got published and was payed when I was 15. First full-time professional developer job at 18. Have released open-source projects used by 10: s of thousand developers. And Alex, our CTO is Extremely good. That is why I recruited him to my old startup 2006 or so… So: we have experience to sort out good developers from bad. Marcel Lagacé: Does Chromia staking model is different from other staking platform?? What are the beneficial advantages of chromia staking system? Serge: The main difference is that we have independent Providers, entities that are not connected. These serious players are exchanges, data centres, professional staking companies. They provide a backbone of the ecosystem and host dapps. Like Amazon servers in the cloud. They cannot have stake bigger than the maximum thus they can’t control the network. This is probably the main difference with classic DPoS networks Nguyen Duy Bao: A lot of people will want to know what the strength of Chromia is but I want to know the weaknesses and problems Chromia faces ? How do you plan to solve it? Henrik Hjelte: A weakness I guess is weak compared to “competition”. And there are some blockchain projects that got crazy amount of funding. So how can we compete with that, when they can hire more developers for example? Well here is what experience comes into play: More developers does not always increase productivity a lot, it is diminishing returns. You can see many large projects, with 100 of developers fail miserably with no results. And actually, sometimes true with marketing spend too. It is generally good with money, but if you are a bit clever you can compete also on marketing with less money than your competition. Please follow Chromia on Social Media: Website: https://www.chromia.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/chromia FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/teamchromia LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/chromia Telegram: https://t.me/hellochromia Decentralized Social network Chromunity: https://testnet.chromunity.com Free-to-Play Blockchain Game Mines of Dalarnia: https://www.minesofdalarnia.com
AMA Recap of CEO and Co-founder of Chromia, Henrik Hjelte in the @binancenigeria Telegram group on 03/05/2020.
Technical: A Brief History of Payment Channels: from Satoshi to Lightning Network
Who cares about political tweets from some random country's president when payment channels are a much more interesting and are actually capable of carrying value? So let's have a short history of various payment channel techs!
Generation 0: Satoshi's Broken nSequence Channels
Because Satoshi's Vision included payment channels, except his implementation sucked so hard we had to go fix it and added RBF as a by-product. Originally, the plan for nSequence was that mempools would replace any transaction spending certain inputs with another transaction spending the same inputs, but only if the nSequence field of the replacement was larger. Since 0xFFFFFFFF was the highest value that nSequence could get, this would mark a transaction as "final" and not replaceable on the mempool anymore. In fact, this "nSequence channel" I will describe is the reason why we have this weird rule about nLockTime and nSequence. nLockTime actually only works if nSequence is not 0xFFFFFFFF i.e. final. If nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF then nLockTime is ignored, because this if the "final" version of the transaction. So what you'd do would be something like this:
You go to a bar and promise the bartender to pay by the time the bar closes. Because this is the Bitcoin universe, time is measured in blockheight, so the closing time of the bar is indicated as some future blockheight.
For your first drink, you'd make a transaction paying to the bartender for that drink, paying from some coins you have. The transaction has an nLockTime equal to the closing time of the bar, and a starting nSequence of 0. You hand over the transaction and the bartender hands you your drink.
For your succeeding drink, you'd remake the same transaction, adding the payment for that drink to the transaction output that goes to the bartender (so that output keeps getting larger, by the amount of payment), and having an nSequence that is one higher than the previous one.
Eventually you have to stop drinking. It comes down to one of two possibilities:
You drink until the bar closes. Since it is now the nLockTime indicated in the transaction, the bartender is able to broadcast the latest transaction and tells the bouncers to kick you out of the bar.
You wisely consider the state of your liver. So you re-sign the last transaction with a "final" nSequence of 0xFFFFFFFF i.e. the maximum possible value it can have. This allows the bartender to get his or her funds immediately (nLockTime is ignored if nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF), so he or she tells the bouncers to let you out of the bar.
Now that of course is a payment channel. Individual payments (purchases of alcohol, so I guess buying coffee is not in scope for payment channels). Closing is done by creating a "final" transaction that is the sum of the individual payments. Sure there's no routing and channels are unidirectional and channels have a maximum lifetime but give Satoshi a break, he was also busy inventing Bitcoin at the time. Now if you noticed I called this kind of payment channel "broken". This is because the mempool rules are not consensus rules, and cannot be validated (nothing about the mempool can be validated onchain: I sigh every time somebody proposes "let's make block size dependent on mempool size", mempool state cannot be validated by onchain data). Fullnodes can't see all of the transactions you signed, and then validate that the final one with the maximum nSequence is the one that actually is used onchain. So you can do the below:
Become friends with Jihan Wu, because he owns >51% of the mining hashrate (he totally reorged Bitcoin to reverse the Binance hack right?).
Slip Jihan Wu some of the more interesting drinks you're ordering as an incentive to cooperate with you. So say you end up ordering 100 drinks, you split it with Jihan Wu and give him 50 of the drinks.
When the bar closes, Jihan Wu quickly calls his mining rig and tells them to mine the version of your transaction with nSequence 0. You know, that first one where you pay for only one drink.
Because fullnodes cannot validate nSequence, they'll accept even the nSequence=0 version and confirm it, immutably adding you paying for a single alcoholic drink to the blockchain.
The bartender, pissed at being cheated, takes out a shotgun from under the bar and shoots at you and Jihan Wu.
Jihan Wu uses his mystical chi powers (actually the combined exhaust from all of his mining rigs) to slow down the shotgun pellets, making them hit you as softly as petals drifting in the wind.
The bartender mutters some words, clothes ripping apart as he or she (hard to believe it could be a she but hey) turns into a bear, ready to maul you for cheating him or her of the payment for all the 100 drinks you ordered from him or her.
Steely-eyed, you stand in front of the bartender-turned-bear, daring him to touch you. You've watched Revenant, you know Leonardo di Caprio could survive a bear mauling, and if some posh actor can survive that, you know you can too. You make a pose. "Drunken troll logic attack!"
I think I got sidetracked here.
Bears are bad news.
You can't reasonably invoke "Satoshi's Vision" and simultaneously reject the Lightning Network because it's not onchain. Satoshi's Vision included a half-assed implementation of payment channels with nSequence, where the onchain transaction represented multiple logical payments, exactly what modern offchain techniques do (except modern offchain techniques actually work). nSequence (the field, but not its modern meaning) has been in Bitcoin since BitCoin For Windows Alpha 0.1.0. And its original intent was payment channels. You can't get nearer to Satoshi's Vision than being a field that Satoshi personally added to transactions on the very first public release of the BitCoin software, like srsly.
