Miner.BitcoinMiner Activity 7 and 9 - Resolved Malware ...
Miner.BitcoinMiner Activity 7 and 9 - Resolved Malware ...
ESP8266 Bitcoin Miner : 3 Steps - Instructables
Bitcoin Core Version 0.14.0 Released
Bitcoin Wallet Out Of Sync - Neue Aktienstrategien Erfahrungen
My wallet is out of sync by over 3 years, why? : Bitcoin
Proposal: The Sia Foundation
A common sentiment is brewing online; a shared desire for the internet that might have been. After decades of corporate encroachment, you don't need to be a power user to realize that something has gone very wrong. In the early days of the internet, the future was bright. In that future, when you sent an instant message, it traveled directly to the recipient. When you needed to pay a friend, you announced a transfer of value to their public key. When an app was missing a feature you wanted, you opened up the source code and implemented it. When you took a picture on your phone, it was immediately encrypted and backed up to storage that you controlled. In that future, people would laugh at the idea of having to authenticate themselves to some corporation before doing these things. What did we get instead? Rather than a network of human-sized communities, we have a handful of enormous commons, each controlled by a faceless corporate entity. Hey user, want to send a message? You can, but we'll store a copy of it indefinitely, unencrypted, for our preference-learning algorithms to pore over; how else could we slap targeted ads on every piece of content you see? Want to pay a friend? You can—in our Monopoly money. Want a new feature? Submit a request to our Support Center and we'll totally maybe think about it. Want to backup a photo? You can—inside our walled garden, which only we (and the NSA, of course) can access. Just be careful what you share, because merely locking you out of your account and deleting all your data is far from the worst thing we could do. You rationalize this: "MEGACORP would never do such a thing; it would be bad for business." But we all know, at some level, that this state of affairs, this inversion of power, is not merely "unfortunate" or "suboptimal" – No. It is degrading. Even if MEGACORP were purely benevolent, it is degrading that we must ask its permission to talk to our friends; that we must rely on it to safeguard our treasured memories; that our digital lives are completely beholden to those who seek only to extract value from us. At the root of this issue is the centralization of data. MEGACORP can surveil you—because your emails and video chats flow through their servers. And MEGACORP can control you—because they hold your data hostage. But centralization is a solution to a technical problem: How can we make the user's data accessible from anywhere in the world, on any device? For a long time, no alternative solution to this problem was forthcoming. Today, thanks to a confluence of established techniques and recent innovations, we have solved the accessibility problem without resorting to centralization. Hashing, encryption, and erasure encoding got us most of the way, but one barrier remained: incentives. How do you incentivize an anonymous stranger to store your data? Earlier protocols like BitTorrent worked around this limitation by relying on altruism, tit-for-tat requirements, or "points" – in other words, nothing you could pay your electric bill with. Finally, in 2009, a solution appeared: Bitcoin. Not long after, Sia was born. Cryptography has unleashed the latent power of the internet by enabling interactions between mutually-distrustful parties. Sia harnesses this power to turn the cloud storage market into a proper marketplace, where buyers and sellers can transact directly, with no intermediaries, anywhere in the world. No more silos or walled gardens: your data is encrypted, so it can't be spied on, and it's stored on many servers, so no single entity can hold it hostage. Thanks to projects like Sia, the internet is being re-decentralized. Sia began its life as a startup, which means it has always been subjected to two competing forces: the ideals of its founders, and the profit motive inherent to all businesses. Its founders have taken great pains to never compromise on the former, but this often threatened the company's financial viability. With the establishment of the Sia Foundation, this tension is resolved. The Foundation, freed of the obligation to generate profit, is a pure embodiment of the ideals from which Sia originally sprung. The goals and responsibilities of the Foundation are numerous: to maintain core Sia protocols and consensus code; to support developers building on top of Sia and its protocols; to promote Sia and facilitate partnerships in other spheres and communities; to ensure that users can easily acquire and safely store siacoins; to develop network scalability solutions; to implement hardforks and lead the community through them; and much more. In a broader sense, its mission is to commoditize data storage, making it cheap, ubiquitous, and accessible to all, without compromising privacy or performance. Sia is a perfect example of how we can achieve better living through cryptography. We now begin a new chapter in Sia's history. May our stewardship lead it into a bright future.
Today, we are proposing the creation of the Sia Foundation: a new non-profit entity that builds and supports distributed cloud storage infrastructure, with a specific focus on the Sia storage platform. What follows is an informal overview of the Sia Foundation, covering two major topics: how the Foundation will be funded, and what its funds will be used for.
The Sia Foundation will be structured as a non-profit entity incorporated in the United States, likely a 501(c)(3) organization or similar. The actions of the Foundation will be constrained by its charter, which formalizes the specific obligations and overall mission outlined in this document. The charter will be updated on an annual basis to reflect the current goals of the Sia community. The organization will be operated by a board of directors, initially comprising Luke Champine as President and Eddie Wang as Chairman. Luke Champine will be leaving his position at Nebulous to work at the Foundation full-time, and will seek to divest his shares of Nebulous stock along with other potential conflicts of interest. Neither Luke nor Eddie personally own any siafunds or significant quantities of siacoin.
The primary source of funding for the Foundation will come from a new block subsidy. Following a hardfork, 30 KS per block will be allocated to the "Foundation Fund," continuing in perpetuity. The existing 30 KS per block miner reward is not affected. Additionally, one year's worth of block subsidies (approximately 1.57 GS) will be allocated to the Fund immediately upon activation of the hardfork. As detailed below, the Foundation will provably burn any coins that it cannot meaningfully spend. As such, the 30 KS subsidy should be viewed as a maximum. This allows the Foundation to grow alongside Sia without requiring additional hardforks. The Foundation will not be funded to any degree by the possession or sale of siafunds. Siafunds were originally introduced as a means of incentivizing growth, and we still believe in their effectiveness: a siafund holder wants to increase the amount of storage on Sia as much as possible. While the Foundation obviously wants Sia to succeed, its driving force should be its charter. Deriving significant revenue from siafunds would jeopardize the Foundation's impartiality and focus. Ultimately, we want the Foundation to act in the best interests of Sia, not in growing its own budget.
The Foundation inherits a great number of responsibilities from Nebulous. Each quarter, the Foundation will publish the progress it has made over the past quarter, and list the responsibilities it intends to prioritize over the coming quarter. This will be accompanied by a financial report, detailing each area of expenditure over the past quarter, and forecasting expenditures for the coming quarter. Below, we summarize some of the myriad responsibilities towards which the Foundation is expected to allocate its resources.
Maintain and enhance core Sia software
Arguably, this is the most important responsibility of the Foundation. At the heart of Sia is its consensus algorithm: regardless of other differences, all Sia software must agree upon the content and rules of the blockchain. It is therefore crucial that the algorithm be stewarded by an entity that is accountable to the community, transparent in its decision-making, and has no profit motive or other conflicts of interest. Accordingly, Sia’s consensus functionality will no longer be directly maintained by Nebulous. Instead, the Foundation will release and maintain an implementation of a "minimal Sia full node," comprising the Sia consensus algorithm and P2P networking code. The source code will be available in a public repository, and signed binaries will be published for each release. Other parties may use this code to provide alternative full node software. For example, Nebulous may extend the minimal full node with wallet, renter, and host functionality. The source code of any such implementation may be submitted to the Foundation for review. If the code passes review, the Foundation will provide "endorsement signatures" for the commit hash used and for binaries compiled internally by the Foundation. Specifically, these signatures assert that the Foundation believes the software contains no consensus-breaking changes or other modifications to imported Foundation code. Endorsement signatures and Foundation-compiled binaries may be displayed and distributed by the receiving party, along with an appropriate disclaimer. A minimal full node is not terribly useful on its own; the wallet, renter, host, and other extensions are what make Sia a proper developer platform. Currently, the only implementations of these extensions are maintained by Nebulous. The Foundation will contract Nebulous to ensure that these extensions continue to receive updates and enhancements. Later on, the Foundation intends to develop its own implementations of these extensions and others. As with the minimal node software, these extensions will be open source and available in public repositories for use by any Sia node software. With the consensus code now managed by the Foundation, the task of implementing and orchestrating hardforks becomes its responsibility as well. When the Foundation determines that a hardfork is necessary (whether through internal discussion or via community petition), a formal proposal will be drafted and submitted for public review, during which arguments for and against the proposal may be submitted to a public repository. During this time, the hardfork code will be implemented, either by Foundation employees or by external contributors working closely with the Foundation. Once the implementation is finished, final arguments will be heard. The Foundation board will then vote whether to accept or reject the proposal, and announce their decision along with appropriate justification. Assuming the proposal was accepted, the Foundation will announce the block height at which the hardfork will activate, and will subsequently release source code and signed binaries that incorporate the hardfork code. Regardless of the Foundation's decision, it is the community that ultimately determines whether a fork is accepted or rejected – nothing can change that. Foundation node software will never automatically update, so all forks must be explicitly adopted by users. Furthermore, the Foundation will provide replay and wipeout protection for its hard forks, protecting other chains from unintended or malicious reorgs. Similarly, the Foundation will ensure that any file contracts formed prior to a fork activation will continue to be honored on both chains until they expire. Finally, the Foundation also intends to pursue scalability solutions for the Sia blockchain. In particular, work has already begun on an implementation of Utreexo, which will greatly reduce the space requirements of fully-validating nodes (allowing a full node to be run on a smartphone) while increasing throughput and decreasing initial sync time. A hardfork implementing Utreexo will be submitted to the community as per the process detailed above. As this is the most important responsibility of the Foundation, it will receive a significant portion of the Foundation’s budget, primarily in the form of developer salaries and contracting agreements.
Support community services
We intend to allocate 25% of the Foundation Fund towards the community. This allocation will be held and disbursed in the form of siacoins, and will pay for grants, bounties, hackathons, and other community-driven endeavours. Any community-run service, such as a Skynet portal, explorer or web wallet, may apply to have its costs covered by the Foundation. Upon approval, the Foundation will reimburse expenses incurred by the service, subject to the exact terms agreed to. The intent of these grants is not to provide a source of income, but rather to make such services "break even" for their operators, so that members of the community can enrich the Sia ecosystem without worrying about the impact on their own finances.
Ensure easy acquisition and storage of siacoins
Most users will acquire their siacoins via an exchange. The Foundation will provide support to Sia-compatible exchanges, and pursue relevant integrations at its discretion, such as Coinbase's new Rosetta standard. The Foundation may also release DEX software that enables trading cryptocurrencies without the need for a third party. (The Foundation itself will never operate as a money transmitter.) Increasingly, users are storing their cryptocurrency on hardware wallets. The Foundation will maintain the existing Ledger Nano S integration, and pursue further integrations at its discretion. Of course, all hardware wallets must be paired with software running on a computer or smartphone, so the Foundation will also develop and/or maintain client-side wallet software, including both full-node wallets and "lite" wallets. Community-operated wallet services, i.e. web wallets, may be funded via grants. Like core software maintenance, this responsibility will be funded in the form of developer salaries and contracting agreements.
Protect the ecosystem
When it comes to cryptocurrency security, patching software vulnerabilities is table stakes; there are significant legal and social threats that we must be mindful of as well. As such, the Foundation will earmark a portion of its fund to defend the community from legal action. The Foundation will also safeguard the network from 51% attacks and other threats to network security by implementing softforks and/or hardforks where necessary. The Foundation also intends to assist in the development of a new FOSS software license, and to solicit legal memos on various Sia-related matters, such as hosting in the United States and the EU. In a broader sense, the establishment of the Foundation makes the ecosystem more robust by transferring core development to a more neutral entity. Thanks to its funding structure, the Foundation will be immune to various forms of pressure that for-profit companies are susceptible to.
