Bitcoin Hashrate grafiken - BitInfoCharts

[ANN][ANDROID MINING][AIRDROP] NewEnglandcoin: Scrypt RandomSpike

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
Roadmap
NENG v1.4.0 Android Mining, randomSpike Evaluation https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/NENG_2020_Q3_report/NENG_2020_Q3_report.pdf
RandomSpike - NENG core v1.3.0 Hardfork Upgrade Proposal https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/2020Q1_Report/Scrypt_RandomSpike_NENGv1.3.0_Hardfork_Proposal.pdf
NENG Security, Decentralization & Valuation
https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/2019Q2_report/NENG_Security_Decentralization_Value.pdf
Whitepaper v1.0 https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/whitepaper_v1.0/NENG_WhitePaper.pdf
DISCORD https://discord.gg/UPeBwgs
Explorer
http://www.findblocks.com/exploreNENG http://86.100.49.209/exploreNENG http://nengexplorer.mooo.com:3001/
Step by step guide on how to setup an explorer: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/nengexplorer
Github https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin
Wallet
Android with UserLand App (arm64/armhf), Chromebook (x64/arm64/armhf): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.5
Linux Wallet (Ubuntu/Linux Mint, Debian/MX Linux, Arch/Manjaro, Fedora, openSUSE): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.3
MacOS Wallet (10.11 El Capitan or higher): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.2
Android with GNUroot on 32 bits old Phones (alpha release) wallet: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0
Windows wallet: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.3.0.1
addnode ip address for the wallet to sync faster, frequently updated conf file: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/cheetah_cpumineblob/mastenewenglandcoin.conf-example
How to Sync Full Node Desktop Wallet https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/comments/er6f0q/how_to_sync_full_node_desktop_wallet/
TWITTER https://twitter.com/newenglandcoin
REDDIT https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/
Cheetah CPU Miner Software https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/cheetah_cpuminer
Solo Mining with GPU or ASIC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52187727#msg52187727
How to Run Two Full Node in Same Desktop PC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53581449#msg53581449
ASIC/GPU Mining Pools Warning to Big ASIC Miners Due to DynDiff Algo on top of Scrypt, solo mining is recommended for ASIC/GPU miners. Further more, even for mining pools, small mining pool will generate better performance than big NENG mining pool because of new algo v1.2.x post hard fork.
The set up configuration of NENG for scrypt pool mining is same as a typical normal scrypt coin. In other word, DynDiff on Scrypt algo is backward compatible with Scrypt algo. Because ASIC/GPU miners rely on CPU miners for smooth blockchain movement, checkout bottom of "Latest News" section for A WARNING to All ASIC miners before you decide to dump big ASIC hash rate into NENG mining.
(1) Original DynDiff Warning: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48324708#msg48324708 (2) New Warning on RandomSpike Spike difficulty (244k) introduced in RandomSpike served as roadblocks to instant mining and provide security against 51% attack risk. However, this spike difficulty like a roadblock that makes big ASIC mining less profitable. In case of spike block to be mined, the spike difficulty immediately serve as base difficulty, which will block GPU/ASIC miners effectively and leave CPU cheetah solo miners dominating mining almost 100% until next base difficulty reset.
FindBlocks http://findblocks.com/
CRpool http://crpool.xyz/
Cminors' Pool http://newenglandcoin.cminors-pool.com/
SPOOL https://spools.online/
Exchange
📷
https://shorelinecrypto.com/
Features: anonymous sign up and trading. No restriction or limit on deposit or withdraw.
The trading pairs available: NewEnglandcoin (NENG) / Dogecoin (DOGE)
Trading commission: A round trip trading will incur 0.10% trading fees in average. Fees are paid only on buyer side. buy fee: 0.2% / sell fee: 0% Deposit fees: free for all coins Withdraw fees: ZERO per withdraw. Mining fees are appointed by each coin blockchain. To cover the blockchain mining fees, there is minimum balance per coin per account: * Dogecoin 2 DOGE * NewEnglandcoin 1 NENG
Latest News Aug 30, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.5 Released for Android/Chromebook Upgrade with armhf, better hardware support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg55098029#msg55098029
Aug 11, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.4 Released for Android arm64 Upgrade / Chromebook Support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54977437#msg54977437
Jul 30, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.3 Released for Linux Wallet Upgrade with 8 Distros https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54898540#msg54898540
Jul 21, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.2 Released for MacOS Upgrade with Catalina https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54839522#msg54839522
Jul 19, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.1 Released for MacOS Wallet Upgrade https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54830333#msg54830333
Jul 15, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0 Released for Android Mining, Ubuntu 20.04 support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54803639#msg54803639
Jul 11, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0 Android Mining, randomSpike Evaluation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54777222#msg54777222
Jun 27, 2020 - Pre-Announce: NENG v1.4.0 Proposal for Mobile Miner Upgrade, Android Mining Start in July 2020 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54694233#msg54694233
Jun 19, 2020 - Best Practice for Futurebit Moonlander2 USB ASIC on solo mining mode https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54645726#msg54645726
Mar 15, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG v1.3.0.1 Released for better wallet syncing https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54030923#msg54030923
Feb 23, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG Core v1.3.0 Relased, Hardfork on Mar 1 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53900926#msg53900926
Feb 1, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike Proposal Published- NENG 1.3.0 Hardfork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53735458#msg53735458
Jan 15, 2020 - NewEnglandcoin Dev Team Expanded with New Kickoff https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53617358#msg53617358
Jan 12, 2020 - Explanation of Base Diff Reset and Effect of Supply https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/comments/envmo1/explanation_of_base_diff_reset_and_effect_of/
Dec 19, 2019 - Shoreline_tradingbot version 1.0 is released https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5121953.msg53391184#msg53391184
Sept 1, 2019 - NewEnglandcoin (NENG) is Selected as Shoreline Tradingbot First Supported Coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52331201#msg52331201
Aug 15, 2019 - Mining Update on Effect of Base Difficulty Reset, GPU vs ASIC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52169572#msg52169572
Jul 7, 2019 - CPU Mining on macOS Mojave is supported under latest Cheetah_Cpuminer Release https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg51745839#msg51745839
Jun 1, 2019 - NENG Fiat project is stopped by Square, Inc https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg51312291#msg51312291
Apr 21, 2019 - NENG Fiat Project is Launched by ShorelineCrypto https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50714764#msg50714764
Apr 7, 2019 - Announcement of Fiat Project for all U.S. Residents & Mobile Miner Project Initiation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50506585#msg50506585
Apr 1, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50417196#msg50417196
Mar 27, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50332097#msg50332097
Mar 17, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50208194#msg50208194
Feb 26, 2019 - Community Project - NewEnglandcoin Graphic Redesign Bounty Initiated https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49931305#msg49931305
Feb 22, 2019 - Dev Policy on Checkpoints on NewEnglandcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49875242#msg49875242
Feb 20, 2019 - NewEnglandCoin v1.2.1 Released to Secure the Hard Kork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49831059#msg49831059
Feb 11, 2019 - NewEnglandCoin v1.2.0 Released, Anti-51% Attack, Anti-instant Mining after Hard Fork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49685389#msg49685389
Jan 13, 2019 - Cheetah_CpuMiner added support for CPU Mining on Mac https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49218760#msg49218760
Jan 12, 2019 - NENG Core v1.1.2 Released to support MacOS OSX Wallet https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49202088#msg49202088
Jan 2, 2019 - Cheetah_Cpuminer v1.1.0 is released for both Linux and Windows https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49004345#msg49004345
Dec 31, 2018 - Technical Whitepaper is Released https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48990334#msg48990334
Dec 28, 2018 - Cheetah_Cpuminer v1.0.0 is released for Linux https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48935135#msg48935135
Update on Dec 14, 2018 - NENG Blockchain Stuck Issue https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48668375#msg48668375
Nov 27, 2018 - Exclusive for PC CPU Miners - How to Steal a Block from ASIC Miners https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48258465#msg48258465
Nov 28, 2018 - How to CPU Mine a NENG block with window/linux PC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48298311#msg48298311
Nov 29, 2018 - A Warning to ASIC Miners https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48324708#msg48324708
Disclosure: Dev Team Came from ShorelineCrypto, a US based Informatics Service Business offering Fee for service for Coin Creation, Coin Exchange Listing, Blockchain Consulting, etc.
submitted by honglu69 to NewEnglandCoin [link] [comments]

The One Thing EVERYONE Must Know About the Dev Funding Plan: IT'S COMPLETELY FREE.