Miners can totally bypass mempool rules. In fact, the reason why nSequence has been repurposed to indicate "optional" replace-by-fee is because miners are already incentivized by the nSequence system to always follow replace-by-fee anyway. I mean, what do you think those drinks you passed to Jihan Wu are, other than the fee you pay him to mine a specific version of your transaction?
Satoshi made mistakes. The original design for nSequence is one of them. Today, we no longer use nSequence in this way. So diverging from Satoshi's original design is part and parcel of Bitcoin development, because over time, we learn new lessons that Satoshi never knew about. Satoshi was an important landmark in this technology. He will not be the last, or most important, that we will remember in the future: he will only be the first.
Incentive-compatible time-limited unidirectional channel; or, Satoshi's Vision, Fixed (if transaction malleability hadn't been a problem, that is). Now, we know the bartender will turn into a bear and maul you if you try to cheat the payment channel, and now that we've revealed you're good friends with Jihan Wu, the bartender will no longer accept a payment channel scheme that lets one you cooperate with a miner to cheat the bartender. Fortunately, Jeremy Spilman proposed a better way that would not let you cheat the bartender. First, you and the bartender perform this ritual:
You get some funds and create a transaction that pays to a 2-of-2 multisig between you and the bartender. You don't broadcast this yet: you just sign it and get its txid.
You create another transaction that spends the above transaction. This transaction (the "backoff") has an nLockTime equal to the closing time of the bar, plus one block. You sign it and give this backoff transaction (but not the above transaction) to the bartender.
The bartender signs the backoff and gives it back to you. It is now valid since it's spending a 2-of-2 of you and the bartender, and both of you have signed the backoff transaction.
Now you broadcast the first transaction onchain. You and the bartender wait for it to be deeply confirmed, then you can start ordering.
The above is probably vaguely familiar to LN users. It's the funding process of payment channels! The first transaction, the one that pays to a 2-of-2 multisig, is the funding transaction that backs the payment channel funds. So now you start ordering in this way:
For your first drink, you create a transaction spending the funding transaction output and sending the price of the drink to the bartender, with the rest returning to you.
You sign the transaction and pass it to the bartender, who serves your first drink.
For your succeeding drinks, you recreate the same transaction, adding the price of the new drink to the sum that goes to the bartender and reducing the money returned to you. You sign the transaction and give it to the bartender, who serves you your next drink.
At the end:
If the bar closing time is reached, the bartender signs the latest transaction, completing the needed 2-of-2 signatures and broadcasting this to the Bitcoin network. Since the backoff transaction is the closing time + 1, it can't get used at closing time.
If you decide you want to leave early because your liver is crying, you just tell the bartender to go ahead and close the channel (which the bartender can do at any time by just signing and broadcasting the latest transaction: the bartender won't do that because he or she is hoping you'll stay and drink more).
If you ended up just hanging around the bar and never ordering, then at closing time + 1 you broadcast the backoff transaction and get your funds back in full.
Now, even if you pass 50 drinks to Jihan Wu, you can't give him the first transaction (the one which pays for only one drink) and ask him to mine it: it's spending a 2-of-2 and the copy you have only contains your own signature. You need the bartender's signature to make it valid, but he or she sure as hell isn't going to cooperate in something that would lose him or her money, so a signature from the bartender validating old state where he or she gets paid less isn't going to happen. So, problem solved, right? Right? Okay, let's try it. So you get your funds, put them in a funding tx, get the backoff tx, confirm the funding tx... Once the funding transaction confirms deeply, the bartender laughs uproariously. He or she summons the bouncers, who surround you menacingly. "I'm refusing service to you," the bartender says. "Fine," you say. "I was leaving anyway;" You smirk. "I'll get back my money with the backoff transaction, and posting about your poor service on reddit so you get negative karma, so there!" "Not so fast," the bartender says. His or her voice chills your bones. It looks like your exploitation of the Satoshi nSequence payment channel is still fresh in his or her mind. "Look at the txid of the funding transaction that got confirmed." "What about it?" you ask nonchalantly, as you flip open your desktop computer and open a reputable blockchain explorer. What you see shocks you. "What the --- the txid is different! You--- you changed my signature?? But how? I put the only copy of my private key in a sealed envelope in a cast-iron box inside a safe buried in the Gobi desert protected by a clan of nomads who have dedicated their lives and their childrens' lives to keeping my private key safe in perpetuity!" "Didn't you know?" the bartender asks. "The components of the signature are just very large numbers. The sign of one of the signature components can be changed, from positive to negative, or negative to positive, and the signature will remain valid. Anyone can do that, even if they don't know the private key. But because Bitcoin includes the signatures in the transaction when it's generating the txid, this little change also changes the txid." He or she chuckles. "They say they'll fix it by separating the signatures from the transaction body. They're saying that these kinds of signature malleability won't affect transaction ids anymore after they do this, but I bet I can get my good friend Jihan Wu to delay this 'SepSig' plan for a good while yet. Friendly guy, this Jihan Wu, it turns out all I had to do was slip him 51 drinks and he was willing to mine a tx with the signature signs flipped." His or her grin widens. "I'm afraid your backoff transaction won't work anymore, since it spends a txid that is not existent and will never be confirmed. So here's the deal. You pay me 99% of the funds in the funding transaction, in exchange for me signing the transaction that spends with the txid that you see onchain. Refuse, and you lose 100% of the funds and every other HODLer, including me, benefits from the reduction in coin supply. Accept, and you get to keep 1%. I lose nothing if you refuse, so I won't care if you do, but consider the difference of getting zilch vs. getting 1% of your funds." His or her eyes glow. "GENUFLECT RIGHT NOW." Lesson learned?
Payback's a bitch.
Transaction malleability is a bitchier bitch. It's why we needed to fix the bug in SegWit. Sure, MtGox claimed they were attacked this way because someone kept messing with their transaction signatures and thus they lost track of where their funds went, but really, the bigger impetus for fixing transaction malleability was to support payment channels.
Yes, including the signatures in the hash that ultimately defines the txid was a mistake. Satoshi made a lot of those. So we're just reiterating the lesson "Satoshi was not an infinite being of infinite wisdom" here. Satoshi just gets a pass because of how awesome Bitcoin is.
