Get to know: What is Bitcoin mining? : Augusta Free Press

Proof Of Work Explained

Proof Of Work Explained
https://preview.redd.it/hl80wdx61j451.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=c80b21c53ae45c6f7d618f097bc705a1d8aaa88f
A proof-of-work (PoW) system (or protocol, or function) is a consensus mechanism that was first invented by Cynthia Dwork and Moni Naor as presented in a 1993 journal article. In 1999, it was officially adopted in a paper by Markus Jakobsson and Ari Juels and they named it as "proof of work".
It was developed as a way to prevent denial of service attacks and other service abuse (such as spam on a network). This is the most widely used consensus algorithm being used by many cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum.
How does it work?
In this method, a group of users competes against each other to find the solution to a complex mathematical puzzle. Any user who successfully finds the solution would then broadcast the block to the network for verifications. Once the users verified the solution, the block then moves to confirm the state.
The blockchain network consists of numerous sets of decentralized nodes. These nodes act as admin or miners which are responsible for adding new blocks into the blockchain. The miner instantly and randomly selects a number which is combined with the data present in the block. To find a correct solution, the miners need to select a valid random number so that the newly generated block can be added to the main chain. It pays a reward to the miner node for finding the solution.
The block then passed through a hash function to generate output which matches all input/output criteria. Once the result is found, other nodes in the network verify and validate the outcome. Every new block holds the hash of the preceding block. This forms a chain of blocks. Together, they store information within the network. Changing a block requires a new block containing the same predecessor. It is almost impossible to regenerate all successors and change their data. This protects the blockchain from tampering.
What is Hash Function?
A hash function is a function that is used to map data of any length to some fixed-size values. The result or outcome of a hash function is known as hash values, hash codes, digests, or simply hashes.
https://preview.redd.it/011tfl8c1j451.png?width=851&format=png&auto=webp&s=ca9c2adecbc0b14129a9b2eea3c2f0fd596edd29
The hash method is quite secure, any slight change in input will result in a different output, which further results in discarded by network participants. The hash function generates the same length of output data to that of input data. It is a one-way function i.e the function cannot be reversed to get the original data back. One can only perform checks to validate the output data with the original data.
Implementations
Nowadays, Proof-of-Work is been used in a lot of cryptocurrencies. But it was first implemented in Bitcoin after which it becomes so popular that it was adopted by several other cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin uses the puzzle Hashcash, the complexity of a puzzle is based upon the total power of the network. On average, it took approximately 10 min to block formation. Litecoin, a Bitcoin-based cryptocurrency is having a similar system. Ethereum also implemented this same protocol.
Types of PoW
Proof-of-work protocols can be categorized into two parts:-
· Challenge-response
This protocol creates a direct link between the requester (client) and the provider (server).
In this method, the requester needs to find the solution to a challenge that the server has given. The solution is then validated by the provider for authentication.
The provider chooses the challenge on the spot. Hence, its difficulty can be adapted to its current load. If the challenge-response protocol has a known solution or is known to exist within a bounded search space, then the work on the requester side may be bounded.
https://preview.redd.it/ij967dof1j451.png?width=737&format=png&auto=webp&s=12670c2124fc27b0f988bb4a1daa66baf99b4e27
Source-wiki
· Solution–verification
These protocols do not have any such prior link between the sender and the receiver. The client, self-imposed a problem and solve it. It then sends the solution to the server to check both the problem choice and the outcome. Like Hashcash these schemes are also based on unbounded probabilistic iterative procedures.
https://preview.redd.it/gfobj9xg1j451.png?width=740&format=png&auto=webp&s=2291fd6b87e84395f8a4364267f16f577b5f1832
Source-wiki
These two methods generally based on the following three techniques:-
CPU-bound
This technique depends upon the speed of the processor. The higher the processor power greater will be the computation.
Memory-bound
This technique utilizes the main memory accesses (either latency or bandwidth) in computation speed.
Network-bound
In this technique, the client must perform a few computations and wait to receive some tokens from remote servers.
List of proof-of-work functions
Here is a list of known proof-of-work functions:-
o Integer square root modulo a large prime
o Weaken Fiat–Shamir signatures`2
o Ong–Schnorr–Shamir signature is broken by Pollard
o Partial hash inversion
o Hash sequences
o Puzzles
o Diffie–Hellman–based puzzle
o Moderate
o Mbound
o Hokkaido
o Cuckoo Cycle
o Merkle tree-based
o Guided tour puzzle protocol
A successful attack on a blockchain network requires a lot of computational power and a lot of time to do the calculations. Proof of Work makes hacks inefficient since the cost incurred would be greater than the potential rewards for attacking the network. Miners are also incentivized not to cheat.
It is still considered as one of the most popular methods of reaching consensus in blockchains. Though it may not be the most efficient solution due to high energy extensive usage. But this is why it guarantees the security of the network.
Due to Proof of work, it is quite impossible to alter any aspect of the blockchain, since any such changes would require re-mining all those subsequent blocks. It is also difficult for a user to take control over the network computing power since the process requires high energy thus making these hash functions expensive.
submitted by RumaDas to u/RumaDas [link] [comments]

A better anti-reorg algorithm using first-seen times to punish secret/dishonest mining

Bitcoin currently allows a malicious miner with at least 51% of the network hashrate to arbitrarily rewrite blockchain history. This means that transactions are reversible if they belong to a miner with a hashrate majority, and such transactions are subject to double-spend attempts. Bitcoin SV's miners have repeatedly threatened to perform this attack against exchanges using BCH by mining a secret, hidden chain which they only publish after they have withdrawn funds in a different currency from the exchange. It would be nice if we could prevent these secret mining re-org attacks.
Yesterday, I came up with a new algorithm for making secret re-org attacks very expensive and difficult to pull off. This new algorithm is designed to avoid the permanent chainsplit vulnerabilities of ABC 0.18.5 while being more effective at punishing malicious behavior.
The key to the new algorithm is to punish exactly the behavior that indicates malice. First, publishing a block after another block at the same height has arrived on the network suggests malice or poor performance, and the likelihood of malice increases as the delay increases. A good algorithm would penalize blocks in proportion to how much later they were published after the competing block. Second, building upon a block that was intentionally delayed is also a sign of malice. Therefore, a good algorithm would discount the work done by blocks based not only on their own delays, but the delays that were seen earlier in that chain as well. Since the actions at the start of the fork are more culpable (as they generate the split), we want to weight those blocks more heavily than later blocks.
I wrote up an algorithm that implements these features. When comparing two chains, you look at the PoW done since the fork block, and divide that PoW by a penalty score. The penalty score for each chain is calculated as the sum of the penalty scores for each block. Each block's penalty score is equal to the apparent time delay of that block relative to its sibling or cousin[1], divided by 120 seconds[2], and further divided by the square[3] of that block's height[4] from the fork.[5]
This algorithm has some desirable properties:
  1. It provides smooth performance. There are no corners or sharp changes in its incentive structure or penalty curve.
  2. It converges over very long time scales. Eventually, if one chain has more hashrate than the other and that is sustained indefinitely, the chain with the most hashrate will win by causing the chain penalty score for the slower (less-PoW) chain to grow.
  3. The long-term convergence means that variation in observed times early in the fork will not cause permanent chainsplits.
  4. Long-term convergence means that nodes can follow the standard most-PoW rule during initial block download and get the same results unless an attack is underway, in which case the node will only temporarily disagree.
  5. Over intermediate time scales (e.g. hours to weeks), the penalty given to secret-mining deep-reorg chains is very large and difficult to overcome even with a significant hashrate advantage. The penalty increases the longer the attack chain is kept secret. This makes attack attempts ineffective unless they are published within about 20 minutes of the attack starting.
  6. Single-block orphan race behavior is identical to existing behavior unless one of the blocks has a delay of at least 120 seconds, in which case that chain would require a total of 3 blocks to win (or more) instead of just 2.
  7. As the algorithm strongly punishes hidden chains, finalization becomes much safer as long as you prevent finalization from happening while there are known competitive alternate chains. However, this algorithm is still effective without finalization.
I wrote up this algorithm into a Python sim yesterday and have been playing around with it since. It seems to perform quite well. For example, if the attacker has 1.5x as much hashrate as the defenders (who had 100% of the hashrate before the fork), mine in secret for 20 minutes before publishing, and if finalization is enabled after 10 blocks when there's at least a 2x score advantage, then the attacker gets an orphan rate of 49.3% on their blocks and is only able to cause a >= 10 block reorg in 5.2% of cases, and none of those happen blindly, as the opposing chain shows up when most transactions have about 2 confirmations. If the attacker waits 1 hour before publishing, the attack is even less effective: 94% of their blocks are orphaned, 95.6% of their attempts fail, 94.3% of the attacks end with defenders successfully finalizing, and only 0.6% of attack attempts result in a >= 10 block reorg.
The code for my algorithm and simulator can be found on my antiReorgSim Github repository. If you guys have time, I'd appreciate some review and feedback. To run it:
git clone https://github.com/jtoomim/antiReorgSim.git cd antiReorgSim python reorgsim.py # use pypy if you have it, as it's 30x faster 
Thanks! Special thanks to Jonald Fyookball and Mark Lundeberg for reviewing early versions of the code and the ideas. I believe Jonald is working on a Medium post based on some of these concepts. Keep an eye out for it.
Edit: I'm working on an interactive HTML visualization using Dash/Python! Here's a screenshot from a preliminary version in which convergence (or attacker victory, if you prefer) happens after 88.4 hours. In this scenario, the attacker wins because of the rule in Note 5.
Edit 2: An alpha website version of the simulator is up! The code is all server-side for the simulation, so it might get overloaded if too many people hit it at the same time, but it might be fine. Feel free to play around with it!
Note 1: This time delay is calculated by finding the best competing chain's last block with less work than this one and the first block with more work than this one and interpolating the time-first-seen between the two. The time at which the block was fully downloaded and verified is used as time-first-seen, not the time at which the header was received nor the block header's timestamp.
Note 2: An empirical constant, intended to be similar to worst-case block propagation times.
Note 3: A semi-empirical constant; this balances the effect of early blocks against late blocks. The motivation for squaring is that late blocks gain an advantage for two multiplicative reasons: First, there are more late blocks than early blocks. Second, the time deltas for late blocks are larger. Both of these factors are linear versus time, so canceling them out can be done by dividing by height squared. This way, the first block has about as much weight as the next 4 blocks; the first two blocks have as much weight as the next 9 blocks; and the first (n) blocks have about as much weight as the next (n+1)2 blocks. Any early advantage can be overcome eventually by a hashrate majority, so over very long time scales (e.g. hours to weeks), this rule is equivalent to the simple Satoshi most-PoW rule, as long as the hashrate on each chain is constant. However, over intermediate time scales, the advantage to the first seen blocks is large enough that the hashrate will likely not remain constant, and hashrate will likely switch over to whichever chain has the best score and looks the most honest.
Note 4: The calculation doesn't actually use height, as that would be vulnerable to DAA manipulation. Instead, the calculation uses pseudoheight, which uses the PoW done and the fork block's difficulty to calculate what the height would be if all blocks had the fork block's difficulty.
Note 5: If one chain has less PoW than the other, the shorter chain's penalty is calculated as if enough blocks had been mined at the last minute to make them equal in PoW, but these fictional blocks do not contribute to the actual PoW of that chain.
submitted by jtoomim to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.54^2 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited

TL;DR
Details
(1) The current observed rates of increase in available network bandwidth (which went up 70% last year) should easily be able to support actual blocksizes increasing at the modest, slightly lower rate of only 54% per year.
Recent data shows that the "provisioned bandwidth" actually available on the Bitcoin network increased 70% in the past year.
If this 70% yearly increase in available bandwidth continues for the next 8 years, then actual blocksizes could easily increase at the slightly lower rate of 54% per year.
This would mean that in 8 years, actual blocksizes would be quite reasonable at about 1.548 = 32MB:
Hacking, Distributed/State of the Bitcoin Network: "In other words, the provisioned bandwidth of a typical full node is now 1.7X of what it was in 2016. The network overall is 70% faster compared to last year."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u85im/hacking_distributedstate_of_the_bitcoin_network/
http://hackingdistributed.com/2017/02/15/state-of-the-bitcoin-network/
Reinstating Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" for the next 8 years or so would effectively be similar to the 1MB "max blocksize" which Bitcoin used for the previous 8 years: simply a "ceiling" which doesn't really get in the way, while preventing any "unreasonably" large blocks from being produced.
As we know, for most of the past 8 years, actual blocksizes have always been far below the "max blocksize" of 1MB. This is because miners have always set their own blocksize (below the official "max blocksize") - in order to maximize their profits, while avoiding "orphan" blocks.
This setting of blocksizes on the part of miners would simply continue "as-is" if we reinstated Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" - with actual blocksizes continuing to grow gradually (still far below the 32MB "max blocksize" ceilng), and without introducing any new (risky, untested) "game theory" or economics - avoiding lots of worries and controversies, and bringing the community together around "Bitcoin Original".
So, simply reinstating Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" would have many advantages:
  • It would keep fees low (so users would be happy);
  • It would support much higher prices (so miners would be happy) - as explained in section (2) below;
  • It would avoid the need for any any possibly controversial changes such as:
    • SegWit/Lightning (the hack of making all UTXOs "anyone-can-spend" necessitated by Blockstream's insistence on using a selfish and dangerous "soft fork", the centrally planned and questionable, arbitrary discount of 1-versus-4 for certain transactions); and
    • Bitcon Unlimited (the newly introduced parameters for Excessive Block "EB" / Acceptance Depth "AD").
(2) Bitcoin blocksize growth of 54% per year would correlate (under Metcalfe's Law) to Bitcoin price growth of around 1.542 = 2.37x per year - or 2.378 = 1000x higher price - ie 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars after 8 years.
The observed, empirical data suggests that Bitcoin does indeed obey "Metcalfe's Law" - which states that the value of a network is roughly proportional to the square of the number of transactions.
In other words, Bitcoin price has corresponded to the square of Bitcoin transactions (which is basically the same thing as the blocksize) for most of the past 8 years.
Historical footnote:
Bitcoin price started to dip slightly below Metcalfe's Law since late 2014 - when the privately held, central-banker-funded off-chain scaling company Blockstream was founded by (now) CEO Adam Back u/adam3us and CTO Greg Maxwell - two people who have historically demonstrated an extremely poor understanding of the economics of Bitcoin, leading to a very polarizing effect on the community.
Since that time, Blockstream launched a massive propaganda campaign, funded by $76 million in fiat from central bankers who would go bankrupt if Bitcoin succeeded, and exploiting censorship on r\bitcoin, attacking the on-chain scaling which Satoshi originally planned for Bitcoin.
Legend states that Einstein once said that the tragedy of humanity is that we don't understand exponential growth.
A lot of people might think that it's crazy to claim that 1 bitcoin could actually be worth 1 million dollars in just 8 years.
But a Bitcoin price of 1 million dollars would actually require "only" a 1000x increase in 8 years. Of course, that still might sound crazy to some people.
But let's break it down by year.
What we want to calculate is the "8th root" of 1000 - or 10001/8. That will give us the desired "annual growth rate" that we need, in order for the price to increase by 1000x after a total of 8 years.
If "you do the math" - which you can easily perform with a calculator or with Excel - you'll see that:
  • 54% annual actual blocksize growth for 8 years would give 1.548 = 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 = 32MB blocksize after 8 years
  • Metcalfe's Law (where Bitcoin price corresponds to the square of Bitcoin transactions or volume / blocksize) would give 1.542 = 2.37 - ie, 54% bigger blocks (higher volume or more transaction) each year could support about 2.37 higher price each year.
  • 2.37x annual price growth for 8 years would be 2.378 = 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 = 1000 - giving a price of 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars if the price increases an average of 2.37x per year for 8 years, starting from 1 BTC = 1000 USD now.
So, even though initially it might seem crazy to think that we could get to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars in 8 years, it's actually not that far-fetched at all - based on:
  • some simple math,
  • the observed available bandwidth (already increasing at 70% per year), and
  • the increasing fragility and failures of many "legacy" debt-backed national fiat currencies and payment systems.
Does Metcalfe's Law hold for Bitcoin?
The past 8 years of data suggest that Metcalfe's Law really does hold for Bitcoin - you can check out some of the graphs here:
https://imgur.com/jLnrOuK
https://i.redd.it/kvjwzcuce3ay.png
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*22ix0l4oBDJ3agoLzVtUgQ.gif
(3) Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" would provide an ultra-simple, ultra-safe, non-controversial approach which perhaps everyone could agree on: Bitcoin's original promise of "p2p electronic cash", 100% on-chain, eventually worth 1 BTC = 1 million dollars.
This could all be done using only the whitepaper - eg, no need for possibly "controversial" changes like SegWit/Lightning, Bitcoin Unlimited, etc.
As we know, the Bitcoin community has been fighting a lot lately - mainly about various controversial scaling proposals.
Some people are worried about SegWit, because:
  • It's actually not much of a scaling proposal - it would only give 1.7MB blocks, and only if everyone adopts it, and based on some fancy, questionable blocksize or new "block weight" accounting;
  • It would be implemented as an overly complicated and anti-democratic "soft" fork - depriving people of their right to vote via a much simpler and safer "hard" fork, and adding massive and unnecessary "technical debt" to Bitcoin's codebase (for example, dangerously making all UTXOs "anyone-can-spend", making future upgrades much more difficult - but giving long-term "job security" to Core/Blockstream devs);
  • It would require rewriting (and testing!) thousands of lines of code for existing wallets, exchanges and businesses;
  • It would introduce an arbitrary 1-to-4 "discount" favoring some kinds of transactions over others.
And some people are worried about Lightning, because:
  • There is no decentralized (p2p) routing in Lightning, so Lightning would be a terrible step backwards to the "bad old days" of centralized, censorable hubs or "crypto banks";
  • Your funds "locked" in a Lightning channel could be stolen if you don't constantly monitor them;
  • Lighting would steal fees from miners, and make on-chain p2p transactions prohibitively expensive, basically destroying Satoshi's p2p network, and turning it into SWIFT.
And some people are worried about Bitcoin Unlimited, because:
  • Bitcoin Unlimited extends the notion of Nakamoto Consensus to the blocksize itself, introducing the new parameters EB (Excess Blocksize) and AD (Acceptance Depth);
  • Bitcoin Unlimited has a new, smaller dev team.
(Note: Out of all the current scaling proposals available, I support Bitcoin Unlimited - because its extension of Nakamoto Consensus to include the blocksize has been shown to work, and because Bitcoin Unlimited is actually already coded and running on about 25% of the network.)
It is normal for reasonable people to have the above "concerns"!
But what if we could get to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars - without introducing any controversial new changes or discounts or consensus rules or game theory?
What if we could get to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars using just the whitepaper itself - by simply reinstating Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize"?
(4) We can easily reach "million-dollar bitcoin" by gradually and safely growing blocks to 32MB - Satoshi's original "max blocksize" - without changing anything else in the system!
If we simply reinstate "Bitcoin Original" (Satoshi's original 32MB blocksize), then we could avoid all the above "controversial" changes to Bitcoin - and the following 8-year scenario would be quite realistic:
  • Actual blocksizes growing modestly at 54% per year - well within the 70% increase in available "provisioned bandwidth" which we actually happened last year
  • This would give us a reasonable, totally feasible blocksize of 1.548 = 32MB ... after 8 years.
  • Bitcoin price growing at 2.37x per year, or a total increase of 2.378 = 1000x over the next 8 years - which is similar to what happened during the previous 8 years, when the price went from under 1 USDollars to over 1000 USDollars.
  • This would give us a possible Bitcoin price of 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars after 8 years.
  • There would still be plenty of decentralization - plenty of fully-validating nodes and mining nodes), because:
    • The Cornell study showed that 90% of nodes could already handle 4MB blocks - and that was several years ago (so we could already handle blocks even bigger than 4MB now).
    • 70% yearly increase in available bandwidth, combined with a mere 54% yearly increase in used bandwidth (plus new "block compression" technologies such as XThin and Compact Blocks) mean that nearly all existing nodes could easily handle 32MB blocks after 8 years; and
    • The "economic incentives" to run a node would be strong if the price were steadily rising to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars
    • This would give a total market cap of 20 trillion USDollars after about 8 years - comparable to the total "money" in the world which some estimates put at around 82 trillion USDollars.
So maybe we should consider the idea of reinstating Satoshi's Original Bitcoin with its 32MB blocksize - using just the whitepaper and avoiding controversial changes - so we could re-unite the community to get to "million-dollar bitcoin" (and 20 trillion dollar market cap) in as little as 8 years.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Current Bitcoin Carbon Emissions. The numbers. Can we discuss please?

I received a PM from a redditor about a old comment. His PM reads -
So back 10 months ago I posted this comment and you responded with the most reasoned response about the entire Bitcoin network emitting less carbon than a single 747. It made me feel much better about Bitcoin. It also confused me this past few weeks with people posting stories stating that Bitcoin will soon use nearly 0.1% of the world's energy and already consumes more power than every single solar panel in the entire world produces. Those two don't really square, so I looked back and the article you reference was from 2014. I'm curious if you've reevaluated your stance on bitcoin or perhaps have some insight that the current hysteria is just overblown?
Since I've spent the time doing some napkin math (I could be horribly wrong on this, someone please correct me!), I thought I should make this post public for everone to evaulate my maths and my reasoning.
First, I would just redirect to AA's great clip on the subject -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fExR-IKozOY
As for re-evaluating my position, yes, constantly. Im going to do this really quickly, so unsure of accuracy, but should give a rough ball park.
http://www.yousustain.com/footprint/howmuchco2?co2=761+tons
Says its about 761 tons for a 747 to fly 24 hrs.
https://www.thebalance.com/how-much-power-does-the-bitcoin-network-use-391280
Claims 1 watt per 1 second gigahash. Comes out to 343 mW per second. Thats 1234800 mW per hour, which equals 29635200 mWh for 24 hrs. The formula used to calculate megawatt-hours is Megawatt hours (MWh) = Megawatts (MW) x Hours (h). In this case, I've used 24 hours since we are comparing to 24 hours of a 747 flying, so 24 MWh. So currently btc mining has a rate of 1,234,800 per MWh.
Putting 29635200000 (previous mWh * 1000 for kWh) into this government calculator will give you caron comparisons. That calculator claims an equivilent of 2,481,717,074 gallons of gas consumed. Yes, thats nearly 2.5 billion.
To make this comparison more comprehensible....
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10
In 2017, about 143.85 billion gallons (or about 3.40 billion barrels1) of finished motor gasoline were consumed2 in the United States, a daily average of about 391.40 million gallons (or about 9.32 million barrels per day).
This would be equivilent of 6.33 days of gasoline usage in the USA for a single day of mining.
So go go back to our airplane analogy, the carbon calculator says that many mW = 22,055,020 metric tons of carbon emitted.
I do recall looking into the airplane thing back when we were discussing it, and I remember looking at the numbers. Frankly, its impossible to believe those were accurate and im sorry. I should have double checked everything.
According to - https://charts.bitcoin.com/chart/hash-rate
We had around "5EHash" in august of 2017, when that comment was made. We are now at 31EHash, over a 6x fold since that comment was made.
Now that we have the numbers out of the way, some things to consider...
These estimates are based upon the USA's carbon calculators which measures average carbon output based on the varying technologies in the US. According to the wiki the US only is around 12% (in 2016) for renewable energy.
So in general, our energy is pretty damn dirty and we put out a lot more carbon than we sequester.
In that AA video, he talks about the geolocation arbitrage used by miners. This makes a lot of sense. If you are going to invest 50-500 million into a mining operation, are you going to do it in a area where it costs 12 cents per hour (US average), or where it costs 3-4 cents per kwH? See -
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/#1c69d08e4ff2
Obviously you are going to massively reduce your operational cost as that is what will lead your investment to become profitable.
Fortunately for us, and the world, many of these arbitrage opportunities are in hydroelectric and geothermal energy areas. These plants are designed to be future proofed, so enterprising mining congolmerates will move to areas where they can secure very cheap energy prices. When these companies are currently using 5-15 GwH for their cities, with 50 GwH capacity, they will happily sell their extra capacity to the mining operation since that is a very favorable economic incentive to all parties.
Another factor to consider is that for every single new ASIC design, they are becoming more energy efficient. So even though the hashrate is jumping, I would say the overall energy used by the network will plateau, if it has not already done so. With GMO and other giants like Samsung entering the mining design fray, this will only speed up energy efficiency.
None of this is intended to be a sidestepping of the facts - Clearly the bitcoin network uses a lot of energy. And when you have less regulated countries (china, India), it presents opportunities for locals to setup mining operations inside their locality, which then uses dirty energy, increasing carbon outputs.
The amount of carbon emissions per day (22,055,020 metric tons) that is above is obviously not very accurate when you account for these arbitrage opportunties. We know for a fact many of the largest mining colo's are situated near hydroelectric and Geothermal energy plants, which means that they are practically zero carbon emissions. Since we do not know the location of every miner, due to the decentralized unregulated nature of bitcoin, it is impossible to calculate how much of a reduction of tons of carbon we will get for that calculation.
But even if we are generous, and say 50% of all mining is done on renewables, that still leaves 11 million tons of carbon per day, a pretty staggering amount.
There is also much to hope for with scientists claiming we can be 100% renewable energy across the entire planet. Such as scientists setting to prove through empiracle data that it is feasible to convert the entire planet to 100% renewables. Though it is probably not realistic that this will happen quickly, or even at all. To give perspective, CFC's have been banned for decades and thought not in use for over a decade, yet recent data has shown levels are increasing. There will always be industry willing to destroy the world in the future for short term profit now.
We should also weigh the costs and benefits of this massive network. If bitcoin becomes adopted across the world as a currency, which if you look at places like Japan, it clearly is, then this will enable literal billions of people who are currently unbanked to join into the global financial ecosystem.
The personal financial soverignty that bitcoin brings is of incalcuable value. Whether the carbon emissions are worth these trade offs is a philosophical question that probably does not have an right or wrong answer.
Then we must also evaluate the carbon impact that the bitcoin network would have if cryptocurrencies were to replace traditional financial networks. There are some good analysis on the carbon footprint of banks, and bitcoin mining, coindesk has done several articles, see -
https://www.coindesk.com/microscope-conclusions-costs-bitcoin/
&
https://www.coindesk.com/microscope-true-costs-banking/
If we are properly to examine the impact that cryptocurrency carbon emissions have on society, then we should also examine the reduction of carbon that cryptocurrency networks will have upon the banking sector.
This site Claims AC & Heating results in 47.7 % of the entire USA's electricity usage. This example is just to present a understanding of how much energy these systems use.
How many Banks are there around the world that have their AC on 24/7? I can imagine just that number alone would lead to a staggering level of CO2 emissions. The coindesk article claims 591k bank branches around the world. The above aritcle claims 3.5k watts for a single central air unit. I had a family member that used to run a A/C business and I've been on top of many businesses. A bank will likely have several of those units to keep the place cool, I would estimate between 2-10 depending upon size.
In more good news, Bank branches are declining, and cryptocurrencies will only accelerate this. Lets hope that bitcoin is the amazon of retail brick and mortor closures.
In conclusion, there is a valid and rational concern as to the amount of power that the bitcoin network brings. And instead of being dismissive, we should recognize the incredible rate at which the bitcoin network is growing on an annual basis. From 4.3EHash to 31EHash over the last year, that is about a 8x fold increase.
Since we can assume that the majority of hashpower is coming online in the last year is likely newer models, these units should be at the current efficiencies. The estimates above should be roughly accurate based on this information.
This information will only be used by politicians and media congolmerates to spin a very bad negative impression of the bitcoin network. And you know what? Maybe they are right. Maybe bitcoin is growing into a massive CO2 producing beast that outweighs the benefits that it brings to society.
But how can we reach a consensus on this issue unless we, the hardcore bitcoiners and techophiles, bring the numbers into sunlight and discuss?
submitted by Cryptolution to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