sigh I get so tired of having to stop working to put out a post explaining issues. If anyone else wants to join in I could use help. (actually I've seen Jonald F. do this before too, so thanks JF!)
Things are bad when even developers don't understand what's going on. So I'll try to clearly explain an important point on the Dev Funding Plan (DFP from now on) for the community: it's completely free. Yet we still get panicked posts saying Please Save Us from the TAX!!! Somebody Help!
You may be for or against the DFP, but either way please at least understand what you're forming an opinion on.
Let's start from the beginning. We know Bitcoin works on blocks and block coin rewards. The block reward, which started at 50 coins per block, and cuts in half approximately every 4 years, serves two purposes: it's a fair way to bring coins into circulation, but more importantly it provides security for the network.
For simplicity, please think of "security" as being measured in power bars. When the network first started, with just Satoshi and Hal Finney, there was 1 power bar. This power bar was made up of the electricity their combined computer hardware used to find blocks. They were the first miners. Bitcoin uses a difficulty level to adjust how hard or easy it is to find blocks. This level is important for a key reason: we want the inflation rate of coins (how fast they come into circulation) to stay about the same, regardless how many miners (computing power) suddenly comes online. If the difficulty is set at super easy, but suddenly a super computer comes online that computer can gobble up thousands of coins in minutes if not seconds, creating massive rapid inflation. So the first thing to understand is that due to the Difficulty Level Adjustment the rate of coins coming into circulation will always stay about the same, regardless how many miners join or leave the network.
Getting back to power bars. So the point of Bitcoin is there is no center, no fixed authority. The problem is we still need a decision made about which chain is valid. This is where proof-of-work comes in. Satoshi's fairly brilliant solution to a consensus decision, with no leader, was to simply look for the longest chain (technically the chain with most hashing work). The reasoning was: as there are far more ordinary people than there are governments and dictators a Bitcoin supported by the all the world's people should always be able to muster more hashrate than even rich governments.
So Bitcoin began and people saw the brilliance: even with a weak power bar level of 1 (a couple computers), Bitcoin was safe from 51% attacks and attacking govs competing for control of the chain because a super low hashrate meant Bitcoin wasn't popular and govs wouldn't bother paying attention. By the time Bitcoin was big enough for govs to worry about attacking it should also have so many participants the power bar level would be far higher, providing strong defense.
Let's say the ideal power bar level is 50,000. At this level no government on earth has enough resources to beat the grassroots network. We hear people brag about how much security BTC has. However, the marketcap for all of BTC is about $160B. Countries like the U.S. and China have GDP measured in many trillions; a trillion is 1,000 billion. Does 160B really seem untouchable? For numeric comparison the main U.S. federal food assistance program cost the government $70B in 2016, representing about 2% of the budget. So the entirety of the BTC market cap is about twice the size of one welfare program, representing 2% of the overall budget. Where should we place the current security power bars if we want guaranteed safety from a determined U.S. gov? If 50,000 is guaranteed safe we're far from it. I'd say BTC is more like 5,000. That's still pretty decent.
Of course, BCH split from BTC... and didn't carry over all the miners and accompanying security. That's not an immediate concern because if BTC isn't on government's radar yet BCH sure isn't. However, that doesn't mean BCH doesn't need security from hostile forces. It's still a valuable network and needs defenses. Where would we put power bars for BCH? If BTC is 5,000 and BCH only has 3% of that hashrate then BCH has just 150. That's it.
How the Developer Funding Plan Works
Back to the DFP. What this says is as a community we agree to break off a piece of the block reward and instead of giving 100% to miners we give a small percent to developers. If each block is 10 coins and the price is $300 then winning a block means winning $3,000. Of course that's not all profit because miners have electricity and other expenses to pay before calculating profit. So if we reduce the portion of the miner reward by 10% so they get just 9 coins per block yet the price stays the same what happens? It means miners receive $2,700 for the same effort. We've just made it more expensive to mine BCH from the point of view of miners. What would any miner then rationally do? Seek profitability elsewhere if available. Suddenly BTC SHA256 hashing looks slightly more attractive so they'll go there. Hashrate leaves BCH and goes to BTC, but the key important point is BOTH chains have a difficulty adjustment algorithm which adjusts to account for rising or lowering miners overall, which keeps the coin inflation rate steady. This means BTC total hashrate rises (more miners compete for BTC) and its Difficulty Level rises accordingly, so the same rate of BTC pumps out; on BCH total hashrate falls (less miners compete for BCH) and its Difficulty falls, so the same rate of BCH pumps out. Inflation remains about the same on both coins so the price of both coins doesn't change any, beyond what it normally does based on news/events etc.
So what difference is there? The difference is total network security. Hashrate totals have changed. BTC gains more miner securing hashrate while BCH loses it. So BTC goes from 5,000 to say 5,100 power bars. BCH goes from about 150 to 140.
Does any of that matter in the grand scheme of things? Not in the slightest. Part of the reason is due to our emergency circumstances with BCH we had to rework our security model. Our primary defense is an idea I came up with, which BitcoinABC implemented, saying it's not sheer hashpower that dictates what chain we follow. We won't replace a chain we're working on if a new one suddenly appears if it means changing more than 10 blocks deep of history. This prevents all the threatening hashrate hanging over our heads from mining a secret chain and creating havoc unleashing it causing 10+ confimed txs to be undone, while exchanges, gambling sites etc. have long since paid out real world money.
Switching $6M worth of block rewards from mining to devs just means we lose a bit of hashrate security, while we gain those funds for development. Nothing more. Nobody holding BCH pays in the form of inflation or any other way. It costs literally NOTHING BECAUSE The block reward is ALREADY ALLOCATED. It will EITHER go 100% to mining security if we do nothing, or go to both miners and devs if the plan is put into effect. Hopefully this helps.
:)
TL;DR: we switch security which we don't really need, for developer funding which we do.
submitted by cryptos4pz to btc [link] [comments]

Decred is insanely undervalued - A Confluence of Blockchain mechanics and Raw Scarcity

Decred is insanely undervalued - A Confluence of Blockchain mechanics and Raw Scarcity
Decred has caught a burst of long overdue wind today.
Below is my thesis on recent price action drivers and why I think Decred is insanely undervalued right now from an on-chain/blockchain mechanics perspective.
This is an expansion on a tweet I put out here https://twitter.com/_Checkmatey_/status/1190349477120552961
Fundamentally, the project is one of the most undervalued assets in the market and I believe the largest information asymmetry next to Bitcoin. The smart money know this. They have been accumulating. Looking at the volume of DCR moving on-chain, we can see a significant amount of DCR moving in 2019 at the current support range. We know that DCR is always on the move due to tickets so when we see high volume nodes like this, it supports the notion of actual accumulation in addition to the usual transaction flow. We have seen similar growth in the median and mean transaction sizes throughout 2019. Larger wallets, larger DCR purchases.
Update: Note how the 2019 volume node, if just looking at USD chart could be attributed to Dec-Apr period or the recent drawdown. However looking against the BTC chart confirms that the dominant accumulation has occurred during the recent period as the BTC price probes the lows. This is what I consider a high volume zone of support characterised by a large transfer of coins (miners selling, accumulating buyers).
On-chain DCR volume profile plotted against price for BTC (black) and USD (blue)
The recent price action drawdown in my opinion is a result of Miners going too hard to fast. ASICs were introduced in early 2018 and we see an explosion in PoW Difficulty. Mining is a leveraged play for DCR and in this case is unlike what occurred for BTC in that it was almost four years until ASICs were on the scene for Bitcoin. This means that Bitcoins naturally high early inflation had time to disperse before ASICs and serious hardware investment came online. ASICs are capital intensive, not hobbyist grade meaning coins mined must necessarily become coins sold.
We can compare the insane growth in Decred mining since Jan 2018 against the market to see this on a relative scale. Mind you, this is a bullish signal. Miners are committing heavy capital to the Decred chain security. They have done their due diligence and have high conviction. That is not something to ignore.
Full tweet on this here https://twitter.com/_Checkmatey_/status/1177650799050133504
Normalised difficulty growth (left) since Jan 2018 and (right) 2019 Year to Date
As miners over-extend without support of price appreciation, they must sell more coins to pay bills. Eventually the weak miners have to capitulate and difficulty ribbon squeezes as mining equipment is switched off. We have seen this play out for Bitcoin where squeezing of the difficulty ribbon indicates a valuable period for accumulation. Willy Woo talks about this here https://woobull.com/introducing-the-difficulty-ribbon-the-best-times-to-buy-bitcoin/.
What happens next is that the strong miners gain an increasing share of the hashrate. Their energy is thus rewarded with more DCR and so they can sell less of their income and Hodl more. This effectively begins to constrain supply rather than the oversaturation during capitulation. Over time this leads to a reversal in price action which further perpetuates the effect.
Price of a scarce asset must appreciate with reduced circulating supply assuming demand relatively remains stable or increases.
Decred total cumulative block subsidy paid (price x block reward DCR) and Difficulty ribbon
This is actually very healthy for Decred. Coins are being distributed by miners en-mass right now, nullifying the risk of miners holding too high of a supply within the staking system leading to centralisation. I would argue that this distribution of coins is one of the most important and bullish signals long term. We know that miners stake as well and thus they are able to generate income on Hodled coins. I expect this to actually soften the degree of miner capitulation as they can turn off power whilst still generating income.
For this reason, I do not suspect we will see photos of mountains of Decred ASICs being thrown out as we saw for Bitcoin in 2018. The machines are simply put on hold until price reverses to justify power consumption. This is a valuable business feasibility case for miners and a feature of long term sustainability in the chain security.
Decred Resilience
This is where the elegance of Decred resilience steps in.
As miners slow, supply saturates, price drops.
DCR Tickets become cheaper.
Stakeholders step in and accumulation begins.
The Ticket Price hit an ATH of 140+ DCR as Stakeholders begin accumulating and commit capital to secure the chain. The Hybrid PoW/PoS system works as a counter balance. When price is in a strong uptrend, stakeholders are provided an exit to capitalise on gains as miners have a strong case for expanding their operations (PoW dominant security). During price drawdowns, miners drop out and the cheap DCR stimulates Hodlers buying and locking capital which locks down available supply from attackers. An attack would thus drive price higher and the cycle repeats.
As above, showing the total DCR locked in tickets hits an ATH as price drops due to miner capitulation
PermabullNino made the observation that Decred functions as an elegant yet robust accounting system. His discussion on block subsidies are shown in the charts above and linked here https://medium.com/@permabullnino/decred-on-chain-a-look-at-block-subsidies-6f5180932c9b.Decred has a has past, present and future cash flows distributed to those who support it most. This puts Decred security in good hands- Miners 60%- Stakeholders 30%- Builders 10%
Price is currently hovering around the PoW total subsidy paid (red line) and means miners are indeed feeling the squeeze as this is the cost basis of all DCR paid to date. Once you factor in overheads and capital costs, it makes sense we are seeing DCR supply distribution. The last time we saw price dip to this line was early in Decreds history and was followed by a rapid repricing.
We now have three mechanisms at play which will act to constrain supply
  • Miners are distributing heavily but eventually will switch to hodling as the strong miners hash share grows.
  • Stakeholder are absorbing supply en mass and locking in tickets due to relatively cheap prices
  • Inflation rate is in a state of constant reduction
Scarcity
My recent work looking at the Decred stock-to-flow model (which does exist and is convincing, contrary to what the Bitcoin maxi community may want to believe), suggests that DCR is in the oversold range. It has deviated by 1.5 standard deviations from the S2F model mean which is near identical to Bitcoin at 50% supply mined. Historically for Bitcoin and Decred, this has been an opportune period for accumulation. More on this discussion in my tweet here https://twitter.com/_Checkmatey_/status/1184159137564889089
Note that Decred, likely due to the smooth issuance and difference in market awareness, is less volatile than Bitcoin. The significant undervaluation of Bitcoin at 50% mined was due to the first 2012 halving where it was a very different and far smaller market. I would expect DCR to be repriced sooner rather than later as the smart money steps in having now developed Bitcoin hindsight.
Standard deviations of DCR and BTC price from the respective stock-to-flow linear regression models
As a final note, if we look at Decred and Bitcoin market valuations plotted against ratio of 21M coins issued, which normalises for coin age, we see a fascinating similarity in these coins trajectory. Bitcoin was worth $127M at 50% coins mined and Decred was worth $180M. Considering we are in a log scale market, this is practically the same. Decred has achieved this value both benefiting from market awareness and size, but also in the face of heavy (albeit generally ill-equipped) alt-coin competition, quite remarkable.
Decred and Bitcoin Market and Realised Caps and S2F models plotted against ratio of 21M coins mined
Given that Decred has such insanely strong fundamentals, has developed a convincing monetary premium in it's short life and traverses the same stock-to-flow path as Bitcoin, I believe there is immense value flying under the markets radar.
The recent price action drawdown can reasonably be attributed to miners over-extending. However based on both prior Decred behaviour and drawing comparisons to Bitcoin history, there is a strong argument to be made that supply will soon be constrained on multiple fronts and the current value is both highly undervalued and being absorbed by the smart money.
Feedback, counter-points and discussions welcome.
Cheers,
CM.
submitted by __checkmatey__ to decred [link] [comments]