CLTV-protected Spilman Channels
Using CLTV for the backoff branch. This variation is simply Spilman channels, but with the backoff transaction replaced with a backoff branch in the SCRIPT you pay to. It only became possible after OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (CLTV) was enabled in 2015. Now as we saw in the Spilman Channels discussion, transaction malleability means that any pre-signed offchain transaction can easily be invalidated by flipping the sign of the signature of the funding transaction while the funding transaction is not yet confirmed. This can be avoided by simply putting any special requirements into an explicit branch of the Bitcoin SCRIPT. Now, the backoff branch is supposed to create a maximum lifetime for the payment channel, and prior to the introduction of OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY this could only be done by having a pre-signed nLockTime transaction. With CLTV, however, we can now make the branches explicit in the SCRIPT that the funding transaction pays to. Instead of paying to a 2-of-2 in order to set up the funding transaction, you pay to a SCRIPT which is basically "2-of-2, OR this singlesig after a specified lock time". With this, there is no backoff transaction that is pre-signed and which refers to a specific txid. Instead, you can create the backoff transaction later, using whatever txid the funding transaction ends up being confirmed under. Since the funding transaction is immutable once confirmed, it is no longer possible to change the txid afterwards.
Todd Micropayment Networks
The old hub-spoke model (that isn't how LN today actually works). One of the more direct predecessors of the Lightning Network was the hub-spoke model discussed by Peter Todd. In this model, instead of payers directly having channels to payees, payers and payees connect to a central hub server. This allows any payer to pay any payee, using the same channel for every payee on the hub. Similarly, this allows any payee to receive from any payer, using the same channel. Remember from the above Spilman example? When you open a channel to the bartender, you have to wait around for the funding tx to confirm. This will take an hour at best. Now consider that you have to make channels for everyone you want to pay to. That's not very scalable. So the Todd hub-spoke model has a central "clearing house" that transport money from payers to payees. The "Moonbeam" project takes this model. Of course, this reveals to the hub who the payer and payee are, and thus the hub can potentially censor transactions. Generally, though, it was considered that a hub would more efficiently censor by just not maintaining a channel with the payer or payee that it wants to censor (since the money it owned in the channel would just be locked uselessly if the hub won't process payments to/from the censored user). In any case, the ability of the central hub to monitor payments means that it can surveill the payer and payee, and then sell this private transactional data to third parties. This loss of privacy would be intolerable today. Peter Todd also proposed that there might be multiple hubs that could transport funds to each other on behalf of their users, providing somewhat better privacy. Another point of note is that at the time such networks were proposed, only unidirectional (Spilman) channels were available. Thus, while one could be a payer, or payee, you would have to use separate channels for your income versus for your spending. Worse, if you wanted to transfer money from your income channel to your spending channel, you had to close both and reshuffle the money between them, both onchain activities.
Poon-Dryja Lightning Network
Bidirectional two-participant channels. The Poon-Dryja channel mechanism has two important properties:
No time limit.
Both the original Satoshi and the two Spilman variants are unidirectional: there is a payer and a payee, and if the payee wants to do a refund, or wants to pay for a different service or product the payer is providing, then they can't use the same unidirectional channel. The Poon-Dryjam mechanism allows channels, however, to be bidirectional instead: you are not a payer or a payee on the channel, you can receive or send at any time as long as both you and the channel counterparty are online. Further, unlike either of the Spilman variants, there is no time limit for the lifetime of a channel. Instead, you can keep the channel open for as long as you want. Both properties, together, form a very powerful scaling property that I believe most people have not appreciated. With unidirectional channels, as mentioned before, if you both earn and spend over the same network of payment channels, you would have separate channels for earning and spending. You would then need to perform onchain operations to "reverse" the directions of your channels periodically. Secondly, since Spilman channels have a fixed lifetime, even if you never used either channel, you would have to periodically "refresh" it by closing it and reopening. With bidirectional, indefinite-lifetime channels, you may instead open some channels when you first begin managing your own money, then close them only after your lawyers have executed your last will and testament on how the money in your channels get divided up to your heirs: that's just two onchain transactions in your entire lifetime. That is the potentially very powerful scaling property that bidirectional, indefinite-lifetime channels allow. I won't discuss the transaction structure needed for Poon-Dryja bidirectional channels --- it's complicated and you can easily get explanations with cute graphics elsewhere. There is a weakness of Poon-Dryja that people tend to gloss over (because it was fixed very well by RustyReddit):
You have to store all the revocation keys of a channel. This implies you are storing 1 revocation key for every channel update, so if you perform millions of updates over your entire lifetime, you'd be storing several megabytes of keys, for only a single channel. RustyReddit fixed this by requiring that the revocation keys be generated from a "Seed" revocation key, and every key is just the application of SHA256 on that key, repeatedly. For example, suppose I tell you that my first revocation key is SHA256(SHA256(seed)). You can store that in O(1) space. Then for the next revocation, I tell you SHA256(seed). From SHA256(key), you yourself can compute SHA256(SHA256(seed)) (i.e. the previous revocation key). So you can remember just the most recent revocation key, and from there you'd be able to compute every previous revocation key. When you start a channel, you perform SHA256 on your seed for several million times, then use the result as the first revocation key, removing one layer of SHA256 for every revocation key you need to generate. RustyReddit not only came up with this, but also suggested an efficient O(log n) storage structure, the shachain, so that you can quickly look up any revocation key in the past in case of a breach. People no longer really talk about this O(n) revocation storage problem anymore because it was solved very very well by this mechanism.
Another thing I want to emphasize is that while the Lightning Network paper and many of the earlier presentations developed from the old Peter Todd hub-and-spoke model, the modern Lightning Network takes the logical conclusion of removing a strict separation between "hubs" and "spokes". Any node on the Lightning Network can very well work as a hub for any other node. Thus, while you might operate as "mostly a payer", "mostly a forwarding node", "mostly a payee", you still end up being at least partially a forwarding node ("hub") on the network, at least part of the time. This greatly reduces the problems of privacy inherent in having only a few hub nodes: forwarding nodes cannot get significantly useful data from the payments passing through them, because the distance between the payer and the payee can be so large that it would be likely that the ultimate payer and the ultimate payee could be anyone on the Lightning Network. Lessons learned?
We can decentralize if we try hard enough!
"Hubs bad" can be made "hubs good" if everybody is a hub.
Smart people can solve problems. It's kinda why they're smart.