Drive adoption of Sia
Although the overriding goal of the Foundation is to make Sia the best platform it can be, all that work will be in vain if no one uses the platform. There are a number of ways the Foundation can promote Sia and get it into the hands of potential users and developers. In-person conferences are understandably far less popular now, but the Foundation can sponsor and/or participate in virtual conferences. (In-person conferences may be held in the future, permitting circumstances.) Similarly, the Foundation will provide prizes for hackathons, which may be organized by community members, Nebulous, or the Foundation itself. Lastly, partnerships with other companies in the cryptocurrency space—or the cloud storage space—are a great way to increase awareness of Sia. To handle these responsibilities, one of the early priorities of the Foundation will be to hire a marketing director.
The Foundation Fund will be controlled by a multisig address. Each member of the Foundation's board will control one of the signing keys, with the signature threshold to be determined once the final composition of the board is known. (This threshold may also be increased or decreased if the number of board members changes.) Additionally, one timelocked signing key will be controlled by David Vorick. This key will act as a “dead man’s switch,” to be used in the event of an emergency that prevents Foundation board members from reaching the signature threshold. The timelock ensures that this key cannot be used unless the Foundation fails to sign a transaction for several months. On the 1st of each month, the Foundation will use its keys to transfer all siacoins in the Fund to two new addresses. The first address will be controlled by a high-security hot wallet, and will receive approximately one month's worth of Foundation expenditures. The second address, receiving the remaining siacoins, will be a modified version of the source address: specifically, it will increase the timelock on David Vorick's signing key by one month. Any other changes to the set of signing keys, such as the arrival or departure of board members, will be incorporated into this address as well. The Foundation Fund is allocated in SC, but many of the Foundation's expenditures must be paid in USD or other fiat currency. Accordingly, the Foundation will convert, at its discretion, a portion of its monthly withdrawals to fiat currency. We expect this conversion to be primarily facilitated by private "OTC" sales to accredited investors. The Foundation currently has no plans to speculate in cryptocurrency or other assets. Finally, it is important that the Foundation adds value to the Sia platform well in excess of the inflation introduced by the block subsidy. For this reason, the Foundation intends to provably burn, on a quarterly basis, any coins that it cannot allocate towards any justifiable expense. In other words, coins will be burned whenever doing so provides greater value to the platform than any other use. Furthermore, the Foundation will cap its SC treasury at 5% of the total supply, and will cap its USD treasury at 4 years’ worth of predicted expenses. Addendum: Hardfork Timeline We would like to see this proposal finalized and accepted by the community no later than September 30th. A new version of siad, implementing the hardfork, will be released no later than October 15th. The hardfork will activate at block 293220, which is expected to occur around 12pm EST on January 1st, 2021.
Addendum: Inflation specifics The total supply of siacoins as of January 1st, 2021 will be approximately 45.243 GS. The initial subsidy of 1.57 GS thus increases the supply by 3.47%, and the total annual inflation in 2021 will be at most 10.4% (if zero coins are burned). In 2022, total annual inflation will be at most 6.28%, and will steadily decrease in subsequent years.
We see the establishment of the Foundation as an important step in the maturation of the Sia project. It provides the ecosystem with a sustainable source of funding that can be exclusively directed towards achieving Sia's ambitious goals. Compared to other projects with far deeper pockets, Sia has always punched above its weight; once we're on equal footing, there's no telling what we'll be able to achieve. Nevertheless, we do not propose this change lightly, and have taken pains to ensure that the Foundation will act in accordance with the ideals that this community shares. It will operate transparently, keep inflation to a minimum, and respect the user's fundamental role in decentralized systems. We hope that everyone in the community will consider this proposal carefully, and look forward to a productive discussion.
https://github.com/gridcoin-community/Gridcoin-Research/releases/tag/22.214.171.124 Finally! After over ten months of development and testing, "Fern" has arrived! This is a whopper. 240 pull requests merged. Essentially a complete rewrite that was started with the scraper (the "neural net" rewrite) in "Denise" has now been completed. Practically the ENTIRE Gridcoin specific codebase resting on top of the vanilla Bitcoin/Peercoin/Blackcoin vanilla PoS code has been rewritten. This removes the team requirement at last (see below), although there are many other important improvements besides that. Fern was a monumental undertaking. We had to encode all of the old rules active for the v10 block protocol in new code and ensure that the new code was 100% compatible. This had to be done in such a way as to clear out all of the old spaghetti and ring-fence it with tightly controlled class implementations. We then wrote an entirely new, simplified ruleset for research rewards and reengineered contracts (which includes beacon management, polls, and voting) using properly classed code. The fundamentals of Gridcoin with this release are now on a very sound and maintainable footing, and the developers believe the codebase as updated here will serve as the fundamental basis for Gridcoin's future roadmap. We have been testing this for MONTHS on testnet in various stages. The v10 (legacy) compatibility code has been running on testnet continuously as it was developed to ensure compatibility with existing nodes. During the last few months, we have done two private testnet forks and then the full public testnet testing for v11 code (the new protocol which is what Fern implements). The developers have also been running non-staking "sentinel" nodes on mainnet with this code to verify that the consensus rules are problem-free for the legacy compatibility code on the broader mainnet. We believe this amount of testing is going to result in a smooth rollout. Given the amount of changes in Fern, I am presenting TWO changelogs below. One is high level, which summarizes the most significant changes in the protocol. The second changelog is the detailed one in the usual format, and gives you an inkling of the size of this release.
Note that the protocol changes will not become active until we cross the hard-fork transition height to v11, which has been set at 2053000. Given current average block spacing, this should happen around October 4, about one month from now. Note that to get all of the beacons in the network on the new protocol, we are requiring ALL beacons to be validated. A two week (14 day) grace period is provided by the code, starting at the time of the transition height, for people currently holding a beacon to validate the beacon and prevent it from expiring. That means that EVERY CRUNCHER must advertise and validate their beacon AFTER the v11 transition (around Oct 4th) and BEFORE October 18th (or more precisely, 14 days from the actual date of the v11 transition). If you do not advertise and validate your beacon by this time, your beacon will expire and you will stop earning research rewards until you advertise and validate a new beacon. This process has been made much easier by a brand new beacon "wizard" that helps manage beacon advertisements and renewals. Once a beacon has been validated and is a v11 protocol beacon, the normal 180 day expiration rules apply. Note, however, that the 180 day expiration on research rewards has been removed with the Fern update. This means that while your beacon might expire after 180 days, your earned research rewards will be retained and can be claimed by advertising a beacon with the same CPID and going through the validation process again. In other words, you do not lose any earned research rewards if you do not stake a block within 180 days and keep your beacon up-to-date. The transition height is also when the team requirement will be relaxed for the network.
Besides the beacon wizard, there are a number of improvements to the GUI, including new UI transaction types (and icons) for staking the superblock, sidestake sends, beacon advertisement, voting, poll creation, and transactions with a message. The main screen has been revamped with a better summary section, and better status icons. Several changes under the hood have improved GUI performance. And finally, the diagnostics have been revamped.
The wallet sync speed has been DRASTICALLY improved. A decent machine with a good network connection should be able to sync the entire mainnet blockchain in less than 4 hours. A fast machine with a really fast network connection and a good SSD can do it in about 2.5 hours. One of our goals was to reduce or eliminate the reliance on snapshots for mainnet, and I think we have accomplished that goal with the new sync speed. We have also streamlined the in-memory structures for the blockchain which shaves some memory use. There are so many goodies here it is hard to summarize them all. I would like to thank all of the contributors to this release, but especially thank @cyrossignol, whose incredible contributions formed the backbone of this release. I would also like to pay special thanks to @barton2526, @caraka, and @Quezacoatl1, who tirelessly helped during the testing and polishing phase on testnet with testing and repeated builds for all architectures. The developers are proud to present this release to the community and we believe this represents the starting point for a true renaissance for Gridcoin!
Most significantly, nodes calculate research rewards directly from the magnitudes in EACH superblock between stakes instead of using a two- or three- point average based on a CPID's current magnitude and the magnitude for the CPID when it last staked. For those long-timers in the community, this has been referred to as "Superblock Windows," and was first done in proof-of-concept form by @denravonska.
Network magnitude unit pinned to a static value of 0.25
Max research reward allowed per block raised to 16384 GRC (from 12750 GRC)
New CPIDs begin accruing research rewards from the first superblock that contains the CPID instead of from the time of the beacon advertisement
500 GRC research reward limit for a CPID's first stake
6-month expiration for unclaimed rewards
10-block spacing requirement between research reward claims
Rolling 5-day payment-per-day limit
Legacy tolerances for floating-point error and time drift
The need to include a valid copy of a CPID's magnitude in a claim
10-block emission adjustment interval for the magnitude unit
One-time beacon activation requires that participants temporarily change their usernames to a verification code at one whitelisted BOINC project
Verification codes of pending beacons expire after 3 days
Self-service beacon removal
Burn fee for beacon advertisement increased from 0.00001 GRC to 0.5 GRC
Rain addresses derived from beacon keys instead of a default wallet address
Beacon expiration determined as of the current block instead of the previous block
The ability for developers to remove beacons
The ability to sign research reward claims with non-current but unexpired beacons
As a reminder:
Beacons expire after 6 months pass (180 days)
Beacons can be renewed after 5 months pass (150 days)
Renewed beacons must be signed with the same key as the original beacon
Magnitudes less than 1 include two fractional places
Magnitudes greater than or equal to 1 but less than 10 include one fractional place
A valid superblock must match a scraper convergence
Superblock popularity election mechanics
Yes/no/abstain and single-choice response types (no user-facing support yet)
To create a poll, a maximum of 250 UTXOs for a single address must add up to 100000 GRC. These are selected from the largest downwards.
Burn fee for creating polls scaled by the number of UTXOs claimed
50 GRC for a poll contract
0.001 GRC per claimed UTXO
Burn fee for casting votes scaled by the number of UTXOs claimed
0.01 GRC for a vote contract
0.01 GRC to claim magnitude
0.01 GRC per claimed address
0.001 GRC per claimed UTXO
Maximum length of a poll title: 80 characters
Maximum length of a poll question: 100 characters
Maximum length of a poll discussion website URL: 100 characters
Maximum number of poll choices: 20
Maximum length of a poll choice label: 100 characters
Magnitude, CPID count, and participant count poll weight types
The ability for developers to remove polls and votes
[126.96.36.199] 2020-09-03, mandatory, "Fern"
Backport newer uint256 types from Bitcoin #1570 (@cyrossignol)
Implement project level rain for rainbymagnitude #1580 (@jamescowens)
Upgrade utilities (Update checker and snapshot downloadeapplication) #1576 (@iFoggz)
Provide fees collected in the block by the miner #1601 (@iFoggz)
Add support for generating legacy superblocks from scraper stats #1603 (@cyrossignol)
Port of the Bitcoin Logger to Gridcoin #1600 (@jamescowens)
Implement zapwallettxes #1605 (@jamescowens)
Implements a global event filter to suppress help question mark #1609 (@jamescowens)
Add next target difficulty to RPC output #1615 (@cyrossignol)
Add caching for block hashes to CBlock #1624 (@cyrossignol)
Make toolbars and tray icon red for testnet #1637 (@jamescowens)
Add an rpc call convergencereport #1643 (@jamescowens)
Implement newline filter on config file read in #1645 (@jamescowens)
Implement beacon status icon/button #1646 (@jamescowens)
Add gridcointestnet.png #1649 (@caraka)
Add precision to support magnitudes less than 1 #1651 (@cyrossignol)
Replace research accrual calculations with superblock snapshots #1657 (@cyrossignol)
Publish example gridcoinresearch.conf as a md document to the doc directory #1662 (@jamescowens)
Add options checkbox to disable transaction notifications #1666 (@jamescowens)
Add support for self-service beacon deletion #1695 (@cyrossignol)
Add support for type-specific contract fee amounts #1698 (@cyrossignol)
Add verifiedbeaconreport and pendingbeaconreport #1696 (@jamescowens)
Add preliminary testing option for block v11 height on testnet #1706 (@cyrossignol)
Add verified beacons manifest part to superblock validator #1711 (@cyrossignol)
Implement beacon, vote, and superblock display categories/icons in UI transaction model #1717 (@jamescowens)
Taproot! Everybody wants to have it, somebody wants to make it, nobody knows how to get it! (If you are asking why everybody wants it, see: Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?) (Pedants: I mostly elide over lockin times) Briefly, Taproot is that neat new thing that gets us:
Multisignatures (n-of-n, k-of-n) that are just 1 signature (1-of-1) in length!! (MuSig/Schnorr)
Better privacy!! If all contract participants can agree, just use a multisignature. If there is a dispute, show the contract publicly and have the Bitcoin network resolve it (Taproot/MAST).