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

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

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

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

Top Commenters

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

Top Submissions

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

Top Comments

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

Searching for the Unicorn Cryptocurrency

Searching for the Unicorn Cryptocurrency
For someone first starting out as a cryptocurrency investor, finding a trustworthy manual for screening a cryptocurrency’s merits is nonexistent as we are still in the early, Wild West days of the cryptocurrency market. One would need to become deeply familiar with the inner workings of blockchain to be able to perform the bare minimum due diligence.
One might believe, over time, that finding the perfect cryptocurrency may be nothing short of futile. If a cryptocurrency purports infinite scalability, then it is probably either lightweight with limited features or it is highly centralized among a limited number of nodes that perform consensus services especially Proof of Stake or Delegated Proof of Stake. Similarly, a cryptocurrency that purports comprehensive privacy may have technical obstacles to overcome if it aims to expand its applications such as in smart contracts. The bottom line is that it is extremely difficult for a cryptocurrency to have all important features jam-packed into itself.
The cryptocurrency space is stuck in the era of the “dial-up internet” in a manner of speaking. Currently blockchain can’t scale – not without certain tradeoffs – and it hasn’t fully resolved certain intractable issues such as user-unfriendly long addresses and how the blockchain size is forever increasing to name two.
In other words, we haven’t found the ultimate cryptocurrency. That is, we haven’t found the mystical unicorn cryptocurrency that ushers the era of decentralization while eschewing all the limitations of traditional blockchain systems.
“But wait – what about Ethereum once it implements sharding?”
“Wouldn’t IOTA be able to scale infinitely with smart contracts through its Qubic offering?”
“Isn’t Dash capable of having privacy, smart contracts, and instantaneous transactions?”
Those thoughts and comments may come from cryptocurrency investors who have done their research. It is natural for the informed investors to invest in projects that are believed to bring cutting edge technological transformation to blockchain. Sooner or later, the sinking realization will hit that any variation of the current blockchain technology will always likely have certain limitations.
Let us pretend that there indeed exists a unicorn cryptocurrency somewhere that may or may not be here yet. What would it look like, exactly? Let us set the 5 criteria of the unicorn cryptocurrency:
Unicorn Criteria
(1) Perfectly solves the blockchain trilemma:
o Infinite scalability
o Full security
o Full decentralization
(2) Zero or minimal transaction fee
(3) Full privacy
(4) Full smart contract capabilities
(5) Fair distribution and fair governance
For each of the above 5 criteria, there would not be any middle ground. For example, a cryptocurrency with just an in-protocol mixer would not be considered as having full privacy. As another example, an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) may possibly violate criterion (5) since with an ICO the distribution and governance are often heavily favored towards an oligarchy – this in turn would defy the spirit of decentralization that Bitcoin was found on.
There is no cryptocurrency currently that fits the above profile of the unicorn cryptocurrency. Let us examine an arbitrary list of highly hyped cryptocurrencies that meet the above list at least partially. The following list is by no means comprehensive but may be a sufficient sampling of various blockchain implementations:
Bitcoin (BTC)
Bitcoin is the very first and the best known cryptocurrency that started it all. While Bitcoin is generally considered extremely secure, it suffers from mining centralization to a degree. Bitcoin is not anonymous, lacks smart contracts, and most worrisomely, can only do about 7 transactions per seconds (TPS). Bitcoin is not the unicorn notwithstanding all the Bitcoin maximalists.
Ethereum (ETH)
Ethereum is widely considered the gold standard of smart contracts aside from its scalability problem. Sharding as part of Casper’s release is generally considered to be the solution to Ethereum’s scalability problem.
The goal of sharding is to split up validating responsibilities among various groups or shards. Ethereum’s sharding comes down to duplicating the existing blockchain architecture and sharing a token. This does not solve the core issue and simply kicks the can further down the road. After all, full nodes still need to exist one way or another.
Ethereum’s blockchain size problem is also an issue as will be explained more later in this article.
As a result, Ethereum is not the unicorn due to its incomplete approach to scalability and, to a degree, security.
Dash
Dash’s masternodes are widely considered to be centralized due to their high funding requirements, and there are accounts of a pre-mine in the beginning. Dash is not the unicorn due to its questionable decentralization.
Nano
Nano boasts rightfully for its instant, free transactions. But it lacks smart contracts and privacy, and it may be exposed to well orchestrated DDOS attacks. Therefore, it goes without saying that Nano is not the unicorn.
EOS
While EOS claims to execute millions of transactions per seconds, a quick glance reveals centralized parameters with 21 nodes and a questionable governance system. Therefore, EOS fails to achieve the unicorn status.
Monero (XMR)
One of the best known and respected privacy coins, Monero lacks smart contracts and may fall short of infinite scalability due to CryptoNote’s design. The unicorn rank is out of Monero’s reach.
IOTA
IOTA’s scalability is based on the number of transactions the network processes, and so its supposedly infinite scalability would fluctuate and is subject to the whims of the underlying transactions. While IOTA’s scalability approach is innovative and may work in the long term, it should be reminded that the unicorn cryptocurrency has no middle ground. The unicorn cryptocurrency would be expected to scale infinitely on a consistent basis from the beginning.
In addition, IOTA’s Masked Authenticated Messaging (MAM) feature does not bring privacy to the masses in a highly convenient manner. Consequently, the unicorn is not found with IOTA.

