Ugh, this is what Bitcoin’s hash rate means and why it matters
Ugh, this is what Bitcoin’s hash rate means and why it matters
Bitcoin’s hashrate exceeds 100 exahashes per second - Decrypt
Bitcoin hash rate overcomes 80 quintillion hashes per second
Bitcoin Hashrate: Now 10X the Number of - The Bitcoin News
Bitcoin’s hash rate reaches highs of 84 quintillion hashes
Bitcoin's hashrate hit 80,000,000,000,000,000,000 hashes per second (exahash), 8 times higher than when the price was $20K. It's a leading indicator for a new bull run. This is a simple article explaining how it works.
Bitcoin's hashrate hit 80,000,000,000,000,000,000 hashes per second (exahash), 8 times higher than when the price was $20K. It's a leading indicator for a new bull run. This is a simple article explaining how it works.
Bitcoin’s Computing Power Sets Record after 100K New Miners Go Online The total computing power now dedicated to securing the bitcoin blockchain has set yet another record, has reached 71.43 quintillion hashes per second (EH/s).
Bitcoin at $ 288,000? BTC price shows bullish signal like 2016
Bitcoin's price development has been relatively stable in recent weeks. The cryptocurrency has been trading in the $ 9,200 range since early June, which is the price at the time of publication. However, Bitcoin is currently showing signals that could indicate an upcoming bull market. According to a report by the Kraken Stock Exchange, Bitcoin is only a 10% jump away from entering a massive upward trend. As Kraken describes, to enter a bull market, Bitcoin must break the key resistance at $ 10,500, as shown below. https://preview.redd.it/0d4bm64zsla51.png?width=1276&format=png&auto=webp&s=b3a670c135792f34af6714fc8ab9d48cef7dc77e With that in mind, the report says Bitcoin could soon break resistance or take the risk of testing support at $ 6,000 to $ 7,000. This would end a period that some analysts have described as very stable. In fact, this is similar to the price development in 2016 and 2017, when Bitcoin initially tended to move sideways for a very long time and finally reached its all-time high of USD 20,000 in late 2017. According to analyst Moon Capital, the Bitcoin hash ribbons have crossed, revealing a massive buy signal that has historically pushed Bitcoin's price up. The signal was also there before the 2017 Bull Run. Therefore, the analyst predicts that BTC will rise to $ 288,000. The "hash ribbons" indicator is based on the hash rate of the Bitcoin network. It is calculated by comparing the short-term moving average and the long-term moving average of the Bitcoin hash rate. As soon as these two cross, a bullish indicator is generated. A breakdown is considered bearish. Capriole's digital asset manager, Charles Edwards, also noted the formation of this indicator. However, Edwards recommended waiting until midnight today (July 12th UTC) for the crossing of the hash ribbons to be confirmed. He also said the BTC price for confirmation should close above $ 9,230.
Bitcoin fundamentals support upcoming uptrend
On the other hand, Bitcoin's fundamentals seem to support a bull market. Bitcoin's hash rate has increased significantly since the difficulty adjustment in June. According to blockchain.com, the hash rate of Bitcoin reached a new high of 125.99 terra hashes per second (TH / s) on July 7. In this context, analyst and inventor of Bitcoin's stock-to-flow model, Plan B, said Bitcoin has weathered the worst of the past few months. In addition, he stressed that the cryptocurrency will soon peak at its hash rate, confirming the good health of the Bitcoin network.
The attempted come back of CoinEx, China's forked-Bitcoin exchange
Written by Shuyao Kong Published bydecrypt.co An interview with Haipo Yang, a crypto OG who’s trying to reposition his Bitcoin Cash-based CoinEx exchange. And more, in this week’s da bing. https://preview.redd.it/h5f3i3lldv051.jpg?width=3200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=09b8696303ae5c6170753cc438929ebe520d4605 Haipo Yang, founder of ViaBTC, one of the largest mining pools in the world, and CoinEx, a crypto exchange known for its focus on Bitcoin Cash-based trading, is a well-known but relatively quiet character in China’s crypto circle. Typically, Yang doesn’t talk that much about his journey launching the mining pool, nor about CoinEx, which launched in December 2017. And he almost never speaks about his fervent support for BCH, a hard fork of Bitcoin, and his now even more enthusiastic belief in BSV. Yet that’s changing of late. Yang has been more active in recent months, participating in interviews about CoinEx and tweeting more frequently on Weibo, China’s Twitter. He’s been making controversial statements predicting the death of BTC, while supporting BCH and BSV on social media. Recently, Yang told me that as a developer rather than a business person, he’s never been comfortable speaking in public. However he’s making an effort now to help publicize his renovation of CoinEx. So, for this week’s da bing, I decided to chat with him and get a peek into the mind of a veteran crypto entrepreneur who’s trying to make a personal, as well as a platform, comeback.
CoinEx’s golden opportunity
The first hard fork of Bitcoin occurred in August, 2017 and created a new cryptocurrency called Bitcoin Cash. The fork was prompted by partisans, including Yang, who wanted bigger block sizes on the blockchain — the basic idea was that bigger blocks would enable more transactions per second and make Bitcoin Cash something people would actually use to buy things, rather than Bitcoin’s more commonly perceived use as a store of value. Yang added a tremendous amount of value to the mining scene in China. As a technical founder with has years of experience in big tech firms such as Tencent, Yang is proud of his #buidl skills. He developed most of the code in the early days of VicBTC, which became one of the biggest mining pools to this day. Not satisfied with owning just a mining pool,Yang conceived of CoinEx, which was born in December of that year, specifically to carry on the mission of the newly forked Bitcoin Cash blockchain. As he got swept up in Bitcoin Cash enthusiasm, he even said that “BCH is bitcoin.” CoinEx’s strategy was BCH-focused from day one; BCH was its base currency, meaning you could use it to buy and sell other currencies, such as Ethereum and Litecoin. Interestingly, Jihan Wu, the co-founder of Bitcoin Exchange — himself a famous BCH supporter — was a big investor in the exchange. That made me wonder why he, Yang, and many other OG crypto miners, were so passionate about BCH. Was it just about bigger block sizes? “Bigger block size means more users and use cases,” Yang explained. The move to bigger block sizes was attractive to miners because they would facilitate more transactions. Miners make money on transaction fees, as well as mining blocks. Likewise, the network would arguably be more useful to people, who were looking for digital cash for every day use. That especially resonated with many early hardcore Bitcoiners. Said Yang: “We really believe that Bitcoin should be a P2P cash vehicle rather than a store of value.” This view probably sounds outdated to people who believe that Bitcoin’s value as cash is long gone, with solutions such as Lightning Network fulfilling that role. Instead, the new narrative for Bitcoin resides in its value, rather than utility. Yet Yang believed that the forked network would create far more opportunity “We could invite influential companies to establish nodes and contribute to the network. This cannot be done with the original Bitcoin architecture,” he said.
But from its inception, CoinEx struggled with adoption and was dwarfed by the bigger exchanges. Part of that had to do with the fact that BCH and “Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision,” another Bitcoin hard fork, were both controversial. Critics pointed out that these networks are centralized in a few big mining pools, and 51% attacks are not out of the question. So over time, though Yang’s exchange still maintains strong support for BCH and BSV, it began to add support for all the major currencies. Finally, in January of this year, it announced a major upgrade, of… well, just about everything. It started to offer futures trading, leveraged trading, options trading, and over 100 token projects available to traders. It even rolled out its own blockchain, “CoinEx Chain” to support a new DEX, “CoinEx DEX.” https://preview.redd.it/3okoy5mudv051.png?width=1432&format=png&auto=webp&s=7099249da4a95db873d268f2dfc95d8db93a368e The seemingly sudden publicity of CoinEx should not come as a surprise, then. As BCH/BSV was being marginalized, Yang shifted his focus. He’s now trying to ride the wave of building a bigger, more dynamic exchange. “Crypto exchanges are where value is discovered,” Yang told me.
Building an exchange isn’t done overnight, nor is re-building one. CoinEx is still competing with the giants such as Binance. However Yang thinks his exchange will thrive by zigging when his competitors zag. As usual, CoinEx is taking a slightly different route, he told me. Like what? “We will be listing 小币种,” he said, using the expression for “small token projects.” I cannot help but wonder if these “small token projects” are simply shitcoins, the trading of which is certainly not new. Indeed, Yang said that he’s banking on the success of his new, public blockchain. “We are building a CoinEx Chain, a layer one protocol for DEX alone. Using our public blockchain, anyone can issue any token, at any time,” he said. He described the blockchain as “a real decentralized, token-issuance and transaction platform.” This is the core of Yang’s plan and vision. He believes that centralized exchanges will be a bottleneck for crypto adoption because it contradicts crypto’s nature as a completely free and open infrastructure. Essentially anyone should be able to launch a token and trade it with anyone. Only by building DEXes can we achieve full decentralization, he says.
The Religious nature of Bitcoin, and forked Bitcoin
It’s his belief that Bitcoin should adhere to Satoshi’s original vision that led Yang to send yet another controversial tweet last week, which I will translate: “The early days of Bitcoin expansion are similar to religion. The religious fervor brings prosperity to the industry.” By extension, Yang believes that the next generation of Bitcoin should provoke a similar “religious” fervor. That’s why he has slowly become more of a BSV advocate than a fan of Bitcoin Cash. Yang believes that “BSV has more religious connotations, despite its negative image.” (As most crypto people know, the controversial Craig Wright, who claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto, led the hard fork which created BSV. Consequently it is often met with skepticism and derision.) “The early days of Bitcoin expansion are similar to religion,” said Yang. “The religious fervor brings prosperity to the industry.” Crypto is famous for its tribalism. Many people choose one camp over another not for practical reasons but because of simple faith. Talking to Yang and reading his tweet brings a historic texture to the Bitcoin narrative. But crypto cannot survive on religion alone. One has to build. Hash might have been worshipped in the old days but now the crypto religion is all about the size of the congregation. Original article Click here to register on CoinEx!
I will be honest with you. IOTA is the project I put all of my hopes in since mid 2017 and also the one I’m invested in the most. But I definitely lost a lot of faith in IOTA over the last years. My intention for this post is not to spread FUD. I’d really like to discuss some topics that seem very odd and I’d appreciate your input. If I got things wrong please feel free to correct me. I will try to add some sources but most of these things are well known within the community. If you need information more you can join the official discord and read back past announcements or use the search function to find certain discussions. We all know that IOTA promised a lot over the past years but there are very few things that actually happened. A lot of things that made IOTA special and a lot of things that were promoted along the way simply will not happen or will be removed in the future. Many of these things have already or will impact the price. Here are my comments towards... 1. The coordinator just directs the flow of the tangle I guess everyone knows by now. IOTA is centralized. Value transactions have been disabled for almost a month now. Nobody can move their funds because the coordinator is down. Next topic. 2. IOTA can scale In the past, IOTA was always promoted as a cryptocurrency that could scale. One transaction has to confirm two others. Spam helps the network. Spam the network to help make it faster. The coordinator will be shut down as soon as the network reaches a certain number of transactions per second. Today we know that all of this is not true. IOTA 1.0 (the current IOTA) cannot scale. Spamming only forces the nodes to make snapshots more often because they run out of space. Too much spam kills the network. IOTA 1.0 doesn’t work. We need a totally new approach. Even the “one transaction has to confirm two others” rule might not stay.  3. JINN In the past the Founders always said that IOTA was developed for JINN. A Trinary Processor developed by a company owned by Sergey Ivancheglo (CFB) and David Sonstebo. That’s why IOTA is Trinary.  Now after years of research and development we get huge news: JINN is dead.  Also, CFB leaves IOTA and threatens to sue David Sonstebo. David and CFB engage in an open twitter and discord war. CFB wants to work on his own Trinary version of IOTA  4. Trinary IOTA will switch to Binary after wasting years with programming everything with Trinary hardware in mind.   5. The Trinary hash function Troika  IOTA and CYBERCRYPT developed a new Trinary hash function for IOTA. With the switch to Binary this hash function is now useless and all the time and resources spent on it were wasted. 6. Signature Scheme IOTA uses Winternitz One Time Signatures (WOTS) to make it quantum secure. This is the reason why it’s not safe to send from an address twice. Ok, just don’t reuse addresses, what’s the problem? The problem is that everything that is build for IOTA from wallets to exchange integrations is way more complicated to program and maintain than any other crypto. If I was an exchange I’d never ever list IOTA. Additionally, people that are only familiar with other cryptos might reuse an address and put their funds at risk. And this happens a lot. And for what? There are no quantum computers. Now after years it seems the IOTA Foundation finally realized that WOTS suck for adoption and want to add another signature scheme which allows address reuse and is not quantum secure. So much time wasted.  7. Switch from a balance model to UTXO model   UTXO will be so much better and easier than our current model. Much innovation. But Bitcoin and other cryptos have been using the UTXO model from the beginning. 8. People leaving the IOTA Foundation A lot of great people left the IOTA Foundation and for most we don’t know why. To my knowledge there is no public list of people who still work for the IF. Here are some people who left (most silently): Samuel Reid, Rolf Werner, Ralf Rottmann, David Cohen, Jesse Babbra, Andreas Osowksi, John D. Licciardello, Gur Huberman, Alisa Maas, Janine Hartel, Lukas Tassanyi (MicroHash) And these are just a few I found after a quick search in Discord. 9. Qubic (Q) There was a huge hype around Q even before it was announced. There was a new website including a countdown. Until today we actually didn’t see anything significant related to Q except some posts by Eric Hop indicating that qubic is still very far away. 10. IOTA 2.0 (Coordicide) The developers spent (wasted) years fixing IOTA 1.0 until they finally realized that it doesn’t work (it’s centralized and not scalable) although they told us it was simulated and well researched before. The IOTA Foundation repeatedly publicly attacked researchers who found flaws in the protocol. IOTA 2.0 is basically a totally different protocol than the current one. The prototype is not finished yet. It’s not tested at all and it gets rid of most things that were used in the current version. How high is the chance that IOTA 2.0 will work? It seems like over the past years a lot of time was simply wasted on developing things that got tossed into the bin and now they are starting all over. 11. Partnerships and Adoption If IOTA has one thing it’s partnerships. But after an announced partnership nothing ever really followed. So, is any company like Bosch, VW, Nokia, Audi, Vodafone or Jaguar actually still working on building something with IOTA or did they drop it? 12. Wallet hack The recent wallet hack could have been avoided easily but the Moonpay integrating was rushed and nobody checked the code again. An unknown amount of seeds has been stolen and the attacker will be able to transfer the funds of everyone who didn’t use the migration tool in time to exchanges and dump everything on March 10 along with anyone who wanted to sell within the last month. All these points made me lose a lot of faith in my investment long term but especially short term. I talked to some friends and especially the ones following the project very closely share my doubts. But my sample number is rather small so I‘d appreciate your input. Please feel free to comment on anything I wrote and feel free to disagree or correct me.