Activation lets devs work get back to work on the even newer stuff like!!!
Cross-input signature aggregation!! (transaction with multiple inputs can have a single signature for all inputs) --- needs Schnorr, but some more work needed to ensure that the interactions with SCRIPT are okay.
Block validation - Schnorr signatures for all taproot spends in a block can be validated in a single operation instead of for each transaction!! Speed up validation and maybe we can actually afford to increase block sizes (maybe)!!
SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT - you know, for Decker-Russell-Osuntokun ("eltoo") magic!!!
OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY - vaulty vaults without requiring storing signatures, just transaction details!!
So yes, let's activate taproot!
The SegWit Wars
The biggest problem with activating Taproot is PTSD from the previous softfork, SegWit. Pieter Wuille, one of the authors of the current Taproot proposal, has consistently held the position that he will not discuss activation, and will accept whatever activation process is imposed on Taproot. Other developers have expressed similar opinions. So what happened with SegWit activation that was so traumatic? SegWit used the BIP9 activation method. Let's dive into BIP9!
bit - A field in the block header, the nVersion, has a number of bits. By setting a particular bit, the miner making the block indicates that it has upgraded its software to support a particular soft fork. The bit parameter for a BIP9 activation is which bit in this nVersion is used to indicate that the miner has upgraded software for a particular soft fork.
timeout - a time limit, expressed as an end date. If this timeout is reached without sufficient number of miners signaling that they upgraded, then the activation fails and Bitcoin Core goes back to the drawing board.
Now there are other parameters (name, starttime) but they are not anywhere near as important as the above two. A number that is not a parameter, is 95%. Basically, activation of a BIP9 softfork is considered as actually succeeding if at least 95% of blocks in the last 2 weeks had the specified bit in the nVersion set. If less than 95% had this bit set before the timeout, then the upgrade fails and never goes into the network. This is not a parameter: it is a constant defined by BIP9, and developers using BIP9 activation cannot change this. So, first some simple questions and their answers:
Why not just set a day when everyone starts imposing the new rules of the softfork?
This was done classically (in the days when Satoshi was still among us). But this might argued to put too much power to developers, since there would be no way to reject an upgrade without possible bad consequences. For example, developers might package an upgrade that the users do not want, together with vital security bugfixes. Either you live without vital security bugfixes and hire some other developers to fix it for you (which can be difficult, presumably the best developers are already the ones working on the codebase) or you get the vital security bugfixes and implicitly support the upgrade you might not want.
Sure, you could fork the code yourself (the ultimate threat in the FOSS world) and hire another set of developers who aren't assholes to do the dreary maintenance work of fixing security bugs, but Bitcoin needs strong bug-for-bug compatibility so everyone should really congregate around a single codebase.
Basically: even the devs do not want this power, because they fear being coerced into putting "upgrades" that are detrimental to users. Satoshi got a pass because nobody knew who he was and how to coerce him.
Suppose the threshold were lower, like 51%. If so, after activation, somebody can disrupt the Bitcoin network by creating a transaction that is valid under the pre-softfork rules, but are invalid under the post-softfork rules. Upgraded nodes would reject it, but 49% of miners would accept it and include it in a block (which makes the block invalid) And then the same 49% would accept the invalid block and build on top of that, possibly creating a short chain of doomed invalid blocks that confirm an invalid spend. This can confuse SPV wallets, who might see multiple confirmations of a transaction and accept the funds, but later find that in fact it is invalid under the now-activated softfork rules.
Thus, a very high threshold was imposed. 95% is considered safe. 50% is definitely not safe. Due to variance in the mining process, 80% could also be potentially unsafe (i.e. 80% of blocks signaling might have a good chance of coming from only 60% of miners), so a threshold of 95% was considered "safe enough for Bitcoin work".
Why have a timeout that disables the upgrade?
Before BIP9, what was used was either flag day or BIP34. BIP34 had no flag day of activation or a bit, instead, it was just a 95% threshold to signal an nVersion value greater than a specific value. Actually, it was two thresholds: at 75%, blocks with the new nVersion would have the new softfork rules imposed, but at 95% blocks with the old nVersion would be rejected (and only the new blocks, with the new softfork rules, were accepted). For one, between 75% and 95%, there was a situation where the softfork was only "partially imposed", only blocks signaling the new rules would actually have those rules, but blocks with the old rules were still valid. This was fine for BIP34, which only added rules for miners with negligible use for non-miners.
The reasons miners signalled support was because they felt they were being pressured to signal support. So they signalled support, with plans to actually upgrade later, but because of the widespread signalling, the new BIP66 version locked in before upgrade plans were finished. Thus, the timeout that disables the upgrade was added in BIP9 to allow miners an escape hatch.
The Great Battles of the SegWit Wars
SegWit not only fixed transaction malleability, it also created a practical softforkable blocksize increase that also rebalanced weights so that the cost of spending a UTXO is about the same as the cost of creating UTXOs (and spending UTXOs is "better" since it limits the size of the UTXO set that every fullnode has to maintain). So SegWit was written, the activation was decided to be BIP9, and then.... miner signalling stalled at below 75%. Thus were the Great SegWit Wars started.
BIP9 Feature Hostage
If you are a miner with at least 5% global hashpower, you can hold a BIP9-activated softfork hostage. You might even secretly want the softfork to actually push through. But you might want to extract concession from the users and the developers. Like removing the halvening. Or raising or even removing the block size caps (which helps larger miners more than smaller miners, making it easier to become a bigger fish that eats all the smaller fishes). Or whatever. With BIP9, you can hold the softfork hostage. You just hold out and refuse to signal. You tell everyone you will signal, if and only if certain concessions are given to you. This ability by miners to hold a feature hostage was enabled because of the miner-exit allowed by the timeout on BIP9. Prior to that, miners were considered little more than expendable security guards, paid for the risk they take to secure the network, but not special in the grand scheme of Bitcoin.
ASICBoost was a novel way of optimizing SHA256 mining, by taking advantage of the structure of the 80-byte header that is hashed in order to perform proof-of-work. The details of ASICBoost are out-of-scope here but you can read about it elsewhere Here is a short summary of the two types of ASICBoost, relevant to the activation discussion.
Overt ASICBoost - Manipulates the unused bits in nVersion to reduce power consumption in mining.
Covert ASICBoost - Manipulates the order of transactions in the block to reduce power consumption in mining.
Now, "overt" means "obvious", while "covert" means hidden. Overt ASICBoost is obvious because nVersion bits that are not currently in use for BIP9 activations are usually 0 by default, so setting those bits to 1 makes it obvious that you are doing something weird (namely, Overt ASICBoost). Covert ASICBoost is non-obvious because the order of transactions in a block are up to the miner anyway, so the miner rearranging the transactions in order to get lower power consumption is not going to be detected. Unfortunately, while Overt ASICBoost was compatible with SegWit, Covert ASICBoost was not. This is because, pre-SegWit, only the block header Merkle tree committed to the transaction ordering. However, with SegWit, another Merkle tree exists, which commits to transaction ordering as well. Covert ASICBoost would require more computation to manipulate two Merkle trees, obviating the power benefits of Covert ASICBoost anyway. Now, miners want to use ASICBoost (indeed, about 60->70% of current miners probably use the Overt ASICBoost nowadays; if you have a Bitcoin fullnode running you will see the logs with lots of "60 of last 100 blocks had unexpected versions" which is exactly what you would see with the nVersion manipulation that Overt ASICBoost does). But remember: ASICBoost was, at around the time, a novel improvement. Not all miners had ASICBoost hardware. Those who did, did not want it known that they had ASICBoost hardware, and wanted to do Covert ASICBoost! But Covert ASICBoost is incompatible with SegWit, because SegWit actually has two Merkle trees of transaction data, and Covert ASICBoost works by fudging around with transaction ordering in a block, and recomputing two Merkle Trees is more expensive than recomputing just one (and loses the ASICBoost advantage). Of course, those miners that wanted Covert ASICBoost did not want to openly admit that they had ASICBoost hardware, they wanted to keep their advantage secret because miners are strongly competitive in a very tight market. And doing ASICBoost Covertly was just the ticket, but they could not work post-SegWit. Fortunately, due to the BIP9 activation process, they could hold SegWit hostage while covertly taking advantage of Covert ASICBoost!
UASF: BIP148 and BIP8
When the incompatibility between Covert ASICBoost and SegWit was realized, still, activation of SegWit stalled, and miners were still not openly claiming that ASICBoost was related to non-activation of SegWit. Eventually, a new proposal was created: BIP148. With this rule, 3 months before the end of the SegWit timeout, nodes would reject blocks that did not signal SegWit. Thus, 3 months before SegWit timeout, BIP148 would force activation of SegWit. This proposal was not accepted by Bitcoin Core, due to the shortening of the timeout (it effectively times out 3 months before the initial SegWit timeout). Instead, a fork of Bitcoin Core was created which added the patch to comply with BIP148. This was claimed as a User Activated Soft Fork, UASF, since users could freely download the alternate fork rather than sticking with the developers of Bitcoin Core. Now, BIP148 effectively is just a BIP9 activation, except at its (earlier) timeout, the new rules would be activated anyway (instead of the BIP9-mandated behavior that the upgrade is cancelled at the end of the timeout). BIP148 was actually inspired by the BIP8 proposal (the link here is a historical version; BIP8 has been updated recently, precisely in preparation for Taproot activation). BIP8 is basically BIP9, but at the end of timeout, the softfork is activated anyway rather than cancelled. This removed the ability of miners to hold the softfork hostage. At best, they can delay the activation, but not stop it entirely by holding out as in BIP9. Of course, this implies risk that not all miners have upgraded before activation, leading to possible losses for SPV users, as well as again re-pressuring miners to signal activation, possibly without the miners actually upgrading their software to properly impose the new softfork rules.
BIP91, SegWit2X, and The Aftermath
BIP148 inspired countermeasures, possibly from the Covert ASiCBoost miners, possibly from concerned users who wanted to offer concessions to miners. To this day, the common name for BIP148 - UASF - remains an emotionally-charged rallying cry for parts of the Bitcoin community. One of these was SegWit2X. This was brokered in a deal between some Bitcoin personalities at a conference in New York, and thus part of the so-called "New York Agreement" or NYA, another emotionally-charged acronym. The text of the NYA was basically:
Set up a new activation threshold at 80% signalled at bit 4 (vs bit 1 for SegWit).
When this 80% signalling was reached, miners would require that bit 1 for SegWit be signalled to achive the 95% activation needed for SegWit.
If the bit 4 signalling reached 80%, increase the block weight limit from the SegWit 4000000 to the SegWit2X 8000000, 6 months after bit 1 activation.