How temtum Solves Today's Blockchain Problems

How temtum Solves Today's Blockchain Problems
Hello to all my blockchain friends, today I will invite you to join a TEMTUM project where this project can develop well and if you are not interested you may ignore it ... okay can we start to explore this project, maybe you often hear about developing projects at this time even all the projects that were worked on were related to cryptocurrency, where cryptocurrency was a project that would give rewards in the form of coins then we could exchange them through BTC or ETH ..
now I will start discussing it, This section provides an overview of the groundbreaking new technology behind temtum. Please refer to the glossary at the end of this white paper for a list of definitions. The temtum network achieves truly decentralised scalability, near instant transaction speeds and unprecedented transaction throughput, using low resources and future-proof cryptographic security.

https://preview.redd.it/pkc3b0bdrkf31.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=1ed6160ec72f7e2b1b807f2abfa0d884674cdb09
With our improved network routing, the removal of the block size limit and a system architecture that ensures a single, randomly selected node confirms all transactions for 60 seconds, the only limitation to transaction throughput is the hardware and bandwidth of network participants. This is shown by the fact that we have demonstrated simulated transaction throughput speeds of 120,000 transactions per second in a laboratory environment.
Ultra lightweight, super fast, quantum secure decentralised network, redefining the boundaries of blockchain and cryptocurrencies to empower financial freedom - temtum (TEM)
Five advantages of Temtum network
Low-efficient Energy — An exceptional agreement calculation that does not require top of the line figuring equipment to affirm exchanges makes Temporal a greener blockchain arrangement.
Lightweight Block Data — Information isn’t required by hubs to be put away locally perpetually on machines, making Temporal exceptionally productive and amazingly lightweight.
Costless — Zero implanted exchange costs on the system, making Temtum a ground-breaking digital currency for high volume transactions and exchanges.
Fast — With square affirmation taking only 12 seconds, 5 squares for each moment, TEM exchanges are close moment regardless of the sum being sent.
Secured — Temtum’s network will have a top class security generating confidence across users.
The fact that current blockchain networks have limitations at their core, means that they cannot satisfy the key transaction demands for many of the industries and applications which should have the highest need for blockchain networks, such as large global payment networks and credit card companies. This is how temtum addresses each of these flaws in current blockchain networks.

https://preview.redd.it/qgga24zfrkf31.png?width=597&format=png&auto=webp&s=4926100b553457eb20e66e925bd0727486c4f471
How temtum Solves Today's Blockchain Problems
Scalability: The Temporal Blockchain eliminates the need to store the entire chain history on all nodes by locally archiving data, while preventing competition in node selection. This significantly reduces resource requirements and allows anyone with a basic form of technology – such as a smartphone user – to fully participate in the network, delivering true decentralization and infinite scalability.

https://preview.redd.it/7ht30nwhrkf31.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=4d97b921c57293124e93fe3f3411f0d447e847f4
Speed: The speed of the temtum network is limited only by the hardware and bandwidth of network participants. We have created a highly efficient Consensus Algorithm and removed block size limitations in order to confirm transactions into a block extremely quickly, with a maximum confirmation time of 12 seconds. Once included in a block, a transaction is confirmed – there is no need to wait for additional blocks to be added subsequent to the initial block, as is the case with Bitcoin, due to the impossibility of a malicious fork.

https://preview.redd.it/xtcnxs5mrkf31.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=07a3e0e9a2667645c4bf69be6048d002be28b92f
Resources: temtum’s Consensus Algorithm, constructed around leader nodes and our innovative Node Participation Document removes the need for mining and wasteful, inefficient and restrictive Consensus mechanisms such as proof-of-work. temtum uses substantially less energy and has less environmental impact compared to POW networks. We estimate that the Bitcoin network is 16,573,693 times more expensive than the temtum network based on energy costs alone, assuming both networks are operating at the same size. The Bitcoin network is currently limited to a maximum transaction throughput of seven transactions per second. The average fee for a Bitcoin transaction from 2017-2018 was $57.35 – and the total cost of a Bitcoin transaction in the same time period, including miner and energy fees, was $104.701 .
Security: Temporal is a quantum-secure blockchain network that uses a photon source for genuine random number generation alongside next-generation hashing algorithms. These prevent the network from being vulnerable to theoretical attacks – even in the case that quantum attacks become commonplace in the near future.
CONCLUSION
Temtum implements a really powerful idea that is able to fully modernize not only the development of blockchain technology, but also our entire world. Using the innovative Temtum network with almost limitless ability to scale, while maintaining a high speed of transaction processing is possible in absolutely any industry - this is what the entire global crypto community has been waiting for many years. The project has a highly qualified team, reliable partners, working product and funds for the implementation of all its remaining tasks. In General, the project is very interesting.
Here are the reviews I present to you all in finding information and knowing the Temtum project
currently being run by their team, if there is any lack of explaining this article, do not worry, I have
set up a link for you to get accurate information. information and of course you will be able to
speak directly with their founder or team, at the link.
For more information and join Temtum social media today please follow these resources:
Website: https://temtum.com/
Whitepapper: https://temtum.com/downloads/temtum-whitepaper.pdf
Twitter: https://twitter.com/wearetemtum
Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/hs3v4g4
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/temtum
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/wearetemtum
Author's Bitcointalk Profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1767745
username: arsenalx420
submitted by arsenalx420 to u/arsenalx420 [link] [comments]

How temtum Solves Today's Blockchain Problems

How temtum Solves Today's Blockchain Problems
Hello to all my blockchain friends, today I will invite you to join a TEMTUM project where this project can develop well and if you are not interested you may ignore it ... okay can we start to explore this project, maybe you often hear about developing projects at this time even all the projects that were worked on were related to cryptocurrency, where cryptocurrency was a project that would give rewards in the form of coins then we could exchange them through BTC or ETH ..
now I will start discussing it, This section provides an overview of the groundbreaking new technology behind temtum. Please refer to the glossary at the end of this white paper for a list of definitions. The temtum network achieves truly decentralised scalability, near instant transaction speeds and unprecedented transaction throughput, using low resources and future-proof cryptographic security.

https://preview.redd.it/1xms3ddwzge31.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=91db69809c92a7bed72392055f43caef22223d94
With our improved network routing, the removal of the block size limit and a system architecture that ensures a single, randomly selected node confirms all transactions for 60 seconds, the only limitation to transaction throughput is the hardware and bandwidth of network participants. This is shown by the fact that we have demonstrated simulated transaction throughput speeds of 120,000 transactions per second in a laboratory environment.
Ultra lightweight, super fast, quantum secure decentralised network, redefining the boundaries of blockchain and cryptocurrencies to empower financial freedom - temtum (TEM)
Five advantages of Temtum network
Low-efficient Energy — An exceptional agreement calculation that does not require top of the line figuring equipment to affirm exchanges makes Temporal a greener blockchain arrangement.
Lightweight Block Data — Information isn’t required by hubs to be put away locally perpetually on machines, making Temporal exceptionally productive and amazingly lightweight.
Costless — Zero implanted exchange costs on the system, making Temtum a ground-breaking digital currency for high volume transactions and exchanges.
Fast — With square affirmation taking only 12 seconds, 5 squares for each moment, TEM exchanges are close moment regardless of the sum being sent.
Secured — Temtum’s network will have a top class security generating confidence across users.
The fact that current blockchain networks have limitations at their core, means that they cannot satisfy the key transaction demands for many of the industries and applications which should have the highest need for blockchain networks, such as large global payment networks and credit card companies. This is how temtum addresses each of these flaws in current blockchain networks.

https://preview.redd.it/hn8e5e000he31.png?width=597&format=png&auto=webp&s=de29023808eb236d89c3520251f59beb4e5da074
How temtum Solves Today's Blockchain Problems
Scalability: The Temporal Blockchain eliminates the need to store the entire chain history on all nodes by locally archiving data, while preventing competition in node selection. This significantly reduces resource requirements and allows anyone with a basic form of technology – such as a smartphone user – to fully participate in the network, delivering true decentralization and infinite scalability.

https://preview.redd.it/gmaezpc10he31.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=e06a3245a4ba5e62f9713822b9fc3a155008aa63
Speed: The speed of the temtum network is limited only by the hardware and bandwidth of network participants. We have created a highly efficient Consensus Algorithm and removed block size limitations in order to confirm transactions into a block extremely quickly, with a maximum confirmation time of 12 seconds. Once included in a block, a transaction is confirmed – there is no need to wait for additional blocks to be added subsequent to the initial block, as is the case with Bitcoin, due to the impossibility of a malicious fork.

https://preview.redd.it/txiwy0v20he31.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=3d7ed58df91f3adb93af349b8a686d60c57225ef
Resources: temtum’s Consensus Algorithm, constructed around leader nodes and our innovative Node Participation Document removes the need for mining and wasteful, inefficient and restrictive Consensus mechanisms such as proof-of-work. temtum uses substantially less energy and has less environmental impact compared to POW networks. We estimate that the Bitcoin network is 16,573,693 times more expensive than the temtum network based on energy costs alone, assuming both networks are operating at the same size. The Bitcoin network is currently limited to a maximum transaction throughput of seven transactions per second. The average fee for a Bitcoin transaction from 2017-2018 was $57.35 – and the total cost of a Bitcoin transaction in the same time period, including miner and energy fees, was $104.701 .
Security: Temporal is a quantum-secure blockchain network that uses a photon source for genuine random number generation alongside next-generation hashing algorithms. These prevent the network from being vulnerable to theoretical attacks – even in the case that quantum attacks become commonplace in the near future.
CONCLUSION
Temtum implements a really powerful idea that is able to fully modernize not only the development of blockchain technology, but also our entire world. Using the innovative Temtum network with almost limitless ability to scale, while maintaining a high speed of transaction processing is possible in absolutely any industry - this is what the entire global crypto community has been waiting for many years. The project has a highly qualified team, reliable partners, working product and funds for the implementation of all its remaining tasks. In General, the project is very interesting.
Here are the reviews I present to you all in finding information and knowing the Temtum project
currently being run by their team, if there is any lack of explaining this article, do not worry, I have
set up a link for you to get accurate information. information and of course you will be able to
speak directly with their founder or team, at the link.
For more information and join Temtum social media today please follow these resources:
Website: https://temtum.com/
Whitepapper: https://temtum.com/downloads/temtum-whitepaper.pdf
Twitter: https://twitter.com/wearetemtum
Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/hs3v4g4
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/temtum
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/wearetemtum
Author's Bitcointalk Profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1767745
username: arsenalx420
submitted by arsenalx420 to u/arsenalx420 [link] [comments]

How temtum Solves Today's Blockchain Problems

How temtum Solves Today's Blockchain Problems
Hello to all my blockchain friends, today I will invite you to join a TEMTUM project where this project can develop well and if you are not interested you may ignore it ... okay can we start to explore this project, maybe you often hear about developing projects at this time even all the projects that were worked on were related to cryptocurrency, where cryptocurrency was a project that would give rewards in the form of coins then we could exchange them through BTC or ETH ..
now I will start discussing it, This section provides an overview of the groundbreaking new technology behind temtum. Please refer to the glossary at the end of this white paper for a list of definitions. The temtum network achieves truly decentralised scalability, near instant transaction speeds and unprecedented transaction throughput, using low resources and future-proof cryptographic security.