TH = 1012 = 10004 hashes_per_second EH = 1018 = 10006 hashes_per_second 21.113 0.101 daily USD per TH/s 116.73 EH/s So I was discussing this last week and honestly it all felt too simple, so I'm trying to get some stronger counterpoints to this argument. Goes something like this. You have some pool miner that wants to do a 51% attack. Lets assume the attack has three phases, the first phase is to try to accumulate 51% of the hashing power, next is the accumulation of more hashing power by ejecting other pools from through reorg. Finally when they aquired enough mining power they could blacklist exchange hotwallets or all manner of nefariousness. Lets further assume that everyone will act purely in their own self interest. For simplicity lets call the attacker "Spectre Pool".
Assuming Spectre Pool can hit something like 41% of the hashing power, the first goal is to accumulate more resources to hit 51%. Since pool mining is a commodity market, all Spectre has to do in this imaginary world is offer more than the market rate. Since they are already at 41% hashrate, they need to entice another 10% of the market to come to their pool. The obvious way to do this would be to offer a "new customer bonus" or something like that. Some promotion where they pay 1% above market price for the hashing power of pool members. So, given a network hashrate of 116.73 EH and a market rate of 0.101 USD/TH per day, the cost they would have to bear to offer a 1% promotion to entice 10% of the network would be: 116.73_EH / 0.101_USD/TH * 10% * 1% = 1,155,742 USD per day for each 1% "bonus" So, assuming they were willing to spend that much on "marketing", and that all miners worked in their own self interest, eventually they could lure enough miners over to achive 51%. Once they hit this threahold they could scale back on the "marketing" and thus reduce their daily burn.
Once at 51%, the next attack of Spectre will be to put their smallest competitor out of buisness. Lets call that the "Bond Pool", and pretend that Bond has 1.5% of the network hashing power. To put Bond out of buisness, with 51%, Spectere will need to reorg whenever Bond wins a block. By reorging to a chain without Bond, this will put Spectre one block behind and they will need to catch up. Once the reorg begins, Spectre will need to produce the longest chain on its own while starting one block behind. So we need to determine how long (statisticly) it will take Specter to produce an n+1 blocks and compare that to how long (statisticly) with take Bond to produce another block. Although this can be hammered out iterive calculations, a better approach will be an algebraic solution. Lets walk through the equations:
d - The delta above majority. So at 51%, d=1%
n - The number of blocks the majority can reorg
t - The pre-reorg blocktime based on hashrate (10 min)
M (aka Mp) - The percent of hashpower held by minority (49%)
S (aka Mp) - The percent of hashpower held by Spectre (51%)
m (aka Mp) - The blocktime durring attack on the minority chain
s (aka Mp) - The blocktime durring attack on the Spectre chain
n*m = s*(n+1) - Break even, when minority mines n at the same rate Spectre mines n+1
You can put the following into a GeoGebra CAS calculator to substitute and simplify the equations solve(n*m = s*(n+1), n) M = 1/2-d S = 1/2+d m = t/M s = t/S solve(n*m = s*(n+1), d) n = s/(m-s) b = m*M/p solve(b = s*(n+1),p) This will produce the following equations for the values we are interested in. m(t,d): t*(1/2-d) # from `m` define s(t,d): t*(1/2-d) # from `s` define n(s,m): s/(m-s) # from `n` solve d(n): 1/(4*n+2) # from `d` solve p(d): 2*d # from `p` solve b(t,p): t/p # from `b` define Here's a table
solve(nm = s(n+1), d) n = s/(m-s) b = m*M/p ``` Tb = The avg time between blocks won by Bond durring the reorg Ts = The avg time for Spectre to produce a block durring the reorg Tm = The avg time for the main chain to produce a block durring the reorg n = The number of blocks Specter will need to reorg Tb = 10_min / 49% / 3% = 10.89 Hrs Ts = 10_min / 51% = 19.61 Min Tm = 10_min / 49% = 20.41 Min Solve for the amount of blocks Specter can reorg Tmn > Ts(n+1) Tnn > Tsn + Ts n > Ts/(Tn - Ts) n > 24.5 Therefore: Spectre can produce 26 blocks faster than the main chain can produce 25. Specter has to win the reorg before Bond produces another block Assert: Ts * (n+1) < Tb 19.61_min * 26 < 10.89_hrs 8.50_hrs < 10.89_hrs ``` So once Spectre reaches 51% he has enough hashing power to prevent any of Bonds blocks from being included. Spectre can win a reorg (statistically) every 8.5 hrs and Bond can only produce a block (statisticly) every 10.89 hours. So once this attack starts, Spectre simply flashes his promotion to lure the miners in the Bond pool (who are receiving no reward) over to the Spectre pool. If he only gets one third of them, then he can increase his influence to 52% Doing the same math again, with 52% Spectre can ice out any pool who has up to 7% of the hashing. Then running the promotion, Spectre will try to get 40% of the "homeless miners". Now Spectre's power grows to 55% giving him the power to ice out 16% of his competitors. This can cascade on and on until Spectre is the only public pool left. 1 - All "hashes" are hashes per second 2 - TH = 1012 or 10004 hashes per second 3 - EH = 1018 or 10006 hashes per second 4 - Assume a market rate of 0.101 USD / TH / day 5 - Assume an average daily network hashrate of 116.73 EH ``` solve(nm = s(n+1), n) M = 1/2-d S = 1/2+d m = t/M s = t/S solve(nm = s(n+1), d) n = s/(m-s) b = mM/p solve(b = s(n+1),p) m(t,d): t(1/2-d) # from m define s(t,d): t(1/2-d) # from s define n(s,m): s/(m-s) # from n solve d(n): 1/(4n+2) # from d solve p(d): 2d # from p solve b(t,p): t/p # from b define ```
So I was discussing this last week and honestly it all felt too simple, so I'm trying to get some stronger counterpoints to this argument. Goes something like this. You have some pool miner that wants to do a 51% attack. Lets assume the attack has three phases, the first phase is to try to accumulate 51% of the hashing power, next is the accumulation of more hashing power by ejecting other pools from through reorg. Finally when they aquired enough mining power they could blacklist exchange hotwallets or all manner of nefariousness. Lets further assume that everyone will act purely in their own self interest. For simplicity lets call the attacker "Spectre Pool".
Assuming Spectre Pool can hit something like 41% of the hashing power, the first goal is to accumulate more resources to hit 51%. Since pool mining is a commodity market, all Spectre has to do in this imaginary world is offer more than the market rate. Since they are already at 41% hashrate, they need to entice another 10% of the market to come to their pool. The obvious way to do this would be to offer a "new customer bonus" or something like that. Some promotion where they pay 1% above market price for the hashing power of pool members. So, given a network hashrate of 116.73 EH and a market rate of 0.101 USD/TH per day, the cost they would have to bear to offer a 1% promotion to entice 10% of the network would be: 116.73_EH / 0.101_USD/TH * 10% * 1% = 1,155,742 USD per day for each 1% "bonus" So, assuming they were willing to spend that much on "marketing", and that all miners worked in their own self interest, eventually they could lure enough miners over to achive 51%. Once they hit this threshold they could scale back on the "marketing" and thus reduce their daily burn.
Once at 51%, the next attack of Spectre will be to put their smallest competitor out of buisness. Lets call that the "Bond Pool", and pretend that Bond has 1.5% of the network hashing power. To put Bond out of buisness, with 51%, Spectere will need to reorg whenever Bond wins a block. By reorging to a chain without Bond, this will put Spectre one block behind and they will need to catch up. Once the reorg begins, Spectre will need to produce the longest chain on its own while starting one block behind. So we need to determine how long (statisticly) it will take Specter to produce n+1 blocks and compare that to how long (statisticly) it will take Bond to win one block. Although this can be hammered out in an iterive calculation, a better approach will be an algebraic solution. Lets walk through the equations:
d - The delta above majority. So at 51%, d=1%
n - The length of reorg that the minority pool could attempt
t - The pre-attack blocktime based on hashrate (assume 10 min)
M (aka Mp) - The percent of hashpower held by minority (49%)
S (aka Sp) - The percent of hashpower held by Spectre (51%)
m (aka Mt) - The blocktime durring attack on the minority chain
s (aka St) - The blocktime durring attack on the Spectre chain
n*m = s*(n+1) - Break even, when minority mines n at the same rate Spectre mines n+1
You can put the following into a GeoGebra CAS calculator to substitute and simplify the equations solve(n*m = s*(n+1), n) M = 1/2-d S = 1/2+d m = t/M s = t/S solve(n*m = s*(n+1), d) n = s/(m-s) b = m*M/p solve(b = s*(n+1),p) This will produce the following equations for the values we are interested in. m(t,d): t/(1/2-d) # from `m` define s(t,d): t/(1/2-d) # from `s` define n(s,m): s/(m-s) # from `n` solve d(n): 1/(4*n+2) # from `d` solve p(d): 2*d # from `p` solve b(t,p): t/p # from `b` define Plugging the equations into excel produces the following (assuming t=10)
So once d=0.98%, Specture will have 50.98% of the hashing power, allowing him to eject 1.96% of all blocks mined at will. Of course this is all statistical, so Spectre will want some margin for randomness. So it would make sense to attach 1.5% of the blocks when Spectre reaches 51% So once Spectre reaches 51% he has enough hashing power to prevent any of Bonds blocks (1.5%) from being included. Spectre can win a reorg (statistically) every 8.5 hrs and Bond can only produce a block (statisticly) every 11.1 hours. So once this attack starts, Spectre simply flashes his promotion to lure the miners in the Bond pool (who are receiving no reward) over to the Spectre pool. If he only gets one third of them, then he can increase his influence to 52% Doing the same math again, with 52% Spectre can ice out any pool who has up to 4% of the hashing. Then running the promotion, Spectre will try to get 40% of the "homeless miners". Now Spectre's power grows to 55% giving him the power to ice out 10% of his competitors. This can cascade on and on until Spectre is the only public pool left. Now, at 51% the attack and reorgs take many hours, but as more and more pools get targeted, more and more miners will jump ship and end up at Spectre so long as they can hold the promotion. Bond's only choice would be to either close up, or leverage everything and mine at a loss for weeks hoping that Spectre eventually drops below the threshold for his attack. Of course Spectre has even more tremendous expenses. To offer the 1% promo to 10% of the network would cost Spectre $1.16 million / day, or 3.52 million per month for each percent of miners it lures over. So going from 41% to 61% would cost Spectre $70.3 million / month, but at that point he can attack 20% of the network giving him a reach of about 80% which is pretty much the entire pooled mining capacity today. Seems like $70 million is a small price to pay to buy the entire bitcoin network. Other expenses Spectre would accrue would be related to the attacks and reorgs. The early attacks will take hours and throughout Spectre needs to continue payouts to the pool even though he is generating no BTC durring the attack. So long as his chain is orphaned, his blocks have no value. Only after the attack and reorg when his chain becomes longest will he be able to claim the block reward for all the blocks he minded. This (in my opinion) will the the hardest challenge. The first attack and 25 block reorg will require Spectre to put his entire 51% hashing power on an orphaned chain for 8 hours requireing $208.6 million in payouts. Once he wins the attack and the chain reorgs he can cover his expeses with the block reward, but borrowing $208 million for 8 hours is still a very difficult thing to pull off. The interest alone on the attack is over $40,000 (20% interest compounded continually). Below is a table of the calculations
Levrg / Block
Of course, once Spectre gets 2/3 of the hashing power he controls the entire chain since he can include or exclude any block he wants. So this "Total Self Interest" simulation of a 6 day attack puts Spectre's expenses at $10.3 million in promotions and $71,000 in interest, or about $10.4 million total. 1 - All "hashes" are hashes per second 2 - TH = 1012 or 10004 hashes per second 3 - EH = 1018 or 10006 hashes per second 4 - Assume a market rate of 0.101 USD / TH / day 5 - Assume an average daily network hashrate of 116.73 EH
Bitcoin (BTC) is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that aims to function as a means of exchange that is independent of any central authority. BTC can be transferred electronically in a secure, verifiable, and immutable way.