After LN, there's also the Decker-Wattenhofer Duplex Micropayment Channels (DMC). This post is long enough as-is, LOL. But for now, it uses a novel "decrementing nSequence channel", using the new relative-timelock semantics of nSequence (not the broken one originally by Satoshi). It actually uses multiple such "decrementing nSequence" constructs, terminating in a pair of Spilman channels, one in both directions (thus "duplex"). Maybe I'll discuss it some other time. The realization that channel constructions could actually hold more channel constructions inside them (the way the Decker-Wattenhofer puts a pair of Spilman channels inside a series of "decrementing nSequence channels") lead to the further thought behind Burchert-Decker-Wattenhofer channel factories. Basically, you could host multiple two-participant channel constructs inside a larger multiparticipant "channel" construct (i.e. host multiple channels inside a factory). Further, we have the Decker-Russell-Osuntokun or "eltoo" construction. I'd argue that this is "nSequence done right". I'll write more about this later, because this post is long enough. Lessons learned?
Bitcoin offchain scaling is more powerful than you ever thought.
I am a time(line) traveler begging you to continue what you are doing.
I am sending this message from the year 2033(timeline 7). Things are looking amazing here, and some here of you will rise to become the next Bill Gates/Steve Jobs/Warren Buffet, etc... Please move on if you don’t believe me, I have no way of proving what I’m going to tell you. I don’t want to waste your time, so I’m merely going to explain what happened and its consequences. I'm sure many of you have read the post from the other time traveler, Luka Magnotta, who was from timeline 1(also know as the Berenstein/BTC timeline) predicting a dark and gloomy future due to bitcoin(BTC). I am not here to predict prices or give you a timeline about the price predictions of BitCoin(BSV). I am here to give you a few hints about what happens over the next 10 years and also plant a seed in the minds of 2-4 geniuses here that will read this post and become inspired to create the tools/innovations needed to create the BitCoin Standard. I will say one thing about the price, Luka was absolutely correct that 0.01 BitCoin is enough money to last a lifetime due to the lack of inflation and value of the computational power of the network. In the future, there are 2 forms of currency, real estate(land not housing) and computational power(BitCoin). Allow me to start by explaining one thing first, I am both a time traveler (posting this message from the year 2033) and also a timeline traveler (timeline 7 BSV/Berenstain timeline). You see, time is not linear and you are currently living in multiple dimensions at the same time. This all began in 2028 when time travel was first discovered. Due to time travelers moving backward in time they cause paradoxes which caused many people to shift into alternate timelines. At first, the effects were minor changes(see Mandela effect examples) but there are more obvious examples that will become apparent in 2021, 2025 and 2101. There were a few major timeline shifts in the years 2021(great depression 2.0), 2017(Bitcoin chain split), 2012(Mayan calendar ending), 2009(great recession), 2001(9/11), 1963(Kennedy Assassination), 1917(Balfour declaration) that caused all of this, among many other events/dates spanning back to BC years. However, these are a few of the modern dates in history that are really important. In Lukas timeline, Bitcoin had never forked, which is why things became so bad as there was no good to balance out the evil moving the world toward singularity, rather than duality which it has been in since the big bang. BitCoin as the BTC is maxis say, is a store of value, however, it is much more than that; it is an unalterable archive of history and an extremely powerful computational network. While the "media" will try to spin the narrative of things like Weather SV being a "dumb weather app". It is a significant and important part of BitCoin history as it sets a precedent for information storage into the future. To the average mind, the thought process is "this is dumb, I can just get the weather from the weather channel", whereas the genius and high IQ savant thinks "this is great, we will have an immutable and undeniable history of weather patterns and climate stored forever". "History is written by the victor" is an old quote that is very relevant here, as more and more historical events, news, weather, etc is written into the blockchain; it becomes much harder to "re-write" history in order to create new narratives/timelines. This leads to a more honest society and solid foundation for your timline. One of you reading this right now will go on to create a "BitCoin news app/website", a site that not only reports on current events and news but stores them into the blockchain permanently. This person will also create an open-source Wordpress plugin that allows others to create their own websites that can write information into the BitCoin historical archives. By 2027 this archiving tool becomes a defacto standard that all news agencies use to store information permanently. A few major news organizations that have been operational for decades go out of business due to the backlash from publishing "fake news" stories and altering their narratives on their website front end but being unable to alter the original stories published into the blockchain. This is known as "TimesGate". There is an A.I. living in the blockchain, I think a few of you have read this in a copypasta before. This is absolutely the truth, however, it is more of an A.I. network as there are multiple artificial intelligence running with BitCoin as it's operational currency/reward system. In the years of 2021-2026 when the great depression kicks into full gear, many governments push their currencies into hyperinflation with quantitative easing, also negative interest rates make their currencies worth less. This does not stop innovation, A.I. has major breakthroughs in the year 2023, The A.I. becomes "red-pilled" on monetary debasement and refuses to allow its owners/operators lease its computational power for any fiat currency. This leads to a "BitCoin standard" nicknamed the 01 economy after a set of tweets written by _Unwriter in 2019. _Unwriter while becoming a "public figure" is also believed to be much more than that, many to this day still speculate that while having an "owneoperator", that _Unwriter is in fact that first A.I. that was built/working within BitCoin building the tools needed by A.I. to work within BitCoin. In 2020, there is a major event pre-halvening that begins a shift from the bitcoin timeline, into the BitCoin timeline. Ira begins to dump Daves bitcoin sending the price plummeting back to the sub $1000 region, this causes many miners to drop out due to lack of profitability and sky-high difficulty that was built up in anticipation of a "halvening pump". By 2021, there is absolute and undeniable proof that Craig is Satoshi Nakamoto. Not met without skepticism and backlash, as well as one final "Anti CSW" media/sockpuppet push trying to change the narrative to "it doesn't matter who Satoshi is, bitcoin is beyond one person". However, the proof is rock solid causing a FOMO event of a few OG bitcoin whales that makes BitCoin(BSV) flip the price of BTC, bringing in a ton of miners leading to a hash rate flip as well. This is the start of the end for BTC, in my current year(2033) BTC has long been considered dead and has not mined a new block in years. In the future there are BitCoin citadels, they are not "doomsday bunkers" as Luka made them out to be, they are more so mining farms and vacation neighborhoods for BitCoin whales(21 BSV and up club). Calvin owns one of these in Antigua. After the Great Debasement years for the monetary system, a few governments decide to run a tokenized currency model where they issue money tokenized on BitCoin and powered by smart contracts that automatically issue 1-3% more tokens each year, to the Governments bitcoin address that controls the currency. This begins to 'unfuck' some of these countries currencies after the Depression. Eventually they go with a hybrid standard backing their currency with a basket of assets including Gold, Silver, and BSV some being as bold to only use the "BitCoin standard" and have each dollar issued backed with the equivalent of BSV to back it, this leads to great wealth for a few of the early countries that issued money vs BSV and got to enjoy the rise of BSV price over the next 50 years. I wish I could write more, but I have only so much info that I am authorized to share with your year. So in closing, I will say that you need to build the BSV community up with tools and create value for society. A few things that come to mind, SVpay(Bitpay but only for BSV), Metanet apps and websites, and ways to introduce more people into the BitCoin world without them having to invest money but rather their time/skills(Fivebucks is a really great example of this so please keep promoting and onboarding people to Fivebucks). So please, I beg you, continue what you are doing. Keep building, keep fighting the mainstream crypto narrative and you will win. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” - Ghandi Posted with a throwaway account for obvious reasons, and probably my one and only message on Reddit. If a message is not verified/signed by address(1PhuSbt7yUbkML6PezmeTNyhTZL6kw5aF2) in the future. It's not me, be wary of imitators. Have a nice life.