https://preview.redd.it/9hcumhfx43d31.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=b37f453c9f29e4c85a3b710dd5a4cbca5de3ec47
With our improved network routing, the removal of the block size limit and a system architecture that ensures a single, randomly selected node confirms all transactions for 60 seconds, the only limitation to transaction throughput is the hardware and bandwidth of network participants. This is shown by the fact that we have demonstrated simulated transaction throughput speeds of 120,000 transactions per second in a laboratory environment.
Ultra lightweight, super fast, quantum secure decentralised network, redefining the boundaries of blockchain and cryptocurrencies to empower financial freedom - temtum (TEM)
Five advantages of Temtum network
Low-efficient Energy — An exceptional agreement calculation that does not require top of the line figuring equipment to affirm exchanges makes Temporal a greener blockchain arrangement.
Lightweight Block Data — Information isn’t required by hubs to be put away locally perpetually on machines, making Temporal exceptionally productive and amazingly lightweight.
Costless — Zero implanted exchange costs on the system, making Temtum a ground-breaking digital currency for high volume transactions and exchanges.
Fast — With square affirmation taking only 12 seconds, 5 squares for each moment, TEM exchanges are close moment regardless of the sum being sent.
Secured — Temtum’s network will have a top class security generating confidence across users.
The fact that current blockchain networks have limitations at their core, means that they cannot satisfy the key transaction demands for many of the industries and applications which should have the highest need for blockchain networks, such as large global payment networks and credit card companies. This is how temtum addresses each of these flaws in current blockchain networks.

https://preview.redd.it/sz3n8jp053d31.png?width=597&format=png&auto=webp&s=bf5d749401f018fa0d723bf1b9d08c315fa876fa
How temtum Solves Today's Blockchain Problems
Scalability: The Temporal Blockchain eliminates the need to store the entire chain history on all nodes by locally archiving data, while preventing competition in node selection. This significantly reduces resource requirements and allows anyone with a basic form of technology – such as a smartphone user – to fully participate in the network, delivering true decentralization and infinite scalability.

https://preview.redd.it/go7k4jf153d31.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=b9c1b67af6ad33ba87f19c397e638d0b3120ccb5
Speed: The speed of the temtum network is limited only by the hardware and bandwidth of network participants. We have created a highly efficient Consensus Algorithm and removed block size limitations in order to confirm transactions into a block extremely quickly, with a maximum confirmation time of 12 seconds. Once included in a block, a transaction is confirmed – there is no need to wait for additional blocks to be added subsequent to the initial block, as is the case with Bitcoin, due to the impossibility of a malicious fork.

https://preview.redd.it/xcczo0k253d31.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=a5212c5d57446af43c0e8fbf95b8e33a308f5f1a
Resources: temtum’s Consensus Algorithm, constructed around leader nodes and our innovative Node Participation Document removes the need for mining and wasteful, inefficient and restrictive Consensus mechanisms such as proof-of-work. temtum uses substantially less energy and has less environmental impact compared to POW networks. We estimate that the Bitcoin network is 16,573,693 times more expensive than the temtum network based on energy costs alone, assuming both networks are operating at the same size. The Bitcoin network is currently limited to a maximum transaction throughput of seven transactions per second. The average fee for a Bitcoin transaction from 2017-2018 was $57.35 – and the total cost of a Bitcoin transaction in the same time period, including miner and energy fees, was $104.701 .
Security: Temporal is a quantum-secure blockchain network that uses a photon source for genuine random number generation alongside next-generation hashing algorithms. These prevent the network from being vulnerable to theoretical attacks – even in the case that quantum attacks become commonplace in the near future.
CONCLUSION
Temtum implements a really powerful idea that is able to fully modernize not only the development of blockchain technology, but also our entire world. Using the innovative Temtum network with almost limitless ability to scale, while maintaining a high speed of transaction processing is possible in absolutely any industry - this is what the entire global crypto community has been waiting for many years. The project has a highly qualified team, reliable partners, working product and funds for the implementation of all its remaining tasks. In General, the project is very interesting.
Here are the reviews I present to you all in finding information and knowing the Temtum project
currently being run by their team, if there is any lack of explaining this article, do not worry, I have
set up a link for you to get accurate information. information and of course you will be able to
speak directly with their founder or team, at the link.
For more information and join Temtum social media today please follow these resources:
Website: https://temtum.com/
Whitepapper: https://temtum.com/downloads/temtum-whitepaper.pdf
Twitter: https://twitter.com/wearetemtum
Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/hs3v4g4
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/temtum
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/wearetemtum
Author's Bitcointalk Profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1767745
username: arsenalx420
submitted by arsenalx420 to u/arsenalx420 [link] [comments]

How temtum Solves Today's Blockchain Problems

How temtum Solves Today's Blockchain Problems
Hello to all my blockchain friends, today I will invite you to join a TEMTUM project where this project can develop well and if you are not interested you may ignore it ... okay can we start to explore this project, maybe you often hear about developing projects at this time even all the projects that were worked on were related to cryptocurrency, where cryptocurrency was a project that would give rewards in the form of coins then we could exchange them through BTC or ETH ..
now I will start discussing it, This section provides an overview of the groundbreaking new technology behind temtum. Please refer to the glossary at the end of this white paper for a list of definitions. The temtum network achieves truly decentralised scalability, near instant transaction speeds and unprecedented transaction throughput, using low resources and future-proof cryptographic security.

https://preview.redd.it/7syt9z3y9pb31.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=8be9d28428b0d7ed2fd2fcd9872cd34b1118a5d8
With our improved network routing, the removal of the block size limit and a system architecture that ensures a single, randomly selected node confirms all transactions for 60 seconds, the only limitation to transaction throughput is the hardware and bandwidth of network participants. This is shown by the fact that we have demonstrated simulated transaction throughput speeds of 120,000 transactions per second in a laboratory environment.
Ultra lightweight, super fast, quantum secure decentralised network, redefining the boundaries of blockchain and cryptocurrencies to empower financial freedom - temtum (TEM)
Five advantages of Temtum network
Low-efficient Energy — An exceptional agreement calculation that does not require top of the line figuring equipment to affirm exchanges makes Temporal a greener blockchain arrangement.
Lightweight Block Data — Information isn’t required by hubs to be put away locally perpetually on machines, making Temporal exceptionally productive and amazingly lightweight.
Costless — Zero implanted exchange costs on the system, making Temtum a ground-breaking digital currency for high volume transactions and exchanges.
Fast — With square affirmation taking only 12 seconds, 5 squares for each moment, TEM exchanges are close moment regardless of the sum being sent.
Secured — Temtum’s network will have a top class security generating confidence across users.
The fact that current blockchain networks have limitations at their core, means that they cannot satisfy the key transaction demands for many of the industries and applications which should have the highest need for blockchain networks, such as large global payment networks and credit card companies. This is how temtum addresses each of these flaws in current blockchain networks.

https://preview.redd.it/2imtkwg1apb31.png?width=597&format=png&auto=webp&s=6ac9868579ac2b875a0d590a8deb4bd4f4356c9a
How temtum Solves Today's Blockchain Problems
Scalability: The Temporal Blockchain eliminates the need to store the entire chain history on all nodes by locally archiving data, while preventing competition in node selection. This significantly reduces resource requirements and allows anyone with a basic form of technology – such as a smartphone user – to fully participate in the network, delivering true decentralization and infinite scalability.

https://preview.redd.it/wnc2x9b3apb31.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=010aea00cba84fc60aaddd3afd4cd13d8dd78353
Speed: The speed of the temtum network is limited only by the hardware and bandwidth of network participants. We have created a highly efficient Consensus Algorithm and removed block size limitations in order to confirm transactions into a block extremely quickly, with a maximum confirmation time of 12 seconds. Once included in a block, a transaction is confirmed – there is no need to wait for additional blocks to be added subsequent to the initial block, as is the case with Bitcoin, due to the impossibility of a malicious fork.

https://preview.redd.it/85eckm05apb31.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=e7329975fa035e4c572522a01f0eb18974cbe476
Resources: temtum’s Consensus Algorithm, constructed around leader nodes and our innovative Node Participation Document removes the need for mining and wasteful, inefficient and restrictive Consensus mechanisms such as proof-of-work. temtum uses substantially less energy and has less environmental impact compared to POW networks. We estimate that the Bitcoin network is 16,573,693 times more expensive than the temtum network based on energy costs alone, assuming both networks are operating at the same size. The Bitcoin network is currently limited to a maximum transaction throughput of seven transactions per second. The average fee for a Bitcoin transaction from 2017-2018 was $57.35 – and the total cost of a Bitcoin transaction in the same time period, including miner and energy fees, was $104.701 .
Security: Temporal is a quantum-secure blockchain network that uses a photon source for genuine random number generation alongside next-generation hashing algorithms. These prevent the network from being vulnerable to theoretical attacks – even in the case that quantum attacks become commonplace in the near future.
CONCLUSION
Temtum implements a really powerful idea that is able to fully modernize not only the development of blockchain technology, but also our entire world. Using the innovative Temtum network with almost limitless ability to scale, while maintaining a high speed of transaction processing is possible in absolutely any industry - this is what the entire global crypto community has been waiting for many years. The project has a highly qualified team, reliable partners, working product and funds for the implementation of all its remaining tasks. In General, the project is very interesting.
Here are the reviews I present to you all in finding information and knowing the Temtum project
currently being run by their team, if there is any lack of explaining this article, do not worry, I have
set up a link for you to get accurate information. information and of course you will be able to
speak directly with their founder or team, at the link.
For more information and join Temtum social media today please follow these resources:

Website: https://temtum.com/
Whitepapper: https://temtum.com/downloads/temtum-whitepaper.pdf
Twitter: https://twitter.com/wearetemtum
Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/hs3v4g4
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/temtum
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/wearetemtum

Author's Bitcointalk Profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1767745
username: arsenalx420
submitted by arsenalx420 to u/arsenalx420 [link] [comments]

How temtum Solves Today's Blockchain Problems

How temtum Solves Today's Blockchain Problems
Hello to all my blockchain friends, today I will invite you to join a TEMTUM project where this project can develop well and if you are not interested you may ignore it ... okay can we start to explore this project, maybe you often hear about developing projects at this time even all the projects that were worked on were related to cryptocurrency, where cryptocurrency was a project that would give rewards in the form of coins then we could exchange them through BTC or ETH ..
now I will start discussing it, This section provides an overview of the groundbreaking new technology behind temtum. Please refer to the glossary at the end of this white paper for a list of definitions. The temtum network achieves truly decentralised scalability, near instant transaction speeds and unprecedented transaction throughput, using low resources and future-proof cryptographic security.

https://preview.redd.it/wunc17y9a4831.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=5d3b20f717e434bf4f186a68a8f230f43d3d4b52
With our improved network routing, the removal of the block size limit and a system architecture that ensures a single, randomly selected node confirms all transactions for 60 seconds, the only limitation to transaction throughput is the hardware and bandwidth of network participants. This is shown by the fact that we have demonstrated simulated transaction throughput speeds of 120,000 transactions per second in a laboratory environment.
Ultra lightweight, super fast, quantum secure decentralised network, redefining the boundaries of blockchain and cryptocurrencies to empower financial freedom - temtum (TEM)
Five advantages of Temtum network
Low-efficient Energy — An exceptional agreement calculation that does not require top of the line figuring equipment to affirm exchanges makes Temporal a greener blockchain arrangement.
Lightweight Block Data — Information isn’t required by hubs to be put away locally perpetually on machines, making Temporal exceptionally productive and amazingly lightweight.
Costless — Zero implanted exchange costs on the system, making Temtum a ground-breaking digital currency for high volume transactions and exchanges.
Fast — With square affirmation taking only 12 seconds, 5 squares for each moment, TEM exchanges are close moment regardless of the sum being sent.
Secured — Temtum’s network will have a top class security generating confidence across users.
The fact that current blockchain networks have limitations at their core, means that they cannot satisfy the key transaction demands for many of the industries and applications which should have the highest need for blockchain networks, such as large global payment networks and credit card companies. This is how temtum addresses each of these flaws in current blockchain networks

https://preview.redd.it/3w2dco8w94831.png?width=597&format=png&auto=webp&s=034f706f6c93137f4469f42bc28781db7008ad08
How temtum Solves Today's Blockchain Problems
Scalability: The Temporal Blockchain eliminates the need to store the entire chain history on all nodes by locally archiving data, while preventing competition in node selection. This significantly reduces resource requirements and allows anyone with a basic form of technology – such as a smartphone user – to fully participate in the network, delivering true decentralization and infinite scalability.

https://preview.redd.it/bh8kg5cy94831.jpg?width=1199&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=54067016d0c6bb447c7b18e1c17f37b5b3854ae2
Speed: The speed of the temtum network is limited only by the hardware and bandwidth of network participants. We have created a highly efficient Consensus Algorithm and removed block size limitations in order to confirm transactions into a block extremely quickly, with a maximum confirmation time of 12 seconds. Once included in a block, a transaction is confirmed – there is no need to wait for additional blocks to be added subsequent to the initial block, as is the case with Bitcoin, due to the impossibility of a malicious fork.
Resources: temtum’s Consensus Algorithm, constructed around leader nodes and our innovative Node Participation Document removes the need for mining and wasteful, inefficient and restrictive Consensus mechanisms such as proof-of-work. temtum uses substantially less energy and has less environmental impact compared to POW networks. We estimate that the Bitcoin network is 16,573,693 times more expensive than the temtum network based on energy costs alone, assuming both networks are operating at the same size. The Bitcoin network is currently limited to a maximum transaction throughput of seven transactions per second. The average fee for a Bitcoin transaction from 2017-2018 was $57.35 – and the total cost of a Bitcoin transaction in the same time period, including miner and energy fees, was $104.701 .
Security: Temporal is a quantum-secure blockchain network that uses a photon source for genuine random number generation alongside next-generation hashing algorithms. These prevent the network from being vulnerable to theoretical attacks – even in the case that quantum attacks become commonplace in the near future.
CONCLUSION
Temtum implements a really powerful idea that is able to fully modernize not only the development of blockchain technology, but also our entire world. Using the innovative Temtum network with almost limitless ability to scale, while maintaining a high speed of transaction processing is possible in absolutely any industry - this is what the entire global crypto community has been waiting for many years. The project has a highly qualified team, reliable partners, working product and funds for the implementation of all its remaining tasks. In General, the project is very interesting.
Here are the reviews I present to you all in finding information and knowing the Temtum project
currently being run by their team, if there is any lack of explaining this article, do not worry, I have
set up a link for you to get accurate information. information and of course you will be able to
speak directly with their founder or team, at the link.
For more information and join Temtum social media today please follow these resources:
Website: https://temtum.com/
Whitepapper: https://temtum.com/downloads/temtum-whitepaper.pdf
Twitter: https://twitter.com/wearetemtum
Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/hs3v4g4
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/temtum
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/wearetemtum
Author's Bitcointalk Profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1767745
username: arsenalx420
submitted by arsenalx420 to u/arsenalx420 [link] [comments]

Blockchain & mining - my attempt to explain it

There are so many people invested in crypto now, but there are still quite a lot of people who don’t actually know what a “Blockchain” really is, nor do they truly understand its usefulness.
 