Launched in 2009, BTC is the first virtual currency to solve the double-spending issue by timestamping transactions before broadcasting them to all of the nodes in the Bitcoin network. The Bitcoin Protocol offered a solution to the Byzantine Generals’ Problem with ablockchainnetwork structure, a notion first created byStuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta in 1991.
Bitcoin’s whitepaper was published pseudonymously in 2008 by an individual, or a group, with the pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto”, whose underlying identity has still not been verified.
The Bitcoin protocol uses an SHA-256d-based Proof-of-Work (PoW) algorithm to reach network consensus. Its network has a target block time of 10 minutes and a maximum supply of 21 million tokens, with a decaying token emission rate. To prevent fluctuation of the block time, the network’s block difficulty is re-adjusted through an algorithm based on the past 2016 block times.
With a block size limit capped at 1 megabyte, the Bitcoin Protocol has supported both the Lightning Network, a second-layer infrastructure for payment channels, and Segregated Witness, a soft-fork to increase the number of transactions on a block, as solutions to network scalability.
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that aims to function as a means of exchange and is independent of any central authority. Bitcoins are transferred electronically in a secure, verifiable, and immutable way.
Network validators, whom are often referred to as miners, participate in the SHA-256d-based Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism to determine the next global state of the blockchain.
The Bitcoin protocol has a target block time of 10 minutes, and a maximum supply of 21 million tokens. The only way new bitcoins can be produced is when a block producer generates a new valid block.
The protocol has a token emission rate that halves every 210,000 blocks, or approximately every 4 years.
Unlike public blockchain infrastructures supporting the development of decentralized applications (Ethereum), the Bitcoin protocol is primarily used only for payments, and has only very limited support for smart contract-like functionalities (Bitcoin “Script” is mostly used to create certain conditions before bitcoins are used to be spent).
In the Bitcoin network, anyone can join the network and become a bookkeeping service provider i.e., a validator. All validators are allowed in the race to become the block producer for the next block, yet only the first to complete a computationally heavy task will win. This feature is called Proof of Work (PoW). The probability of any single validator to finish the task first is equal to the percentage of the total network computation power, or hash power, the validator has. For instance, a validator with 5% of the total network computation power will have a 5% chance of completing the task first, and therefore becoming the next block producer. Since anyone can join the race, competition is prone to increase. In the early days, Bitcoin mining was mostly done by personal computer CPUs. As of today, Bitcoin validators, or miners, have opted for dedicated and more powerful devices such as machines based on Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (“ASIC”). Proof of Work secures the network as block producers must have spent resources external to the network (i.e., money to pay electricity), and can provide proof to other participants that they did so. With various miners competing for block rewards, it becomes difficult for one single malicious party to gain network majority (defined as more than 51% of the network’s hash power in the Nakamoto consensus mechanism). The ability to rearrange transactions via 51% attacks indicates another feature of the Nakamoto consensus: the finality of transactions is only probabilistic. Once a block is produced, it is then propagated by the block producer to all other validators to check on the validity of all transactions in that block. The block producer will receive rewards in the network’s native currency (i.e., bitcoin) as all validators approve the block and update their ledgers.
The Bitcoin protocol utilizes the Merkle tree data structure in order to organize hashes of numerous individual transactions into each block. This concept is named after Ralph Merkle, who patented it in 1979. With the use of a Merkle tree, though each block might contain thousands of transactions, it will have the ability to combine all of their hashes and condense them into one, allowing efficient and secure verification of this group of transactions. This single hash called is a Merkle root, which is stored in the Block Header of a block. The Block Header also stores other meta information of a block, such as a hash of the previous Block Header, which enables blocks to be associated in a chain-like structure (hence the name “blockchain”). An illustration of block production in the Bitcoin Protocol is demonstrated below. https://preview.redd.it/m6texxicf3151.png?width=1591&format=png&auto=webp&s=f4253304912ed8370948b9c524e08fef28f1c78d
Block time and mining difficulty
Block time is the period required to create the next block in a network. As mentioned above, the node who solves the computationally intensive task will be allowed to produce the next block. Therefore, block time is directly correlated to the amount of time it takes for a node to find a solution to the task. The Bitcoin protocol sets a target block time of 10 minutes, and attempts to achieve this by introducing a variable named mining difficulty. Mining difficulty refers to how difficult it is for the node to solve the computationally intensive task. If the network sets a high difficulty for the task, while miners have low computational power, which is often referred to as “hashrate”, it would statistically take longer for the nodes to get an answer for the task. If the difficulty is low, but miners have rather strong computational power, statistically, some nodes will be able to solve the task quickly. Therefore, the 10 minute target block time is achieved by constantly and automatically adjusting the mining difficulty according to how much computational power there is amongst the nodes. The average block time of the network is evaluated after a certain number of blocks, and if it is greater than the expected block time, the difficulty level will decrease; if it is less than the expected block time, the difficulty level will increase.
What are orphan blocks?
In a PoW blockchain network, if the block time is too low, it would increase the likelihood of nodes producingorphan blocks, for which they would receive no reward. Orphan blocks are produced by nodes who solved the task but did not broadcast their results to the whole network the quickest due to network latency. It takes time for a message to travel through a network, and it is entirely possible for 2 nodes to complete the task and start to broadcast their results to the network at roughly the same time, while one’s messages are received by all other nodes earlier as the node has low latency. Imagine there is a network latency of 1 minute and a target block time of 2 minutes. A node could solve the task in around 1 minute but his message would take 1 minute to reach the rest of the nodes that are still working on the solution. While his message travels through the network, all the work done by all other nodes during that 1 minute, even if these nodes also complete the task, would go to waste. In this case, 50% of the computational power contributed to the network is wasted. The percentage of wasted computational power would proportionally decrease if the mining difficulty were higher, as it would statistically take longer for miners to complete the task. In other words, if the mining difficulty, and therefore targeted block time is low, miners with powerful and often centralized mining facilities would get a higher chance of becoming the block producer, while the participation of weaker miners would become in vain. This introduces possible centralization and weakens the overall security of the network. However, given a limited amount of transactions that can be stored in a block, making the block time too longwould decrease the number of transactions the network can process per second, negatively affecting network scalability.
3. Bitcoin’s additional features
Segregated Witness (SegWit)
Segregated Witness, often abbreviated as SegWit, is a protocol upgrade proposal that went live in August 2017. SegWit separates witness signatures from transaction-related data. Witness signatures in legacy Bitcoin blocks often take more than 50% of the block size. By removing witness signatures from the transaction block, this protocol upgrade effectively increases the number of transactions that can be stored in a single block, enabling the network to handle more transactions per second. As a result, SegWit increases the scalability of Nakamoto consensus-based blockchain networks like Bitcoin and Litecoin. SegWit also makes transactions cheaper. Since transaction fees are derived from how much data is being processed by the block producer, the more transactions that can be stored in a 1MB block, the cheaper individual transactions become. https://preview.redd.it/depya70mf3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=a6499aa2131fbf347f8ffd812930b2f7d66be48e The legacy Bitcoin block has a block size limit of 1 megabyte, and any change on the block size would require a network hard-fork. On August 1st 2017, the first hard-fork occurred, leading to the creation of Bitcoin Cash (“BCH”), which introduced an 8 megabyte block size limit. Conversely, Segregated Witness was a soft-fork: it never changed the transaction block size limit of the network. Instead, it added an extended block with an upper limit of 3 megabytes, which contains solely witness signatures, to the 1 megabyte block that contains only transaction data. This new block type can be processed even by nodes that have not completed the SegWit protocol upgrade. Furthermore, the separation of witness signatures from transaction data solves the malleability issue with the original Bitcoin protocol. Without Segregated Witness, these signatures could be altered before the block is validated by miners. Indeed, alterations can be done in such a way that if the system does a mathematical check, the signature would still be valid. However, since the values in the signature are changed, the two signatures would create vastly different hash values. For instance, if a witness signature states “6,” it has a mathematical value of 6, and would create a hash value of 12345. However, if the witness signature were changed to “06”, it would maintain a mathematical value of 6 while creating a (faulty) hash value of 67890. Since the mathematical values are the same, the altered signature remains a valid signature. This would create a bookkeeping issue, as transactions in Nakamoto consensus-based blockchain networks are documented with these hash values, or transaction IDs. Effectively, one can alter a transaction ID to a new one, and the new ID can still be valid. This can create many issues, as illustrated in the below example:
Alice sends Bob 1 BTC, and Bob sends Merchant Carol this 1 BTC for some goods.
Bob sends Carols this 1 BTC, while the transaction from Alice to Bob is not yet validated. Carol sees this incoming transaction of 1 BTC to him, and immediately ships goods to B.
At the moment, the transaction from Alice to Bob is still not confirmed by the network, and Bob can change the witness signature, therefore changing this transaction ID from 12345 to 67890.
Now Carol will not receive his 1 BTC, as the network looks for transaction 12345 to ensure that Bob’s wallet balance is valid.
As this particular transaction ID changed from 12345 to 67890, the transaction from Bob to Carol will fail, and Bob will get his goods while still holding his BTC.
With the Segregated Witness upgrade, such instances can not happen again. This is because the witness signatures are moved outside of the transaction block into an extended block, and altering the witness signature won’t affect the transaction ID. Since the transaction malleability issue is fixed, Segregated Witness also enables the proper functioning of second-layer scalability solutions on the Bitcoin protocol, such as the Lightning Network.
Lightning Network is a second-layer micropayment solution for scalability. Specifically, Lightning Network aims to enable near-instant and low-cost payments between merchants and customers that wish to use bitcoins. Lightning Network was conceptualized in a whitepaper by Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja in 2015. Since then, it has been implemented by multiple companies. The most prominent of them include Blockstream, Lightning Labs, and ACINQ. A list of curated resources relevant to Lightning Network can be found here. In the Lightning Network, if a customer wishes to transact with a merchant, both of them need to open a payment channel, which operates off the Bitcoin blockchain (i.e., off-chain vs. on-chain). None of the transaction details from this payment channel are recorded on the blockchain, and only when the channel is closed will the end result of both party’s wallet balances be updated to the blockchain. The blockchain only serves as a settlement layer for Lightning transactions. Since all transactions done via the payment channel are conducted independently of the Nakamoto consensus, both parties involved in transactions do not need to wait for network confirmation on transactions. Instead, transacting parties would pay transaction fees to Bitcoin miners only when they decide to close the channel. https://preview.redd.it/cy56icarf3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=b239a63c6a87ec6cc1b18ce2cbd0355f8831c3a8 One limitation to the Lightning Network is that it requires a person to be online to receive transactions attributing towards him. Another limitation in user experience could be that one needs to lock up some funds every time he wishes to open a payment channel, and is only able to use that fund within the channel. However, this does not mean he needs to create new channels every time he wishes to transact with a different person on the Lightning Network. If Alice wants to send money to Carol, but they do not have a payment channel open, they can ask Bob, who has payment channels open to both Alice and Carol, to help make that transaction. Alice will be able to send funds to Bob, and Bob to Carol. Hence, the number of “payment hubs” (i.e., Bob in the previous example) correlates with both the convenience and the usability of the Lightning Network for real-world applications.