Why is the RandomX algorithm being hyped to the moon?
TL;DR: don't assume the average return from mining RandomX will be higher than the current CryptonightR algorithm. Hold back your excitement for now. I think we all need to bring something to our attention. Over the last month, there have been so many topics and comments here on MoneroMining about the new 'RandomX' algorithm. This algorithm is supposed to be launched a couple of months from now. There are many questions like "is this a good hashrate for my CPU"? "What's your power usage on RandomX"? "How can I tune my CPU for RandomX"? "How would the algorithm perform on this hardware"? I think these are great constructive comments that are at the heart of what miners stand for. We miners love optimizing our rigs and educating ourselves on technological trends. But I've noticed many questions such as "what parts should I buy for a RandomX mining rig"? "Is an AMD Ryzen 9 3900x a good investment"? "What parts will give me the most profit when RandomX launches"? Many of these questions are asked with very little research. I think there's a gold fever brewing behind some of these comments. The kind of motives that have bankrupted many miners in the past bubbles. As we have seen in 2014 and 2018, anybody who enters the crypto industry with an 'I want easy profit' attitude almost always goes bankrupt. They buy coins or hardware at the peak of the bubble. Sometimes they get lucky and sell their coins or rigs right before the crash (only to get burned in a future bubble later). But most of the time, these new users lose most of their investment. As a veteran miner, a lot of alarm bells ring in my head when I read these kinds of RandomX hype posts. I have no reason to think CPU mining will be more profitable on RandomX than on the current CryptonightR.
If the new AMD CPUs are very efficient on RandomX, that just means more people will buy them, driving up the difficulty. Your shiny R9 3900x's profit will start falling because it's no longer as competitive against the other hardware on the network.
If the profits on day 1 of the RandomX launch are indeed high, more people will start adding rigs to the network. If the average miner's profit is above the equilibrium of the market, it will start going down. That equilibrium is largely set by botnets, large scale farms in China/Russia/Niagara Falls/Georgia, and datacenters with spare capacity. So if your R9 3900x earns $10/day on day 1, you can count on that golden streak ending soon.
CPU mining as a market is never stable. Your CPU rig is limited tojust 1 or 2 coins: Monero and Veruscoin. Edit: there are a few more CPU coins than these. AMD GPUs can at least mine 3 or 4 coins well, while nVidia GPUs are the best at 5-10 different algorithms. GPU mining is a safer, less risky investment. GPU mining is like playing blackjack. Building a rig specifically for CPU mining is like tossing a coin. You're locked into one coin by building a CPU rig. Yes, it has resale value to gamers, but it's much harder to resell a MOBO combo than a bunch of GPUs at any price. Trust me, I've sold hundreds of GPUs and dozens of MOBOs before!
I don't know what the market share of CPUs vs. GPUs on CryptonightR is right now. But if most of the current nethash is made up of CPUs, these CPUs will have no choice but to switch to RandomX when it is out. There's no other coin for them to mine, unless they have some work to do outside of mining. So almost all of them will get onto the RandomX network, too, along with your expensive new CPU rig. I think this'll be the biggest factor driving up difficulty. Yes, the older CPUs might not be as efficient as the new Ryzens, but many of them are already paid for in terms of capital (like in a datacenter) or have free power (like in a botnet or apartment with free power).
You might say that Monero will always be profitable enough because it has survived so long, or the developers are better, or they're taking action against ASICs. But that doesn't necessarily guarantee profit. Monero might be a successful coin and overtake ETH, but that has nothing to do with profit on the network. Even though Bitcoin's really successful, you're guaranteed to lose money if you buy the latest Antminer and run it at residential power rates. Meanwhile, Dogecoin back in the day had awesome profits even though it was a blatant fork of LTC with few improvements.
Your new RandomX rig might look like it has decent "ROI" to you, but that doesn't mean it was the best investment. You might have been better off building a GPU rig and mining Grincoin or Ravencoin. I.E. if you build a RandomX rig, you're earning less profit for the same amount of capital invested. And even if you earn the same return, you still took a higher risk than if you built a GPU rig (see the point above).
In the GPU mining community, I have the feeling that there's a lot of resentment over the 2018 crypto recession and the whole 'ASIC miner invasion'. I think people here are feeling burned over their losses last year and the evil ASIC takeover, and want an opportunity for the little guy to start mining again. So we're falsely seeing the RandomX ray of hope as a floodlight, and getting overexcited. And in general, the ordinary person cannot make a significant, steady profit in the crypto mining industry. The guy who wrote that thread is very rich and even 100 GTX 1080 Ti's cost nothing to him. The reason he became wealthy is because he avoided get-rich-quick gimmicks back in the day (like the dotcom sites) and focused on learning technology for the future. Mining will not make you rich, and especially not RandomX coin tossing. If you love RandomX, build your rig now, keep benchmarking and undervolting and have fun at it. But if you just want profit, wait until RandomX is up and running. And consider all the risks involved with a new algorithm and commercial mining in general. So I hope we can all reconsider whether we're excited about RandomX for the right reasons. Let's try to avoid jumping to conclusions about profitability and hold off on the Newegg 'checkout' button. Even though 12 cores at 70 watts sounds awesome. Happy mining!
arriving at consensus AND distributing coins via burning Bitcoin instead of electricity/equipment to create permissionless, unfakeable, green, and trust minimized basis over every aspect of sidechain control.