PascalCoin as a Candidate for the Unicorn Cryptocurrency
Please allow me to present a candidate for the cryptocurrency unicorn: PascalCoin.
According to the website, PascalCoin claims the following:
“PascalCoin is an instant, zero-fee, infinitely scalable, and decentralized cryptocurrency with advanced privacy and smart contract capabilities. Enabled by the SafeBox technology to become the world’s first blockchain independent of historical operations, PascalCoin possesses unlimited potential.”
The above summary is a mouthful to be sure, but let’s take a deep dive on how PascalCoin innovates with the SafeBox and more. Before we do this, I encourage you to first become acquainted with PascalCoin by watching the following video introduction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=F25UU-0W9Dk
The rest of this section will be split into 10 parts in order to illustrate most of the notable features of PascalCoin. Naturally, let’s start off with the SafeBox.
Part #1: The SafeBox
Unlike traditional UTXO-based cryptocurrencies in which the blockchain records the specifics of each transaction (address, sender address, amount of funds transferred, etc.), the blockchain in PascalCoin is only used to mutate the SafeBox. The SafeBox is a separate but equivalent cryptographic data structure that snapshots account balances. PascalCoin’s blockchain is comparable to a machine that feeds the most important data – namely, the state of an account – into the SafeBox. Any node can still independently compute and verify the cumulative Proof-of-Work required to construct the SafeBox.
The PascalCoin whitepaper elegantly highlights the unique historical independence that the SafeBox possesses:
“While there are approaches that cryptocurrencies could use such as pruning, warp-sync, "finality checkpoints", UTXO-snapshotting, etc, there is a fundamental difference with PascalCoin. Their new nodes can only prove they are on most-work-chain using the infinite history whereas in PascalCoin, new nodes can prove they are on the most-work chain without the infinite history.”
Some cryptocurrency old-timers might instinctively balk at the idea of full nodes eschewing the entire history for security, but such a reaction would showcase a lack of understanding on what the SafeBox really does.
A concrete example would go a long way to best illustrate what the SafeBox does. Let’s say I input the following operations in my calculator:
5 * 5 – 10 / 2 + 5
It does not take a genius to calculate the answer, 25. Now, the expression “5 \ 5 – 10 / 2 + 5”* would be forever imbued on a traditional blockchain’s history. But the SafeBox begs to differ. It says that the expression “5 \ 5 – 10 / 2 + 5”* should instead be simply “25” so as preserve simplicity, time, and space. In other words, the SafeBox simply preserves the account balance.
But some might still be unsatisfied and claim that if one cannot trace the series of operations (transactions) that lead to the final number (balance) of 25, the blockchain is inherently insecure.
Here are four important security aspects of the SafeBox that some people fail to realize:
(1) SafeBox Follows the Longest Chain of Proof-of-Work
The SafeBox mutates itself per 100 blocks. Each new SafeBox mutation must reference both to the previous SafeBox mutation and the preceding 100 blocks in order to be valid, and the resultant hash of the new mutated SafeBox must then be referenced by each of the new subsequent blocks, and the process repeats itself forever.
The fact that each new SafeBox mutation must reference to the previous SafeBox mutation is comparable to relying on the entire history. This is because the previous SafeBox mutation encapsulates the result of cumulative entire history except for the 100 blocks which is why each new SafeBox mutation requires both the previous SafeBox mutation and the preceding 100 blocks.
So in a sense, there is a single interconnected chain of inflows and outflows, supported by Byzantine Proof-of-Work consensus, instead of the entire history of transactions.
More concretely, the SafeBox follows the path of the longest chain of Proof-of-Work simply by design, and is thus cryptographically equivalent to the entire history even without tracing specific operations in the past. If the chain is rolled back with a 51% attack, only the attacker’s own account(s) in the SafeBox can be manipulated as is explained in the next part.
(2) A 51% Attack on PascalCoin Functions the Same as Others
A 51% attack on PascalCoin would work in a similar way as with other Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies. An attacker cannot modify a transaction in the past without affecting the current SafeBox hash which is accepted by all honest nodes.
Someone might claim that if you roll back all the current blocks plus the 100 blocks prior to the SafeBox’s mutation, one could create a forged SafeBox with different balances for all accounts. This would be incorrect as one would be able to manipulate only his or her own account(s) in the SafeBox with a 51% attack – just as is the case with other UTXO cryptocurrencies. The SafeBox stores the balances of all accounts which are in turn irreversibly linked only to their respective owners’ private keys.
(3) One Could Preserve the Entire History of the PascalCoin Blockchain
No blockchain data in PascalCoin is ever deleted even in the presence of the SafeBox. Since the SafeBox is cryptographically equivalent to a full node with the entire history as explained above, PascalCoin full nodes are not expected to contain infinite history. But for whatever reason(s) one may have, one could still keep all the PascalCoin blockchain history as well along with the SafeBox as an option even though it would be redundant.
Without storing the entire history of the PascalCoin blockchain, you can still trace the specific operations of the 100 blocks prior to when the SafeBox absorbs and reflects the net result (a single balance for each account) from those 100 blocks. But if you’re interested in tracing operations over a longer period in the past – as redundant as that may be – you’d have the option to do so by storing the entire history of the PascalCoin blockchain.
(4) The SafeBox is Equivalent to the Entire Blockchain History
Some skeptics may ask this question: “What if the SafeBox is forever lost? How would you be able to verify your accounts?” Asking this question is tantamount to asking to what would happen to Bitcoin if all of its entire history was erased. The result would be chaos, of course, but the SafeBox is still in line with the general security model of a traditional blockchain with respect to black swans.
Now that we know the security of the SafeBox is not compromised, what are the implications of this new blockchain paradigm? A colorful illustration as follows still wouldn’t do justice to the subtle revolution that the SafeBox ushers. The automobiles we see on the street are the cookie-and-butter representation of traditional blockchain systems. The SafeBox, on the other hand, supercharges those traditional cars to become the Transformers from Michael Bay’s films.
The SafeBox is an entirely different blockchain architecture that is impressive in its simplicity and ingenuity. The SafeBox’s design is only the opening act for PascalCoin’s vast nuclear arsenal. If the above was all that PascalCoin offers, it still wouldn’t come close to achieving the unicorn status but luckily, we have just scratched the surface. Please keep on reading on if you want to learn how PascalCoin is going to shatter the cryptocurrency industry into pieces. Buckle down as this is going to be a long read as we explore further about the SafeBox’s implications.
Part #2: 0-Confirmation Transactions
To begin, 0-confirmation transactions are secure in PascalCoin thanks to the SafeBox.
The following paraphrases an explanation of PascalCoin’s 0-confirmations from the whitepaper:
“Since PascalCoin is not a UTXO-based currency but rather a State-based currency thanks to the SafeBox, the security guarantee of 0-confirmation transactions are much stronger than in UTXO-based currencies. For example, in Bitcoin if a merchant accepts a 0-confirmation transaction for a coffee, the buyer can simply roll that transaction back after receiving the coffee but before the transaction is confirmed in a block. The way the buyer does this is by re-spending those UTXOs to himself in a new transaction (with a higher fee) thus invalidating them for the merchant. In PascalCoin, this is virtually impossible since the buyer's transaction to the merchant is simply a delta-operation to debit/credit a quantity from/to accounts respectively. The buyer is unable to erase or pre-empt this two-sided, debit/credit-based transaction from the network’s pending pool until it either enters a block for confirmation or is discarded with respect to both sender and receiver ends. If the buyer tries to double-spend the coffee funds after receiving the coffee but before they clear, the double-spend transaction will not propagate the network since nodes cannot propagate a double-spending transaction thanks to the debit/credit nature of the transaction. A UTXO-based transaction is initially one-sided before confirmation and therefore is more exposed to one-sided malicious schemes of double spending.”
Phew, that explanation was technical but it had to be done. In summary, PascalCoin possesses the only secure 0-confirmation transactions in the cryptocurrency industry, and it goes without saying that this means PascalCoin is extremely fast. In fact, PascalCoin is capable of 72,000 TPS even prior to any additional extensive optimizations down the road. In other words, PascalCoin is as instant as it gets and gives Nano a run for its money.
Part #3: Zero Fee
Let’s circle back to our discussion of PascalCoin’s 0-confirmation capability. Here’s a little fun magical twist to PascalCoin’s 0-confirmation magic: 0-confirmation transactions are zero-fee. As in you don’t pay a single cent in fee for each 0-confirmation! There is just a tiny downside: if you create a second transaction in a 5-minute block window then you’d need to pay a minimal fee. Imagine using Nano but with a significantly stronger anti-DDOS protection for spam! But there shouldn’t be any complaint as this fee would amount to 0.0001 Pascal or $0.00002 based on the current price of a Pascal at the time of this writing.
So, how come the fee for blazingly fast transactions is nonexistent? This is where the magic of the SafeBox arises in three ways:
(1) PascalCoin possesses the secure 0-confirmation feature as discussed above that enables this speed.
(2) There is no fee bidding competition of transaction priority typical in UTXO cryptocurrencies since, once again, PascalCoin operates on secure 0-confirmations.
(3) There is no fee incentive needed to run full nodes on behalf of the network’s security beyond the consensus rewards.
Part #4: Blockchain Size
Let’s expand more on the third point above, using Ethereum as an example. Since Ethereum’s launch in 2015, its full blockchain size is currently around 2 TB, give or take, but let’s just say its blockchain size is 100 GB for now to avoid offending the Ethereum elitists who insist there are different types of full nodes that are lighter. Whoever runs Ethereum’s full nodes would expect storage fees on top of the typical consensus fees as it takes significant resources to shoulder Ethereum’s full blockchain size and in turn secure the network. What if I told you that PascalCoin’s full blockchain size will never exceed few GBs after thousands of years? That is just what the SafeBox enables PascalCoin to do so. It is estimated that by 2072, PascalCoin’s full nodes will only be 6 GB which is low enough not to warrant any fee incentives for hosting full nodes. Remember, the SafeBox is an ultra-light cryptographic data structure that is cryptographically equivalent to a blockchain with the entire transaction history. In other words, the SafeBox is a compact spreadsheet of all account balances that functions as PascalCoin’s full node!
Not only does the SafeBox’s infinitesimal memory size helps to reduce transaction fees by phasing out any storage fees, but it also paves the way for true decentralization. It would be trivial for every PascalCoin user to opt a full node in the form of a wallet. This is extreme decentralization at its finest since the majority of users of other cryptocurrencies ditch full nodes due to their burdensome sizes. It is naïve to believe that storage costs would reduce enough to the point where hosting full nodes are trivial. Take a look at the following chart outlining the trend of storage cost.

* https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-cost-per-gigabyte/
As we can see, storage costs continue to decrease but the descent is slowing down as is the norm with technological improvements. In the meantime, blockchain sizes of other cryptocurrencies are increasing linearly or, in the case of smart contract engines like Ethereum, parabolically. Imagine a cryptocurrency smart contract engine like Ethereum garnering worldwide adoption; how do you think Ethereum’s size would look like in the far future based on the following chart?