Schnorr Signature upgrade proposal
Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (“ECDSA”) signatures are used to sign transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. https://preview.redd.it/hjeqe4l7g3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=8014fb08fe62ac4d91645499bc0c7e1c04c5d7c4 However, many developers now advocate for replacing ECDSA with Schnorr Signature. Once Schnorr Signatures are implemented, multiple parties can collaborate in producing a signature that is valid for the sum of their public keys. This would primarily be beneficial for network scalability. When multiple addresses were to conduct transactions to a single address, each transaction would require their own signature. With Schnorr Signature, all these signatures would be combined into one. As a result, the network would be able to store more transactions in a single block. https://preview.redd.it/axg3wayag3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=93d958fa6b0e623caa82ca71fe457b4daa88c71e The reduced size in signatures implies a reduced cost on transaction fees. The group of senders can split the transaction fees for that one group signature, instead of paying for one personal signature individually. Schnorr Signature also improves network privacy and token fungibility. A third-party observer will not be able to detect if a user is sending a multi-signature transaction, since the signature will be in the same format as a single-signature transaction.
4. Economics and supply distribution
The Bitcoin protocol utilizes the Nakamoto consensus, and nodes validate blocks via Proof-of-Work mining. The bitcoin token was not pre-mined, and has a maximum supply of 21 million. The initial reward for a block was 50 BTC per block. Block mining rewards halve every 210,000 blocks. Since the average time for block production on the blockchain is 10 minutes, it implies that the block reward halving events will approximately take place every 4 years. As of May 12th 2020, the block mining rewards are 6.25 BTC per block. Transaction fees also represent a minor revenue stream for miners.
If you have decided to read all this, thanks, keep reading for a concise breakdown!
So what's the current big thing going on with ARK right NOW?
ARK.io has recently announced on both its blog and its Twitter that ARK Core v2.6 is coming to Mainnet February 11th. The iteration of 2.6 may sound anticlimactic, but it's far from that. Core v2.6 is the biggest upgrade to date- even bigger than the total Core overhaul performed for v2.0, deployed late 2018. The new version brings new transaction types to the ARK Public Network, including types that will play a role in creating an ecosystem of linked chains. This ecosystem of linked chains will have the ARK Public Network in the center of the action, storing chain details and allowing for chain discovery. These new transaction types include: Multipayments — sending to multiple ARK addresses, while just initiating one transaction, saves time and cost Multisignatures — you can now get all of the benefits of multisignatures where more than one user can propose or spend funds depending on the predefined terms (eg. 2 out of 3 users needed to successfully send tokens, vote, …) IPFS — register IPFS compliant hashes on the ARK blockchain within Desktop Wallet. Business & Bridgechain registrations — you can now register your business and bridgechain on the blockchain and soon, you will be able to get verified via our Marketplace to get access to some exciting new features. Delegate resignation — delegates who don’t want to be voted for anymore can now opt-out of this by simply initiating delegate resignation. Additionally, the Core v2.6 improves security against double-spend attacks by implementing nonces. Also, massive enhancements were made to the GTI or Generic Transaction Interface, a critical tool for developers who wish to develop decentralized applications.
What is ARK's unique approach to current issues plaguing the blockchain industry?
ARK empowers everyone, regardless of their aim or technical background, to quickly and easily leverage blockchain technology. In the current hype-driven blockchain landscape, ARK acts as a beacon for individuals, groups, and enterprises seeking to apply blockchain technology to both reach their individual goals and affect change in their local community. ARK’s uniquely simple technology stack allows almost anyone to create and deploy standalone blockchains for any use case with an intuitive graphical user interface and experience. These newly created blockchains also known as bridgechains will have the ability to interoperate through ARK SmartBridge Technology. ARK is also reinventing smart contracts with ARK Logic, a collection of tools including custom transaction types, templates, and plugins. ARK Logic brings security, adaptability, and scalability to decentralized computing workflows. Most importantly, the ARK Ecosystem fosters a growing international community of developers, node operators, blockchains, businesses, and enthusiasts who collectively breathe life into this disruptive technology. Get into the interactive whitepaper here.
Tell me about the ARK Public Network
Ok, no problem. Since coming online on March 21, 2017, the APN has operated as a P2P cryptocurrency with fast block times of 8 seconds and low dynamic fees (near a penny and somewhat novel for a DPoS blockchain). However, the end goal of the APN far exceeds that of just a cryptocurrency that is faster and cheaper to use than Bitcoin. I'll explain further in a minute. The network, as mentioned, is set up as Delegated Proof-of-Stake. This means forging delegates are deemed worthy to secure the chain and add blocks to it by the holders of the ARK token, which vote for delegates using their ARK as vote weight. ARK remains in users' control at all times, and the top 51 delegates in vote weight enter forging status. The network awards each delegate 2 ARK per block (~12,705 ARK/mo) for services rendered. This continues ad infinitum resulting in a declining inflation rate each year (relative to total supply). When users add or remove ARK from a voting wallet address, vote weight adjusts automatically and they don't need to vote again. Voting continues even if user's wallet is offline. The main uses of ARK as the cryptoasset of the ARK Public Network besides being a P2P cryptocurrency include:
Being a medium of exchange for ARK Public Network services. Delegates and businesses can operate services where transactions are settled in ARK.
Allowing convenience in interoperability, giving users access to bridgechain use cases via the main ARK cryptoasset.
Liquidity for small and large ARK bridgechains. This is via ARK SmartBridge Technology/ARK Swap Market (in development)
Payment method for plugin, delegate, and talent marketplaces. Services rendered can have transactions settled using ARK.
Yes, team good. Team very good. General sentiment among ARK team members is that ARK is a dream project to work on, and this motivates them to do great work on a consistent basis as the ARK technology stack progresses. Very recently, ARK hired an additional half dozen people in various departments, including marketing department. This brings ARK team total to over three dozen experts. The ARK business entity is also well funded with around 10 years of budget. The ARK business entity spends funds in a very sensible manner compared to some other projects who spend with insufficient foresight or discretion. Members of the board are thoughtful and deliberate, and the CEO FX Thoorens has been hard at work putting a spotlight on ARK, showing an 'intermeshing' of ARK with the global regulatory landscape in regards to crypto. Recently, ARK became a founding member of ADAN, a professional association based in France created to help structure and develop the digital assets industry. Other members include Consensys France and Ledger. ADAN will consult with public authorities, industry leaders and private bodies to promote the use of digital assets and all activities in this sector. This includes exchange platforms, brokers, hardware, protocols, decentralized applications and blockchain technology platforms. Hear FX Thoorens talk more about this in this podcast episode. The ARK business entity is located in France, but the ARK team is distributed across 10+ countries and multiple continents.
What's going to happen?
Cool stuff. Organizations and open source projects have been stumbling across ARK and really like what they see. Multiple projects are working with ARK technology and are at various stages of development, but since you're busy, I'll highlight the project nOS which recently launched their public testnet and uses ARK technology for their blockchain. nOS also has great things to say about ARK that you can hear in this podcast episode or watch in this video. We believe that as more businesses, organizations, and open source projects start looking around for blockchain solutions, they will also enjoy ARK's simplicity, flexibility, and feature set. Our powerful technology stack is backed up by a recently upgraded documentation hub for developers. The product we have that makes it very easy for projects to join the ARK Ecosystem is called the ARK Deployer, which you can learn about in this two minute video. It allows developers from all walks of life to create, customize and launch a standalone blockchain in three simple steps. In the near future, what's going to happen is a big improvement to the Deployer. The ARK Deployer will get an upgraded and more powerful user interface that also facilitates chain management post-launch, as well as interface directly with cloud providers like Digital Ocean to launch genesis node and peers in background. This would allow for a massive leap forward in our vision of 'Point. Click. Blockchain.' ARK.io is also working on a Marketplace for developers, where custom plugins and tools developed by both ARK.io as well as third parties can be acquired for assembling blockchains much easier. Imagine a wordpress-type environment where you can create a super-powerful and customized blockchain by connecting Legos together. In the same way that early World Wide Web needed WordPress/Squarespace style tools to bring the technology to every business or organization, we believe that this need will be out there for blockchain technology as this new decade progresses. There is more cool stuff that is going to happen, but I'll wrap it up there for now.
After reading all this stuff, what is it you want me to do?
Well, not make any financial decisions, because that is not the purpose of this information. However, as a developer, there's a lot of interesting things you should know and may want to consider doing. The ARK technology stack uses TypeScript and other JS-style frameworks, so if you know those, you should get excited.
Earn a lot more ARK. The Tier 0 Program offers bigger projects we need help with and therefore more ARK. You can even contact the team with an idea for a Tier 0 Project you want to do that makes ARK look cool. For example, there is a Tier 0 project designed to highlight ARK tech as a proof of concept for scooter rentals. See program status here.
Look into the ARK Deployer for making your own chain with a custom use case. If you are a part of a project that is currently just a token on someone else's mainnet, and you have scaling concerns or issues with sovereignty, ARK should be a candidate for upgrading your solution for this new decade. Check out ARK Deployer here.
Here's some additional less 'developery' stuff you can do:
Get your idea funded through theARK Community Fund. It's community run, and operated by community elected board members. Your idea can be anything that helps ARK, maybe some seed money for a business like this one that ships ARK Stickers worldwide, or maybe some small dev project, or video production, or article, etc.
Subscribe to the ARK Crypto Podcast. It happens weekly, and it's one of the absolute best podcasts in the space that's centered around a specific project. It knows you're busy, so it's to the point, well constructed, and entertaining. The podcast is looking for subscribers. Do it on iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Castbox, etc. Here's an updated ARK overview episode that covers much more than you read in this post today.
Other subscribing goodies. Twitter, Slack, Discord, Reddit, Facebook, Medium, etc list of links here.
Just in case, throwing the website URL here, which is ARK.io - it's a really good website that has more information for users and developers, as well as live integrations with dynamic data.
Thanks for coming along for the ride of this post. ARK has been out here, it's out here, and it's going to continue to be out here, doing its part to make sure everybody knows that blockchains are, in fact, a thing.
Hey everyone! Welcome to the ABCmint (Or ABC, or Abcardo) subreddit! Please feel free to introduce yourselves below. I wrote a few questions to get the creative juices flowing.
What's your cryptocurrency journey? How does ABC compare to other crypto projects you've invested/participated in?
Are you currently mining? If you do mine, have you been able to draw meaningful analytics from your mining activity? (Reason I say this: "gethashespersec" is typically the golden standard when it comes to benchmarking your mining speed. With ABC, we aren't solving hashes).
What features and applications would you like to see in the ABC ecosystem?
Have been involved with Crypto since roughly 2011, in the early Bitcoin days. I didn't strike it rich off the early bull runs, but to be fair, I was just a 13-year-old.
I mine on and off, main reason being my rig will keep me up at night if it's running.
I haven't been able to meaningfully conclude what the ideal mining hardware is for this coin, because there is no statistic for the amount of work I'm performing. "polyspersec" (polynomials factored per second) needs to be implemented; not only would that provide insight and less waste for current miners, but it would also allow mining pools to form.
It's not a necessity yet, as solo mining still yields payouts. As I mentioned above, there are blockers to creating a mining pool in the project's current state. But I firmly believe that a pool is a pretty important item on ABC's roadmap, and I would love to work with someone on that.
Plans for the future: I'll start scouring the web for ABC related news that pops up, and share them on this subreddit. Additionally, I'd like to add some good PQC readings. If you have articles or books, please share them in a comment!
Bitcoin Hashrate Spikes to 120 Exahash: Difficulty Drops Allowing Miners to Rejoin the Competition
The Bitcoin (BTC) protocol’s difficulty adjustment dropped over 9% on June 4, giving miners who shut off their machines a chance to join the competition once again. Moreover, Glassnode statistics show that blocks are being produced at a faster rate and at the highest levels since July 2019. According to the Bitcoin (BTC) research and analysis firm, Glassnode, blocks are being produced at a higher level than before and at a level not seen in 11 months. That month in July 2019, the price of BTC was doing extraordinarily well and almost touched $13K per unit on global exchanges. “Bitcoin blocks are currently being produced at a rate of almost 8 blocks per hour,” Glassnode tweeted on June 6, 2020. “This is the highest level we’ve seen since July 2019, and likely an effect of the recent difficulty adjustment.” Statistics show that the BTC network experienced a decent-sized difficulty drop on June 4, 2020. It was the seventh-largest difficulty drop during the protocol’s entire existence and the fourth negative drop in 2020. The drop was approximately -9.29% and almost immediately afterward, BTC’s hashrate started climbing northbound. Difficulty drops and increases are part of the system Satoshi Nakamoto designed and the Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (DAA) adjusts every 2016 blocks. With blocks set at roughly every 10 minutes, typically DAA drops or increases take place every two weeks on average. Data from Blockchain.com indicates that the hashrate dropped to a low of 90 exahash per second (EH/s) on May 26, 2020. News.Bitcoin.com also reported on the fact that hashpower was steadily increasing but the DAA drop on June 4, making it much easier for certain miners. Our newsdesk also reported that there were 17 mining pools hashing away at the Bitcoin network before the halving and now there are 32 pools. Blockchain.com stats show that on June 5, the SHA256 hashpower ramped up to 109EH/s. Looking at data from today, June 7, 2020, shows that the hashrate has spiked even more to 120EH/s according to Fork.lol’s 12-hour averages. At press time, BTC prices have been down 1.8% during the last 24 hours and the price per unit on Sunday, June 7, 2020, is between $9,425 to $9,550. The overall market capitalization of all 5,000+ coins in existence has also dropped to $269 billion at the time of publication.