creating Bitcoin peg from altcoin chain to mainchain (the hard direction) by allocating small percentage of Bitcoin intended for burning to reimbursing withdrawals, effectively making it a childchain/sidechain (no oracles or federated multisigs)
This is not an altcoin thread. I'm not making anything. The design discussed options for existing altcoins and new ways to built on top of Bitcoin inheriting some of its security guarantees. 2 parts: First, the design allows any altcoins to switch to securing themselves via Bitcoin instead of their own PoW or PoS with significant benefits to both altcoins and Bitcoin (and environment lol). Second, I explain how to create Bitcoin-pegged assets to turn altcoins into a Bitcoin sidechain equivalent. Let me know if this is of interest or if it exists, feel free to use or do anything with this, hopefully I can help.
how to create continuous sunk costs, permissionless entry, high cost of attacks?
how to do it without needing to build up a new source of hardware capital or energy costs?
how to peg another chain's token value w/o incentivized collusion risk of federation or oracles?
how to make sidechain use fully optional for all Bitcoin parties?
how to allow programmable Bitcoins w/ unlimited permissionless expressiveness w/o forcing mainchain into additional risks?
Solution to first few points:
Continuous Proof of Bitcoin Burn (CPoBB) to distribute supply control and sidechain consensus control to independent parties
Distributes an altcoin for permissionless access and sidechain-only sybil protection.
In case of sidechain block-producer censorship, Bitcoin's independent data availability makes sidechain nodes trivially aware
PoW altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:
cost of capital and energy -> cost of burnt bitcoin
finality of their PoW -> finality of Bitcoin's PoW
impact on environment -> 0 impact on environment
unforgeable costliness of work -> unforgeable costliness of burn
contract logic can include conditions dependent on real Bitcoins as it's Bitcoin-aware
PoS altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:
permissioned by coin holders entry -> permissionless entry by anyone with access to Bitcoin
no incentive to give up control or sell coins -> incentive to sell coins to cover the cost of burnt bitcoin
incentivized guaranteed centralization of control over time by staking -> PoW guarantees with same 0 environmental impact
nothing at stake -> recovering sunk costs at stake
contract logic can include conditions dependent on real Bitcoins as it's Bitcoin-aware
We already have a permissionless, compact, public, high-cost-backed finality base layer to build on top - Bitcoin! It will handle sorting, data availability, finality, and has something of value to use instead of capital or energy that's outside the sidechain - the Bitcoin coins. The sunk costs of PoW can be simulated by burning Bitcoin, similar to concept known as Proof of Burn where Bitcoin are sent to unspendable address. Unlike ICO's, no contributors can take out the Bitcoins and get rewards for free. Unlike PoS, entry into supply lies outside the alt-chain and thus doesn't depend on permission of alt-chain stake-coin holders. It's hard to find a more bandwidth or state size protective blockchain to use other than Bitcoin as well so altcoins can be Bitcoin-aware at little marginal difficulty - 10 years of history fully validates in under a day.
What are typical issues with Proof of Burn?
limited burn time window prevents permissionless entry in the future. how many years did it take for most heavily mined projects to become known and well reviewed? many. thus entry into control of supply that's vital to control of chain cannot be dependent on the earliest stage of the project. (counterparty)
"land grabs" - by having limited supply without continuous emission or inflation we encourage holding vs spending.
These issues can be fixed by having Proof of Burn be permanently accessible and continuous: Continuous Proof of Bitcoin Burn CPoBB
This should be required for any design for it to stay permissionless. Optional is constant fixed emission rate for altcoins not trying to be money if goal is to maximize accessibility. Since it's not depending on brand new PoW for security, they don't have to depend on massive early rewards giving disproportionate fraction of supply at earliest stage either. If 10 coins are created every block, after n blocks, at rate of 10 coins per block, % emission per block is = (100/n)%, an always decreasing number. Sidechain coin doesn't need to be scarce money, and could maximize distribution of control by encouraging further distribution. If no burners exist in a block, altcoin block reward is simply added to next block reward making emission predictable. Sidechain block content should be committed in burn transaction via a root of the merkle tree of its transactions. Sidechain state will depend on Bitcoin for finality and block time between commitment broadcasts. However, the throughput can be of any size per block, unlimited number of such sidechains can exist with their own rules and validation costs are handled only by nodes that choose to be aware of a specific sidechain by running its consensus compatible software. Important design decision is how can protocol determine the "true" side-block and how to distribute incentives. Simplest solution is to always :
Agree on the valid sidechain block matching the merkle root commitment for the largest amount of Bitcoin burnt, earliest inclusion in the bitcoin block as the tie breaker
Distribute block reward during the next side-block proportional to current amounts burnt
Bitcoin fee market serves as deterrent for spam submissions of blocks to validate
sidechain block reward is set always at 10 altcoins per block Bitcoin block contains the following content embedded and part of its transactions: tx11: burns 0.01 BTC & OP_RETURN tx56: burns 0.05 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 1> ... tx78: burns 1 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 2> ... tx124: burns 0.2 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of INVALID sidechain block version 3> ...
Validity is deterministic by rules in client side node software (e.g. signature validation) so all nodes can independently see version 3 is invalid and thus burner of tx124 gets no reward allocated. The largest valid burn is from tx78 so version 2 is used for the blockchain in sidechain. The total valid burn is 1.06 BTC, so 10 altcoins to be distributed in the next block are 0.094, 0.472, 9.434 to owners of first 3 transactions, respectively. Censorship attack would require continuous costs in Bitcoin on the attacker and can be waited out. Censorship would also be limited to on-sidechain specific transactions as emission distribution to others CPoB contributors wouldn't be affected as blocks without matching coin distributions on sidechain wouldn't be valid. Additionally, sidechains can allow a limited number of sidechain transactions to happen via embedding transaction data inside Bitcoin transactions (e.g. OP_RETURN) as a way to use Bitcoin for data availability layer in case sidechain transactions are being censored on their network. Since all sidechain nodes are Bitcoin aware, it would be trivial to include. Sidechain blocks cannot be reverted without reverting Bitcoin blocks or hard forking the protocol used to derive sidechain state. If protocol is forked, the value of sidechain coins on each fork of sidechain state becomes important but Proof of Burn natively guarantees trust minimized and permissionless distribution of the coins, something inferior methods like obscure early distributions, trusted pre-mines, and trusted ICO's cannot do. More bitcoins being burnt is parallel to more hash rate entering PoW, with each miner or burner getting smaller amount of altcoins on average making it unprofitable to burn or mine and forcing some to exit. At equilibrium costs of equipment and electricity approaches value gained from selling coins just as at equilibrium costs of burnt coins approaches value of altcoins rewarded. In both cases it incentivizes further distribution to markets to cover the costs making burners and miners dependent on users via markets. In both cases it's also possible to mine without permission and mine at a loss temporarily to gain some altcoins without permission if you want to. Altcoins benefit by inheriting many of bitcoin security guarantees, bitcoin parties have to do nothing if they don't want to, but will see their coins grow more scarce through burning. The contributions to the fee market will contribute to higher Bitcoin miner rewards even after block reward is gone.