The first item above was coded in BIP91. Unfortunately, if you read the BIP91, independently of NYA, you might come to the conclusion that BIP91 was only about lowering the threshold to 80%. In particular, BIP91 never mentions anything about the second point above, it never mentions that bit 4 80% threshold would also signal for a later hardfork increase in weight limit. Because of this, even though there are claims that NYA (SegWit2X) reached 80% dominance, a close reading of BIP91 shows that the 80% dominance was only for SegWit activation, without necessarily a later 2x capacity hardfork (SegWit2X). This ambiguity of bit 4 (NYA says it includes a 2x capacity hardfork, BIP91 says it does not) has continued to be a thorn in blocksize debates later. Economically speaking, Bitcoin futures between SegWit and SegWit2X showed strong economic dominance in favor of SegWit (SegWit2X futures were traded at a fraction in value of SegWit futures: I personally made a tidy but small amount of money betting against SegWit2X in the futures market), so suggesting that NYA achieved 80% dominance even in mining is laughable, but the NYA text that ties bit 4 to SegWit2X still exists. Historically, BIP91 triggered which caused SegWit to activate before the BIP148 shorter timeout. BIP148 proponents continue to hold this day that it was the BIP148 shorter timeout and no-compromises-activate-on-August-1 that made miners flock to BIP91 as a face-saving tactic that actually removed the second clause of NYA. NYA supporters keep pointing to the bit 4 text in the NYA and the historical activation of BIP91 as a failed promise by Bitcoin developers.
We have discussed BIP8: roughly, it has bit and timeout, if 95% of miners signal bit it activates, at the end of timeout it activates. (EDIT: BIP8 has had recent updates: at the end of timeout it can now activate or fail. For the most part, in the below text "BIP8", means BIP8-and-activate-at-timeout, and "BIP9" means BIP8-and-fail-at-timeout) So let's take a look at Modern Softfork Activation!
Modern Softfork Activation
This is a more complex activation method, composed of BIP9 and BIP8 as supcomponents.
First have a 12-month BIP9 (fail at timeout).
If the above fails to activate, have a 6-month discussion period during which users and developers and miners discuss whether to continue to step 3.
Have a 24-month BIP8 (activate at timeout).
The total above is 42 months, if you are counting: 3.5 years worst-case activation. The logic here is that if there are no problems, BIP9 will work just fine anyway. And if there are problems, the 6-month period should weed it out. Finally, miners cannot hold the feature hostage since the 24-month BIP8 period will exist anyway.
PSA: Being Resilient to Upgrades
Software is very birttle. Anyone who has been using software for a long time has experienced something like this:
You hear a new version of your favorite software has a nice new feature.
Excited, you install the new version.
You find that the new version has subtle incompatibilities with your current workflow.
You are sad and downgrade to the older version.
You find out that the new version has changed your files in incompatible ways that the old version cannot work with anymore.
You tearfully reinstall the newer version and figure out how to get your lost productivity now that you have to adapt to a new workflow
If you are a technically-competent user, you might codify your workflow into a bunch of programs. And then you upgrade one of the external pieces of software you are using, and find that it has a subtle incompatibility with your current workflow which is based on a bunch of simple programs you wrote yourself. And if those simple programs are used as the basis of some important production system, you hve just screwed up because you upgraded software on an important production system. And well, one of the issues with new softfork activation is that if not enough people (users and miners) upgrade to the newest Bitcoin software, the security of the new softfork rules are at risk. Upgrading software of any kind is always a risk, and the more software you build on top of the software-being-upgraded, the greater you risk your tower of software collapsing while you change its foundations. So if you have some complex Bitcoin-manipulating system with Bitcoin somewhere at the foundations, consider running two Bitcoin nodes:
One is a "stable-version" Bitcoin node. Once it has synced, set it up to connect=x.x.x.x to the second node below (so that your ISP bandwidth is only spent on the second node). Use this node to run all your software: it's a stable version that you don't change for long periods of time. Enable txiindex, disable pruning, whatever your software needs.
The other is an "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin Node. Keep its stoarge down with pruning (initially sync it off the "stable-version" node). You can't use blocksonly if your "stable-version" node needs to send transactions, but otherwise this "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node can be kept as a low-resource node, so you can run both nodes in the same machine.
When a new Bitcoin version comes up, you just upgrade the "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node. This protects you if a future softfork activates, you will only receive valid Bitcoin blocks and transactions. Since this node has nothing running on top of it, it is just a special peer of the "stable-version" node, any software incompatibilities with your system software do not exist. Your "stable-version" Bitcoin node remains the same version until you are ready to actually upgrade this node and are prepared to rewrite most of the software you have running on top of it due to version compatibility problems. When upgrading the "always-up-to-date", you can bring it down safely and then start it later. Your "stable-version" wil keep running, disconnected from the network, but otherwise still available for whatever queries. You do need some system to stop the "always-up-to-date" node if for any reason the "stable-version" goes down (otherwisee if the "always-up-to-date" advances its pruning window past what your "stable-version" has, the "stable-version" cannot sync afterwards), but if you are technically competent enough that you need to do this, you are technically competent enough to write such a trivial monitor program (EDIT: gmax notes you can adjust the pruning window by RPC commands to help with this as well). This recommendation is from gmaxwell on IRC, by the way.
I had a discussion with nullc aka Greg Maxwell former CTO from Blockstream and Bitcoin Core developer. In the discussion with him he refused to continue the discussion unless you agreed to some "Boston agreement". Don't ask me what it is, I googled it and have no clue wtf a Boston agreement is. I told him to just dump the data and be done with it. Just for reference the argument was back and forth for a while and about 20 comments deep so most redditors don't dig that deep and the conversation would not be visible to most users unless you followed that thread to the end. This is a key detail. The other key detail is that all 3 of these sock puppet accounts along with Maxwell understood what a Boston agreement is, and acted as "witnesses". Kind of odd since Google doesn't even have a definition for it. So either they've been notified to play along or are just are in sync with Maxwell's trolling. Long story short, 3 separate accounts all "witnessed" Greg Maxwell's agreement as well as harassed me about the agreement despite being inactive for 3-7 days prior.
Herewith my support for the Boston Agreement. I feel deeply concerned for the mental health of Bitmain shill u/500239 having to endure your relentless public humiliation. It would be in his own interest to urgently delete his account and stop being an easy target to your ass-handing ways. (I will miss the entertainment though so part of me hopes u/500239 weasels their way out and given their post history that is the expected outcome).
The explanation is simple: 1) Either these 3 accounts have been stalking me to be able to jump on a thread that was 20 comments deep. or 2) Greg Maxwell notified these accounts to jump and brigade on your conversation within minutes that it was happening Looks like Greg Maxwell is back to manipulating forums much like he had a history of manipulating Wikipedia and other information mediums. edit1: Another minor detail. I've never been called a "Bitmain shill" ever. This week 2 people to call me a Bitmain shill have been Greg Maxwell and trilli0nn . Pretty specific if you ask me. edit2: Last person to request I delete my account was BeardedCake, who is now banned from this subreddit for continued user harassment.... Coincidentally ever since his ban his account has been inactive so it's possible he rotated to another bought account. I've been asked by 3 users in no less than 1 month to delete my account, and attempting to guilt, harass and threaten me until I do so. It's another attempt to censor outside of /bitcoin where normally the moderators there would just delete information they didn't approve of.
Bull market is back… Another wave of hacker attacks starts again?
The picture from COINDESK related reports On Aug. 2, Ethereum Classic Labs (ETC Labs) made an important announcement on ETC blockchain. ETC Labs said due to network attack, Ethereum Classic suffered a reorganization on August 1st. This has been the second attack on the Ethereum Classic Network this year. Did renting-power cause the problem again? In this ETC incident, one of the miners mined a large number of blocks offline. When the miner went online, due to its high computing power, and some versions of mining software did not support large-scale blockchain mergers, the consensus failed. Therefore, the entire network was out of sync, which produced an effect similar to a 51% attack. Finally, it caused the reorganization of 3693 blocks, starting at 10904147. The deposit and withdrawal between the exchanges and mining pools had to be suspended for troubleshooting during this period. Media report shows that the blockchain reorganization may be caused by a miner (or a mining pool) disconnected during mining. Although it has been restored to normal after 15 hours of repair, it does reflect the vulnerability of the Proof of Work (PoW) network: once the computing power of the network is insufficient, the performance of one single mining pool can affect the entire network, which is neither distributed nor secure for the blockchain. Neither does it have efficiency. At present, most consensus algorithms of blockchains are using PoW, which has been adopted over 10 years. In PoW, each miner solves a hashing problem. The probability to solve the problem successfully is proportional to the ratio of the miner’s hash power to the total hash power of mainnet. Although PoW has been running for a long time, the attack model against PoW is very straightforward to understand, and has attracted people’s attention for a long time: such an attack, also known as double-spending attack, may happen when an attacker possesses 51% of the overall network hash power. The attacker can roll back any blocks in the blockchain by creating a longer and more difficult chain and as a result, modify the transaction information. Since hash power can be rented to launch attacks, some top 30 projects have suffered from such attacks. In addition to this interference, the main attack method is through the computing power market such as Nice Hash. Hackers can rent hashpower to facilitate their attacks, which allows the computing power to rise rapidly in a short time and rewrite information. In January of this year, the Ethereum Classic was attacked once, and it was also the case that hackers can migrate computing power from the fiercely competitive Bitcoin and Ethereum, and use it to attack smaller projects, such as ETH Classic. The picture shows the cost of attacking ETH Classic. It can be seen that it costs only $6,634 to attack ETH Classic for one hour. The security of one network is no longer limited by whether miners within the main net take more than 51% of the total hash power, rather it is determined by whether the benevolent (non-hackers) miners take more than 51% of the total hash power from the pool of projects that use similar consensus algorithm. For example, the hash power of Ethereum is 176 TH/s and that of Ethereum Classic is 9 TH/s. In this way, if one diverts some hash power from Ethereum (176 TH/s) to Ethereum Classic, then one can easily launch a double-spending attack to Ethereum Classic. The hash power ratio for this attack between the two projects is 9/176 = 5.2%, which is a tiny number. https://preview.redd.it/qj57vgmgb9f51.png?width=699&format=png&auto=webp&s=39c1efc3645f268dbf1c73e1b373d532d5461006 As one of the top 30 blockchain projects, Ethereum Classic has been attacked several times. Therefore, those small and medium-sized projects with low hash power and up-and-coming future projects are facing great potential risks. This is the reason that many emerging public chain projects abandon PoW and adopt PoS. Proof of Stake (PoS) can prevent 51% attack but has problems of its own In addition to PoW consensus, another well-adopted consensus algorithm is Proof of Stake (PoS). The fundamental concept is that the one who holds more tokens has the right to create the blocks. This is similar to shareholders in the stock market. The token holders also have the opportunities to get rewards. The advantages of PoS are: (i) the algorithm avoids wasting energy like that in PoW calculation; and (ii) its design determines that the PoS will not be subjected to 51% hash power attack since the algorithm requires the miner to possess tokens in order to modify the ledger. In this way, 51% attack becomes costly and meaningless. https://preview.redd.it/rf65o1vhb9f51.png?width=685&format=png&auto=webp&s=9d7a9f9dab6ce823a224e91afa9d116310cf27e1 In terms of disadvantages, nodes face the problem of accessibility. PoS requires a permission to enter the network and nodes cannot enter and exit freely and thus lacks openness. It can easily be forked. In the long run, the algorithm is short of decentralization, and leads to the Matthew effect of accumulated advantages whereby miners with more tokens will receive more rewards and perpetuate the cycle. More importantly, the current PoS consensus has not been verified for long-term reliability. Whether it can be as stable as the PoW system is yet to be verified. For some of the PoW public chains that are already launched, if they want to switch consensus, they need to do hard fork, which divides communities and carries out a long consensus upgrade and through which Ethereum is undergoing. Is there a safer and better solution? QuarkChain Provide THE Solution: High TPS Protection + PoSW Consensus For new-born projects, and some small or medium-sized projects, they all are facing the problem of power attack. For PoW-based chains, there are always some chains with lower hash power than others (ETC vs. ETH, BCH vs BTC), and thus the risk of attack is increased. In addition, the interoperability among the chains, such as cross-chain operation, is also a problem. In response, QuarkChain has designed a series of mechanisms to solve this problem. This can be summed up as a two-layer structure with a calculation power allocation and Proof of Staked Work (PoSW) consensus. First of all, there is a layer of sharding, which can be considered as some parallel chains. Each sharding chain handles the transactions relatively independently. Such design forms the basis to ensure the performance