People hear these phrases like “digital ledger secured using cryptography” and think it sounds cool, but what exactly does that mean?
 
There are literally tons of informational resources on the net, but most of them fly straight over the heads of the average Joe. I thought it would be worth breaking down the concept of “Blockchain” to make it easy for anyone to understand.
 
So first and foremost, what is a “block” in a Blockchain? Well a block is a bunch of transactions grouped together. When I say “transactions”, I am referring to a ledger or list of transactional information.
 
Let me offer an example of a “transaction”:
 
Joe has $1000
Joe’s bank account is 1234-5678 @ HSBC
Joe sends Sarah $200
Sarah has $2000
Sarah’s bank account is 8765-4321 @ Bank of China
The time of the transaction is 12:47pm 20th Feb 2018
Joe’s account will now be $800
Sarah’s bank account is $2200
 
This is a simple example, but fundamentally this short list of information pertaining to a single transaction. This transferral of money ($200 from one person to another) is added to a “block” alongside a whole bunch of other transactions from other people.
 
Let’s use Bitcoin for the remaining examples. Each “block” on the bitcoin blockchain is 1mb in length. So what exactly is 1mb? Well 1mb or “mega-byte”, represents one million bytes of information. Now one “byte” of information represents a single ascii character. Every single character I am typing right now represents one byte. So “Hello” (without the quotations) represents 5 bytes of information.
 
So if we go back to my example transaction above, the number of bytes that this transaction took up is 246 bytes. This is just a fraction of 1mb, so you can see a lot of transactions of this size could be stored in a 1mb block.
 
OK so hopefully you understand what a “block” at least represents. So the next question would be, how do you ensure this “block” of information has not been tampered with? After all, it would be utterly disastrous if someone were to access a block of information and change some of the information. Imagine changing the destination bank address, or the amounts involved!
 
In order to secure a “block” we use cryptography. Specifically we use something called a “hash”. A hash essentially takes a bunch of data, applies a fixed set of mathematical operations to the data, and the eventual output is a “hash” of the data.
 
Let me give you an example of an ultra-basic “hash algorithm” -
 
Step 1. Take a number and double it
Step 2. Add 6
Step 3. Divide it by 2
 
That’s it…. A basic hash algorithm!
 
Let’s take a couple of numbers and apply the hash algorithm to the numbers.
 
First we’ll start with 20
 
Step 1. 20 x 2 = 40
Step 2. 40 + 6 = 46
Step 3. 46 / 2 = 23
 
So in this example, the “hash” of the original number (20) is 23
 
Let’s apply it to another number….This time 22
 
Step 1. 22 x 2 = 44 Step 2. 44 + 6 = 50 Step 3. 50 / 2 = 25
 
So the “hash” of the original number (22) is now 25
 
Now any different number you try as your input will always produce a different number as your hashed output. However, if you apply my hashing algorithm to the number 20, the “hash” will always be 23, and if you apply it to the number 22, the “hash” will always be 25.
 
If we take the numbers I used in the above examples (20 & 22) as “inputs”, then the “output” (the hash) will always produce the same result, but any changes to the input will always affect the output.
 
Ok so that’s applying a hash to a number…..what about text? How do we “hash” a string of text?
 
Well that’s where something called the “Ascii Table” comes in. The Ascii Table offers a unique code for every alphanumeric character. This allows us to convert a string of text into a number. Let’s take the word “Hello” (without the quotes) and convert it to a number using the Ascii table.
 
Ascii Table : https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~pattis/15-1XX/common/handouts/ascii.html
 
Capital H is represented as 72
Lower case e is represented as 101
Lower case l is represented as 108
Lower case l is represented as 108
Lower case o is represented as 111
 
If we concatenate these numbers we’d get 72101108108101
 
So we have a number…..lets apply my basic hashing algorithm to this number
 
Step 1. 72101108108101 x 2 = 144202216216202
Step 2. 144202216216202 + 6 = 144202216216208
Step 3. 144202216216208 / 2 = 72101108108104
 
So in this example, the “hash” of the word Hello is 72101108108104
 
If I changed any letter, the hash would be different. If I even changed the Captial H to a lower case h, the hash would be different. If anything at all changes the hash would be different.
 
So hopefully you understand the concept of hashing….. Now I should state that my example hashing algorithm is painfully simple. If would be trivial to reverse engineer this, simply by reversing the steps. However this is my example hash.
 
Let’s compare this to the SHA256 hash.
 
The SHA256 “hash” of the word “welcome” (without the quotes) is 280D44AB1E9F79B5CCE2DD4F58F5FE91F0FBACDAC9F7447DFFC318CEB79F2D02
 
If you apply the SHA256 hash algorithm to the word welcome, the hash will ALWAYS be 280D44AB1E9F79B5CCE2DD4F58F5FE91F0FBACDAC9F7447DFFC318CEB79F2D02
 
Try it yourself on a few different online SHA256 calculators:
 
http://www.xorbin.com/tools/sha256-hash-calculator
https://passwordsgenerator.net/sha256-hash-generato
http://www.md5calc.com/
 
So we know that if we apply the SHA256 hashing algorithm to the word welcome, we will of course always get the same result, because the steps involved in “hashing” data using SHA256 algorithm are publicly documented, albiet very complex.
 
However, the steps are far from the simple 3-step process I gave in my example…..Sha256 uses 64 steps, and none of them are as basic as the 3-step example I included of using plus, minus, multiply and divide.
 
I won’t go into the entire 64-step process (There are plenty of resources out there if you are interested) but just to give you an idea of the complexity of the hashing algorithm, I’ll go through the first few steps. But before we do this, we need to “prepare” the input.
 
To do this we first split the word into 4-byte chunks starting from the first character. The word "welcome" (without the quotes) contains 7 characters, so it is split into two chunks
 
Chunk A – welc
Chunk B - ome
 
Ok, now for each chunk, we convert this to ascii
 
Chunk A – welc = 119 101 108 99
Chunk B – ome = 111 109 101
 
Now we convert these values to a HEX value (for information on hex, take a look here : http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/hexadecimal)
 
Chunk A – 119 101 108 99 = 77 65 6c 63
Chunk B – 111 109 101 = 6f 6d 65
 
Now any Chunk that is not a complete 4-bytes, needs to be “padded” to make it a complete 4-byte chunk. This padding always represents “80” in hex
 
Chunk A is fine….it's 4-bytes, so does not require any padding. Chunk B is only 3 bytes, so it needs an extra byte of padding. To do this we simply append hex 80 to the end.
 
So Chunk B becomes 6f 6d 65 80
 
The two binary values are now concatenated back together and padded out to create a 56 byte data string. They are padded out with zeros. Hex characters are represented with two characters, so 0 in hex is 00
 
So the two strings go together and lots of hex value zeros go on the end to make 56 bytes
 
77 65 6C 63 6F 6D 65 80 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
 
We now calculate the length of the actual message in bytes including the padding (77 65 6C 63 6F 6D 65 80) and this is a total of 8 bytes, so this value of 8 (The number 8 is represented as 38 in hex) is appended to the very end of the 56 bytes to create a complete 64-byte string.
 
So the total 64-byte string has become:
 
77 65 6C 63 6F 6D 65 80 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 38
 
The 64 byte string is then converted to binary….
 
01110111 01100101 01101100 01100011 01101111 01101101 01100101 10000000
00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00111000
 
In the data section (the first 56 bytes) the first byte of data (01110111 in binary) represents 77 in hex, which in turn represents the decimal value of 119, which is the ascii value of w
 
The second byte of data (01100101 in binary) represents 65 in hex, which in turn represents the decimal value of 101, which is the ascii value of e
 
In the final section, the very last byte of data (00111000 in binary) represents 38 in hex, which in turn represents the decimal value of 56, which is the ascii value of 8, which represents the length of the padded data string. This value will always be a multiple of 4.
 
Ok so now we’ve got that 64-byte data stream, we now apply some other things to it.
 
At this point Sha256 does some "shifting" of the data.
 
"Shifting" is when you move data around – So for example if we “shift” every square on the grid backwards 7 places, then this is what would happen.
 
10000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
00111000 01110111 01100101 01101100 01100011 01101111 01101101 01100101
 
Ok so Sha256 does a few more rounds of shifting until eventually, the data has been moved around and looks completely different on the grid to what it started with.
 
After all this is done, only then is the data “prepared” and ready to be manipulated through the 64 steps to create the hash! Now on the face of things at first glance, this actually looks complicated, but for a computer to hash data using Sha256, it’s actually fairly simple. It can do it extremely quickly! A human being could in fact do the complete SHA256 hash with enough patience. Somewhere actually did this with a pen and paper and it took them a little over a day.
 
After the 64 rounds of adjustment, the final hashed value of welcome comes to 280D44AB1E9F79B5CCE2DD4F58F5FE91F0FBACDAC9F7447DFFC318CEB79F2D02 and providing that you used sha256 to hash it, the word welcome will always hash to this value. If I change the anything in the input, the output hash changes dramatically.
 
For example, if I change welcome to Welcome (capital W), the Sha256 hash becomes 0E2226B5235F0FF94A276EB4D07A3BFEA74B7E3B8B85E9EFCA6C18430F041BF8 As you can see it’s totally unrecognisable compared to the previous hash.
 
So hopefully now you have an understanding of hashing, you can see that the data stored in a block can be hashed, and it will generate a hash value.
 
Copy the following section of transaction text into any online SHA256 calculator:
 
Joe has $1000
Joe’s bank account is 1234-5678 @ HSBC
Joe sends Sarah $200
Sarah has $2000
Sarah’s bank account is 8765-4321 @ Bank of China
The time of the transaction is 12:47pm 20th Feb 2018
Joe’s account will now be $800
Sarah’s bank account is $2200
 
You should get the following hash value:
 
F4162A24257D3D2995E80B8FB08F43A9F029CC951F8C103051EAD30BFCDCC63F
 
Now this is just one transaction, but the point is that you will never see that same hash value again, unless the EXACT same transaction information is hashed with SHA256. If you change anything at all, the hash value will change completely.
 
Now I won’t go into why this is virtually impossible to reverse engineer, but suffice to say the estimates of computing power required to reverse a SHA256 hash are as follows:
 
Based on current computing power, brute-forcing SHA256 would take a powerful modern PC approximately 71,430,540,814,238,958,387,154 years. Some scientists believe the sun will “extinguish” in about 5,000,000,000 years.
 
For now, SHA256 is pretty secure!
 
So if we have a “hashed block”, suffice to say it is pretty much impossible to break.
 
So there we have it...a block!
 
OK so what does the word “chain” in blockchain mean?
 
Simple….. you take the hash value of the first block, and stick it into the very next block as the first part of data, just before you start adding your new transactions. Can you see what effect this has?
 
If my first block hash is:
 
F4162A24257D3D2995E80B8FB08F43A9F029CC951F8C103051EAD30BFCDCC63F
 
If I put this just in front of all my new transactional data, then the total data in the new block (including the hash of the previous block) all gets hashed as one to create a new hash for the second block. If anyone tampers with the first block, the hash changes, and therefore won’t match with the hash put into the second block. This has a knock-on effect to all subsequent blocks.
 
So if you have a block-chain full of nodes (servers) and node A is reporting a cumulative hash of all blocks on the latest block on the chain to be XXXXXX but node B, node C, and node D are reporting the cumulative hash for all blocks to be YYYYYYYY, then it’s immediately obvious that node A has been compromised, and needs to be removed….after all, the entire block chain of entries ultimately ends up with an up-to-date hash of all the previous blocks, and if anything changes…..literally one single character in any single block changes…..then hash proves that the chain has been compromised!
 
So what exactly is mining? Mining is simply re-running the hash over and over and over again onto a block, until you reach a constant…..What I mean by a constant is as follows:
 
  1. You take your block of data
  2. You hash it to get a hash value
  3. You check to see if the hash begins with four zeros 0000
  4. If it doesn’t you now add 1 to the data and re-hash
  5. You check to see if the hash begins with four zeros 0000
  6. If it doesn’t you now increment the number by one and re-hash
 
You now repeat steps 5 & 6 over and over and over again, until eventually, at some point, you will see 4 zeros.
 