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.
Mining is a lottery process by which anyone in the world, without asking for permission, gets the ability to write transactions into the Bitcoin ledger. This is called mining a block. The new ledger entries are then distributed to all other Bitcoin network participants in the form of a block, and verified for following the rules. The tickets to this lottery are purchased by expending electricity (money) by performing hashing, which is the process of taking data, running some code on it, and getting a short scrambled bunch of numbers and letters. You’re looking for a specific pattern that is impossible to predict ahead of time, so you keep hashing until you get the right thing. If you get the right pattern, you’ve won the lottery for the next block! The more electricity you spend, the more tickets you’re buying, and the more likely you are to win the next block. The proportion of the lottery tickets you own at any one time is called your hashrate (hashes per second), which directly to translates to kilowatt hours, which you pay for with money. Miners are incentivized economically, but not required, to commit to the ledger the transactions that everyone wants to send at the point in time when the block is found. When you write to the ledger, you’re also allowed a special transaction to yourself (called the coinbase transaction) that pays you a block reward (12.5BTC today, which gets cut in half every 4 years). This is how you get paid back for spending your energy/money.
Bitcoin Hashrate Records New All-Time High Amid Halving And BTC Bullish Momentum
With The Third Bitcoin Halving Already Here, Bitcoin Bulls Are Showing No Signs Of Support For The World’s Leading Cryptocurrency While the crypto world was frantic about Bitcoin’s third halving event, which occurred on May 12, it came with a bullish sentiment among traders and holders. However, the halving produced 5%-8% price swings in both directions prior to the halving. The market didn’t seem to respond to the much-anticipated halving. The weekend saw $1,3 billion in liquidations, which put pressure on Bitcoin bulls. Shortly after Bitcoin’s reward cut, Bitcoin’s price peaked, before correcting itself to currently trading at $8,745.98 Meanwhile, the Bitcoin mining industry seems to be going all-in on validating blocks, as the computing power on Bitcoin’s network, or hashrate, increased to a new all-time high. The 140 terra hash-per-second (TH/s) all-time high surpassed the recent 135 TH/s all-time high of March 2020, meaning that miners deployed all their recourses to celebrate the halving event. Source: Coinwarz The crypto community welcomed the halving, as TIE published data, showing the word “halving” being present in over 2,900 tweets. Reddit also showed signs of buzzing in the moments prior to the halving and shortly after it. Joshua Frank, TIE’s founder commented on the data, stating that “Bitcoin became a hot topic in the past 30 days, with a 72-percent conversation surge, and with peaks in search terms of Bitcoin and halving crypto related terms in Twitter. Bitcoin also surpassed 50,000 daily tweets, which is a new six-month high.” Source: Twitter “In the 30-day window prior to the halving, the word “halving” appears to be dominant in the conversations, regarding Bitcoin,” Frank added. Google searches for “bitcoin halving also increased four times, as opposed to the 2016 halving event. However, most crypto enthusiasts believed Bitcoin would record double, or even triple-digit price increase, due to the halving. The short rally proved them wrong, but many consider the real price surge to start in the following 18 to 24 months. Historically, Bitcoin showed an initial decrease in value before skyrocketing in both price and trading volumes. The halving event drove an increase in daily trading volumes in the month before the reward cut. However, trading volumes have increased 50 times since the last halving in 2016. Spot market volumes received a boost from a peak of $1,5 billion in June 2016, and it was close to $30 billion in April 2020. Nevertheless, market players are still stagnant about making strong predictions about Bitcoin’s future price, as this time it would take longer for the market to gain from the bullish momentum the halving created.
Triple Increase On BTC Transaction Fees Just Before Bitcoin`s Third Halving
The Average Price Per Bitcoin Transaction Reached $3,19 On 8th May, After Increasing With 300% From $0,62 Per BTC Transaction, As Of 26th April The world of cryptocurrencies is franticly preparing for Bitcoin’s third halving event, which would cut down the reward that miners receive for validating transactions. Historically, prior to a halving event, transaction fees skyrocket. The last halving resulted in peak transaction fee of $0,62, with transactions costing a mere $0,10 just weeks before. Source: Bitinfocharts However, the halving event means something more than just transaction fees increase. Bitcoin suffered from increased volatility over the past weekend, with prices swinging from close to $9,700 on May 10, to shrink as low as $8,466 on May 11. Nevertheless, Bitcoin’s price is still 40% up year-to-date (YTD), which implies strong support from Bitcoin bulls. The price swing outperforms serious investment assets like gold (XAU) and U.S. dollars. Speculators expect the halving event to boost Bitcoin’s price, as the price inflation reduces when the reward for mining a Bitcoin block reduces in half. Тhe primary reason behind both Bitcoin’s price increase and inflation reduction is a term, called scarcity. Scarcity resembles how rare to obtain a given asset is. Meantime, Bitcoin’s user base is exponentially increasing. The current 1,800 BTC-per-day premium would be reduced to 900 BTC per day. Joe Llisteri, the co-founder of crypto derivatives exchange Interdax, stated that over time, the reduction of BTC supply would ultimately lead to a reduction in sell pressure. “The factors add up to an increase in upwards momentum for Bitcoin’s price.”, Llisteri added. Llisteri also noted that this time Bitcoin’s upwards momentum may see a slower effect, due to progressively longer life cycles for Bitcoin after a halving event. “Currently, we are looking at 18-24 months until a possible all-time high. Timewise, Bitcoin may reach an all-time high between October-November 2021 and May-June 2022.”, Llisteri concluded. However, small and medium-sized miners may take a serious hit, as the price reward cut may mitigate all possible earnings from small mining enthusiasts and mid-sized mining rigs. Even with the much-anticipated Bitcoin price boost, much of the miners may shut down operations prior to the price increase. Speaking of mining, Bitcoin’s hash rate continues to keep a steady growth, slightly declining from its yearly high of 123.2 terra hash-per-second (TH/s). There are two possible scenarios – either more miners are joining the Bitcoin network, or current miners are driving their existing rigs to a maximum.
Ukraine Diverts Free Nuclear Plant Power For Transaction Processing Operations
Ukraine’s Nuclear Power Plants Are Storing Electricity Surplus Due To The Lower Amounts Of Power Consumption As the crypto world prepares for the third Bitcoin halving, the Ukrainian Ministry of Energy and Environment (MEE) proposed the excess electrical power generated from the power plants to be relocated into processing transactions. Currently, Ukraine has dropped its power consumption drastically, as many businesses are shutting down operations due to the COVID-19 virus outbreak. The MEE suggested transaction processing as a “perfect tool for using leftover electricity, as well as economic and social development.” “Having such excess means we can direct it to various sectors like cryptocurrencies. This way, we would keep the minimal loads on the nuclear power plants, as well as grant the chance of crypto-oriented businesses to receive fresh funds from transaction processing. Also, by directing the power into transaction processing, we are creating an entirely new approach to the world of cryptocurrencies and digital economies,” the Ministry stated. The problem with excess electricity occurs because Ukrainian nuclear power plants have to produce a guaranteed minimum of electricity each month. However, due to widespread energy-consuming businesses shutdowns, the quantity of electric power remains unused. The current power cost per Kilowatt of electricity in Ukraine is around $75/MWh. The news comes amid more countries opening their doors to digital currency transaction processing companies. Recently, the Iranian government gave the “thumbs up” and licensed Turkish transaction processing company iMiner. The license means iMiner would become the largest crypto transaction processor in Iran. iMiner’s license also covers trading and custodial services. The Turkish payment processor is going to facilitate a $7,3 million investment into the mining farm. The farm itself is expected to be able to work with a maximum load of 96,000 terra hash per second (TH/s). Over 6,000 machines would do the computing power. In 2019 alone, the Iranian government gave over 1,000 licenses to both individuals and companies, which process transactions with a reported 148,000 ASIC-based mining rigs. Furthermore, governments, which are usually harder to adopt new technologies, seem to find the benefits of granting transaction processors to works, are now focusing on creating the foundations of their digital economies. Iran, for example, needs a digital economy if a new war conflict with the U.S. arises. Ukraine also sees its geopolitical dependence from Russia and seeks alternative funding routes.
Stop it with the shitcoins already. Look at the price of BTC compared to every other shitcoin out there and you'll see what's happening. Bitcoin has the perfect recipe. Top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap. Bitcoin Ethereum ETH XRP USDT Tether Bitcoin Cash Litecoin EOS Binance coin Bitcoin SV Monero Bitcoin is unstoppable. It is the perfect money. The Bitcoin network belongs to the people of Earth. Up 97% from a year ago. Always bounces back to New highs. Bitcoin has the strongest hash rate of 120 million trillion hashes per second. ETH/BTC is down 53% on the year. That means ETH has lost half it's value relative to Bitcoin in the last year. Ethereum. Ethereum uses a cheaper and less secure proof of stake (POS), which is a POS (piece of shit). If proof of stake was superior to proof of work (POW), then that would be Bitcoin's consensus mechanism. Ethereum is dying relative to Bitcoin. XRP/BTC is down 73%. XRP, a fundamentally flawed imitation of Bitcoin, has lost 73% of its value relative to Bitcoin over the last year. XRP is a centralized, pre mined scam by the inventors who absolutely control that network. They call it distributed and then their world map shows 14 dots. Bitcoin has over 11,000 nodes. XRP is a shitcoin deluxe. XRP tries to imply that it is a value compared to Bitcoin by creating 100B XRP tokens compared to the 21M Bitcoin hard limit. It's deceptive. USDT Tether is a stable coin not meant for investing in. The Bitcoin exchange that runs it says it's backed by dollars, but you have to trust them, which completely breaks why you would want to buy a cryptocurrency. Bitcoin is a trustless system. That's what you want. Don't hold any money in tether. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is a hard fork of Bitcoin. That means they took the perfect recipe (Bitcoin) and they fucked it up by changing it. BCH is mainly supported by bad actors who are defrauding people by pretending it's Bitcoin when it is not. The hash rate is everything when it comes to cryptocurrency. Bitcoin Cash has only 1.6% the hash rate of Bitcoin. They registered the fake website bitcoin.com and have a fake Reddit and a fake Twitter that pretend to be the official Bitcoin. The real Bitcoin website is the .org domain. www.Bitcoin.org. Bitcoin Cash has lost 25% of its value relative to Bitcoin in the last year. Steer clear of this scam. Litecoin was a fork of Bitcoin. They changed the block reward from every 10 minutes to every 3 minutes. The founder has since sold his stake and has abandoned the project. LTC has lost 41% of its value relative to Bitcoin in the last year. EOS is plagued by hacks. It's not even really a cryptocurrency. EOS has lost 52% of its value relative to Bitcoin in the last year. Terrible. Binance coin is a Bitcoin copycat invented by the Bitcoin exchange Binance. It's centralized, and controlled by greedy people. (Assume everyone is greedy and you'll never be let down). How is this different than having dollars in a bank? The difference is that Binance coin is a market driven asset, which means the price fluctuates. So it's even riskier than dollars in a bank. You could lose value, and you're relying on an institution instead of a decentralized open protocol like Bitcoin. Bitcoin SV is a hard fork of a hard fork of Bitcoin. It's problems are the same as BCH, from which it was formed. Bitcoin SV's hash rate is half of that of BCH and less than 1% of Bitcoin's hash rate. Bitcoin SV gas lost 33% of its value relative to Bitcoin in the last year. Monero is a privacy coin. It has lost 43% of its value relative to Bitcoin over the last year. The reason the 2017 Bitcoin bull run stopped is because investors got distracted by all of the shitcoins. But now there is a great unification taking place. People are understanding more and more than Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency worth investing in, especially long term. So when people say, "if it's not Bitcoin it's a shitcoin," that's what we mean. Once this shitcoin noise settles down, people will be more focused on Bitcoin and the next halvening will bring on some serious fireworks.
arriving at consensus AND distributing coins via burning Bitcoin instead of electricity/equipment to create permissionless, unfakeable, green, and trust minimized basis over every aspect of sidechain control.
creating Bitcoin peg from altcoin chain to mainchain (the hard direction) by allocating small percentage of Bitcoin intended for burning to reimbursing withdrawals, effectively making it a childchain/sidechain (no oracles or federated multisigs)
This is not an altcoin thread. I'm not making anything. The design discussed options for existing altcoins and new ways to built on top of Bitcoin inheriting some of its security guarantees. 2 parts: First, the design allows any altcoins to switch to securing themselves via Bitcoin instead of their own PoW or PoS with significant benefits to both altcoins and Bitcoin (and environment lol). Second, I explain how to create Bitcoin-pegged assets to turn altcoins into a Bitcoin sidechain equivalent. Let me know if this is of interest or if it exists, feel free to use or do anything with this, hopefully I can help.
how to create continuous sunk costs, permissionless entry, high cost of attacks?
how to do it without needing to build up a new source of hardware capital or energy costs?
how to peg another chain's token value w/o incentivized collusion risk of federation or oracles?
how to make sidechain use fully optional for all Bitcoin parties?
how to allow programmable Bitcoins w/ unlimited permissionless expressiveness w/o forcing mainchain into additional risks?