of the entire system. To avoid security issues caused by the dilution of the hash power, we also have a root chain. The blocks of the root chain do not contain transactions, but are responsible for verifying the transactions of each shard. Relying on the hash power distribution algorithm, the hash power of the root chain will always account for 51% of the net. Each shard, on the other hand, packages their transactions according to their own consensus and transaction models. Moreover, QuarkChain relies on flexibility that allows each shard to have different consensus and transaction models. Someone who wants to launch a double-spending attack on a shard that is already contained in the root chain must attack the block on the root chain, which requires calling the 51% hash power of the root chain. That is, if there are vertical field projects that open new shards on QuarkChain, even with insufficient hash power, an attacker must first attack the root chain if he or she wants to attack a new shard. The root chain has maintained more than 51% of the network’s hash power, which makes the attack very difficult. https://preview.redd.it/rxpohs7jb9f51.png?width=674&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2df1307a1753542472f2b6da88e7a4022b30884 As illustrated in the diagram, if the attacker wants to attack the QuarkChain network, one would need to attack the shard and the root chain simultaneously. PoW has achieved a high level of decentralization and has been verified for its stability for a long time. Combining PoW with the staking capability for PoS would make use of the advantages of both consensus mechanisms. That is what QuarkChain’s PoSW achieves exactly. PoSW, which is Proof of Staked Work, is exclusively developed by QuarkChain and runs on shards. PoSW allows miners to enjoy the benefits of lower mining difficulty by staking original tokens (currently it’s 20 times lower). Conversely, if someone malicious with a high hash power and does not stake tokens on QuarkChain, he will be punishable by receiving 20 times the difficulty of the hash power, which increases the cost of attack. If the attacker stakes tokens in order to reduce the cost of attack, he/she needs to stake the corresponding amount of tokens, which may cost even more. Thus, the whole network is more secure. Taking Ethereum Classics (ETC) as an example, if ETC uses the PoSW consensus, if there was another double-spending attack similar to the one in January, the attacker will need at least 110Th/s hash power or 650320 ETC (worth $3.2 million, and 8 TH/s hash power) to create this attack, which is far greater than the cost of the current attack on the network (8Th/s hash power) and revenue (219500 ETC). Relying on multiple sets of security mechanisms, QuarkChain ensures its own security, while providing security for new shards and small and medium-sized projects. Its high level of flexibility also allows the projects to support different types of ledger models, transaction models, virtual machines, and token economics. Such great degrees of security and flexibility will facilitate the blockchain ecosystem to accelerate growth of innovative blockchain applications. Learn more about QuarkChain Website https://www.quarkchain.io Telegram https://t.me/quarkchainio Twitter https://twitter.com/Quark_Chain Medium https://medium.com/quarkchain-official Reddit https://www.reddit.com/quarkchainio/ Community https://community.quarkchain.io/
Hans: for example implement bitcoin on top of the tangle then the bitcoin
Hans Moog [IF]Yesterday at 23:57 so if somebody would for example implement bitcoin on top of the tangle then the bitcoin miners would need to buy IOTA to be able to send messages in the network We will most probably see a lot of companies also build proprietary stuff on the tangle you can even have "private" apps on the tangle that are encrypted so you can have stuff that would require a "private inhouse blockchain" to use the global infrastructure of the tangle its extremely powerfull Jack KerouacYesterday at 23:58 I thought of that already - making a "new coin" that is private like monero on the basis of the tangle - using a privat DAPP Crazy powerful! Hans Moog [IF]Yesterday at 23:59 yeah you can have a "privacy coin" on top of the tangle that is maybe not as fast and scalable as IOTA itself and might even have fees Hans Moog [IF]Yesterday at 23:59 but if people are willing to pay for this extra service then you can have private transactions without having to "leave" the ecosystem Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:00 and without having to give up scalability for the IOTA base layer MaKlaToday at 00:00 (it really sounds great. unexpected simplicity in a versatile yet realistically applicable solution is rare :slight_smile: ) well... "simplicity"....^^" Jack KerouacToday at 00:02 Crazy powerful! and everything would need IOTAs... Qubic and Oracles would also be a base DAPP on this tangle ... Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:05 exactly Jack KerouacToday at 00:06 Looking forward to this! Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:07 :trollface: CorienToday at 00:07 So if i understand correct, other coins on the Tangle would not have a negatieve impact on the value of the IOTA. Even the other way around. Dave [EF]Today at 00:08 Sounds really exciting! Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:08 IOTA would always be the native coin which would be the fastest and most secure one, yeah if there would ever be a coin that would be faster and more secure then it would make sense to implement that in IOTA core Jack KerouacToday at 00:10 in a way, yes but its a bit more powerfull now as the DAPPS are completely isolated and "rejecting" transactions in one app does not cause all of the transactions that approve it to also be rejected u/Hans Moog [IF] so no transaction will be rejected anymore from the base tangle layer? In the worst case - if in every DAPP consens mechanism this transaction would be rejected, because of double spend or not usefull for this DAPP - it is just seen as data transaction?! Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:10 yeah more or less you might still have to reattach a value transfer rare edge cases (if your node is out of sync or sth) but you will never have to reattach a "non-value-transfer" or well ... if you attach sth to a part of the tangle that is really old and everybody has snapshotted that already then you would still have to reattach but a tx does not "depend" on other apps anymore so if 1 app says its bad and we want to orphan it then this happens on another layer ocmoneToday at 00:14 Holy Guacamole!!! grasToday at 00:15 So weaker nodes may work without ledger, like just a hub? Jack KerouacToday at 00:16 As all of IOTA would rely on this stuff - DID, MAM, ... - it should be done very fast :wink: Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:16 nah you always need to support iota value transfers for the rate control TobiasToday at 00:16 Is there a ETA for value tx in GoShimmer? Jack KerouacToday at 00:16 because of the mana?! Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:16 but a node that is not interested in the decentralized facebook and only wants to process MAM messages can do so yeah mana is the thing that ties everything together and to know the mana you need to know IOTA value transfers I mean ... you could rely on a centralized service that provides you the mana balances, so even very hardware contraint nodes could theoretically take part in the network. but then you might process a few txs that others drop if this centralized service would give you the wrong balances but the whole point of IOTA is to be shardable and lightweight so you wont need much for the value transfer layer anyway Jack KerouacToday at 00:19 oh I forgot about sharding - how will that be done in this kind of environment? CorienToday at 00:21 u/Hans Moog [IF] Have you ever thought about how much storage (permanode) you need if IOTA becomes the new TCP/IP ? Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:21 but if you want to only "issue" transactions and receive your mana by people assigning it to you (i.e. a company remotely loading up their sensors with mana), then you can essentially do that one of the first applications I will implement is an "archiving APP" that records the activity in the tangle and allows you to "prove" that a certain tx was part of the tangle at some point in the past recording 100 years of activity in the tangle (independently of the TPS) will require less than 1 GB much less actually the magic of merkle trees Jack KerouacToday at 00:23 of all transactions of every DAPP? Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:23 yes everything that ever happened in the tangle Jack KerouacToday at 00:24 Is the sharding the ontology concept - or how will that be done in this kind of environment? Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:25 nah its not related Jack KerouacToday at 00:25 ok Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:25 or well everything is somehow related but these APPS are not the "shards"
Disclaimer: This is my editing. So there could be some misunderstandings. Even ifu/longfldposted similar screenshots already(thanks to him/her), I'd like to share this summary again, 'cause it has some more contents. Sometimes, we need more enjoyable stuff to read on this rough, dynamic ride to a new world. 2/18 *** Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the one who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do. *** from 'think different' ad campaign TCP/IP TCP/IP, or the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, is a suite of communication protocols used to interconnect network devices on the internet. TCP/IP specifies how data is exchanged over the internet by providing end-to-end communications that identify how it should be broken into packets, addressed, transmitted, routed and received at the destination. DAPP DApp is an abbreviated form for decentralized application. A DApp has its backend code running on a decentralized peer-to-peer network. Contrast this with an app where the backend code is running on centralized servers. Ontology a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them. Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:00 [about the release of GoShimmer v0.2.0?] Originally we wanted to release the new version end of next week but due to the hack this might be a bit delayed but yeah we have a pretty concrete plan the next version will be pretty interesting as it will introduce the changes that will turn IOTA into a general purpose DLT platform that can run pretty much anythingthat is even remotely related to DLT on it I will write a bit more about that when there is time (maybe even do a video) Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:02 value transfers will essentially be the first DAPP that runs on the tangle so we need that before we can integrate the ledger Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:04 [are you talking about the atomic transaction layout?] not just that also a different layered architecture which we call "the ontologies concept" but its one of the building blocks yeah tangle will essentially be like the decentralized version of TCP/IP a general purpose protocol once value transfers are implemented I have already a few interesting ideas for additional DAPPS Coordicide is pretty "complex" as it requires a lot of different protocols - being able to completely separate the building blocks makes it much easier to get them "secure" Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:08 the decentralized randomness required for FPC will for example be an app running on the tangle DRAND App Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:14 [about the new ontologies concept] It's not really layed out in a public forum post yet butwe discussed and finalized the specs on the last research summit last week Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:19 [isn't this new ontology almost like part of multiverse consensus?] yes a lot of the idea that were part of the original multiverse concepts are useful also for the current coordicide we will for example be able to separate the fate of data transactions and value transactions,which means that you can send data txs without having to be worried that they are rejected, because they attach to a double spend, which is a requirement for a general purpose protocol anyway Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:20 [that sounds awesome!! To have a "base" tangle, and on this base tangle different "subtangles" for different applications - value transfers, DRAND, messaging, ...] Archiving, DRAND, chat, MAM, DID, ... you could even have phone calls on the tangle Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:21 but i guess for these kind of things it makes more sense to have a 1:1 connection its extremely simple the point is that it makes the code much simpler Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:22 you can even have different consensus mechanisms next to each other for different apps some apps like decentralized chats for example don't even need consensus or if you want to build a decentralized version of facebook Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:22 you don't need consensus here andit not going to be "separate tangles" that have nothing to do with each other everything runs in the same main tangle Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:30 it's not very complex - that's the beautiful thing in fact it makes stuff much easier Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:31 Maybe I can do a video about it in the coming days writing a network application if you can use TCP/IP is much easier than if you would have to implement the networking from scatchand communicate with the wires in your pc Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:39 **[**Is the "base decentralized TCP/IP layer" already spec out and ready to be implemented?As this will become the "heart" of the tangle.] yep its coded already we started merging the code Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:44 [Doesn't "DRNG via committee" still make the network somewhat centralized?] Not really. 1. The committee members do not "control" consensus. 