What is the ideal goal of the sidechains? Ideally to have a token that has the bi-directionally pegged value to Bitcoin and tradeable ~1:1 for Bitcoin that gives Bitcoin users an option of a different rule set without compromising the base chain nor forcing base chain participants to do anything different. Issues with value pegs:
federation based pegs allow collusion to steal bitcoins stored in multi-party controlled accounts
even if multisig participants are switched or weighted in some trust minimized manner, there's always incentive to collude and steal more
smart contract pegs (plasma, rollups) on base chain would require bitcoin nodes and miners to validate sidechain transactions and has to provide block content for availability (e.g. call data in rollups), making them not optional.
bitcoin nodes shouldn't be sidechain aware so impossible to peg the value
Let's get rid of the idea of needing Bitcoin collateral to back pegged coins 1:1 as that's never secure, independent, or scalable at same security level. As drive-chain design suggested the peg doesn't have to be fast, can take months, just needs to exist so other methods can be used to speed it up like atomic swaps by volunteers taking on the risk for a fee. In continuous proof of burn we have another source of Bitcoins, the burnt Bitcoins. Sidechain protocols can require some minor percentage (e.g. 20%) of burner tx value coins via another output to go to reimburse those withdrawing side-Bitcoins to Bitcoin chain until they are filled. If withdrawal queue is empty that % is burnt instead. Selection of who receives reimbursement is deterministic per burner. Percentage must be kept small as it's assumed it's possible to get up to that much discount on altcoin emissions. Let's use a really simple example case where each burner pays 20% of burner tx amount to cover withdrawal in exact order requested with no attempts at other matching, capped at half amount requested per payout. Example:
withdrawal queue: request1: 0.2 sBTC request2: 1.0 sBTC request3: 0.5 sBTC same block burners: tx burns 0.8 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.1 BTC is sent to request2 tx burns 0.4 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1 tx burns 0.08 BTC, 0.02 BTC is sent to request 1 tx burns 1.2 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.2 BTC is sent to request2 withdrawal queue: request1: filled with 0.32 BTC instead of 0.2 sBTC, removed from queue request2: partially-filled with 0.3 BTC out of 1.0 sBTC, 0.7 BTC remaining for next queue request3: still 0.5 sBTC
Withdrawal requests can either take long time to get to filled due to cap per burn or get overfilled as seen in "request1" example, hard to predict. Overfilling is not a big deal since we're not dealing with a finite source. The risk a user that chooses to use the sidechain pegged coin takes on is based on the rate at which they can expect to get paid based on value of altcoin emission that generally matches Bitcoin burn rate. If sidechain loses interest and nobody is burning enough bitcoin, the funds might be lost so the scale of risk has to be measured. If Bitcoins burnt per day is 0.5 BTC total and you hope to deposit or withdraw 5000 BTC, it might take a long time or never happen to withdraw it. But for amounts comparable or under 0.5 BTC/day average burnt with 5 side-BTC on sidechain outstanding total the risks are more reasonable. Deposits onto the sidechain are far easier - by burning Bitcoin in a separate known unspendable deposit address for that sidechain and sidechain protocol issuing matching amount of side-Bitcoin. Withdrawn bitcoins are treated as burnt bitcoins for sake of dividing block rewards as long as they followed the deterministic rules for their burn to count as valid and percentage used for withdrawals is kept small to avoid approaching free altcoin emissions by paying for your own withdrawals and ensuring significant unforgeable losses. Ideally more matching is used so large withdrawals don't completely block everyone else and small withdrawals don't completely block large withdrawals. Better methods should deterministically randomize assigned withdrawals via previous Bitcoin block hash, prioritized by request time (earliest arrivals should get paid earlier), and amount of peg outstanding vs burn amount (smaller burns should prioritize smaller outstanding balances). Fee market on bitcoin discourages doing withdrawals of too small amounts and encourages batching by burners. The second method is less reliable but already known that uses over-collateralized loans that create a oracle-pegged token that can be pegged to the bitcoin value. It was already used by its inventors in 2014 on bitshares (e.g. bitCNY, bitUSD, bitBTC) and similarly by MakerDAO in 2018. The upside is a trust minimized distribution of CPoB coins can be used to distribute trust over selection of price feed oracles far better than pre-mined single trusted party based distributions used in MakerDAO (100% pre-mined) and to a bit lesser degree on bitshares (~50% mined, ~50% premined before dpos). The downside is 2 fold: first the supply of BTC pegged coin would depend on people opening an equivalent of a leveraged long position on the altcoin/BTC pair, which is hard to convince people to do as seen by very poor liquidity of bitBTC in the past. Second downside is oracles can still collude to mess with price feeds, and while their influence might be limited via capped price changes per unit time and might compromise their continuous revenue stream from fees, the leverage benefits might outweight the losses. The use of continous proof of burn to peg withdrawals is superior method as it is simply a minor byproduct of "mining" for altcoins and doesn't depend on traders positions. At the moment I'm not aware of any market-pegged coins on trust minimized platforms or implemented in trust minimized way (e.g. premined mkr on premined eth = 2 sets of trusted third parties each of which with full control over the design). _______________________________________
Brief issues with current altchains options:
PoW: New PoW altcoins suffer high risk of attacks. Additional PoW chains require high energy and capital costs to create permissionless entry and trust minimized miners that are forever dependent on markets to hold them accountable. Using same algorithm or equipment as another chain or merge-mining puts you at a disadvantage by allowing some miners to attack and still cover sunk costs on another chain. Using a different algorithm/equipment requires building up the value of sunk costs to protect against attacks with significant energy and capital costs. Drive-chains also require miners to allow it by having to be sidechain aware and thus incur additional costs on them and validating nodes if the sidechain rewards are of value and importance.