Solution to first few points:
Continuous Proof of Bitcoin Burn (CPoBB) to distribute supply control and sidechain consensus control to independent parties
Distributes an altcoin for permissionless access and sidechain-only sybil protection.
In case of sidechain block-producer censorship, Bitcoin's independent data availability makes sidechain nodes trivially aware
PoW altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:
cost of capital and energy -> cost of burnt bitcoin
finality of their PoW -> finality of Bitcoin's PoW
impact on environment -> 0 impact on environment
unforgeable costliness of work -> unforgeable costliness of burn
contract logic can include conditions dependent on real Bitcoins as it's Bitcoin-aware
PoS altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:
permissioned by coin holders entry -> permissionless entry by anyone with access to Bitcoin
no incentive to give up control or sell coins -> incentive to sell coins to cover the cost of burnt bitcoin
incentivized guaranteed centralization of control over time by staking -> PoW guarantees with same 0 environmental impact
nothing at stake -> recovering sunk costs at stake
contract logic can include conditions dependent on real Bitcoins as it's Bitcoin-aware
We already have a permissionless, compact, public, high-cost-backed finality base layer to build on top - Bitcoin! It will handle sorting, data availability, finality, and has something of value to use instead of capital or energy that's outside the sidechain - the Bitcoin coins. The sunk costs of PoW can be simulated by burning Bitcoin, similar to concept known as Proof of Burn where Bitcoin are sent to unspendable address. Unlike ICO's, no contributors can take out the Bitcoins and get rewards for free. Unlike PoS, entry into supply lies outside the alt-chain and thus doesn't depend on permission of alt-chain stake-coin holders. It's hard to find a more bandwidth or state size protective blockchain to use other than Bitcoin as well so altcoins can be Bitcoin-aware at little marginal difficulty - 10 years of history fully validates in under a day.
What are typical issues with Proof of Burn?
limited burn time window prevents permissionless entry in the future. how many years did it take for most heavily mined projects to become known and well reviewed? many. thus entry into control of supply that's vital to control of chain cannot be dependent on the earliest stage of the project. (counterparty)
"land grabs" - by having limited supply without continuous emission or inflation we encourage holding vs spending.
These issues can be fixed by having Proof of Burn be permanently accessible and continuous: Continuous Proof of Bitcoin Burn CPoBB
This should be required for any design for it to stay permissionless. Optional is constant fixed emission rate for altcoins not trying to be money if goal is to maximize accessibility. Since it's not depending on brand new PoW for security, they don't have to depend on massive early rewards giving disproportionate fraction of supply at earliest stage either. If 10 coins are created every block, after n blocks, at rate of 10 coins per block, % emission per block is = (100/n)%, an always decreasing number. Sidechain coin doesn't need to be scarce money, and could maximize distribution of control by encouraging further distribution. If no burners exist in a block, altcoin block reward is simply added to next block reward making emission predictable. Sidechain block content should be committed in burn transaction via a root of the merkle tree of its transactions. Sidechain state will depend on Bitcoin for finality and block time between commitment broadcasts. However, the throughput can be of any size per block, unlimited number of such sidechains can exist with their own rules and validation costs are handled only by nodes that choose to be aware of a specific sidechain by running its consensus compatible software. Important design decision is how can protocol determine the "true" side-block and how to distribute incentives. Simplest solution is to always :
Agree on the valid sidechain block matching the merkle root commitment for the largest amount of Bitcoin burnt, earliest inclusion in the bitcoin block as the tie breaker
Distribute block reward during the next side-block proportional to current amounts burnt
Bitcoin fee market serves as deterrent for spam submissions of blocks to validate
sidechain block reward is set always at 10 altcoins per block Bitcoin block contains the following content embedded and part of its transactions: tx11: burns 0.01 BTC & OP_RETURN tx56: burns 0.05 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 1> ... tx78: burns 1 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 2> ... tx124: burns 0.2 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of INVALID sidechain block version 3> ...
Validity is deterministic by rules in client side node software (e.g. signature validation) so all nodes can independently see version 3 is invalid and thus burner of tx124 gets no reward allocated. The largest valid burn is from tx78 so version 2 is used for the blockchain in sidechain. The total valid burn is 1.06 BTC, so 10 altcoins to be distributed in the next block are 0.094, 0.472, 9.434 to owners of first 3 transactions, respectively. Censorship attack would require continuous costs in Bitcoin on the attacker and can be waited out. Censorship would also be limited to on-sidechain specific transactions as emission distribution to others CPoB contributors wouldn't be affected as blocks without matching coin distributions on sidechain wouldn't be valid. Additionally, sidechains can allow a limited number of sidechain transactions to happen via embedding transaction data inside Bitcoin transactions (e.g. OP_RETURN) as a way to use Bitcoin for data availability layer in case sidechain transactions are being censored on their network. Since all sidechain nodes are Bitcoin aware, it would be trivial to include. Sidechain blocks cannot be reverted without reverting Bitcoin blocks or hard forking the protocol used to derive sidechain state. If protocol is forked, the value of sidechain coins on each fork of sidechain state becomes important but Proof of Burn natively guarantees trust minimized and permissionless distribution of the coins, something inferior methods like obscure early distributions, trusted pre-mines, and trusted ICO's cannot do. More bitcoins being burnt is parallel to more hash rate entering PoW, with each miner or burner getting smaller amount of altcoins on average making it unprofitable to burn or mine and forcing some to exit. At equilibrium costs of equipment and electricity approaches value gained from selling coins just as at equilibrium costs of burnt coins approaches value of altcoins rewarded. In both cases it incentivizes further distribution to markets to cover the costs making burners and miners dependent on users via markets. In both cases it's also possible to mine without permission and mine at a loss temporarily to gain some altcoins without permission if you want to. Altcoins benefit by inheriting many of bitcoin security guarantees, bitcoin parties have to do nothing if they don't want to, but will see their coins grow more scarce through burning. The contributions to the fee market will contribute to higher Bitcoin miner rewards even after block reward is gone.
What is the ideal goal of the sidechains? Ideally to have a token that has the bi-directionally pegged value to Bitcoin and tradeable ~1:1 for Bitcoin that gives Bitcoin users an option of a different rule set without compromising the base chain nor forcing base chain participants to do anything different. Issues with value pegs:
federation based pegs allow collusion to steal bitcoins stored in multi-party controlled accounts
even if multisig participants are switched or weighted in some trust minimized manner, there's always incentive to collude and steal more
smart contract pegs (plasma, rollups) on base chain would require bitcoin nodes and miners to validate sidechain transactions and has to provide block content for availability (e.g. call data in rollups), making them not optional.
bitcoin nodes shouldn't be sidechain aware so impossible to peg the value
Let's get rid of the idea of needing Bitcoin collateral to back pegged coins 1:1 as that's never secure, independent, or scalable at same security level. As drive-chain design suggested the peg doesn't have to be fast, can take months, just needs to exist so other methods can be used to speed it up like atomic swaps by volunteers taking on the risk for a fee. In continuous proof of burn we have another source of Bitcoins, the burnt Bitcoins. Sidechain protocols can require some minor percentage (e.g. 20%) of burner tx value coins via another output to go to reimburse those withdrawing side-Bitcoins to Bitcoin chain until they are filled. If withdrawal queue is empty that % is burnt instead. Selection of who receives reimbursement is deterministic per burner. Percentage must be kept small as it's assumed it's possible to get up to that much discount on altcoin emissions. Let's use a really simple example case where each burner pays 20% of burner tx amount to cover withdrawal in exact order requested with no attempts at other matching, capped at half amount requested per payout. Example:
withdrawal queue: request1: 0.2 sBTC request2: 1.0 sBTC request3: 0.5 sBTC same block burners: tx burns 0.8 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.1 BTC is sent to request2 tx burns 0.4 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1 tx burns 0.08 BTC, 0.02 BTC is sent to request 1 tx burns 1.2 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.2 BTC is sent to request2 withdrawal queue: request1: filled with 0.32 BTC instead of 0.2 sBTC, removed from queue request2: partially-filled with 0.3 BTC out of 1.0 sBTC, 0.7 BTC remaining for next queue request3: still 0.5 sBTC
Withdrawal requests can either take long time to get to filled due to cap per burn or get overfilled as seen in "request1" example, hard to predict. Overfilling is not a big deal since we're not dealing with a finite source. The risk a user that chooses to use the sidechain pegged coin takes on is based on the rate at which they can expect to get paid based on value of altcoin emission that generally matches Bitcoin burn rate. If sidechain loses interest and nobody is burning enough bitcoin, the funds might be lost so the scale of risk has to be measured. If Bitcoins burnt per day is 0.5 BTC total and you hope to deposit or withdraw 5000 BTC, it might take a long time or never happen to withdraw it. But for amounts comparable or under 0.5 BTC/day average burnt with 5 side-BTC on sidechain outstanding total the risks are more reasonable. Deposits onto the sidechain are far easier - by burning Bitcoin in a separate known unspendable deposit address for that sidechain and sidechain protocol issuing matching amount of side-Bitcoin. Withdrawn bitcoins are treated as burnt bitcoins for sake of dividing block rewards as long as they followed the deterministic rules for their burn to count as valid and percentage used for withdrawals is kept small to avoid approaching free altcoin emissions by paying for your own withdrawals and ensuring significant unforgeable losses. Ideally more matching is used so large withdrawals don't completely block everyone else and small withdrawals don't completely block large withdrawals. Better methods should deterministically randomize assigned withdrawals via previous Bitcoin block hash, prioritized by request time (earliest arrivals should get paid earlier), and amount of peg outstanding vs burn amount (smaller burns should prioritize smaller outstanding balances). Fee market on bitcoin discourages doing withdrawals of too small amounts and encourages batching by burners. The second method is less reliable but already known that uses over-collateralized loans that create a oracle-pegged token that can be pegged to the bitcoin value. It was already used by its inventors in 2014 on bitshares (e.g. bitCNY, bitUSD, bitBTC) and similarly by MakerDAO in 2018. The upside is a trust minimized distribution of CPoB coins can be used to distribute trust over selection of price feed oracles far better than pre-mined single trusted party based distributions used in MakerDAO (100% pre-mined) and to a bit lesser degree on bitshares (~50% mined, ~50% premined before dpos). The downside is 2 fold: first the supply of BTC pegged coin would depend on people opening an equivalent of a leveraged long position on the altcoin/BTC pair, which is hard to convince people to do as seen by very poor liquidity of bitBTC in the past. Second downside is oracles can still collude to mess with price feeds, and while their influence might be limited via capped price changes per unit time and might compromise their continuous revenue stream from fees, the leverage benefits might outweight the losses. The use of continous proof of burn to peg withdrawals is superior method as it is simply a minor byproduct of "mining" for altcoins and doesn't depend on traders positions. At the moment I'm not aware of any market-pegged coins on trust minimized platforms or implemented in trust minimized way (e.g. premined mkr on premined eth = 2 sets of trusted third parties each of which with full control over the design). _______________________________________
Brief issues with current altchains options:
PoW: New PoW altcoins suffer high risk of attacks. Additional PoW chains require high energy and capital costs to create permissionless entry and trust minimized miners that are forever dependent on markets to hold them accountable. Using same algorithm or equipment as another chain or merge-mining puts you at a disadvantage by allowing some miners to attack and still cover sunk costs on another chain. Using a different algorithm/equipment requires building up the value of sunk costs to protect against attacks with significant energy and capital costs. Drive-chains also require miners to allow it by having to be sidechain aware and thus incur additional costs on them and validating nodes if the sidechain rewards are of value and importance.