2. If committee members get taken offline by for example government intervention, then the next highest mana holder just joins the committee. So you still maintain all the benefits of a decentralized network. resilience against outside actors, no single actor controls the system Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:46 [How does commitee get chosen, by who, which parameters?] as the first version of goshimmer we will most probably have a fixed committee of some IF nodes + selected community members, but in the final protocol, the highest mana nodes will just issue a randomness beacon according to the protocol so the committee is dynamic Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:47 [Does commitee agree on the same number and then broadcast it or...?] If I am informed correctly, then its based on threshold signatures But I didn't work on that part, so I am not 100% sure how exactly it works its a bit hard to keep track of everything and also code at the same time Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:47 we have a few teams in the research department where every team specs one of the building blocks for engineering Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:49 [You know perhaps if this drand stuff has been coded already as well?] yeah,but don't ask me in which branch Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:49 and it will be adjusted to the new ontologies concepts Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:50 [isn't this approach with DAPPs similar to ICT and IXIs?] in a way, yes butits a bit more powerfulnow, as the DAPPS are completely isolated and "rejecting" transactions in one app does not cause all of the transactions that approve it to be rejected in IXI and ICT a chat message would disappear if it approved a double spend Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:56 [if Jaguar would implement a new DAPP with a "new coin" on the tangle with a custom DAPP consensus mechanism?] yeah you could create new coins on top of the tangle with their custom consensus mechanism butevery one of these new coins would need to be able to also understand IOTA transfers and the nodes would ultimately have to have mana to be able to take part in the network so if somebody would for example implement bitcoin on top of the tangle, then the bitcoin miners would need to buy IOTA to be able to send messages in the network We will most probably see a lot of companies also build proprietary stuff on the tangle you can even have "private" apps on the tangle that are encrypted so you can have stuff that would require a "private inhouse blockchain" to use the global infrastructure of the tangle its extremely powerful Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:59 [making a "new coin" that is private like monero on the basis of the tangle - using a private DAPP? Crazy powerful!] yeah you can have a "privacy coin" on top of the tangle that is maybe not as fast and scalable as IOTA itself and might even have fees Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후9:59 but if people are willing to pay for this extra service then you can have private transactions without having to "leave" the ecosystem and without having to give up scalability for the IOTA base layer Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후10:05 [Crazy powerful! and everything would need IOTAs... Qubic and Oracles would also be a base DAPP on this tangle ...] exactly Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후10:08 [So if i understand correct,other coins on the Tangle would not have a negative impact on the value of the IOTA. Even the other way around.****] IOTA would always be the native coin which would be the fastest and most secure one, yeah if there would ever be a coin that would be faster and more secure, then it would make sense to implement that in IOTA core Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후10:10 [so no transaction will be rejected anymore from the base tangle layer? In the worst case - if in every DAPP consense mechanism this transaction would be rejected, because of double spend or not useful for this DAPP - it is just seen as data transaction?!] yeah more or less you might still have to reattach a value transfer rare edge cases (if your node is out of sync or sth) but you will never have to reattach a "non-value-transfer" or well ... if you attach sth to a part of the tangle that is really old and everybody has snapshotted that already then you would still have to reattach but a tx does not "depend" on other apps anymore so if 1 app says its bad and we want to orphan it, then this happens on another layer Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후10:16 [So weaker nodes may work without ledger, like just a hub?] nah you always need to support iota value transfers for the rate control Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후10:16 [because of the mana?!] but a node that is not interested in the decentralized facebook and only wants to process MAM messages can do so yeah mana is the thing that ties everything together and to know the mana you need to know IOTA value transfers I mean ... you could rely on a centralized service that provides you the mana balances, so even very hardware-constraint nodes could theoretically take part in the network but then you might process a few txs that others drop if this centralized service would give you the wrong balances but the whole point of IOTA is to be shardable and lightweight so you wont need much for the value transfer layer anyway Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후10:21 [Have you ever thought about how much storage (permanode) you need if IOTA becomes the new TCP/IP ?] but if you want to only "issue" transactions and receive your mana by people assigning it to you (i.e. a company remotely loading up their sensors with mana), then you can essentially do that. one of the first applications I will implement is an "archiving APP" that records the activity in the tangle and allows you to "prove" that a certain tx was part of the tangle at some point in the past. recording 100 years of activity in the tangle (independently of the TPS) will require less than 1 GB much less actually the magic of merkle trees Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후10:23 [of all transactions of every DAPP?] yes everything that ever happened in the tangle Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후10:25 [Is the sharding the ontology concept ] nah its not related or well everything is somehow related but these APPS are not the "shards" Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후10:33 its an essential part of coordicide - this is the next step before integrating the value transfers so next major version of goshimmer 2-3 weeks max Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후10:36 [Nice, so value transfers will probably be implemented till the end of march] that's the plan, yeah might be like 1-2 weeks late now due to the hack but we will see we try our best to catch up after this is sorted out Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전2:24 [so next goshimmer version will be binary too!!!] yes, I think the next (major) goshimmer version will bring a few of the most fundamental changes in how we perceive the protocol as a whole not just binary <-> tinary but also regarding its "expressiveness" and it's really funny because it is essentially just a slight shift of perception regarding the already established principles, that interestingly directly converts into better architecture and simpler code
If history is any guide, we’re not going to see ETH 2.0 until 2022 at the earliest, even if the earliest phases of “Serenity” begin getting pushed in mid-2020. ETH 2.0’s rollout breaks down into seven (7!!!) phases and brings with it the promise of staking, sharding, a new virtual machine, and more dancing badgers. (One of our analysts,Wilson Withiam, put together an excellent overview of both the ETH 2.0 and ETH 1.x roadmaps for this report. They are critical to track and understand at a high-level given how much Ethereum’s performance will affect other competitive projects and most of the DeFi and Web 3 infrastructure. So these next two sections are longer and more technical.) Here’s what you need to know about the current game plan for crypto’s largest platform. Phase 0 marks the launch of the “beacon chain”, which will serve as the backbone for a new blockchain. The beacon chain will manage network validators (large early stakers like ConsenSys) and ultimately assign validators to individual shards (slicing the new blockchain into smaller chunks is a key, difficult, controversial scaling decision that’s been made). The new chain will support Ethereum’s new proof-of-stake consensus mechanism, and offer inflation rewards with new ETH2 for those that pony up and lock 32 ETH1 tokens into an irreversible contract. That one way bridge into the new system is also contentious, but it means ETH1 supply will start getting “effectively burned”once token holder begin claiming beacon chain validator slots. Initial reports claimed Jan. 3 as a realistic launch date (lol). It will be amazing to see this launched by end of June. Phase 1 will introduce 64 individual shard chains (reduced from 1,024!!!) to the network, with the option to increase the total down the road as the design gets tested. The Ethereum elite see sharding as the “key to future scalability” as shards can parallelize transaction processing, something that could improve network performance and reduce individual validator’s costs (good for decentralization). It comes with big risk: this is still theoretical. No network the size of Ethereum has successfully sharded its blockchain. In Phase 1, shard chains will only contain simple data sets (no smart contracts or transaction executions) to test the system’s structure. As with Phase 0, the beacon chain will continue to run in parallel with ETH 1.x throughout the phase. Don’t expect Phase 1 anytime before 2021. Phase 2 marks the full launch of the ETH2 chain, allowing for on-chain contract execution and introducing the new eWASM virtual machine (dubbed EVM 2.0). At this point, existing dApps can start migrating their contracts from ETH 1.x to a specific shard (one shard per contract) in the new network. Storage rent, charging contract owners for storing data on the network (more on this below), is in the cards as well, which would require mass contract rewrites. Even though Phase 2 intends to replace the original Ethereum blockchain entirely, ETH 1.x may still live on as a shard within ETH2. (How confused are you by now? See why bitcoin will still dominate the macro narrative for a while?) A late 2021 release for Phase 2 is optimistic. Before the end of 2022 would be a win. The final four phases are less defined, and without an attached timeline: Phase 3 implements state-minimized clients (because stateless clients are just too much). Phase 4 allows for cross-shard transactions. Phase 5 improves network security and the availability of data proofs. Phase 6 introduces meta-shards, as in “shards within shards within shards,” for near-infinite scaling. If you’re scratching your head and are sadistic enough to read more, the Sharding Wiki page does note, “this may be difficult.” Scaling and compilation efficiencies aside, the most notable change in Ethereum’s metamorphosis is the transition from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake. PoW is the more battle tested security model for blockchain networks, while PoS may prove to be more efficient but with new and less obvious attack vectors. For the more technical, we recommend reading Bison Trails’ Viktor Bunin on the subject of PoS security threats. Past research has also shown PoS requires an extra layer of “trust” vs. PoW, to help nodes sync to the network. Most models share specific characteristics to address this trust issue, such as allowing for a dynamic set of validators (rotate your security), promoting token holder participation in consensus, and assessing steep penalties (slashing) for any network participant that violates the protocol guidelines. ETH 2.0 will function similarly, but may be able to learn from other PoS networks (and their R&D) as well as those come live and see real world issues. As Vitalik points out, recent research in PoS resulted in “great theoretical progress,” But... Listen, we're talking about practice. Not a game. Not a game. Not a game. We're talking about practice. Not a game….Practice? We're talking about practice, man? We're talking about practice. We're talking about practice. We ain't talking about the game. We're talking about practice, man. Vitalik was eight when this happened, so the clip might help and prove metaphoric.
2 ETH 1.x Research/Governance/Roadmap at a glance.
Ok, one more. Bear with us. Let’s reiterate, ETH 2.0 is a brand new blockchain. It’s going to be a chaotic and high-risk transition. In the meantime, the existing network needs to run existing applications (particularly financial settlements for DeFi transactions). More critical upgrades are needed in the current system. To that end, ETH 1.x devs have three goals to boost performance and reduce blockchain bloat: (1) introduce client optimizations that increase transaction capacity; (2) cap disk space requirements and prune old, memory-sucking data (so running a node is less expensive and more decentralized); and (3) upgrade the EVM to eWASM, a newer open standard for code compilers that simplifies debugging, and is also used by all the newer smart contract platforms. ETH 1.x developers have decided to split the major tasks amongst four working groups:
State Rent: Developers today incur a single payment for deploying contracts and storing data on the network. Thanks to the immutable nature of blockchains, this data occupies the disk space of node operators permanently. As the network’s state grows, so do operating costs, which is where “state rent” comes in. It makes sense to charge for ongoing storage needs since the node operators are on the hook in perpetuity. This is a big change as it could break a bunch of contracts, but also limits state growth and creates economic incentives to run a node. What happens to data that users don’t want to pay for? Boot delinquent user data off the network but keep a stub (a hash) of information on hand in case the user wants to later reinstate it.
Pruning: Similar goal. Pruning removes old data that is longer useful, but does so in a way that allows clients to prove past transactions. There are a couple of ways developers think this is possible (e.g. maintain a proof of deleted chain segments, which is similar to a “light client” in bitcoin that makes it possible to run a wallet on your phone), but all current strategies would cap annual “state growth” to prevent spikes in storage costs, at the expense of some new complications (e.g., dApps might be unable to access some data, and nodes might be unable to tell if data was deleted or whether it never existed in the first place).
eWASM: Like ETH 2.0, devs plan to implement eWASM on the flagship Ethereum chain. The eWASM virtual machine, a subset of the well-established WebAssembly compiler, offers improved flexibility for the introduction of “high-performance” smart contracts.
Simulation and Emulation: This group develops tools to help support and evaluate the other groups because, well, someone has to test everything.
Core developers intend to introduce most of these implementations through a series of hard forks, the latest of which activated just over a week ago (Istanbul, Dec. 7). However, Istanbul’s second phase, tentatively scheduled for Q2 next year, has Ethereans at each other’s throats. The controversy boils down to the fork’s inclusion of ProgPoW, an ASIC-resistant hashing algorithm designed to replace Ethereum’s current algo. ProgPoW aims to even the playing field for GPU miners and ward off the entrance of potential ASIC competitors. The miners like that. But many miners and investors see ProgPoW as a threat to their investments. For miners, the change would shift the power dynamic away from mining farms and render expensive, specialized mining hardware useless. Ethereum (and ERC-20) investors intent on securing their assets might balk because ASIC miners typically prop up hash rates (overall chain security) and their costs “naturally create a price-floor for ASK prices of miners’ sell-orders.” This saga is far from over. The infighting will likely continue leading up to ProgPoW’s activation date mid-next year, and presents the strongest potential for a network split since “The DAO” fork that spawned Ethereum Classic. The looming transition to ETH 2.0 (and proof-of-stake) will likely deter investor pushback, because it’s a short-term battle in a war the miners are ultimately going to lose, anyway. Unless the roadmap changes back to supporting a hybrid PoW/PoS system, of course, but... Oh my god, I’m just kidding. This section is mercifully over.