https://i.redd.it/k57nimdjmo621.png

Ethereum’s future blockchain size is not looking pretty in terms of sustainable security. Sharding is not a fix for this issue since there still needs to be full nodes but that is a different topic for another time.
It is astonishing that the cryptocurrency community as a whole has passively accepted this forever-expanding-blockchain-size problem as an inescapable fate.
PascalCoin is the only cryptocurrency that has fully escaped the death vortex of forever expanding blockchain size. Its blockchain size wouldn’t exceed 10 GB even after many hundreds of years of worldwide adoption. Ethereum’s blockchain size after hundreds of years of worldwide adoption would make fine comedy.
Part #5: Simple, Short, and Ordinal Addresses
Remember how the SafeBox works by snapshotting all account balances? As it turns out, the account address system is almost as cool as the SafeBox itself.
Imagine yourself in this situation: on a very hot and sunny day, you’re wandering down the street across from your house and ran into a lemonade stand – the old-fashioned kind without any QR code or credit card terminal. The kid across you is selling a lemonade cup for 1 Pascal with a poster outlining the payment address as 5471-55. You flip out your phone and click “Send” with 1 Pascal to the address 5471-55; viola, exactly one second later you’re drinking your lemonade without paying a cent for the transaction fee!
The last thing one wants to do is to figure out how to copy/paste to, say, the following address 1BoatSLRHtKNngkdXEeobR76b53LETtpyT on the spot wouldn’t it? Gone are the obnoxiously long addresses that plague all cryptocurrencies. The days of those unreadable addresses will be long gone – it has to be if blockchain is to innovate itself for the general public. EOS has a similar feature for readable addresses but in a very limited manner in comparison, and nicknames attached to addresses in GUIs don’t count since blockchain-wide compatibility wouldn’t hold.
Not only does PascalCoin has the neat feature of having addresses (called PASAs) that amount to up to 6 or 7 digits, but PascalCoin can also incorporate in-protocol address naming as opposed to GUI address nicknames. Suppose I want to order something from Amazon using Pascal; I simply search the word “Amazon” then the corresponding account number shows up. Pretty neat, right?
The astute reader may gather that PascalCoin’s address system makes it necessary to commoditize addresses, and he/she would be correct. Some view this as a weakness; part #10 later in this segment addresses this incorrect perception.
Part #6: Privacy
As if the above wasn’t enough, here’s another secret that PascalCoin has: it is a full-blown privacy coin. It uses two separate foundations to achieve comprehensive anonymity: in-protocol mixer for transfer amounts and zn-SNARKs for private balances. The former has been implemented and the latter is on the roadmap. Both the 0-confirmation transaction and the negligible transaction fee would make PascalCoin the most scalable privacy coin of any other cryptocurrencies pending the zk-SNARKs implementation.
Part #7: Smart Contracts
Next, PascalCoin will take smart contracts to the next level with a layer-2 overlay consensus system that pioneers sidechains and other smart contract implementations.
In formal terms, this layer-2 architecture will facilitate the transfer of data between PASAs which in turn allows clean enveloping of layer-2 protocols inside layer-1 much in the same way that HTTP lives inside TCP.
To summarize:
· The layer-2 consensus method is separate from the layer-1 Proof-of-Work. This layer-2 consensus method is independent and flexible. A sidechain – based on a single encompassing PASA – could apply Proof-of-Stake (POS), Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPOS), or Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) as the consensus system of its choice.
· Such a layer-2 smart contract platform can be written in any languages.
· Layer-2 sidechains will also provide very strong anonymity since funds are all pooled and keys are not used to unlock them.
· This layer-2 architecture is ingenious in which the computation is separate from layer-2 consensus, in effect removing any bottleneck.
· Horizontal scaling exists in this paradigm as there is no interdependence between smart contracts and states are not managed by slow sidechains.
· Speed and scalability are fully independent of PascalCoin.
One would be able to run the entire global financial system on PascalCoin’s infinitely scalable smart contract platform and it would still scale infinitely. In fact, this layer-2 architecture would be exponentially faster than Ethereum even after its sharding is implemented.
All this is the main focus of PascalCoin’s upcoming version 5 in 2019. A whitepaper add-on for this major upgrade will be released in early 2019.
Part #8: RandomHash Algorithm
Surely there must be some tradeoffs to PascalCoin’s impressive capabilities, you might be asking yourself. One might bring up the fact that PascalCoin’s layer-1 is based on Proof-of-Work and is thus susceptible to mining centralization. This would be a fallacy as PascalCoin has pioneered the very first true ASIC, GPU, and dual-mining resistant algorithm known as RandomHash that obliterates anything that is not CPU based and gives all the power back to solo miners.
Here is the official description of RandomHash:
“RandomHash is a high-level cryptographic hash algorithm that combines other well-known hash primitives in a highly serial manner. The distinguishing feature is that calculations for a nonce are dependent on partial calculations of other nonces, selected at random. This allows a serial hasher (CPU) to re-use these partial calculations in subsequent mining saving 50% or more of the work-load. Parallel hashers (GPU) cannot benefit from this optimization since the optimal nonce-set cannot be pre-calculated as it is determined on-the-fly. As a result, parallel hashers (GPU) are required to perform the full workload for every nonce. Also, the algorithm results in 10x memory bloat for a parallel implementation. In addition to its serial nature, it is branch-heavy and recursive making in optimal for CPU-only mining.”
One might be understandably skeptical of any Proof-of-Work algorithm that solves ASIC and GPU centralization once for all because there have been countless proposals being thrown around for various algorithms since the dawn of Bitcoin. Is RandomHash truly the ASIC & GPU killer that it claims to be?
Herman Schoenfeld, the inventor behind RandomHash, described his algorithm in the following:
“RandomHash offers endless ASIC-design breaking surface due to its use of recursion, hash algo selection, memory hardness and random number generation.
For example, changing how round hash selection is made and/or random number generator algo and/or checksum algo and/or their sequencing will totally break an ASIC design. Conceptually if you can significantly change the structure of the output assembly whilst keeping the high-level algorithm as invariant as possible, the ASIC design will necessarily require proportional restructuring. This results from the fact that ASIC designs mirror the ASM of the algorithm rather than the algorithm itself.”
Polyminer1 (pseudonym), one of the members of the PascalCoin core team who developed RHMiner (official software for mining RandomHash), claimed as follows:
“The design of RandomHash is, to my experience, a genuine innovation. I’ve been 30 years in the field. I’ve rarely been surprised by anything. RandomHash was one of my rare surprises. It’s elegant, simple, and achieves resistance in all fronts.”
PascalCoin may have been the first party to achieve the race of what could possibly be described as the “God algorithm” for Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies. Look no further than one of Monero’s core developers since 2015, Howard Chu. In September 2018, Howard declared that he has found a solution, called RandomJS, to permanently keep ASICs off the network without repetitive algorithm changes. This solution actually closely mirrors RandomHash’s algorithm. Discussing about his algorithm, Howard asserted that “RandomJS is coming at the problem from a direction that nobody else is.”
Link to Howard Chu’s article on RandomJS:
https://www.coindesk.com/one-musicians-creative-solution-to-drive-asics-off-monero
Yet when Herman was asked about Howard’s approach, he responded:
“Yes, looks like it may work although using Javascript was a bit much. They should’ve just used an assembly subset and generated random ASM programs. In a way, RandomHash does this with its repeated use of random mem-transforms during expansion phase.”
In the end, PascalCoin may have successfully implemented the most revolutionary Proof-of-Work algorithm, one that eclipses Howard’s burgeoning vision, to date that almost nobody knows about. To learn more about RandomHash, refer to the following resources:
RandomHash whitepaper:
https://www.pascalcoin.org/storage/whitepapers/RandomHash_Whitepaper.pdf
Technical proposal for RandomHash:
https://github.com/PascalCoin/PascalCoin/blob/mastePIP/PIP-0009.md
Someone might claim that PascalCoin still suffers from mining centralization after RandomHash, and this is somewhat misleading as will be explained in part #10.
Part #9: Fair Distribution and Governance
Not only does PascalCoin rest on superior technology, but it also has its roots in the correct philosophy of decentralized distribution and governance. There was no ICO or pre-mine, and the developer fund exists as a percentage of mining rewards as voted by the community. This developer fund is 100% governed by a decentralized autonomous organization – currently facilitated by the PascalCoin Foundation – that will eventually be transformed into an autonomous smart contract platform. Not only is the developer fund voted upon by the community, but PascalCoin’s development roadmap is also voted upon the community via the Protocol Improvement Proposals (PIPs).
This decentralized governance also serves an important benefit as a powerful deterrent to unseemly fork wars that befall many cryptocurrencies.
Part #10: Common Misconceptions of PascalCoin
“The branding is terrible”
PascalCoin is currently working very hard on its image and is preparing for several branding and marketing initiatives in the short term. For example, two of the core developers of the PascalCoin recently interviewed with the Fox Business Network. A YouTube replay of this interview will be heavily promoted.
Some people object to the name PascalCoin. First, it’s worth noting that PascalCoin is the name of the project while Pascal is the name of the underlying currency. Secondly, Google and YouTube received excessive criticisms back then in the beginning with their name choices. Look at where those companies are nowadays – surely a somewhat similar situation faces PascalCoin until the name’s familiarity percolates into the public.
“The wallet GUI is terrible”
As the team is run by a small yet extremely dedicated developers, multiple priorities can be challenging to juggle. The lack of funding through an ICO or a pre-mine also makes it challenging to accelerate development. The top priority of the core developers is to continue developing full-time on the groundbreaking technology that PascalCoin offers. In the meantime, an updated and user-friendly wallet GUI has been worked upon for some time and will be released in due time. Rome wasn’t built in one day.
“One would need to purchase a PASA in the first place”
This is a complicated topic since PASAs need to be commoditized by the SafeBox’s design, meaning that PASAs cannot be obtained at no charge to prevent systematic abuse. This raises two seemingly valid concerns:
· As a chicken and egg problem, how would one purchase a PASA using Pascal in the first place if one cannot obtain Pascal without a PASA?
· How would the price of PASAs stay low and affordable in the face of significant demand?
With regards to the chicken and egg problem, there are many ways – some finished and some unfinished – to obtain your first PASA as explained on the “Get Started” page on the PascalCoin website:
https://www.pascalcoin.org/get_started
More importantly, however, is the fact that there are few methods that can get your first PASA for free. The team will also release another method soon in which you could obtain your first PASA for free via a single SMS message. This would probably become by far the simplest and the easiest way to obtain your first PASA for free. There will be more new ways to easily obtain your first PASA for free down the road.
What about ensuring the PASA market at large remains inexpensive and affordable following your first (and probably free) PASA acquisition? This would be achieved in two ways:
· Decentralized governance of the PASA economics per the explanation in the FAQ section on the bottom of the PascalCoin website (https://www.pascalcoin.org/)
· Unlimited and free pseudo-PASAs based on layer-2 in the next version release.
“PascalCoin is still centralized after the release of RandomHash”
Did the implementation of RandomHash from version 4 live up to its promise?
The official goals of RandomHash were as follow:
(1) Implement a GPU & ASIC resistant hash algorithm
(2) Eliminate dual mining
The two goals above were achieved by every possible measure.
Yet a mining pool, Nanopool, was able to regain its hash majority after a significant but a temporary dip.
The official conclusion is that, from a probabilistic viewpoint, solo miners are more profitable than pool miners. However, pool mining is enticing for solo miners who 1) have limited hardware as it ensures a steady income instead of highly profitable but probabilistic income via solo mining, and 2) who prefer convenient software and/or GUI.
What is the next step, then? While the barrier of entry for solo miners has successfully been put down, additional work needs to be done. The PascalCoin team and the community are earnestly investigating additional steps to improve mining decentralization with respect to pool mining specifically to add on top of RandomHash’s successful elimination of GPU, ASIC, and dual-mining dominance.
It is likely that the PascalCoin community will promote the following two initiatives in the near future:
(1) Establish a community-driven, nonprofit mining pool with attractive incentives.
(2) Optimize RHMiner, PascalCoin’s official solo mining software, for performance upgrades.
A single pool dominance is likely short lived once more options emerge for individual CPU miners who want to avoid solo mining for whatever reason(s).
Let us use Bitcoin as an example. Bitcoin mining is dominated by ASICs and mining pools but no single pool is – at the time of this writing – even close on obtaining the hash majority. With CPU solo mining being a feasible option in conjunction with ASIC and GPU mining eradication with RandomHash, the future hash rate distribution of PascalCoin would be far more promising than Bitcoin’s hash rate distribution.
PascalCoin is the Unicorn Cryptocurrency
If you’ve read this far, let’s cut straight to the point: PascalCoin IS the unicorn cryptocurrency.
It is worth noting that PascalCoin is still a young cryptocurrency as it was launched at the end of 2016. This means that many features are still work in progress such as zn-SNARKs, smart contracts, and pool decentralization to name few. However, it appears that all of the unicorn criteria are within PascalCoin’s reach once PascalCoin’s technical roadmap is mostly completed.
Based on this expository on PascalCoin’s technology, there is every reason to believe that PascalCoin is the unicorn cryptocurrency. PascalCoin also solves two fundamental blockchain problems beyond the unicorn criteria that were previously considered unsolvable: blockchain size and simple address system. The SafeBox pushes PascalCoin to the forefront of cryptocurrency zeitgeist since it is a superior solution compared to UTXO, Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG), Block Lattice, Tangle, and any other blockchain innovations.