This extra value you are adding is what is known as a “nonce” and is actually short for the word nonsense! It basically means that you are adding a number that increments in the block, whilst everything else in the block remains constant.
 
Let’s take a simple transaction to use as an example:
 
Fred has $200
Claire has $300
Joe sends Claire $50
Fred now has $150
Claire now has $350
 
Ok nice and simple….. Let’s use a great website resource to demonstrate mining this data.
 
Copy this basic transaction into the “data” section of this web page and delete any visible “nonce” value (if there is one there) - https://anders.com/blockchain/block.html
 
(NOTE: when you copy/paste from reddit it might also copy the spaces between the lines, so you would need to remove them, as a space is also a valid ascii character.)
 
If done correctly, you should see a hash value at the bottom of f710ba16e8b987575a23ce0fe13a4dfbd3e72676c65890a7b8acab421748195b
 
Now this doesn’t begin with 0000, so now let’s click on the "mine" button, and the page will keep incrementing the nonce value until eventually the hash will begin with 0000.
 
The process should take around 5-10 seconds, and eventually the hash will be displayed as 00009db80aa366297984130a3f2b74b4f3a6eb044df24de700a616ca9e6aacb6
 
This does begin with 0000 and it took 15,708 “hashes” to reach it. You have reached a constant!
 
This block would now be deemed as a valid block, and the hash of this block is what is passed onto the next block! This is basically mining!
Mining is necessary to ensure that all blocks on the block chain are valid and accurate. Obvioulsy doing this requires computational power, which requires equipment (computers) and energy (electricity) which must be paid for, hence the reason that "miners" are compensated with coins for their efforts.
 
So hopefully you now have a better understanding of block chains and mining :-)
submitted by jpowell79 to u/jpowell79 [link] [comments]