Hans: for example implement bitcoin on top of the tangle then the bitcoin
Hans Moog [IF]Yesterday at 23:57 so if somebody would for example implement bitcoin on top of the tangle then the bitcoin miners would need to buy IOTA to be able to send messages in the network We will most probably see a lot of companies also build proprietary stuff on the tangle you can even have "private" apps on the tangle that are encrypted so you can have stuff that would require a "private inhouse blockchain" to use the global infrastructure of the tangle. its extremely powerfull Jack KerouacYesterday at 23:58 I thought of that already - making a "new coin" that is private like monero on the basis of the tangle - using a privat DAPP Crazy powerful! Hans Moog [IF]Yesterday at 23:59 yeah you can have a "privacy coin" on top of the tangle that is maybe not as fast and scalable as IOTA itself and might even have fees Hans Moog [IF]Yesterday at 23:59 but if people are willing to pay for this extra service then you can have private transactions without having to "leave" the ecosystem Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:00 and without having to give up scalability for the IOTA base layer MaKlaToday at 00:00 (it really sounds great. unexpected simplicity in a versatile yet realistically applicable solution is rare :slight_smile: ) well... "simplicity"....^^" Jack KerouacToday at 00:02 Crazy powerful! and everything would need IOTAs... Qubic and Oracles would also be a base DAPP on this tangle ... Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:05 exactly Jack KerouacToday at 00:06 Looking forward to this! Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:07 :trollface: CorienToday at 00:07 So if i understand correct, other coins on the Tangle would not have a negatieve impact on the value of the IOTA. Even the other way around. Dave [EF]Today at 00:08 Sounds really exciting! Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:08 IOTA would always be the native coin which would be the fastest and most secure one, yeah if there would ever be a coin that would be faster and more secure then it would make sense to implement that in IOTA core Jack KerouacToday at 00:10 in a way, yes but its a bit more powerfull now as the DAPPS are completely isolated and "rejecting" transactions in one app does not cause all of the transactions that approve it to also be rejected u/Hans Moog [IF] so no transaction will be rejected anymore from the base tangle layer? In the worst case - if in every DAPP consens mechanism this transaction would be rejected, because of double spend or not usefull for this DAPP - it is just seen as data transaction?! Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:10 yeah more or less you might still have to reattach a value transfer rare edge cases (if your node is out of sync or sth) but you will never have to reattach a "non-value-transfer" or well ... if you attach sth to a part of the tangle that is really old and everybody has snapshotted that already then you would still have to reattach but a tx does not "depend" on other apps anymore so if 1 app says its bad and we want to orphan it then this happens on another layer ocmoneToday at 00:14 Holy Guacamole!!! grasToday at 00:15 So weaker nodes may work without ledger, like just a hub? Jack KerouacToday at 00:16 As all of IOTA would rely on this stuff - DID, MAM, ... - it should be done very fast :wink: Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:16 nah you always need to support iota value transfers for the rate control TobiasToday at 00:16 Is there a ETA for value tx in GoShimmer? Jack KerouacToday at 00:16 because of the mana?! Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:16 but a node that is not interested in the decentralized facebook and only wants to process MAM messages can do so yeah mana is the thing that ties everything together and to know the mana you need to know IOTA value transfers I mean ... you could rely on a centralized service that provides you the mana balances, so even very hardware contraint nodes could theoretically take part in the network. but then you might process a few txs that others drop if this centralized service would give you the wrong balances but the whole point of IOTA is to be shardable and lightweight so you wont need much for the value transfer layer anyway Jack KerouacToday at 00:19 oh I forgot about sharding - how will that be done in this kind of environment? CorienToday at 00:21 u/Hans Moog [IF] Have you ever thought about how much storage (permanode) you need if IOTA becomes the new TCP/IP ? Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:21 but if you want to only "issue" transactions and receive your mana by people assigning it to you (i.e. a company remotely loading up their sensors with mana), then you can essentially do that one of the first applications I will implement is an "archiving APP" that records the activity in the tangle and allows you to "prove" that a certain tx was part of the tangle at some point in the past recording 100 years of activity in the tangle (independently of the TPS) will require less than 1 GB much less actually the magic of merkle trees Jack KerouacToday at 00:23 of all transactions of every DAPP? Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:23 yes everything that ever happened in the tangle Jack KerouacToday at 00:24 Is the sharding the ontology concept - or how will that be done in this kind of environment? Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:25 nah its not related Jack KerouacToday at 00:25 ok Hans Moog [IF]Today at 00:25 or well everything is somehow related but these APPS are not the "shards"
What is EPIC CASH? Epic Cash is the final point in the journey toward true P2P internet cash, the cornerstone of a private financial system. The Epic currency aims to become the world’s most effective privacy-protecting form of digital money. In order to fulfill that goal, it satisfies the three principal functions of money: 1. Store of Value — can be saved, retrieved, and exchanged at a later time, and of predictable value when retrieved; 2. Medium of Exchange — anything accepted as representing a standard of value and exchangeable for goods or services; 3. Unit of Account — the unit by which the value of a thing is accounted for and compared. Website: http://epic.tech Whitepapers: http://epic.tech/whitepaper Epic Cash Community: https://t.me/EpicCash Miner Chat: https://t.me/EpicMiners Gitlab: gitlab.com/epiccash Twitter: twitter.com/EpicCashTech Social Media: http://epic.tech/social-media Exchanges: https://epic.tech/service-list Oleg✌🏻 Hello community! Our AMA with EPIC begins🚀 We are very happy to have you here, on our joint AMA👌 So, lets start! The very first question for you. Can you introduce yourself? Max Freeman | Epic Cash | Mimblewimble I’m Max Freeman, which stands for “Maximum Freedom for Mankind” — we believe that the existing fiat money system enslaves people by unfairly confiscating their wealth through inflation. By using an honest money system such as Epic, we can improve the quality of life for billions of people worldwide. Yoga Dude Hello, I am Yoga Dude 🙂 I handle Marketing and PR, in crypto since 2011 started as Bitcoin miner, and in 2014 in Monero, and in 2015 in Ethereum, oh and briefly in DOGE for fun and unexpected profit. Heard about Epic Cash while learning about the Mimblewimble algo and joined the team last year. JLong I am John, Doing the general engineering and managerial work Max Freeman | Epic Cash | Mimblewimble I have been involved in early stage cryptos for the past 3 years, after building a global trading business for the past 20 years. Oleg✌🏻 nice to meet you🙂 Max Freeman | Epic Cash | Mimblewimble Epic is a decentralized community project like Bitcoin or Monero, there is no central authority or corporation involved. We had no ICO and no premine, we had a fair launch at 0 supply last September. Yoga Dude Great to meet everyone :) Oleg✌🏻 Here we go the 1st question for you ~ 1. What is Epic Cash about? Yoga Dude Epic Cash is designed to fulfill Satoshi’s original vision of P2P electronic cash, adjusting for what we learned from Bitcoin, a medium of exchange that is fast, free, open to all, while being private and fungible. We launched in September 2019 as a Proof of Work mineable crypto, without an ICO or a premine. Oleg✌🏻 Look like a real Bitcoin🙂 Yoga Dude with privacy and fungibility 😄 Oleg✌🏻 Sounds cool! move on to the next question… 2. What makes Epic Cash better than Monero or other privacy coins? Max Freeman | Epic Cash | Mimblewimble First off, we have a lot of respect for Monero and other privacy coins, we learned a lot from what they did right and what they did wrong, Our blockchain is much lighter than Monero or Bitcoin, our transaction engine is faster than Monero or ZCash. We use a three mining algo approach to allow more users the ability to obtain Epic Cash. We are a new, highly undervalued, coin and we look great not only for future use but for today's investment. Our blockchain is 90+% smaller than Monero or Bitcoin. Coins such as Zcash have optional privacy. Epic makes all transactions private, and it is impossible to trace movements of coins by watching wallet addresses. Oleg✌🏻 Young and hot😋 security and privacy level is very important now but… 3. Why copy the same supply economics as Bitcoin? Yoga Dude It is hard to compete with the success of Bitcoin today, part of the elegance and the appeal of Bitcoin is the responsible emission rate, terminating at 21million highly sub dividable coins. Like the Bitcoin supply curve, Epic Cash encourages early adopters, and with subsequent halvenings maintains a gradually diminishing flow of additional currency while preserving the overall value. Max Freeman | Epic Cash | Mimblewimble In 2028, the supply of Epic matches that of Bitcoin and they stay in sync until the final coin is mined in 2140. We have 4 halvenings between now and then, which is demonstrated in Bitcoin to drive the value over market cycles. Epic is a chance for people who were late to Bitcoin to ride the wave and not miss their opportunity this time. Oleg✌🏻 Interesting! 4. Why Choose Epic Cash over Grin and Beam? Max Freeman | Epic Cash | Mimblewimble First of all, we have tremendous respect for all Mimblewimble currencies and their talented teams, they all taught us a lot and we are thankful for that. Without sounding too contentious, the choice seems obvious. We offer the same core tech, but with a much more responsible emission curve — Grin is an endless fountain of emission and inflation (60 per second forever), and Beam is even more frontloaded outpacing even Grin’s aggressive emission schedule for the next several years… We respect Grin and Beam, we learned from them, and we believe we are the next evolutionary step. Additionally, as we mentioned earlier, we offer more ways to mine Epic Cash, both with GPU and CPU and ASICs, this gives us more potential users and miners, vs Grin and Beam that are only mineable with GPUs. Yoga Dude Yes, all that ☝️😄 Oleg✌🏻 I hope the miners read it all carefully 👌 Next question 5. Why have a development fund tax and what will it be used for? Yoga Dude Dev fund tax today is at a reasonable 7.77% dropping by 1.11% every year until it hits zero. As Epic Cash grows in value these funds will become increasingly more relevant in additional technical, marketing, and fintech partnerships developments. Oleg✌🏻 Very smart! 6. What is the advantage of 3 mining algorithms? Max Freeman | Epic Cash | Mimblewimble By having multiple mining algorithms we are able to attract CPU, GPU, and ASIC miners simultaneously. Currently all other Mimblewimble currencies are mineable with GPU only ignoring a large segment of CPU miners. Monero made a splash migrating to the RandomX CPU mining algo. Epic Cash from the beginning embraces all mining communities. Many miners are successfully using older hardware such as Xeon processors to help secure the network. We use RandomX for CPU, ProgPow for GPU, and Cuckoo for ASIC. Longer term, our flexible architecture means we can have many algorithms, not just 3. Our roadmap includes an allocation for SHA3 Keccak, which will help further decentralize the network and keep it unstoppable. Yoga Dude We love miners 🙂 and Epic Cash can be mined with laptops and gaming rigs 🙂 Oleg✌🏻 A wide selection of mining methods is a great way to create a stable, decentralized and large network👌 Let’s talk about persons… 7. Who are the people developing Epic Cash? Yoga Dude We are blessed with a very talented team of skilled developers with diverse backgrounds, many of them are volunteers who believe in what Epic Cash stands for and contribute with product and usability innovation. Our teams main focus is to make Epic Cash the best, most secure, most user friendly and usable product on the market, without making it unnecessarily techie, with as much mainstream user appeal as possible. This is a serious challenge but we are up for it 😄 Max Freeman | Epic Cash | Mimblewimble It is also important to note that we are a truly open ecosystem that anyone can participate in. Our community has developed wallets, mining pools, educational content, and much else besides. We are not limited by the funding generated during an ICO or VC investment, our users are an essential element of our team. Oleg✌🏻 Sounds very attractive. 