THE UNICORN

Author: Tyler Swob
submitted by Kosass to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

[Serious] Can BTC and BCH coexist from a SHA-256 perspective?

Not posting this to Bitcoin because I wanted to have a technical discussion and not get slammed with a bunch of bots. Also not interested in what happens to coins once they're mined. Lightning network, colored coins, memo.cash - all potentially interesting debate fodder once they get into the hands of the users, but that's not the topic of my inquiry.
Both Bitcoin (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) use the same mining algorithm, SHA-256. Can multiple [mined] coins really occupy the same hardware requirements? If the discrepancy gets too large, can't the other be flooded with a 51%+ attack with an ever smaller portion of the other coin's mining ecosystem?
Let's take an example. Here's the current BTC hash contribution. Antpool is 14% of the total, which as of today is 52 EH/s, so a total of 7.28 Exahash from Antpool. The Bitcoin Cash hash rate is 4.1 EH/s. Assuming there's no overlap, if Antpool suddenly decided to mine a few blocks on the BCH chain, they would be almost 2x the existing total and therefore 66%+ of the network.
Perhaps these numbers are too close together, but if there is a clear winner this discrepancy only gets larger. Is there some sort of proof that outlines this runaway effect? Has this happened to other coins that borrowed a common hash rate algorithm? If there was something else to be mined with X11(dash) or Blake2b (siacoin), I suspect it would be more pronounced than BTC/BCH.
submitted by Lazilox to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Mining Profitability: How Long Does it Take to Mine One Bitcoin in 2019?