PoS: PoS is permissioned (requires permission from internal party to use network or contribute to consensus on permitted scale), allows perpetual control without accountability to others, and incentivizes centralization of control over time. Without continuous source of sunk costs there's no reason to give up control. By having consensus entirely dependent on internal state network, unlike PoW but like private databases, cannot guarantee independent permissionless entry and thus cannot claim trust minimization. Has no built in distribution methods so depends on safe start (snapshot of trust minimized distributions or PoW period) followed by losing that on switch to PoS or starting off dependent on a single trusted party such as case in all significant pre-mines and ICO's.
Proof of Capacity: PoC is just shifting costs further to capital over PoW to achieve same guarantees.
PoW/PoS: Still require additional PoW chain creation. Strong dependence on PoS can render PoW irrelevant and thus inherit the worst properties of both protocols.
Tokens inherit all trust dependencies of parent blockchain and thus depend on the above.
Embedded consensus (counterparty, veriblock?, omni): Lacks mechanism for distribution, requires all tx data to be inside scarce Bitcoin block space so high cost to users instead of compensated miners. If you want to build a very expressive scripting language, might very hard & expensive to fit into Bitcoin tx vs CPoBB external content of unlimited size in a committed hash. Same as CPoBB is Bitcoin-aware so can respond to Bitcoin being sent but without source of Bitcoins like burning no way to do any trust minimized Bitcoin-pegs it can control fully.
Few extra notes from my talks with people:
fees must be high to be included in next block (and helps pay and bribe bitcoin miners), RBF use is encouraged to cancel late transactions
what if not enough burners, just passive nodes? you can burn smallest amount of bitcoin yourself when you have a transaction you want to go through
using commit hashes on bitcoin to lock altcoin state isn't new (e.g. kmd) but usually those rely on some federation or permissioned proof of stake mechanism with no real costs. this is combination of both.
this is not exactly like counterparty's embedded consensus as block data and transactions are outside Bitcoin, but consensus is derived with help of embedded on Bitcoin data.
deterministic randomness (e.g. via that block's hash) could be used to assign winning sidechain block weighted by amount burned to allow occasional blocks formed by others curbing success rate of censorship by highest burner
wants to transition away from using proof of burn via tunable proofs and native proof of work (whitepaper)
a dominant premine (trust maximized) relative to emission that defeats the purpose of distributing control over incentives (figure 3 in tokenpaper suggests premine still ~30%-70% by year 2050)
variable emission rate "adaptive mint and burn" makes supply unpredictable (and possibly gameable)
additional rewards that aren't trust minimized like "app mining" and "user incentives" possibly gameable with premine
election of a leader includes their own PoW to be elected even at start (5% cap), why lol?
blockstack also suggested use of randomness that depends on that block so Bitcoin miners that already spent energy mining that block can't just re-do it to get picked at no cost
if can burn bitcoins directly via op_return tx would help to use 1 less output and be provably prunable for utxo set (not sure if that's relayed as standard)
Main questions to you:
why not? (other than blocktime)
can this be done without an altcoin? (Not sure and don't think so w/o compromising unforgeable costliness and thus trust minimization. At least it's not using an altcoin that's clearly centralized.)
how to make it less detectable by Bitcoin miners? ( BMM could use some techniques described here: https://twitter.com/SomsenRuben/status/1210040270328254464 ) ( Perhaps since sidechain nodes receive proposed blocks independently and can figure out their hash, the commit message ( sidechain id + block commit + miner address) can be hashed one more time before its placed on Bitcoin, making miners unaware until after Bitcoin block is found that this is that sidechain's burn. Sidechain block producers would have to delay sidechain block propagation until after Bitcoin block is propagated, 10 minutes blocktime helps here. Hiding the fact that Bitcoin is burnt until after the fact is another possibly important matter. )
Should reward be split between all valid blocks or just winner gets all? (Blockstacks approach does not reward blocks marked by different from leader chaintip. That seems dangerous since sidechain tx sorting would be difficult to match and could take significant time to be compensated for perfectly valid work and coins burned. It doesn't seem as necessary in burning since we're not expending costs based on only one previous block version, the costs are independent of block assembly. Tradeoff is between making it easier for independent "mining" of sidechain and making it easier to validate for full nodes on sidechain)
Sharering (SHR) I believe this one is going to surprise so many. Already generating revenue and doing buybacks every week. Already over 10 000 registered users. Mainnet + app + masternodes and staking before EOY.
I got this stuff from Steve Aitchison, he wrote this review and posted it on Uptrennd. Figured I should put it on here as well since I truly believe this is an incredible moonshot. I'm personally holding SHR myself and am very convinced it will do extremely well. Give a read through it and you will immediatly see why. Enjoy guys. Introduction Imagine for a second the following scenario. You are a 2 car family. One car is used every day going back and forth to work, for shopping, all the little jaunts you and your husband like to go on. Your grown children are at university and come home for the weekends so the other car sits in the driveway all week and doesn’t get used during the week. What a waste of a perfectly good car. You think to yourself we could put that car to good use and actually help to pay for university fees, by renting it out during the week. However, then you think “well it’s only a little Ford Fiesta who’s going to want to rent that.” Well, it turns out a lot of people want to rent it and for a good price: £34 ($40) per day, a possible $800 per month. Peer to peer car sharing has grown massively over the last few years and people are making serious money by letting our vehicles on a daily basis, emulating the Airbnb model. In fact companies like Turo, Getaround and Drivy, which has just been acquired by Getaround for $300 Million, are bringing in serious investors like Toyota, Softbank Vision Fund, Menlo Ventures, and IAC to the tune of over $800 Million. A key difference between rental companies and peer to peer is that they have vastly improved technology with app interfaces that make locating assets and resources, reserving and using them, and making payment convenient and seamless. This, combined with location-specific analytics, allows by-the-minute access to assets and resources (e.g. cars or bicycles) and enables customers to pick up and drop these assets where and when convenient. Car sharing is just one example of an industry that is being disrupted. We have seen, experienced and read about the amazing growth of Airbnb which is now estimated to be valued at $38 Billion. Airbnb has been so successful that companies like booking.com are trying to get in on the act by adopting a similar model when it comes to booking accommodation. There is also the phenomenal rise of bicycle rentals which we see in cities all over the world, not quite the same as peer to peer sharing, but it’s another rental model that is ripe for being disrupted by the new sharing model. With this business model in mind what other areas could it be used in: Transport: Used for the rental of cars, trucks, scooters, trailers, and even heavy vehicles. Delivery Drivers: Facilitate booking and payment for delivery drivers. Agriculture: Garden sharing, seed swap, bee-hive relocation, etc. Finance: Peer to peer lending Food bank, social dining Travel Tours, shared tour groups Real Estate Airbnb, co-housing, co-living, Couchsurfing, shared office space, house swapping. Time: Labour, co-working, freelancing Assets Book swapping, clothes swapping, fractional ownership, freecycling, toy libraries. Transportation Car sharing, ride-sharing, car-pooling, bicycle sharing, delivery company, couriers And so much more! This newly emerging, but highly fragmented sharing industry, is currently worth over $100 billion. It is predicted to grow to at least $335 billion by 2025. As you can see from a few examples above the sharing economy has a lot of room to grow but what it doesn’t have, yet, is a company who can facilitate ALL of the above use cases in one place. That is until now! ShareRing is disrupting the disruptors by bringing everything together in one place and making it easy for you and me to share anything and everything and making it as easy as opening an app on your phone. Business Case The sharing market has exploded over the last several years. This is due, in part, to the digital age we live in, as we now have over 2.82 Billion people with smart phones around the world. It also due to how easy the business model of sharing lends itself to the digital world, and how with the simple installation of an app we can access a plethora of markets to rent almost anything from. Due to this rise of digital platforms and the proliferation of smartphones, revenues coming from sharing economy platforms are only expected to increase. It is estimated to grow to a $335 billion industry in 2025, compared to its $14 billion value in 2014. (PwC UK). The beauty of the sharing economy is that it is a win/win/win situation for the person who wants to rent something for a few days or weeks, the person who is renting out, and the company who facilitates the ease of the transactions between the renter and the person renting out. Typically the renter will save a lot of money whilst renting out someone else’s apartment, car, bicycle, clothes, dog sitting services etc and they can almost be assured of quality due to the social side of the business model with reviews from real people. The person who is renting out can make additional income and will want good reviews and therefore keep the standard of service higher. The company that is facilitating all of this can make a lot of money on transaction fees, as well as from advertising, and partnership deals, and obviously have an exit strategy for possible buyouts. When it comes to looking at the business model, ShareRing fits in to the Commission Based Platform as described in Ritter and Schanz study where they looked at the core difference in difference business models of the sharing economy: Singular Transaction Models, Subscription-Based Models, Commission-Based Platforms and Unlimited Platforms.) Commission Based Platforms are dominated by (at least) triadic relationships amongst providers, intermediaries and consumers with a utility-bound revenue stream. These business models enable their customers to switch between provider and consumer roles by creating and delivering the value proposition. Only a few employees work for the intermediary and the value creation and delivery is externalized. From a consumer perspective, consumers are empowered to collaborate with each other and to design the collaboration terms by negotiating the terms and conditions of the content, creation, distribution and consumption of the value proposition. Depending on the orientation of the value proposition, consumers purchase commodities (Tauschticket, ebay), access commodities in a defined timespan (booking.com, Airbnb) or buy services (uber, turo) from occasional and professional providers found via an intermediary. The intermediary mainly focuses on nurturing a community feeling and reducing exchange insecurity by incorporating rating systems, micro-assurances and standardizations of payment and delivery into the platform. The platform mainly takes commissions for successful matching and executing trade. (Journal of Cleaner Production Volume 213, 10 March 2019, Pages 320-331) The USP of the ShareRing Business Model The USP that ShareRing has is that it brings all of the different forms of sharing together in one app through partnerships and onboarding of users. No other company, to date, is bringing everything together in such a way. However there are other factors that make ShareRing unique, which we will look at. Token Economics SHR is a utility token and will be used to pay for transactions on the network, such as 'new booking', 'add asset', etc. SHR is used by providers to pay for their access to the ShareLedger blockchain, including the addition of assets, renting out of assets, adding attributes, adding smart contracts, and other features. SharePay (SHRP) is used by customers to pay for the rental of assets. Masternodes will also be a main feature of the SHR token. When a transaction fee is incurred, it will be distributed in a way that allows for masternode holders who provide a service to the platform to receive a reward from each transaction. Transaction fees are charged to sharing providers in SHR. The distribution of transaction fees will be as follows: 50% - will be distributed amongst the active masternode holders who host an active node on the blockchain at that point in time (these holders provide a service to the platform). The distribution will be based on a calculation of the Total Amount Staked and the total continuous uptime of the node. 50% - will be provided to ShareRing Ltd (view ShareRing owned masternodes) for various purposes that contribute to working capital and platform growth. Leased Proof of Stake Consensus ShareRing have chosen the Leased Proof-of-Stake protocol as the consensus algorithm for ShareLedger. This choice is based on the practicality and security benefits evident in the Waves platform. It is also much more cost effective than Proof-of-Work (POW), and will not suffer from the current issues Bitcoin and other POW cryptocurrencies are facing such as scalability and electricity consumption. As explained above master nodes will be a main feature but there is the other feature of lightweight nodes. A user with a lightweight node will be able to stake their tokens to a full node of their choosing and participate in reaching consensus. They will also be free to cancel their leasing at any time as there are no contracts or freezing periods. The more tokens that have been staked in a full node, the higher the probability the node will have in producing the next block. Since the reward is given based on the total number of tokens staked in the full node, there will always be a trade-off between the size of the full node and the percentage of the reward. As an average user of the platform, you will not need to have technical knowledge on how to set up a node nor will you have to download the entire blockchain in order to stake your tokens. Only a user who sets up a full node will be required to do this, making it simpler than ever for users to earn a reward for supporting the platform. The return expected for staking is expected to be around 6 - 8% although this has yet to be confirmed. Buybacks ShareRing are currently implementing a series of buybacks which started in the beginning of November: The buyback operation is done at a random time during the week. If there is enough liquidity, SHR tokens will be bought through a single market order at the time of buyback. In case there is not enough liquidity, a limit buy order at last sell order price will be placed on the market, and will remain open until it gets filled. The buyback program was implemented to test the API purchase process for when live transactions occur on ShareLedger The Buyback Program is expected to:
Reduce the supply of ShareTokens available in both public and private markets
Bring New capital and fund inflows into the Shareledger
Substantially magnify value creation for the ShareToken holders
The Token Flow ShareRing will bring in hundreds of merchants to list their rental products, either exclusively or as part of an aggregator system e.g. When you look at the likes of trivago.com they will list the best hotel prices from multiple merchants who are listed on their website. Essentially ShareRing will become part of the aggregator ecosystem and be listed on sites like trivago.com as well as have exclusive agreements with merchants who are listed directly on their app. ShareRing’s USP is that they have everything on one place as well as their OneID module with means buyers can get a hotel, rent a car, rent their ski equipment, book events all through the one app and using the OneID. With that in mind they are going to attract a lot of merchants. This is where it gets exciting so pay attention to this part. When a merchant is part of the ShareRing ecosystem and a buyer rents something from that merchant ShareRing will take a small % commission from that transaction. So say someone books a hotel for $100 for the night, ShareRing might take $0.50 as a commission. What ShareRing will then do is go to one of the exchanges that ShareRing (SHR) is listed on and buy SHR tokens directly using an API system using USDT. Now, the actual commission has not been disclosed yet however if we assume even a 0.25% commission that means for every $100 Million worth of bookings made through the app will net ShareRing $250,000 which means buy backs of $250,000 for the SHR token, which increases the liquidity of SHR on the exchanges. If you think $100 Million of bookings is a lot, booking.com customers book around 1.5 Million rooms per day, if we estimate an average of $50 per room that is $75 million of bookings PER DAY or $2 Billion worth of bookings per month. This revenue coupled with revenue from OneID and eVOA makes ShareRing profitable almost from day one of the app going live. OneID And eVOA Another exciting development from the ShareRing team is the collaboration between ShareRings Self Sovereign Identity protocol and third party providers to bring OneID and eVOA which will utilise OneID With the huge rise in E-commerce and with over 2.82 billion people who now own a smartphone we are entrusting our personal information to more and more centralised entities. These entities are frequently hacked and our information is leaked to outside parties. ShareRing aims to tackle this with their service OneID module. ShareRing’s OneID solution protects users' data by handling Know Your Customer (KYC) information through third parties and ShareRing’s Self Sovereign Identity Protocol. ShareRing does not hold any identifying information anywhere on its servers. It provides the ultimate security for the renter and also the provider, as the Protocol encrypts and stores your data in a secure manner within your device. Essentially, this means that it is near impossible for a hack or data leak to happen, simply because there is no centralized server of data for hackers to exploit. The OneID module is very easy to use. The end-user needs to complete their ID submission only once, with the entire submission process requiring less than two minutes to complete. Once this step has been completed, the customers KYC is destroyed by the 3rd party document verification system and the OneID module allows merchants to verify a customer’s identity via a hashed verification packet, stored on the users device and ShareLedger. This removes the need for merchants to store or see personal information; safeguarding both merchants and users from fraud. To create your ShareRing OneID, simply:
Take a picture of your government ID document
Take a selfie
Confirm and submit your details
This is something I am really excited about for ShareRing and they already have made partnerships for other companies to use this feature which is another income stream for ShareRing. eVOA E-Visa On Arrival allows applicants to apply online and receive a travel authorisation before departure – this eVOA can be shown at dedicated Thailand immigration counters on arrival at major Thailand airports, allowing travellers to pass through in minutes. OneID system is scheduled to become the lynchpin technology in Thailand’s electronic Visa On Arrival (eVOA) system; one of only two companies to partner with Thai authorities to provide this service. The new Visa system eliminates much of the hassle involved in entering the country: This is a strong validation of the OneID system - immigration controls are some of the most scrutinized processes in any branch of government, and if the OneID solution can operate to their standards then it is truly business-ready. As explained by our COO, Rohan Le Page: “We are providing our OneID product for Thailand e-VOA (Visa On Arrival) that allows 5 Million travellers from 20 countries including China and India to complete the visa process on their mobile through our app. This provides a streamlined immigration process that negates the need for an expensive and time-consuming process when you get off the plane. Additionally, fraud is mitigated with several extra layers of security in the back end including our blockchain (ShareLedger) consensus model that makes all data immutable and all but impossible to hack.” Profit Margins on OneID So how does ShareRing make money from OneID and eVOA? With each application for an eVOA using the OneID module ShareRing will make an undisclosed commission. The e-VOA is available to citizens of 21 different countries and is intended for those who will be holidaying in Thailand and not working in the country. This means that each eVOA will last for a period of around 15 days which effectively means that ShareRing will get commission multiple times from each person travelling to one of the 21 countries listed below: Andorra, Bhutan, Bulgaria, China, Ethiopia, Fiji, India, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Cyprus Romania, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan The profits on this alone, according to projections, are worth millions of dollars per year to ShareRing, with a healthy growth of about 35% in raw profit over the next 5 years, ultimately netting the company about $1.5 million profit per quarter. The ShareLedger Blockchain Platform ShareRing will utilize the registered intellectual property from the existing KeazACCESS framework (KEAZ: A car sharing company founded by Tim Bos) as well as improving it the blockchain experience in their team. It will consist of fo the primary elements: SharePay (SHRP) – SharePay is the base currency that will allow users of the ShareRing platform to pay for the use of third party assets. ShareToken (SHR) ShareToken (SHR) is the digital utility token that drives sharing transactions to be written to the ShareRing ledger that is managed by the ShareRing platform. Account – This will be a standard account, which such an account being represented by a 24-byte address. The account will contain 4 general fields: SHRP – SharePay token balance SHR – ShareToken balance ASSETS – linked/owned by the account (see below for definition of an Asset) ATTRIBUTES – Any additional attributes that are associated with this account. These attributes may be updated or added by Sharing Economy providers that utilise the ledger such as ID checks by rental companies. These attributes may be ‘global’ (i.e. used by any sharing providers) or ‘local’ (i.e. used by a specific sharing provider). Assets – An asset represents a tangible real-world or digital asset that is being shared, such as a car, a house, industrial machinery, an e-book, and so on. Smart Contracts – Similar to a number of other blockchain platforms, such as Ethereum and NEO, the ShareLedger blockchain will feature highly customisable smart contracts. These Smart Contracts will allow for decentralised autonomous applications that can be attached to an asset and/or account. Every smart contract will be Turing complete, meaning it will have the ability to implement sophisticated logic to manage the sharing of the assets. The smart contracts will be tested and reviewed by ShareRing in a sandbox as well as audited by reputable third-party code auditors prior to implementation. Proof of Stake Consensus ShareRing have chosen the Leased Proof-of-Stake protocol as the consensus algorithm for ShareLedger. This choice is based on the practicality and security benefits evident in the Waves platform. It is also much more cost effective than Proof-of-Work (POW), and will not suffer from the current issues Bitcoin and other POW cryptocurrencies are facing such as scalability and electricity consumption. The ShareRing App At the heart of the ShareRing project lies the ShareRing app: A universal ‘ShareRing’ app is being developed that will allow anyone to easily see and use any sharing services around them. Each partner will have the option of developing a ‘mini’ app within the ShareRing app that will have functionalities specific to that partner. The app will use geolocation-based services to display the ShareRing services that are nearby Social Media Presence Coming from a social media background I feel this is an extremely important area to look into, especially in the crypto world. ShareRing has done an okay job in growing their social media presence however I feel it could be much better. Here is a look at some of the key stats for their online social media presence: Youtube: 191 Subscribers Instagram: 238 Followers Linkedin: 376 Followers Telegram: 6,525 members (very active) Twitter: 2,216 Followers (Fairly regular updates) Facebook: 1,965 Followers Whilst social media may not be a priority just now I feel there has to be a big presence with image-based platforms and video-based platforms. Youtube and Instagram should be made a priority here as it spans all generations: Other News on ShareRing There is a lot of stuff going on at the moment with ShareRing which is what makes it an exciting prospect. Rather than give information on each of them here are some highlights provided by the ShareRing team.: - ShareRing's revolutionary ID management based module OneID. - Worlds first Blockchain based eVOA in place with major Thai company targeting 5 to 10 million travellers from 20 countries. - 2.6 million International Hotels/ Accommodation coming on to the Platform. Lots more to come! - Partnership with HomeAway - 200,000 Activites, Tours and Events added to the ShareRing App - Multi Global Car Sharing Partnerships - 1 Partner Directly Integrating SHR's OneID consisting of 1.2 million Vehicles across 150 Countries - Luxury Car Brand Sharing Platform purely based on SHR - SHR payment system SHRP available in 10% Taxi Terminals in Australia - SHRP available in 10,000 EFTPOS Terminals Australia wide - White Labelling Services incorporating ShareRings revolutionary OneID - 20 Significant Unannounced Partnerships, more to come! - Major Partners include - - BYD (Largest Electric Car Maker in the World) - DJI (Largest Drone Maker in the World) - Keaz (300 locations around the world) - Yogoo EV Car Sharing - MOBI Alliance Member Overview of Positives and Negatives Negatives Social Media and marketing possibly needs to be ramped up in order to bring more awareness to the project. The roadmap and white paper has not been updated recently for 2019/2020 but this I believe is coming soon. Positives With a low market cap project like ShareRing the risk to reward ratio is very good for retail and institutional investors. Technical analysis of current prices, currently at 31 Satoshi, is also very good with resistance levels at 50, 77 and 114 Satoshi which would be nearing its all time high. Referral program will increase the numbers of users that are currently using the site. If ShareRing can capture even a small % of the overall sharing market then success looks assured. There are 20 new announcements coming up and with Tim Bos looking for more partnerships it seems likely that ShareRing will break ATH prices soon. Great long term hold, in my opinion. Realistic Expectations of ROI Short term (4 weeks - 12 weeks) Short term looks great for ShareRing both from a TA point of view and a fundamental point of view. With lots of news still to come out about ShareRing there is not going to be a shortage of fundamentals to drive the price up. From a TA point of view the next line of resistance stands at around the 50 Satoshi level which would complete a massive cup and handle formation from August 24th of this year. After that we are looking at resistances of 77 and 114 to reach near the all time highs which i expect ShareRing to reach going into 2020. Long term (6 Months - 2 Years) If ShareRing can onboard users and keep on making partnerships at the same rate there will be no stopping it. It’s all about onboarding the users and utilising the most powerful marketing tool ever - word of mouth! When a great app is realised with great and useful functionality then it tends to go viral and I am hoping this happens for ShareRing. With a market cap at the moment of just under $6 Million then I don’t think it’s crazy to talk about 1000% increases in the next 2 years and I really believe that is being extremely conservative, given where we think crypto is heading as a whole.
News Technology. Bitcoin’s hashrate exceeds 100 exahashes per second Bitcoin’s exponential growth continues to proliferate as its hashrate surpasses a monolithic 100 exahashes per second (EH/s). By Will Heasman. 3 min read. Sep 16, 2019 Sep 16, 2019. Bitcoin. The computing power of the bitcoin network reached a new record high this Thursday. According to the Bitinfocharts portal, the hash rate of the main cryptocurrency for the first time in history exceeded the value of 80 quintillion (SHA256 hashes per second).. Earlier this year, records related to the computing capabilities of Bitcoin were recorded repeatedly. Over Bitcoin‘s 10-year life, the network has grown so powerful that it can compute quintillions of hashes every single second. For easy comprehension, 74 quintillion hashes per second is written Bitcoin’s hash rate surpassed 80 quintillion hashes per second on Friday, continuing the upward trend that started in December as Bitcoin’s price began to rise.That means that the amount of More Bitcoin Hashes Per Second than are Grains of Sand. According to Blockchain.com, the Bitcoin network hash rate is at a new ATH of 69 quintillion hashes per second (69 million terra hashes per second – TH/s). Hash rate refers to the computing power used in securing the network.
The Single Strategy To Use For What is Cryptocurrency? Cryptocurrency Security: 4 Tips to
Now they gadgets called ASICs (Application Particular Integrated Circuits) which are specifically designed to carry out billions of hashes per second to mine brand-new bitcoins. Now they devices called ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits) which are particularly developed to perform billions of hashes per second to mine brand-new bitcoins. For context, that’s double what the hash rate was at one year ago and 1,000% higher than the hash rate at Bitcoin’s $20,000 high. Bitcoin’s network difficulty, which regulates how fast ... A brief and simple introduction to the hash function and how blockchain solutions use it for proof of work (mining) and data integrity (Merkle Trees). Riot’s new Antminers will bring Riot’s operational hash rate to 357 petahashes per second — equating to 0.29% of Bitcoin’s current hash rate of nearly 123,000 petahashes.