8. What do you think is currently lack in today’s crypto? Max Freeman | Epic Cash | Mimblewimble We believe there is not enough privacy, anonymity and fungibility, although there is a growing awareness in the community as to why these are necessary. People are waking up to the fact that privacy is a right for everyone but today it is being exploited and violated by corporations, governments and unscrupulous individuals. Privacy does not mean that you have something to hide. We have doors on our houses, curtains on our windows, we wear clothes, and we have security on our bank accounts and businesses, not because we are criminals. Fungibility (the property of not being able to distinguish one unit of currency from another) also has become a hot issue as people have started to get in trouble because of someone else’s misdeeds. Tainted money (coins that are blacklisted or restricted) is a problem for Bitcoin and Ethereum, the top two cryptos today. Mimblewimble eliminates the risk of tainted coins making them indistinguishable from each other. With traceable coins, you always have to worry if the coins you are getting were involved in a hack, or perhaps the darknet. Oleg✌🏻 It’s good to see strong and safe coin in our time Let’s talk about your future… 9. What does the Epic Cash roadmap look like going forward? Yoga Dude First and foremost, we are focused on security and usability. We are working on a new, improved GUI wallet to incorporate the community feedback on ways to improve it. We are in the process of completing final testing phases for the next iteration of Epic Cash which will make it more secure and stable. Once that is done, we will be rolling out Android and iOS support to make Epic Cash usable on leading smartphones and smartwatches. Beyond that without going into too much detail we are focused on continuous evolution of privacy, ease of mining, and overall speed and usability. And of course we are constantly looking to add more exchanges both with and without KYC. Oleg✌🏻 Are you working on Android and IOS wallet ? What will your application be? Max Freeman | Epic Cash | Mimblewimble Yes, we will release a mobile wallet this year. It will bring us one step closer to people being able to actually use cryptocurrency as money in daily life. Yoga Dude The idea is to be able to access Epic Cash from any platform and device Max Freeman | Epic Cash | Mimblewimble Epic is very lightweight, which means that low-end devices such as smartwatches can participate. Oleg✌🏻 Ok, got it. Thanks for clarification! 10. What else can you tell us about Epic Cash? Max Freeman | Epic Cash | Mimblewimble Well one thing I really want to mention is our great Epic Cash community. We’ve been building a decentralized community organically, without the talk of price pumps, pressure to HODL and other BS crypto-gimmicks. Our community is truly global and consists of developers, volunteers, miners, and other Epic enthusiasts spreading the word about Epic Cash, helping us reach millions of people around the world to improve their quality of life through social media and directly. Everyone is an evangelist, everyone is an influencer, everyone has the power to make the world a better place to live in. As we continue to grow — the future looks Epic 😊 Yoga Dude Definitely the community! We got a talented crowd of very cool and motivated people from all over the world! Oleg✌🏻 Thank you guys, for such informative answers 🙂 Now we proceed to Section 3, where a Community can ask their questions to the EPIC team Now I’ll open chat for the quite some time … Oleg✌🏻 Thank you all, dear community! EPIC team, please choose the 10 best questions you want to answer. AngeI Everyone likes Privacy & Epic Cash provides their Best Privacy to users But, Which Technologies are being used by Epic Cash to make Blockchain very Private and Completely untrackable ? Max Freeman | Epic Cash | Mimblewimble From the wallet to the node, Epic uses Dandelion++ to bounce transactions around the world before they go into the mempool for mining. Within the blockchain itself, Cut-Through merges all transactions in a block together, with CoinJoin automatically mixing all coins. Beyond that, there are no addresses, so it’s impossible to watch someone’s wallet. Arnold Even litecoin is implementing mimblewimble, Don’t you think it’s a significant threat for Epic if they implement it, then why would anyone use a less popular and a new cryptocurrency. Max Freeman | Epic Cash | Mimblewimble LTC is implementing mw as an “extension block”, meaning that it is optional and not all transactions will use it. This is very different than the core protocol leveraging mw to make all transactions private and all coins fungible. Aluta Why Epic cash so much focus on fungibility? Does fungibility matters that much? Max Freeman | Epic Cash | Mimblewimble Fungibility is going to be one of the key issues within the cryptocurrency space in the coming years. Today, if you accept traceable coins from a seller, you are liable if they have ever been used in any illegal activity. This has led to a two tier market where freshly minted coins sell for more than circulated coins. When coins are fungible, like Epic, you don’t have to worry that you will run into a problem when an exchange or merchant blocks your transaction. Joxes It is a pleasure. When I first researched EpicCash, google showed me a youtube video that talked about how to mine with EpicCash. It made me ask: is this mining activity profitable so far? We are in the early stages of development I guess, what adoption strategies are you taking to have sustained growth? is it feasible to reach N ° 500 rank in coinmarketcap in the medium term? Yoga Dude When I got into crypto, it was by mining Bitcoin back in 2011 when you could still solve blocks on a single computer, but Bitcoin at the time was anything but profitable 😄 Today Epic Cash is still new, still young, and still undervalued. I believe it is mining-worthy because of its potential, not because of today’s price. By allowing Epic Cash to be mined with GPU and CPU on gaming rigs, servers, and even laptops we offer maximum public participation in our project. More people involved in the project, the more evangelists there are. We empower people to mine Epic Cash and to promote it. S.P.A.D.E What new features of Epic Cash provide that Grin or Beam does not offer. Why do we need Epic Cash? Max Freeman | Epic Cash | Mimblewimble They are great coins, but there are some ways in which Epic improves. Epic has better tokenomics than Grin and a more sustainable model than Beam, that has a company behind it that needs to repay investors via its high dev tax. this article explains in more detail https://medium.com/@frodofreeman/overview-of-mimblewimble-cryptocurrencies-7c70be146f50 Sahil What’s the Minimum Hardware / setup Required for Mining of EPIC Cash coins? Is Mining Profitable and Can we Mine EPIC Cash coins at Home? Max Freeman | Epic Cash | Mimblewimble It is possible to mine on an ordinary laptop or desktop from the last 5 years, sometimes older. Epic is open to everyone, and our friendly community is standing by to help you get started at t.me/epicminers Erven James Sato “TOKEN BURN” is BENEFECIAL for any projects, in able to CONTROL THE NUMBER OF TOKEN CIRCULATION and TO PROVIDE GREATER INCENTIVES TO INVESTORS. Does your GREAT PROJECT have plan about TOKEN BURN? Xenolink For deflating projects It is beneficial to drive the demand / scarcity / and price up in a faster pace. Epic Cash is here for the organic long run not the short run. However when it comes to long term economics elastic supplies whether inflating or deflating will not be a solid long term economic model. This has been heavily discussed already with Bitcoins inelastic Fixed 21 million supply in the past. Having a fixed model demonstrates good long term economics without worrying about balancing a deflating/inflating model. Bitcoin is a perfect example of a 21 million inelastic fixed supply model that has been proving itself till today. Which is why we are also using the same fixed 21 million supply model. Epic Cash plans to have a solid organic long term future to bring free private fungible money and make this world a better place. Red Z🔥🤙 No one predicted the COVID-19 pandemic while developing their business model. But the crisis and recession of the global economy is our present with you and it affects all sectors, including blockchain. Will you make or have already made changes to the project roadmap, tokenomics? Do you have a plan in case the situation does not improve in the coming months and will affect the crypto industry even more? Yoga Dude One thing we have seen as the result of the COVID-19 is more governments are talking about moving to digital cash — digital dollar in USA, digital Lira in Turkey, etc… If in the past the idea of digital money was not graspable by some people, today its the governments that are educating the people for us about the value of digital currency… What is ironic, the governments, by printing money to solve the economic consequences of COVID-19 also educating the consumer about the true “value” of fiat… What we offer is a touch free, borderless, private, anonymous, fungible currency that can not be printed beyond the initial defined algo. We are more responsible than the printing presses of the governments 🤔 kunlefighter How does the Dandelion++ Protocol, Confidential Transactions (CT) and CoinJoin assist in protecting the privacy of individuals and their transactions on Epic Cash Blockchain? Max Freeman | Epic Cash | Mimblewimble Dandelion++ bounces transactions around before committing them to the blockchain, making it impossible to determine where they originated from. Confidential Transactions means that all tx are private, you can’t tell anything about where the coins have been or who they belonged to. CoinJoin in essence melts down and re-mints each coin every time it is used, making it impossible to track their ownership or usage history. Epic provides comprehensive privacy to everyone, without the compromises that other pre-mimblewimble coins have. Dr Mönica Hello sir @maxfreeman4@Johnsstec@Yogadude Thanks for the ama I notice that Epic Cash has 2 type of new algorithm, progPoW version 0.15.0 and randomX version 1.0.3 NOW , CAN you tell me why you choose these 2 algorithm??? Yoga Dude We went with RandomX because it is a solid and very popular CPU centric algo used by several coins — most recently Monero. Most miners today heavily favor ASICs or GPUs, leaving a lot of solid high end users in the dust unable to mine emerging cryptos. As far as ProgPow, again its an established algo for GPU miners, and thanks to many cryptos starting with Bitcoin/Monero/Ethe etc there is no shortage of GPU rigs out there :) plus again the casual user with a video gaming caliber card can get in on the action. Oleg✌🏻Perfect!It was a great AMA, but it is coming to an end, thanks to everyone who was with us. Thanks EPIC team for taking the time👏. I hope our projects will be able to collaborate even more closely in the future and achieve new successes. Cheers!🎉
b>Bitcoin blockchain pruning zone. If it is not synced you’ll not be able to send or receive coins and it won’t show you the most recent transactions. Most of us have fast drives but with. #7235Download here Edge has always kept up, best bitcoin mining site giving users the functionality they need to get the most out of the network.How To Send bitcoin wallet out of sync Bitcoins From A ... Bitcoin mining software will pay out mining rewards to a miner’s Bitcoin address, which can be obtained by creating or downloading a bitcoin wallet. The Best Bitcoin Mining Software There are many bitcoin mining software products out there and the best fit for any given miner or mining operation will depend on their specific needs. Out-of-sync Modal Info Layer. When Bitcoin Core is out-of-sync on startup, a semi-transparent information layer will be shown over top of the normal display. This layer contains details about the current sync progress and estimates the amount of time remaining to finish syncing. This layer can also be hidden and subsequently unhidden by clicking on the progress bar at the bottom of the window ... Hi, I just recently got a bitcoin wallet. I bought just under 0.1 BTC earlier and I was waiting for it to appear in my wallet but realised it was out of sync by 3 years and 14 weeks. It doesn't appear to be snycing, how do I make it sync so I can check my BTC has been delivered? etc. If you have Bitcoin Core wallet: Start it. Check you IP (which was specified by your router for example 192.168.1.50). Add it through Help -> Debug window -> Console. addnode 192.168.1.50:8333 add. 3. Sync till block 491407. 4. Close Bitcoin Gold wallet. Start it without the -bootstrap option. 5. Add Bitcoin Gold nodes.
Find out why Close. How to Sync Your Bitcoin or Dodgecoin Wallet Radioactive Chipmunks ... How to BitCoin mine using fast ASIC mining hardware - Duration: 27:15. Barnacules Nerdgasm 1,684,572 ... Crypto News Bitconnect Launch ICO! 1% Of BTC Used For Laundering. More Tether Minted Than US GOV - Duration: 25:54. Bull & Bear Cryptocurrency Analysis, News & Education 3,313 views Bitcoin.org I took the most recent version of Bitcoin for a test drive in this video and was able to sync it within 21 hours from start to finish. A personnel record for me. Download your full ... Bitcoin values have since settled down to much lower ranges, but this video proves with demand prices can surpass gold at record high levels again. Get your free btc while it's easy. Each Year It ... How To Quickly Sync A Wallet with Bootstrap (Litecoin/Bitcoin) ... PRO Wallet Out Of Sync - Another Solution To Fix - Duration: 9:31. Cryptocurrency Group 4,759 views. 9:31. Bitrad.io - confirm ...