Log of AMA with Skycoin

boldninja Let's all give a warm welcome to @synth from SkyCoin.net and for taking the time to do this AMA
synth *hello
mike Hi Synth
jakethepanda Hey @synth
thrice.pi Hey synth
dr10 Hi
boldninja I think we can start - you guys know the drill. Give him some time to respond (no more than 2-3 questions on backlog so he can catch up)
dr10 How would you - shortly & in easy words - sum-up the advantages of SkyCoin to magazines and non-crypto people?
mgaruccio Can you explain a bit about the mesh net? Is it just an mpls network between nodes or is there something deeper going on?
michaelthecryptoguy Whassup @synth
tranzer hi synth. I have a question - are those coins that are not in circulation in any cold wallets since only a portion is currently available according to CMC? What would you say is the 1 unique feature that Skycoin has?
synth It is very difficult, because Skycoin is a very large project and already has +6 years of development. Different parts of the project have different objectives.
The cryto, coin part is about solving the problems with the existing consensus algorithms. Being able to do +300 transactions a second, transactions in seconds instead of minutes (faster than credit cards), eliminating miners, eliminating block rewards (eliminating inflation) and eliminating 51% attack and the other problems with mining.
then there are other repos and experimental projects under github.com/skycoin such as a meshnet and distributed VPN prototype, where people will be paid coins for forwarding traffic. Also prototypes of distributed social media application, with peer to peer data replication and different experimental projects. Research into immutable data structures for next generation internet. Some of them are very radical.
dr10 How does the Network consensus algorithm Obelisk work and differ from widely known algorithms like Proof of Work and Proof of Stake?
mgaruccio So how much exists today? Could I build an app on the platform if I wanted to?
mike In terms of the rate of progress, what is currently your greatest limiting factor - like funding, manpower, currently available technology?
synth
Can you explain a bit about the mesh net? Is it just an mpls network between nodes or is there something deeper going on?
It is not actually a meshnet. It is software defined networking, it is much more powerful than just meshnet. Its a new type of networking and new completely new protocol and networking namespace, independent of the existing internet.
It supports source routing, while the existing internet does hot potato routing, so never achieves optimal latencies.
It supports multi-homing, which IPv6 does not (Which is critical for when we have gigabit or terabit networking and multi-redundant bandwidth paths)
It has default oppurunistic crypto, both link layer and end to end; so everything is encrypted by default, unlike the current internet.
It has store and forward networking and will operate in Africa or even under conditions where latencies are in the minutes or hours and packet loss is excessive. Where existing protocols cannot operate reliability. It is much more robust than IPv4/IPv6 or TCP/ip
It has improved privacy. If a packet takes a route that is 10 hops, each hop only knows the previous node in the route and the next node in the route. It is not like IPv4 where each packet gives the source and destination. The privacy level is something that does not exist on the current internet.
IP addresses are replaced by public key and no one can read traffic to a destination, without knowing the private key of the public key that identifies the destination. The system does not need 3rd parties or certificate authorities. The design is a revolution.
are those coins that are not in circulation in any cold wallets since only a portion is currently available according to CMC?
The coins are locked into 100 addresses, each with 1 million coins each. And they are released sequentially.
There is a complicated locking procedure and releasing new coins requires unamious consent and a shared secret among a group of developers. Anyone in the shared secret group can block distribution of more coins (to stop the problem that killed NXT). So by design the coins were supposed to be difficult to distribut, there had to be a good reason or justification before a distribution would be approved.
mike What are the hardware requirements to operate a wireless Skywire (the name for the protocol described above) Node?
arc-over-water nxt i think is doing ok..
synth
How does the Network consensus algorithm Obelisk work and differ from widely known algorithms like Proof of Work and Proof of Stake?
PoS and PoW use miners. Miners receive new coins every block as a block reward. So miners are making money and will fight to control the network. An everyone will suffer because the newly created coins represent inflation.
Skycoin was designed to eliminate mining and eliminate the inflation. No block rewards, no new coins. And we needed to develop a new consensus algorithm to do that and there are only a few methods that work, for these constraints. The consensus algorithm is based upon Ben-Or's randomization procedure for achieving consensus in a distributed system, with some improvements for detecting adversarial or malicious nodes who are trying to prevent the consensus process.
There are white papers on skycoin.net about the specifics. I would call it "network consensus" and it uses a sort of Web of Trust (WoT), where if the people creating blocks are doing a bad job or attacking the network, then the community can get rid of them. At the same time, the people who control the network, do not have any real power to attack the network except by slowing down transactions and being annoying, so even if they become malicious the only issue is how to get rid of them and select new people.
mike Any idea when Skywire will be released and ready to test on hardware nodes (testnet or mainnet)?
mgaruccio So if there is no block reward what is the incentive to run a node?
vega What will be the actual function of Skycoin (the coin itself)? Will the coin be used as currency, as transfer of value in and between all these various developing functionalities, semi-separate projects to tie them all together or it's function will be more limited?
michaelthecryptoguy Do you have an idea on the specs of a node that would be required? In the beginning? What about with 10,000 users? (edited)
synth
nxt i think is doing ok..
There were three people that each owned 30% of the coin. One decided he wanted out and began dumping. NXT was over 150 million I think. When he started dumping, it basicly killed NXT.
Skycoin's distribution was designed to stop dumping by the founders and early people.
After Skycoin gets to 30% of the total coins distributed, there will probably a hard time lock on the remaining coins, so that a maximum of 5% of the remaining coins can be released per year. So the distribution for the other 70% of the coins will take a minimum of 14 years (and could be longer).
We cannot even sell the rest of the coins, because if we sold 10% of the total now at $5 per coin, it would be 50 million or something and we cannot spend or even use that amount of money. Not at this stage.
Ethereum spent 30 million or 70 million in their first year or two after the ICO and then nearly went bankrupt. Silicon Valley wages and offices etc. We have been very conservative and have kept costs down and kept them responsible. Now we have coins like EOS and they want to raise a billion dollars and have not produced anything yet, do not hav a blockchain and I have no idea what they would spend that money on, but they are throwing $350,000 parties in time square for marketing/PR etc...
arc-over-water what prevents you from selling? anybody can spend that amount of money?
nxt is a newer platform than sky, market value is $220 million plus $166 million, I get what you are saying but the evidence is wrong. Community is huge and active in Nxt. But you say it is killed, i dont get it?
synth
What will be the actual function of Skycoin (the coin itself)? Will the coin be used as currency, as transfer of value in and between all these various developing functionalities, semi-separate projects to tie them all together or it's function will be more limited?
Yes. Bitcoin has no purpose. An altcoin does two things - check your balance - send money to other people
Two features - check balance - send
For a coin to have value, people need to be forced to buy it to consume specific services. There has to be stuff for people to spend the coin on, that there is demand for.
So Bitcoin is really just a purely speculative asset. It generates no cashflow and its value is determined by perception or social convention.
Ideally, Skycoin would start off as a "better Bitcoin" (faster, more secure, new algorithm, simplier, etc), then over time we would build up an ecosystem and have some type of backing and tie the coin's value into the network and usebase.
The mesh netork (skywire) is good, because it gives something for people to do to get coins and it allows people to consume the coins. You can run your internet traffic through a VPN that tunnels over Skywire and maybe it will be a nominal amount (actually absurdly small amount of money), but there would be real economic activity and a real userbase and community using the coin. Not just speculation.
Later on the scope is much wider.
arc-over-water So the skycoin wallet will be a VPN for our internet usage?
synth
nxt is a newer platform than sky, market value is $220 million plus $166 million, I get what you are saying but the evidence is wrong. Community is huge and active in Nxt. But you say it is killed, i dont get it?
What I am saying, is that NXT would be a lot further along than it is now and probably around where Ethereum is, except for that mistake in the distribution and keeping it too concentrated. It set them back by years. They did not consider what the impact on the price would be, over the long term, when one of the early whales started selling off or decided he wanted out.
arc-over-water But they did the same again with IOTA, same lead dev.. Its over a $Billion
they released and let the market price distribute
synth
So the skycoin wallet will be a VPN for our internet usage?
The VPN is just one application, that uses bandwidth over Skywire. There are several things in development.
This is a BBS like 4chan, that is completely distributed, with CXO. https://github.com/skycoin/bbs
It will run over Skywire also, This is like building a whole new internet from scratch. The apps that run on it are going to specialized and privacy focused, etc GitHub skycoin/bbs Contribute to bbs development by creating an account on GitHub.
mike So Skycoin is a Proof of Resource coin where its value is actually backed by provision of a useful service, in this case private and secure networking? Are there plans to add decentralized storage and even distributed processing to it?
arc-over-water so these 100 separate million coin accounts will be 100 ICOs or how is the distribution patterned? is it written into the code or up to the devs?
rockyj !calculate
slackbot Custom Response https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FGo3FkC3uSWXGHatPQyny2brMWjAIJsHFCR-Lhkl_m0/edit#gid=0
synth
So if there is no block reward what is the incentive to run a node?
running a consensus node does not cost anything. You can run it on a raspberry pi.
The important thing is that if the people doing consensus are doing a bad job, that the community can get rid of them and replace them. The other important thing, is that they can be audited and determined automatically if they are obeying the protocol.
the miners in skycoin are not very powerful and cannot do anything except slow down transactions. They are unable to spend other people's money without their private keys, so the consensus/mining nodes are almost irrelevent. It is not like Bitcoin where the miners can hold the network hostage or act selfishly (driving up the transactions fees for their own personal benefit and delaying any innovations that would improve bitcoin for everyone, etc).
So Skycoin is a Proof of Resource coin where its value is actually backed by provision of a useful service, in this case private and secure networking? Are there plans to add decentralized storage and even distributed processing to it?
We have decentralized storage, which is called CXO. But only the bandwidth is monetized by Skywire. We do not nickle and dime and try to attach a coin cost to every API call. Everything that should be free is free. So its a different philosphy.
On top of CXO we also have distributed social media applications (simmilar to Steemit)
CXO is very similar to IFPS, but simplier and designed for our internal infrastructure and with our crypto standards, instead of being a mismash.
mike Is it possible for Skycoin to choose the best paths and route around bad or slow nodes as damage to the network, in effect reducing their impact on consensus?
looks like you answered the question above while I was typing...
tranzer How many tx/s can skycoin handle? What are block times?
thrice.pi 300 right? ^
arc-over-water on your website it says you will have a NON- Turing complete lisp language?
synth
so these 100 separate million coin accounts will be 100 ICOs or how is the distribution patterned? is it written into the code or up to the devs?
We will have a distribution page, up on the website soon. Its complicated.
Skywire, is designed to pull coins out of circuation, through a sort of tithe on network activity and it does automatic buy backs effectively. So the distribution will actually peak and then decline. But one distribution is from the locked coins, and the locked coins are freed, then circulate, then end up at the foundation (from the skywire tithe are pulled out of circulation), but still count towards the free float.
The coin holders also receive a coinhour dividend and there will be a market rate conversion between coin hours and Skycoins and coinhours are the actual currency for the Skywire network. If you do not have enough coin hours, then you sell Skycoin for CoinHour at the market rate, to purchase bandwidth; but if you have a lot of coins then you have enough coin hours for downloading movies or VPN or whatever you are doing and it is essentially free.
So there is a dual level economic structure. Both with coin buybacks to pull coins out of circulation and with a dividend or incentive to encourage users to hold the coin if they are using the network.
arc-over-water so there will be two currencies, holding one reserves the other
synth
Is it possible for Skycoin to choose the best paths and route around bad or slow nodes as damage to the network
Yes. This is very important.
The person dialing a connection, chooses the path of the connection!
You can choose the lowest latency path for video games or Skype, and choose highest throughput paths for video downloads etc. Or can choose paths through specific nodes or facilities or countries, for security concerns and to minimize the number of points that the traffic could be intercepted at.
mike Will Skycoin still have the node subsidy plan for setting up and registering the mesh nodes like originally planned?
dr10 When do you plan to be able to present your planned technology and services to the masses? When can they use what you try do accomplish?
synth
on your website it says you will have a NON- Turing complete lisp language?
That is probably an error. LOL. We will have a new website soon.
There is no scripting language on the skycoin blockchain. Each transaction is constant time (for efficiency and security and to achieve the highest transaction rate and to keep the coin simple).
However, we have a language called CX in development, which is a next generation language that is beyond "smart contracts" and the toy things on ethereum. It uses immutable datastructures and is something completely new. Most of the skycoin "smart contracts" will probably be off blockchain or in personal blockchains and we do not want to shove all the data onto the main chain, because forcing everyone to download everyone one elses contracts it the world is just spamming the blockchain to death. There are better ways to do it.
Will Skycoin still have the node subsidy plan for setting up and registering the mesh nodes like originally planned?
Yes. We are going to get from 20% to 30% distributno of the coins, through network incentives for people running Skywire nodes, consensus nodes and services.
I think this is going to be massive for marketing. And it is the best way to get the coins out to the users, instead of all the coins being held by whales
samuelvihollandia I read how you suggest Skycoin could be used for VPN connections, is this the largest use case you see?
arc-over-water Maidsafe has been working on the redesign of the net for about ten years, what are you doing the same and what different?
synth
I read how you suggest Skycoin could be used for VPN connections, is this the largest use case you see?
No. This is just something easy, that we have working. Its not the largest applicatoin at all.
80% of internet traffic right now is bitorrent and the bitorrent sites are being systematically shutdown and driven off the internet. They wont go away, but will jut go underground. What.cd (largest music tracker, with 800k people) was just shut down, bakabt (largest anime tracker) has gone closed registration, Nyantorrent etc...
User communities of millions of people will be migrating from the clearnet (the existing corporate shit-net) to the "new internet". We are going to see people migrating by the millions, whole user communities of millions of people.
arc-over-water Are you a corporation or foundation or charity? Registered? I am not sure i have seen anything about who you are? What is the dev team size? Background? - Maidsafe is open and clear so is IOTA and Stellar etc. Can you let us know who you and your team are? Especially you are talking about 15 year and up obligations..
techbytes Do we need to hold skycoin to run Skywire nodes or consensus nodes like masternodes from other coins?
synth
Maidsafe has been working on the redesign of the net for about ten years, what are you doing the same and what different?
Maidsafe is in version 2 or 3. Maidsafe will not have a real coin until version 9. Each version takes them about two or three years. Maidsafe will not be "done" or ready for atleast 18 years at this rate.
Skycoin has been in development for ~6 years and the meshnet for 4 years and it will be finished in a few months. To the poin that people can start using it.
Skycoin is similar to maidsafe in the objective, but has a different approach and architecture and primitives. We did not try to do everything, but focused on a smaller, tractable core and got that done.
There will be multiple projects in this space, but few teams are able to plan on the time horizon necisary for building a new internet or able to design each of the components of a system this large, or figure out how to do it so that it is useful at each stage of construction of a project that may take a decade. (edited)
mike Can you see a way for Ark and Skycoin to build on each other in a synergistic manner? I'm all for not reinventing the wheel, especially when it looks like it will be replaced with antigravity like Skycoin.
I see Skycoin as essentially replacing TCP/IP and providing mesh network type functionality at the hardware level, Ark would run on top of it as a top level application layer.
arc-over-water are you up to date on Maidsafe, they are nearly out of Alpha and its more like release early next year? But that being said, Maidsafe says once it is released it is like a virus or AI type, so does Tau Chain, and also Autonomic by HunterMinerCrafter, are we heading towards AI with Maid, Sky Tau and Autonomic?
dr10 smartbridge now! :kappa:
mike So Skycoin would act as a sort of global decentralized cloud server to build on top of.
To communicate, it is more like sharing encrypted files to selected recipients than it is sending messages or hosting sites on a specific server.
synth
Are you a corporation or foundation or charity? Registered? I am not sure i have seen anything about who you are? What is the dev team size? Background?
I think there are over ~60 people who have worked on Skycoin or have made major contributions. Its really a project from the darknet.
Many of the contributors are anonymous. Some of them have security clearances and were in the military industrial complex and one of them worked at the San Diego Naval Defence Research Lab and a lot of the idea for the networking protocols came out of public sector academic researched, funded from there.
We also have a lot of very very early Bitcoin people, hardcore crypto people that predate Bitcoin and an Ethereum core developer, etc..
On the Chinese side we have an early investor in Alibaba and telecom investor. And are doing pilot with china aviation group (owns four publicly traded airline companies) and apparently now Sinopec (which is 2nd largest publicly traded corporation in world).
Then we have people who are part of israeli and US intelligence and are probably doing some sort of money laundering or phychological operations background, who just showed up for some reason. This group seems very interested in the "applications" of these coins and how to improve tranaction privacy and the specifics of the CoinJoin protocol implementation. We got a lot of advice from people experienced in forensic accounting and what they wanted to see and where they felt Bitcoin was deficient and where it leaked metadata.
Then a bunch of PHD level people doing research into distributed database consensus algorithms and another group doing programming language research.
Then a lot of people from the deep darknet, anon, frog twitter and cipher punks and bitorrent communities. (really should be listed as two seperate groups). And people from the Russian darknet community. We have like eight Ivans. (edited)
I see Skycoin as essentially replacing TCP/IP and providing mesh network type functionality at the hardware level, Ark would run on top of it as a top level application layer.
Yes. The key functionality is two things - connecting to people by public key (networking) - distributing self validating, immutble data peer to peer (transactions, blocks etc... content addressible storage)
And you can build almost anything on those two building blocks. The whole internet will eventually be rewritten on top of those primitives and it will replace many of the existing protocols.
arc-over-water Who is the entity that is funding this? I think you have done 2 ICOs? How much did you receive? The first was 10c and the second was @ 50c per coin, released 6 million, is that correct?
samuelvihollandia Are you planning to enter a different exchange market soon?
arc-over-water Have you personally been in Sky from the start? What members have? Who allocates the ICO money etc... I hope you understand that decentralization with investment is a two edged sword, we invest in people but we cannot know these people.... So... we question.. (edited)
thrice.pi with all these outside parties that helped to build skycoin and bring it where it is today who are the main core team who will help to keep all these cool features running. Will these outside parties be recruited for the long haul?
synth
Who is the entity that is funding this? I think you have done 2 ICOs? How much did you receive? The first was 10c and the second was @ 50c per coin, released 6 million, is that correct?
The people who funded the project for the first four years, were early bitcoin and deep crypto people; who were unhappy with the fact that Bitcoin and the other alts did not seem concerned about the core issues at all. They gave us over 1200 bitcoin I think, over several years and did not ask for anything in return.
The early Skycoin devs were doing academic research, architecture and new algorithms. Prototyping and simulation. The later stage people were more project managers and doing implementation.
We did four ICOs for small amounts, to fund development and to allow developers working on the project to buy in. The first ICO I remember was at $0.10 per coin and the price now is about $4.00 per coin, so its up ~35x or 40x, but when you consider the Bitcoin price going from $100 to $3000, the increase has not been so much. lol (edited)
arc-over-water With the price up 35x in about 1 year, is it not now time to cool the run up and release another ICO? At what amount of coins released and what procedure?
mike Would Intel Edison or Joule, or Samsung Artik 10 work well as a Skywire wireless node? They have 2 Gb-8 Gb RAM, 8-64 Gg eMMC storage, 802.11n wireless, bluetooth, and some with Zigbee?
synth
Have you personally been in Sky from the start? What members have? Who allocates the ICO money etc... I hope you understand that decentralization with investment is a two edged sword, we invest in people but we cannot know these people.... So... we question.
I think there wer three different groups that merged together in first three years, that had similar objectives. Because the code was in different language. There was python, C code and then eventually golang and the golang code became the basis for the current codebase.
The way the coin allocations work, is that it requires unamimious consent for releasing coins and it has to be for a specific, ear marked purpose and can be blocked by any of the devs.
Then there is a pool of coins in bitcoin for various project managers to allocate. And that is an operational fund for paying developers, contractors, marketing etc. Then different people have different responsibilities.
Then we also have corporate funding and sponsorship and some companies paying our full time devs etc, which helps a lot.
arc-over-water Silicon Valley (TV SHOW) recently had their decentralized web running on a network or refrigerators? So i would guess, smart phones, smart gadgets? Home gadgets etc could add services and receive rewards from Sky?
mike best would be a totally open source and publicly audited manufactured system on a chip for the nodes to prevent any backdoors. Even chip designers now don't really know what they're putting into the chips since they just drag and drop black boxes known as IP cores into the ASIC designs.
synth
With the price up 35x in about 1 year, is it not now time to cool the run up and release another ICO? At what amount of coins released and what procedure?
I think the Skycoin price has been doubling every 40 days, for as long as I can remember. However, it will still be years before it is in the top 20, its still a long way to climb. It took bitcoin years to go from 0 to $1, even though it was growing at 1% per day the whole time for six years.
best would be a totally open source and publicly audited manufactured system on a chip for the nodes to prevent any backdoors.
we are going to use arm
arc-over-water IOTA is also working on their own hardware for nodes etc, Trinary asset is JINN
synth all intel and AMD systems have remote management engine backdoors. So they are not safe for storing large amounts of coins.
We also have alpine linux and special version of linux, that is 6 MB and has everything that is needed for running our toolchain. It will not have any binary blobs in the kernel or anything that we cant compile from source. It does not have systemd and does not have gli, but uses musl. And does not have openssl.
mike so looks like the Samsung Artik 5 and 10 can run it no problem, they're ARM based. 25x35x4mm package for the Artik 10, Artik 5 is smaller, less powerful but has 2 separate antenna ports, nice for mesh networking with an omni and a directional antenna.
earlyarkinvestor how does Ark compare to Lisk?
synth uploaded this image: 1923810435.jpg Add Comment
earlyarkinvestor isn't Lisk trying to achieve interoperability between blockchains as well
synth uploaded this image: 1433594905.jpg Add Comment
synth uploaded this image: 1432540863.jpg Add Comment
synth uploaded this image: 2049465686.jpg Add Comment
mike nice! looks like an ARM based server rack
let me know if you need any help with it, see you're on solidworks, which I run as well.
synth this is the skycoin cluster; it has 8 CPU boards; 4 cores per CPU, 2 GB of ram per CPU and 64 bit ARM processor. Only one program will run on each individual board, so there is compartmentalization and a physical gap so that compromising one process on a system does no allow all other processes on the system to be compromised
mike looks like 2 ethernet ports per board.
synth and the hardware does not have the qualcom backdoors and is actually chinese equipment; and the backdoors are normally at the kernel level because they are not at hardware backdoors yet
lol
mike do they have SATA ports, maybe M.2 for storage?
synth and we will hav an ARM openwrt router eventually too
this model does not have SATA, but we have a model with SATA; you could hook up 16 2 TB drives, lol and download half the piratebay to your cluster (edited)
the skycoin infrastructure is cluster based and designed for running across +300 computers, with one "node" deployed per computer. Eithe a CXO storage node, or a skywire SDN/meshnet node, or a VPN end point node or a consensus network, or skycoin node, etc. We have multiple node/application types.
so this is a "personal cloud' by itself
its not like StoreJ where you have other people storing your stuff; you are going to have ~5 clusters and 300 computers and can store your own files, on your own internet, on your own hardware. You do not need to go outside of your own network.
mike Have thought it'd be nice to have a board with an array of M.2 sockets to run SSD arrays without all the cables, have the busses shielded in circuit board.
synth yes, i think there will be m.2 eventually
these actually use a microSSD for storage, and its 48MB/s
mike any idea on the pricing on your ARM boards in quantity? We are looking at Intel for Bitseed V3, but ARM would be good to stay with, especially using your boards if there is SATA.
arc-over-water Do you have a general idea of usable functions to be released next in what order? The first release was the Coin and wallet, then the ICOs and can you give a general future with dates if you can
synth the boards are $30 each and the memory for solid state, is actually more than the the cost of the CPU/RAM/board now. Which is sort of insane.
mike so you have microSSD, what's maximum size? we shipping 1with Tb hard drives right now
synth Bitseed mike is going to help with this; so we can pool the boards and do a custom PCB
mike yes, that's where we see the price jumps, is in RAM and eMMC costs.
and it's hard to find low cost boards with SATA
synth try the orange pi
the price goes up 30% for SATA
mike yes, very nice specs.
synth eventually, we will make one that has custom PCB and is a pluggable blade server, I think.
mike I like the Samsung Artiks for the tiny form factor for drone routers, cubesat/picosat possibilities.
but like the fact that you are controlling much deeper down the supply chain with your boards.
synth we only need ram, CPU, then microSD slot; and that is it. so the wifi and all this other stuff is just crap and its junk. We only have communication, storage and computation. So should be minimialist.
submitted by Jarunik to ArkEcosystem [link] [comments]