When it comes to Bitcoin (BTC) mining, the major questions on people’s minds are “how profitable is Bitcoin mining” and “how long would it take to mine one Bitcoin?” To answer these questions, we need to take an in-depth look at the current state of the Bitcoin mining industry — and how it has changed — over the last several years.
Bitcoin mining is, essentially, the process of participating in Bitcoin’s underlying security mechanism — known as proof-of-work — to help secure the Bitcoin blockchain. In return, participants receive compensation in bitcoins (BTC).
When you participate in Bitcoin mining, you are essentially searching for blocks by crunching complex cryptographic challenges using your mining hardware. Once a block is discovered, new transactions are recorded and verified within the block and the block discoverer receives the block rewards — currently set at 12.5 BTC — as well as the transactions fees for the transactions included within the block.
Once the maximum supply of 21 million Bitcoins has been mined, no further Bitcoins will ever come into existence. This property makes Bitcoin deflationary, something which many argue will inevitably increase the value of each Bitcoin unit as it becomes more scarce due to increased global adoption.
The limited supply of Bitcoin is also one of the reasons why Bitcoin mining has become so popular. In previous years, Bitcoin mining proved to be a lucrative investment option — netting miners with several fold returns on their investment with relatively little effort.
bitcoin mining hardware
Mining Hardware
The mining hardware you choose will mostly depend on your circumstances — in terms of budget, location and electricity costs. Since the amount of hashing power you can dedicate to the mining process is directly correlated with how much Bitcoin you will mine per day, it is wise to ensure your hardware is still competitive in 2019.
Bitcoin uses SHA256 as its mining algorithm. Because of this, only hardware compatible with this algorithm can be used to mine Bitcoin. Although it is technically possible to mine Bitcoin on your current computer hardware — using your CPU or GPU — this will almost certainly not generate a positive return on your investment and you may end up damaging your device.
The most cost-effective way to mine Bitcoin in 2019 is using application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) mining hardware. These are specially-designed machines that offer much higher performance per watt than typical computers and have been an absolutely essential purchase for anybody looking to get into Bitcoin mining since the first Avalon ASICs were shipped in 2013.
When it comes to selecting Bitcoin mining hardware, there are several main parameters to consider — though the importance of each of these may vary based on personal circumstances and budget.
Performance per Watt
When it comes to Bitcoin mining, performance per watt is a measure of how many gigahashes per watt a machine is capable of and is, hence, a simple measure of its efficiency. Since electricity costs are likely to be one of the largest expenses when mining Bitcoin, it is usually a good idea to ensure that you are getting good performance per watt out of your hardware.
Ideally, your mining hardware would be highly efficient, allowing it to mine Bitcoin with lower energy requirements — though this will need to be balanced with acquisition costs, as often the most efficient hardware is also the most expensive. This means it may take longer to see a return on investment.
In countries with cheap electricity, performance per watt is often less of a concern than acquisition costs and price-performance ratio. In most countries, operating outdated mining hardware is typically cost prohibitive, as energy costs outweigh the income generated by the mining equipment.
However, this may not be the case for those operating in countries with extremely cheap electricity — such as Kuwait and Venezuela — as even older equipment can still be profitable. Similarly, miners with a free energy surplus, such as from wind or solar electric generators, can benefit from the minimal gains offered by still running outdated hardware.
Longevity
The lifetime of mining hardware also plays a critical role in determining how profitable your mining venture will be. It’s always a good idea to do whatever possible to ensure it runs as smoothly as possible.
Since mining equipment tends to run at a full (or almost full) load for extended periods, they also tend to break down and fail more frequently than most electronics — which can seriously damage your profitability. Equipment failure is even more common when purchasing second-hand equipment. Since warranty claims are often challenging, it can often take a long time to receive a warranty replacement.
Price-Performance Ratio
In many cases, one of the major criteria used to select mining hardware is the price-performance ratio — a measure of how much performance a machine outputs per unit price. In the case of cryptocurrency mining hardware, this is commonly expressed as gigahashes per dollar or GH/$.
Under ideal circumstances, the mining hardware would have a high price-performance ratio, ensuring you get a lot of bang for your buck. However, this must also be considered in combination with the acquisition costs and the expected lifetime of the machine — since the absolute most powerful machines are not always the cheapest or the most energy efficient.
Acquisition Costs
Acquisition costs are almost always the biggest barrier to entry for most Bitcoin miners since most top-end mining hardware costs several thousand dollars. This problem is further compounded by the fact that many hardware manufacturers offer discounts for bulk purchases, allowing those with deeper pockets to achieve a better price-performance ratio.
Acquisition costs include all the costs involved in purchasing any mining equipment, including hardware costs, shipping costs, import duties, and any further costs. For example, many ASIC miners do not include a power supply — which can be another considerable expense, since the 1,000W+ power supplies usually required tend to cost several hundred dollars alone.
Ensuring your equipment runs smoothly can also add in additional costs, such as cooling and maintenance expenses. In addition, some miners may want to invest in uninterruptible power supplies to ensure their hardware keeps running — even if the power fails temporarily.
asic mining
Current Generation Hardware
One of the most recent additions to the Bitcoin mining hardware market is the Ebang Ebit E11++, which was released in October 2018. Using a 10nm fabrication process for its processors, the Ebit E11++ is able to achieve one of the highest hash rates on the market at 44TH/s.
In terms of efficiency, the Ebang Ebit E11++ is arguably the best on the market, offering 44TH/s of hash rate while drawing just 1,980W of power, offering 22.2GH/W performance. However, as of writing, the Ebang Ebit E11++ is out of stock until March 31, 2019 — while its price of $2,024 (excluding shipping) may make it prohibitively expensive for those first getting involved with Bitcoin mining.
Another popular choice is the ASICminer 8 Nano, a machine released in October 2018 that offers 44TH/s for $3,900 excluding shipping. The ASICminer 8 Nano draws 2,100W of power, giving it an efficiency of almost 21GH/W — slightly lower than the Ebit E11++ while costing almost double the price. However, unlike the E11++, the 8 Nano is actually in stock and available to purchase.
ASICminer also offers the 8 Nano Pro, a machine launched in mid-2018 that offers 80 TH/s of hash rate for $9,500 (excluding shipping). However, unlike the Ebit E11++ and 8 Nano, the minimum order quantity for the 8 Nano Pro is curiously set at five, meaning you will need to lay out a minimum of $47,500 in order to actually get your hands on one (or five).
While the 8 Nano Pro doesn’t offer the same performance per watt as the Ebit E11+ or AICMiner 8 Nano, it is one of the quieter miners on this list, making it more suitable for a home or office environment. That being said, the ASICminer 8 Nano Pro is easily the most expensive miner per TH on this list — costing a whopping $118.75/TH, compared to the $46/TH offered by the E11++ and $88.64 offered by the 8 Nano.
The latest hardware on this list is the Innosilicon T3 43T, which is currently available for pre-order at $2,279, and estimated to ship in March 2019. Offering 43TH/s of performance at 2,100W, the T3 43T comes in at an efficiency of 20.4GH/W, which is around 10 percent less energy efficient than the Ebit E11++.
The T3 43T also has a minimum order quantity of three units, making the minimum acquisition cost $6837 + shipping for preorders. All in all, the T3 43T is more costly and less efficient than the E11++ but may arrive slightly earlier since Ebang will not ship the E11++ units until at least end March 29, 2019.
Finally, this list would not be complete without including Bitmain’s latest offering, the Antminer S15-28TH/s, which — as its name suggests — offers 28TH/s of hash power while drawing just under 1600W at the wall. The Antminer S15 is one of the only SHA256 miners to use 7nm processors, making it somewhat smaller than some of the other devices on this list.
Like most pieces of top-end Bitcoin mining hardware, the Antminer S15 27TH/s model is currently sold out, with current orders not shipping until mid-February 2019. However, the S15 is offered at a significantly lower price than many of its competitors at just $1020 (excluding shipping), with no minimum quantity restriction. At these rates, the Antminer comes in at just $37.78/TH — though its energy efficiency is a much less impressive 17.5GH/W.
Mining Hardware Mining Hardware Comparison
Performance (GH/W) Price Performance Ratio ($/TH)
Ebang Ebit E11++ 22.2GH/W $46/TH
ASICminer 8 Nano 21GH/W $88.64/TH
ASICminer 8 Nano Pro 19GH/W $118.75/TH
Innosilicon T3 43T 20.4GH/W $53/TH
Antminer S15-28TH/s 17.5GH/W $37.78/TH
How To Select a Good Mining Pool
Mining pools are platforms that allow miners to pool their resources together to achieve a higher collective hash rate — which, in turn, allows the collective to mine more blocks than they would be able to achieve alone.
Typically, these mining pools will distribute block rewards to contributing miners based on the proportion of the hash rate they supply. If a pool contributing a total of 20 TH/s of hash rate successfully mines the next block, a user responsible for 10 percent of this hash rate will receive 10 percent of the 12.5 BTC reward.
Pools essentially allow smaller miners to compete with large private mining organizations by ensuring that the collective hash rate is high enough to successfully mine blocks on regular basis. Without operating through a mining pool, many miners would be unlikely to discover any blocks at all — due to only contributing a tiny fraction of the overall Bitcoin hash rate.
While it is quite possible to be successful mining without a pool, this typically requires an extremely large mining operation and is usually not recommended — unless you have enough hash rate to mine blocks on a regular basis.
Although it is technically possible to discover blocks mining solo and keep the entire 12.5 BTC reward for yourself, the odds of this actually occurring are practically zero — making pool collaboration practically the only way to compete in 2019 and beyond.
Selecting the best pool for you can be a challenging job since the vast majority of pools are quite similar and offer similar features and comparable fees. Because of this, we have broken down the qualities you should be looking for in a new pool into four categories; reputation, hash rate, pool fees, and usability/features:
Reputation
The reputation of a pool is one of the most important factors in selecting the pool that is best for you. Well-reputed pools will tend to be much larger than newer or less well-established pools since few pools with a poor reputation can stand the test of time.
Well-reputed pools also tend to be more transparent about their operation, many of which provide tools to ensure that each user is getting the correct reward based on the hash rate contributed. By using only pools with a great reputation, you also ensure your hash rate is not being used for nefarious purposes — such as powering a 51 percent attack.
When comparing a list of pools that appear suitable for you, it is a wise move to read their user reviews before making your choice — ensuring you don’t end up mining at a pool that steals your hard-fought earnings.
Hash Rate
When it comes to mining Bitcoin, the probability of discovering the next block is directly related to the amount of hashing power you contribute to the network. Because of this, one of the major features you should be considering when selecting your pool is its total hash rate — which is often closely related to the proportion of new blocks mined by the pool
Since the total hash rate of a pool is directly related to how quickly it discovers new blocks, this means the largest pools tend to discover a relative majority of blocks — leading to more regular rewards. However, the very largest pools also tend the have higher fees but often make up for this with sheer success and additional features.
Sometimes, some of the largest pools have a minimum hash rate requirement ù leaving some of the smaller miners left out of the loop. Although smaller pools typically have more relaxed requirements with reduced performance thresholds, these pools may be only slightly more profitable than mining solo.
Pool Fees
When choosing a suitable pool, typically one of the major considerations is its fees. Typically, most pools will charge a small fee that is deducted from your earnings and is usually around 1-2 percent — but sometimes slightly lower or higher.
There are also pools that offer 0 percent fees. However, these are often much smaller than the major pools and tend to make their money in a different way — such as through monthly subscriptions or donations.
Ideally, you will choose the pool that offers the best balance of fees to other features. Usually, the pool with the absolute lowest fees is not the best choice. Additionally, pools with the lowest fees often have the highest withdrawal minimums — making pool hopping uneconomical for most.
Usability and Features
When first starting out with Bitcoin mining, learning how to set up a pool and navigating through the settings can be a challenge. Because of this, several pools target their services to newer users by offering a simple to navigate user interface and providing detailed learning resources and prompt customer support.
However, for more experienced miners, simple pools don’t tend to offer a variety of features needed to maximize profitability. For example, although many mining pools focus their entire hash rate towards mining a single cryptocurrency, some are large enough to offer additional options — allowing users to mine other SHA256 coins such as Bitcoin Cash (BCH) or Fantom if they choose.
These pools are technically more challenging to use and mostly designed for those familiar with mining, happy to hop from coin to coin mining whichever is most profitable at the time. There are even some exchanges that automatically direct their combined hash rate at the most profitable cryptocurrency — taking the guesswork out of the equation.
bitcoin mining pool
Best Mining Pools for 2019
The Bitcoin mining pool industry has a large number of players, but the vast majority of the Bitcoin hash rate is concentrated within just a few pools. Currently, there are dozens of suitable pools to choose from — but we have selected just a few of the best to help get you started on your journey.
Slushpool was the first Bitcoin mining pool released, being launched way back in 2010 under the name “Bitcoin Pooled Mining Server.” Since then, Slushpool has grown into one of the most popular pools around — currently accounting for just under 10 percent of the total Bitcoin hash rate.
Although Slushpool isn’t one of the very largest pools, it does offer a newbie-friendly interface alongside more advanced features for those that need them. The pool has moderately high fees of 2 percent but offers servers in several countries — including the U.S., Europe, China, and Japan — giving it a good balance of fees to features.
BTC.com is another potential candidate for your pool and currently stands as the largest public Bitcoin mining pool. It is responsible for mining around 17 percent of new blocks. Being the largest public mining pool provides users with a sense of security, ensuring blocks are mined regularly and a stable income is made.
Image courtesy of Blockchain.info.
BTC.com is owned by Bitmain, a company that manufacturers mining hardware, and charges a 1.5 percent fees — placing it squarely in the middle-tier in terms of fees. Unlike other platforms, BTC.com uses its own payment structure known as FPPS (Full Pay Per Share), which means miners also receive a share of the transaction fees included within mined blocks — making it slightly more profitable than standard payment per share (PPS) pools.
Another great option is Antpool, a mining pool that supports mining services for 10 different cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, Litecoin (LTC) and Ethereum (ETH). AntPool frequently trades places with BTC.com as the largest Bitcoin mining pool. However, as of this writing, it occupies the title of the third-largest public mining pool.
What sets Antpool apart from other pools is the ability to choose your own fee system — including PPS, PPS+, and PPLNS. If you choose PPLNS, using Antpool is free but you will not receive any transaction fees from any blocks mined. Antpool also offers regular payouts and has a low minimum payout of just 0.001 BTC, making it suitable for smaller miners.
Last on the list of the best Bitcoin mining pools in 2019 is the Bitcoin.com mining pool. Although this is one of the smaller pools available, the Bitcoin.com pool has some redeeming features that make it worth a look. It offers mining contracts, allowing you to test out Bitcoin mining before investing in mining equipment of your own. According to Bitcoin.com, they are the highest paying Pay Per Share (PPS) pool in the world, offering up to 98 percent block rewards as well as automatic switching between BTC and BCH mining to optimize profitability.