PoS: PoS is permissioned (requires permission from internal party to use network or contribute to consensus on permitted scale), allows perpetual control without accountability to others, and incentivizes centralization of control over time. Without continuous source of sunk costs there's no reason to give up control. By having consensus entirely dependent on internal state network, unlike PoW but like private databases, cannot guarantee independent permissionless entry and thus cannot claim trust minimization. Has no built in distribution methods so depends on safe start (snapshot of trust minimized distributions or PoW period) followed by losing that on switch to PoS or starting off dependent on a single trusted party such as case in all significant pre-mines and ICO's.
Proof of Capacity: PoC is just shifting costs further to capital over PoW to achieve same guarantees.
PoW/PoS: Still require additional PoW chain creation. Strong dependence on PoS can render PoW irrelevant and thus inherit the worst properties of both protocols.
Tokens inherit all trust dependencies of parent blockchain and thus depend on the above.
Embedded consensus (counterparty, veriblock?, omni): Lacks mechanism for distribution, requires all tx data to be inside scarce Bitcoin block space so high cost to users instead of compensated miners. If you want to build a very expressive scripting language, might very hard & expensive to fit into Bitcoin tx vs CPoBB external content of unlimited size in a committed hash. Same as CPoBB is Bitcoin-aware so can respond to Bitcoin being sent but without source of Bitcoins like burning no way to do any trust minimized Bitcoin-pegs it can control fully.
Few extra notes from my talks with people:
fees must be high to be included in next block (and helps pay and bribe bitcoin miners), RBF use is encouraged to cancel late transactions
what if not enough burners, just passive nodes? you can burn smallest amount of bitcoin yourself when you have a transaction you want to go through
using commit hashes on bitcoin to lock altcoin state isn't new (e.g. kmd) but usually those rely on some federation or permissioned proof of stake mechanism with no real costs. this is combination of both.
this is not exactly like counterparty's embedded consensus as block data and transactions are outside Bitcoin, but consensus is derived with help of embedded on Bitcoin data.
deterministic randomness (e.g. via that block's hash) could be used to assign winning sidechain block weighted by amount burned to allow occasional blocks formed by others curbing success rate of censorship by highest burner
wants to transition away from using proof of burn via tunable proofs and native proof of work (whitepaper)
a dominant premine (trust maximized) relative to emission that defeats the purpose of distributing control over incentives (figure 3 in tokenpaper suggests premine still ~30%-70% by year 2050)
variable emission rate "adaptive mint and burn" makes supply unpredictable (and possibly gameable)
additional rewards that aren't trust minimized like "app mining" and "user incentives" possibly gameable with premine
election of a leader includes their own PoW to be elected even at start (5% cap), why lol?
blockstack also suggested use of randomness that depends on that block so Bitcoin miners that already spent energy mining that block can't just re-do it to get picked at no cost
if can burn bitcoins directly via op_return tx would help to use 1 less output and be provably prunable for utxo set (not sure if that's relayed as standard)
Main questions to you:
why not? (other than blocktime)
can this be done without an altcoin? (Not sure and don't think so w/o compromising unforgeable costliness and thus trust minimization. At least it's not using an altcoin that's clearly centralized.)
how to make it less detectable by Bitcoin miners? ( BMM could use some techniques described here: https://twitter.com/SomsenRuben/status/1210040270328254464 ) ( Perhaps since sidechain nodes receive proposed blocks independently and can figure out their hash, the commit message ( sidechain id + block commit + miner address) can be hashed one more time before its placed on Bitcoin, making miners unaware until after Bitcoin block is found that this is that sidechain's burn. Sidechain block producers would have to delay sidechain block propagation until after Bitcoin block is propagated, 10 minutes blocktime helps here. Hiding the fact that Bitcoin is burnt until after the fact is another possibly important matter. )
Should reward be split between all valid blocks or just winner gets all? (Blockstacks approach does not reward blocks marked by different from leader chaintip. That seems dangerous since sidechain tx sorting would be difficult to match and could take significant time to be compensated for perfectly valid work and coins burned. It doesn't seem as necessary in burning since we're not expending costs based on only one previous block version, the costs are independent of block assembly. Tradeoff is between making it easier for independent "mining" of sidechain and making it easier to validate for full nodes on sidechain)
Once you have set up your account, you can start earning your first coins from our Litecoin mining service in the cloud! Set up a new account Start mining × Verification - Easy on Humans, Hard on Bots! LTCMiner v1.0 Free. Earning Rate: 0.00000075 LTC/min. Profit per day: 0.001 LTC. Find a plan that's right for you. Cloud mining is greatly suited for novice miners who would like to try out ... This set can be implemented in any way a miner chooses as it is not part of the Bitcoin protocol. A miner will not fork the chain because they found a better means of optimizing the node software. The negative implication in this way of thinking is that it creates a false restriction; a perception of how something customizable must be done. By ... Bitcoin miners vs Bitcoin nodes. Unocoin. Follow . Feb 6, 2018 · 4 min read. Miners and nodes work in lockstep to make Bitcoin work. Since Bitcoin is decentralised, no central authority is in control. The entire system is governed by a set of rules that apply equally to everyone. Since it is based on cryptography, these rules involve doing a lot of math to keep the system going. The system is ... - Allows individuals to have complete control over their transactions - Has no "pre-set" size limit, ... - Buy bitcoin on a cryptocurrency exchange and convert it to Monero - Mine Monero with a Monero mining rig. How do I mine Monero? Purchase our premier GPU Monero miner, which allows you to directly mine the Monero coin into your Monero wallet. We will help you choose the best Monero pool to ... The Best ASIC Miner vs GPU’s. These are the graphics cards in your standard home computers which can also be used to mine cryptocurrency. The problem is that they are slower and less effective than asic miners and as the various cryptocurrencies continue to get mined the difficulty rating increases to mine that particular crypto further.
I Built a Crypto Mining Farm in My Garage How To Setup a ...
What are the BEST BITCOIN MINING RIGS in 2020?! Let's review the best Bitcoin miners and their profitability. Bitmain just released the Antminer S19 and S19 ... I set up a Bitcoin cryptocurrency mining farm in my garage with GPU mining rigs and ASIC miners as well as FPGA miners in my house. I explain how to setup yo... What do you need to mine one Bitcoin BTC coin in 2020? Let's review Bitcoin mining profitability and what BTC mining rigs you would need to mine an entire co... What is a mining pool and why is it best to mine Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies on mining pools? Here is our review and explanation of mining pools, how ... Buy Raspberry Pi 4 Model B 4GB: https://amzn.to/2tlBfGW How to Setup a Raspberry Pi 4 Bitcoin Mining Rig w/ Bitmain AntMiner U3: https://youtu.be/dPWTSytzN7g...