RPi3 Mining [UPDATE]

I made a post yesterday about mining with the RPI3 [Here], I stated that it was getting 20 H/s. While at the time this was true. It must have been because it was new. I plugged it in for 5 minutes to get the numbers again just now and it's around 6 H/s.
Here is the proof: https://imgur.com/a/zRhDp
I used raspbian stretch for the OS and xmrig to mine monero. After a little bit, the RPi3 got very hot, you can see that in the image in the grey square where it says 100%. It's the CPU usage monitor, which I usually see mine running at around 1%-10% between idle and normal usage.
It's a simple install to get it up and running. The only problem I found was remembering to sudo -i and cd into the proper folder (build) and then I could run xmrig without getting an error. I still don't know how to change the config folder so I can just have 1 rather than 4 threads running.
Based on this and plugging this into Cryptocompare , (I have free electricity) I would be making 0.001560 XMR a day, roughly 50 cents a month, and 5.70 USD a year. Not much.
I next want to take on making a raspberry pi mircocluster. With my RPi3 as the controller and 4 RPi0's as the nodes. I am currently downloading the software to make it and flashing the sd cards, just waiting for the RPi0's to come in the mail, along with the cluster hat.
I was also thinking of making a RPi3 miner that can mine in a pool and if your feeling lucky, you flip a switch and the RPi3 solo mines for that current block.
A short bit about me, I know nothing about computers, I know nothing about cryptocurrency(and I still understand that I'm not going to make a profit!). If you ran into me on the street, this stuff would be the last thing I would talk about, I'm more into the gym/fitness. I figured I would expand my mind into something I probably wouldn't like. But I am enjoying all of this! I have bought into XMR,BTC, and Raiblocks.
What got me into this was reading about bitcoin a few years ago, I messed around with faucets and got 30$, I heard about bitcoin on the news again and I was able to get back into my wallet which was then 200$. I used that money to buy into XMR,BTC, and Raiblocks.
Ill keep posting my findings and projects I'm looking into next! I would like to see more people posting projects, I enjoy seeing people helping each other on here and what others are doing.
Thanks!
submitted by Boatsmhoes to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Plz Help. Have I found a Discrepancy in Slush Pool?

I may have found a bad discrepancy in Slushpool's reporting... Can you guys cross-check it for me? I'm not happy to say this, and rather than accuse anyone, I'd just like to get some second opinions. If I'm wrong, I ask redditers to politely explain why this discrepancy appears to be happening. After all, maybe it's my math, or logic, or facts missing, etc... But if there is a discrepancy, it could affect major things like payouts, theoretically... and I mean in a major way... retroactive for years.
My concern starts with the average speed per worker of the bitcoin mining pool, on Slushpool.
As I write (12/26/17 Pacific time, around 11pm), Slushpool currently says it is running at 1.587 Eh/s. https://slushpool.com/dashboard/?c=btc
The website also says there are 62810 workers in the pool. I want to calculate the speed per worker. Speed per worker should be expressed in Th/s, so to reduce it to common terms, we need to convert the pool's global Eh/s to Th/s... which means to multiply the Eh/s by 10002... one thousand, squared.
The speed of Slushpool was 1.587 Eh/s, so we set it up like this: 1.587 * 1000 * 1000 = 1587000 Th/s. †
Now to get from Slush Pool's total Th/s to Slush Pool's average Th/s per worker, divide total by number of workers...
(1587000 th/s) / (62810 workers) = 25.26 Th/s per worker.
So I got the number I was looking for... excellent. You might say "Okay, interesting, so the average worker is mining at 25.26 Th/s. NP. Cool."... But what you SHOULD be doing here is asking HOW ON EARTH ANY WORKER IS MINING AT 25.26 TH/S, and even moreso how THE AVERAGE worker mining on Slush Pool is mining at that speed. The fastest miner on the market is the s9, and it mines at 14 Th/s. So how is the average miner on Slush Pool more so much faster than the very best miner on the market, today? The S9, The BEST MINER on the MARKET, today, is only 56% the speed of the AVERAGE miner on Slush pool.
Now, maybe somebody built a specialized frankenminer in a laboratory... maybe someone uncovreed a secret cache of Spondoolies SP50 miners... which was designed to mine at a whopping 110th/s, for example... but Spondoolies went bankrupt in 2016, and production was halted. Even before then, they didn't make too many sp50's, and they were restricted to special clients.
So... assuming it isn't legacy Spondoolies sp50's doing this mystery hashing, how else can we explain the high h/s on Slush Pool? Maybe someone got really good at overclocking... maybe they cooled the hell out of their miners, so they can run at super fast speeds. Would that really be enough to yield 25.26 Th/s? Is that credible? Is it possible or plausible? ... Even if some miners are achieving that incredibly blazing speed, would the AVERAGE miner be achieving it?
Don't forget about how the AVERAGE includes all these micro miners, as well... misfits like the u3, gridseed orb, blade miner, s1-s5, running in a dorm rooms, etc. There are hobby miners who would pull the average h/s (per miner) on Slush Pool down alot.
So, how is it possible that the pool is running at this speed? Better asked... IS it possible, and if so, how? And if it's not possible, then what are we looking at?
If the pool operator is overstating the total hashing power of the mining pool, then are payouts being reduced according to a false ratio, where the divisor in the ratio is artificially large? The payouts are based on that... they depend on it. So are the payouts on Slush Pool being artificially shrunken? If the total Eh/s of the pool is really much lower than what they say, then I'd have to suspect that it is. But I am absolutely NOT saying for certain that this is what's happening. It's what my suspicious anxiety closet suggests could be happening... but I really don't know. That's why I'm asking you guys to help sort this all out, and explain to me whether these concerns are misguided or not. I'm asking a question, here... not throwing accusations. Frankly I think it is more likely that I've made an error of some kind, either miscalculating or possibly unaware of some vital detail, than that the net's oldest and most respected mining pool is doing something like this. It is very likely there's a good explanation for the apparent discrepancy, but I do not know what it is... so again, I'm asking you, reddit, if you can evaluate this reasoning and comb it for flaws, math errors, weak factual assumptions, and/or whatever else might explain what I'm seeing, or if you can confirm the math and logic framed in the questions I've asked. Thanks everyone, and have a happy new year.
† (Here is a site which tells the relation) https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/9219/what-is-the-difference-between-kh-s-mh-s-and-gh-s/21498 (here is a site with a calculator which goes from E~ to T~. Although it does not have Eh/s and Th/s, you can use Ehenry to get the same mathematical result. https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converteen/inductance/5-4/gigahenry-terahenry/
submitted by mercucio007 to MiningPoolHub [link] [comments]

An objective score for Bitcoin mining decentralization (and other cryptos)

The Herfindahl index can be applied to objectively measure how decentralized a cryptocurrency's mining infrastructure is - and to directly compare cryptos in that regard. Perhaps more interesting, though more work, would be to graph how these change over time. Has bitcoin become more or less decentralized over the years? It's actually possible to answer, but I'll leave doing so up to others.
The more mining pools there are, and the more their hash rates are evenly distributed, the more decentralized a cryptocurrency's mining economy is. This is the basis of the Herfindahl index, and we can use the reciprocal to obtain a decentralization score.
Here is the procedure, followed by results and calculations for Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Ethereum.
  1. Pick a number of blocks (N) to give you a sufficiently good estimate.
  2. For all of those blocks, identify what pool/miner mined it.
  3. For each unique pool/miner, count how many blocks they mined (n) out of the total (N), and then calculate (n/N)2 (squared market share).
  4. Sum all of these squares up to give you the Herfindahl index (H).
  5. Optionally, calculate the reciprocal (1/H). This makes the index proportional to decentralization and is IMO easier to understand in "bigger is better" terms.
Since steps 1-3 are the already used by many web stats to calculate miner hash rate proportions, you can work directly from hash rate proportions. Square each miner's proportional hash rate and add these all up to get H, then take the reciprocal.
Higher values of the reciprocal Herfindahl index indicate greater decentralization. You can directly compare these between cryptos, but be aware that the index will fluctuate over time and will exhibit some variance.
In my opinion this value is an important metric of the security of a cryptocurrency's network along with the total hash rate.
Here are the current values for a few different cryptos. Higher is better.
Bitcoin: 7.9
Bitcoin Cash: 6.0
Ethereum: 7.0
So, what is an acceptable value? That is the subjective part. I would personally suggest the current state of bitcoin is not decentralized enough, so a value of 7.9 does not satisfy me. Your own opinion may differ.
How do we tell if the above values are different enough to warrant discussion? One method is through the use of significance tests. Or, it may be sufficient to simply plot such values on a graph an examine variability over time. I leave these as exercises for others...
Raw calculations for Bitcoin:
Miner Block Count share*share BitFury 12 0.00852071 ViaBTC 12 0.00852071 BTC.top 2 0.000236686 Bixin 8 0.003786982 BW Pool 3 0.000532544 BitClub 7 0.002899408 Slush Pool 26 0.04 BTCC 13 0.01 AntPool 28 0.046390533 GBMiners 5 0.00147929 ConnectBTC 1 5.91716E-05 BTC.com 8 0.003786982 Bitcoin.com 2 0.000236686 F2Pool 3 0.000532544 TOTAL 130 Excluded Blocks 14 H 0.126982249 Decentralization 7.875116496 
Note: 14 blocks excluded with "unknown" miners.
Raw calculations for Bitcoin Cash:
Miner Block Count share*share BTC.com 31 0.046344522 AntPool 19 0.017409336 Bitcoin.com 2 0.000192901 BTC.top 25 0.030140818 ViaBTC 29 0.040557485 F2Pool 17 0.013937114 Unknown 20 0.019290123 BitClub 1 4.82253E-05 TOTAL 144 Excluded Blocks 0 H 0.167920525 Decentralization 5.955198162 
Raw calculations for Ethereum:
Miner Block Count share*share f2pool 32 0.049382716 nanopool 23 0.025511188 miningpoolhub 19 0.017409336 ethermine 28 0.037808642 0x5a0b54d5... 11 0.005835262 dwarfpool 5 0.001205633 bitclubpool 6 0.001736111 bw 9 0.00390625 ethpool 2 0.000192901 0x625a083b... 1 4.82253E-05 0xb75d1e62... 2 0.000192901 0x180ba8f7... 1 4.82253E-05 0xeba863d1... 1 4.82253E-05 0x6b4afbc4... 1 4.82253E-05 waterhole 1 4.82253E-05 0xcc4b9f07... 1 4.82253E-05 0xb435ce7c... 1 4.82253E-05 TOTAL 144 Excluded Blocks 0 H 0.143518519 Decentralization 6.967741935 
submitted by CaptainOuzo to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

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

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

How Much Can I Make Bitcoin Mining? Square Trick Find Square for 1 to 100 in 5 seconds How Much Money I Made Mining Bitcoin SO FAR!!!!!!! 7 DAY$-24/HR$ - BITCOIN MINING EXPERIMENT - See How Much Money I Made :) What Bitcoin Miners Actually Do

Bitcoin mining pools are groups of Bitcoin miners working together to solve a block and share in its rewards. Without a Bitcoin mining pool, you might mine bitcoins for over a year and never earn any bitcoins. It's far more convenient to share the work and split the reward with a much larger group of Bitcoin miners. Here are some options: The world's first Crypto-Currency Heater It's means of production instead of commercial goods This heater is the result of 5 years of development by our team. Its patented technology has been designed to dissipate a soft and comfortable heat, and is fully integrated with the finest materials and aluminium. Bitcoin’s Town Square. nodes on the Bitcoin network simply interact with miners as they do with any other node. These nodes, we can go on to calculate estimates for Bitcoin’s native price signal—feerates—and other knowledge such as estimated time to settlement. The Bitcoin miners can only earn money if they can download the hashing puzzles from the Internet and upload the solutions. It would be useful to have a firewall that has remote access VPN capability, so you would be able to access the equipment remotely. You can definitely calculate how much air conditioning would be required and that Bitcoin is Secure. Bitcoin miners help keep the Bitcoin network secure by approving transactions. Mining is an important and integral part of Bitcoin that ensures fairness while keeping the Bitcoin network stable, safe and secure. Links. We Use Coins - Learn all about crypto-currency. Bitcoin News - Where the Bitcoin community gets news.

[index] [31188] [7537] [19210] [17996] [17640] [20907] [17693] [15801] [8298] [18239]

How Much Can I Make Bitcoin Mining?

This video goes over my 7 day 1 week Bitcoin Mining experiment. I let my computer Mine for Bitcoin for a week straight, to see how much money I could generate. I left my PC on while I slept and ... Where do Bitcoins come from, and what is Bitcoin "mining"? Peter van Valkenburgh, Director of Research at Coin Center, explains the role of miners in a system of decentralized currency. This video is about finding squares for numbers 1 to 100. Calculations are part of our academic and competitive world, if you know tricks to calculate few things quickly, you will be able to win ... Bitcoin Mining - How To Cash In With Cloud Mining In 2020 In this video, I divulge how I've been earning large returns with bitcoin smart cloud mining. I utilize the platform IQ Mining and buy ... How to start Bitcoin mining for beginners (SUPER EASY) - ULTIMATE GUIDE - Duration: 13:51. We Do Tech 775,777 views. 13:51. The ugly truth about owning a Bitcoin mining farm!

Flag Counter