Electricity Costs
While your mining hardware is most important when it comes to how much BTC you can earn when mining, your electricity costs are usually the largest additional expense. With electricity costs often varying dramatically between countries, ensuring you are on the best cost-per-KWh plan available will help to keep costs down when mining.
Most commonly, large mining operations will be set up in countries where electricity costs are the lowest — such as Iceland, India, and Ukraine. Since China has one of the lowest energy costs in the world, it was previously the epicenter of Bitcoin mining. However, since the government began cracking down on cryptocurrencies, it has largely fallen out of favor with miners.
Technically, Venezuela is one of the cheapest countries in the world in terms of electricity, with the government heavily subsidizing these energy costs — while Bitcoin offers an escape from the hyperinflation suffered by the Venezuelan bolivar. Despite this, importing mining hardware into the country is a costly endeavor, making it impractical for many people.
Finding ways to lower your electricity costs is one of the best ways to improve your mining profitability. This can include investing in renewable energy sources such as solar, geothermal, or wind — which can yield increased profitability over the long term.
if you are looking to buy bitcoin mining equipment here is some links:

Model Antminer S17 Pro (56Th) from Bitmain mining SHA-256 algorithm with a maximum hashrate of 56Th/s for a power consumption of 2385W.
https://miningwholesale.eu/product/bitmain-antminer-s17-pro-56th-copy/?wpam_id=17
Model Antminer S9K from Bitmain mining SHA-256 algorithm with a maximum hashrate of 14Th/s for a power consumption of 1323W.
https://miningwholesale.eu/product/bitmain-antminer-s9k-14-th-s/?wpam_id=17
Model T2T 30Tfrom Innosilicon mining SHA-256 algorithm with a maximum hashrate of 30Th/s for a power consumption of 2200W.
https://miningwholesale.eu/product/innosilicon-t2t-30t/?wpam_id=17
mining wholesale website:
https://miningwholesale.eu/?wpam_id=17
submitted by mohamadk to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

howmanyconfs.com - How does the security of different Proof-of-Work blockchains compare to Bitcoin?

https://howmanyconfs.com
Original post in Bitcoin here: https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/biokgy/howmanyconfscom_how_does_the_security_of/

https://github.com/lukechilds/howmanyconfs.com/raw/mastescreenshot.png

How are these values calculated?

It's easy to compare blockchain hashrates when the Proof-of-Work algorithm is the same. For example if Bitcoin has a hashrate of SHA-256 @ 40 PH/s and Bitcoin Cash has a hashrate of SHA-256 @ 2 PH/s, it's easy to see that for a given period of time the Bitcoin blockchain will have 20x (40/2) the amount of work securing it than the Bitcoin Cash blockchain. Or to say that differently, you need to wait for 20x more Bitcoin Cash confirmations before an equivalent amount of work has been done compared to the Bitcoin blockchain. So 6 Bitcoin confirmations would be roughly equivalent to 120 Bitcoin Cash confirmations in the amount of work done.
However if the Proof-of-Work algorithms are different, how can we compare the hashrate? If we're comparing Bitcoin (SHA-256 @ 40 PH/s) against Litecoin (Scrypt @ 300 TH/s), the hashes aren't equal, one round of SHA-256 is not equivalent to one round of Scrypt.
What we really want to know is how much energy is being consumed to provide the current hash rate. Literal energy, as in joules or kilowatt hours. It would be great if we had a universal metric across blockchains like kWh/s to measure immutability.
However that's fairly hard to calculate, we need to know the average power consumption of the average device used to mine. For GPU/CPU mined Proof-of-Work algorithms this varies greatly. For ASIC mined Proof-of-Work algorithms it varies less, however it's likely that ASIC manufacturers are mining with next generation hardware long before the public is made aware of them, which we can't account for.
There's no automated way to get this data and no reliable data source to scrape it from. We'd need to manually research all mining hardware and collate the data ourself. And as soon as newer mining hardware comes out our results will be outdated.
Is there a simpler way to get an estimated amount of work per blockchain in a single metric we can use for comparisons?
Yeah, there is, we can use NiceHash prices to estimate the cost in $ to secure a blockchain for a given timeframe. This is directly comparable across blockchains and should be directly proportionate to kWh/s, because after all, the energy needs to be paid for in $.
How can we estimate this?
Now we have an estimated total Proof-of-Work metric measured in dollars per second ($/s).
The $/s metric may not be that accurate. Miners will mark up the cost when reselling on NiceHash and we're making the assumption that NiceHash supply is infinite. You can't actually rent 100% of Bitcoin's hashpower from NiceHash, there isn't enough supply.
However that's not really an issue for this metric, we aren't trying to calculate the theoretical cost to rent an additional 100% of the hashrate, we're trying to get a figure that allows us to compare the cost of the current total hashrate accross blockchains. Even if the exact $ value we end up with is not that accurate, it should still be proportionate to kWh/s. This means it's still an accurate metric to compare the difference in work done over a given amount of time between blockchains.
So how do we compare these values between blockchains?
Once we've done the above calculations and got a $/s cost for each blockchain, we just need to factor in the average block time and calculate the total $ cost for a given number of confirmations. Then see how much time is required on the other blockchain at it's $/s value to equal the total cost.
So to calculate how many Litecoin confirmations are equivalent to 6 Bitcoin confirmations we would do:
Therefore we can say that 240 Litecoin confirmations are roughly equal to 6 Bitcoin confirmations in total amount of work done.

Notes

$/s doesn't mean what it sounds like it means.

The $/s values should not be taken as literal costs.
For example:
This is does not mean you could do a 51% attack on Bitcoin and roll back 6 blocks for a cost of $360,000. An attack like that would be much more expensive.
The $/s value is a metric to compare the amount of work at the current hashrate between blockchains. It is not the same as the cost to add hashrate to the network.
When adding hashrate to a network the cost will not scale linearly with hashrate. It will jump suddenly at certain intervals.
For example, once you've used up the available hashrate on NiceHash you need to add the costs of purchasing ASICs, then once you've bought all the ASICs in the world, you'd need to add the costs of fabricating your own chips to keep increasing hashrate.

These metrics are measuring "work done", not security.

More "work done" doesn't necessarily mean "more security".
For example take the following two blockchains:
Bitcoin Cash has a higher $/s value than Zcash so we can deduce it has more "work done" over a given timeframe than Zcash. More kWh/s are required to secure it's blockchain. However does that really mean it's safer?
Zcash is the dominant blockchain for it's Proof-of-Work algorithm (Equihash). Whereas Bitcoin Cash isn't, it uses the same algorithm as Bitcoin. In fact just 5% of Bitcoin's hashrate is equivalent to all of Bitcoin Cash's hashrate.
This means the cost of a 51% attack against Bitcoin Cash could actually be much lower than a 51% attack against Zcash, even though you need to aquire more kWh/s of work, the cost to aquire those kWh/s will likely be lower.
To attack Bitcoin Cash you don't need to acquire any hardware, you just need to convince 5% of the Bitcoin hashrate to lend their SHA-256 hashpower to you.
To attack Zcash, you would likely need to fabricate your own Equihash ASICs, as almost all the Equihash mining hardware in the world is already securing Zcash.

Accurately calculating security is much more complicated.

These metrics give a good estimated value to compare the hashrate accross different Proof-of-Work blockchains.
However to calculate if a payment can be considered "finalised" involves many more variables.
You should factor in:
If the cryptocurrency doesn't dominate the Proof-of-Work it can be attacked more cheaply.
If the market cap or trading volume is really low, an attacker may crash the price of the currency before they can successfully double spend it and make a profit. Although that's more relevant in the context of exchanges rather than individuals accepting payments.
If the value of the transaction is low enough, it may cost more to double spend than an attacker would profit from the double spend.
Ultimately, once the cost of a double spend becomes higher than an attacker can expect to profit from the double spend, that is when a payment can probably be considered "finalised".
submitted by dyslexiccoder to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Does bitcoin hash rate Matter? Crypto Marketer Answers PRJCoin Mining HashratePower usage ASICS Comparison  Scrypt algo Bitcoin: Analysis on Hashrate Growth HISTORICAL BITCOIN HASHRATE DROP!!! Bitmxittz coin Mining HashratePower usage ASICS Comparison  Scrypt algo

Mining hardware comparison is an article shows different hardware devices. ASIC (application-specific integrated) is an integrated circuit specialized for solving a specific problem Hardware Page /> Ant Miner S9. Since from the start, Bitcoin's Difficulty has recorded a very few and much of the time consecutive month to month increases , especially from late November 2015. It moved from 520,569,941 GH/s to the present record high of 1,426,731,353 GH/s, which infers Difficulty has nearly tripled starting now and into the foreseeable future. Bitcoin Average hashrate (hash/s) per day Chart. Transactions Block Size Sent from addresses Difficulty Hashrate Price in USD Mining Profitability Sent in USD Avg. Transaction Fee Median Transaction Fee Block Time Market Capitalization Avg. Transaction Value Median Transaction Value Tweets GTrends Active Addresses Top100ToTotal Fee in Reward Best Bitcoin Miners Comparison. I compared the leading miners against one another in our Bitcoin mining calculator. For electricity costs I used $0.12 which is high, just to get a better idea of how important low electricity costs are for profitable mining. For pool fees I used the standard 2% fee that can be found on most pools. Calculations are done according to June 2019 values. I compared ... If Bitcoin price were to appreciate steadily to ~$19k in two years at a 40%+ annual rate, S19 class rigs will remain viable even at 5c/kWh power cost, but will leave a funding gap of ~$4.1 billion ...

[index] [9944] [46983] [45362] [18601] [27274] [26684] [20583] [27216] [47152] [18903]

Does bitcoin hash rate Matter? Crypto Marketer Answers

My Hardware Wallets: ... Bitcoin Cash(BCH) hash rate drops 90% after halving. Time to abandon ship? - Duration: 5:52. Cryptocurrency News 2,944 views. 5:52. How to Trade Options on Robinhood for ... Bitcoin ( BTC ) ASIC manufacturer MicroBT has revealed its new mining hardware, boasting a hash rate of 100 terahashes per second (TH/s). This product unveiling demonstrates that competition is ... LitecoinPro mining Hashrate & Power consumption on SCRYPT ASICS : LitecoinPro ( LTCP ) using Scrypt algorithm. Power consumption on Watts per hour. Gridseed ... In Bitcoin mining hardware, ASICs were the next step of development after CPUs, GPUs and FPGAs. Capable of easily outperforming the aforementioned platforms for Bitcoin mining in both speed and ... PRJCoin mining Hashrate & Power consumption on SCRYPT ASICS : PRJCoin ( PRJ ) using Scrypt algorithm. Power consumption on Watts per hour. Gridseed Blade pur...

#