MICROBITCOIN, lancement d'un nouveau réseau avec une ...

Ideas for the new Embercoin, just spitballin'....

I think with the proof of location and documenting geo-position, there is really nothing more challenging in this arena than to do that specifically with telecom. Trucks, cars, paths are one thing, amplifying that up to telecom, IM, secure and encrypted photo sharing, using the tokens as the medium of transmission, along with providing the option to forget or wipe clean communications logs on the blockchain like that...like the right to be forgotten, I think is something to consider.
Its one thing to produce a cryptocoin, okay, there it is. The store of value is what the community places upon it. If the coins were use almost like a credit towards logistics with an emphasis on communications, using the Ember 2 blockchain, if the blockchain can operate fast enough, then all communications could piggyback on that. Why was Snapchat worth so much? Metadata. By installing an App on Ring 0 of the phone, it can install at the root level, cut out snooping software that monitors the customers metadata and sells it. By shielding consumers from that pervasive invasion of our privacy by simultaneously blocking attempts, while at the same time providing a solution for privacy, anonymity if one wants, plotting positioning and exploiting the vision of chartis and bringing everything in under one main blockchain, could be worth considering.
By deploying a vision like that and I don't know if any blockchain is fast enough to compete against anything real time, perhaps deploy a parallel communications capability that references the Ember blockchain, transmits or writes calculus derivatives of users requests...sort of like transmitting a single picture of a wave form instead of the MP3 directly to save bandwidth, would have to be examined. Another thing to consider is examining what Crypterium has developed. They have a service which when you install the app on your phone, and if you have deposited crypto into their vaults, the app will allow you to use the phone like Apple Pay and make all the real time calculations and conversions to use crypto to make every day purchases. I think Ember should consider examining the financial services side as well.
Perhaps Ember should consider using an Ethereum based token. As I understand it, Etherparty Fuel offers the ability to develop a brand new coin within a few mins. I am not sure if a POS capability is available or not at this exact moment, but by positioning Ember to compete against groups like Crypterium I think is important. Regardless of whatever format is selected, I think its important to build a bridge that allows users to use their Embercoins to go to 711 to buy shit. That technical circle needs to be closed. By porting out the means to do exactly that, perhaps the App could exclusively reference the Ember corporate bank account and the tokens are a cross check.
If you want to use the service, deposit Ember into the main vault on their servers, real time conversions take place, the App makes all the real time conversions and pays in real fiat currency. Ember always keeps money in the bank, the App acts as a debit system to access their bank account and your section of the vault. Don't store any other crypto other than Ember, oblige people to buy Ember if you want to use this system, thereby keeping the coin usage up, for each transaction, supplies can be burnt. Depending on how the staking can get done, people can still stake, but the eco system is persistently running down the supply because they are constantly using it. Those who don't spend it, earn stakes as long as they keep the wallet open or with pools.
There should be a system setup where with the App, if someone wants to send you crypto or you send them, the scanned QR code would automatically determine what kind of crypto you want to send or receive, the Ember vault end determines what the ratios are and then as an option, if I wanted Ember and not say Litecoin, Bitcoin or any Altcoin, the App would recognize that, the Bitcoin would get transmitted to the main vault, get automatically exchanged and sent out the signal is sent that its on its way so users don't have to wait for any confirmations. The vault could have an automatic system that would be able to take any Altcoin, identify any exchange which trades it, then sell it and withdraw bitcoin. All the exchanges are done automatically.
That derivative of the wallet senders and receivers is transmitted and the Ember arrives in seconds based on that blockchain signal of transmission. Ember could take the strain that transmission times have by offering itself as a clearing house of sorts. If you use Ember, you get these value added services. We want to make it easy for you to use. Use Ember to buy shit at 711 or at Starbucks. Our code is fast, tight, secure, open source and community based. If you want to buy a coffee with bitcoin, okay, it will be cold by the time it arrives. Use our system, Ember arrives within a time window striving for 5 seconds or less.
Security, anonymity, communications and insulation from telecom and social media groups wanting to snoop and sniff and sell your metadata and logistics information is prevented unless you approve. It will not allow any foreign entity to spawn your camera on your phone or mic without your permission and being alerted, but as the default, the idea of writing the proof of location of the phone to the blockchain for all kinds of logistics along with aiming for the financial services side would really be explosive. If it did get into the financial services side like what Crypterium advocates, then we are talking about hundreds of millions and possibly billions of transactions per day, all using the Ember2 blockchain backbone. Not only can you burn tokens for each transaction, you can also provide some degree of fraud prevention if someone tries to steal your coins because of the proof of location and perhaps develop a recall function so that if someone gets ripped off and its verified as a theft, a recall command is instructed or the coins are commanded to burn and new coins are created to credit those who were defrauded. That would be in the extreme case however.
No doubt this is a long road ahead, but we are a massive community and right now, we are the die hard supporters. I not only want to get my investment out, but this is what I would like to see within the cryptoworld. By having these financial services offered like this, because it is a community initiative, staking rates could increase beyond the envisioned 7% and could be considered like dividends on banking fees. Those who stake for a fixed period of time, get a portion of the fees generated. Say if 100M coins are produced, for every transaction, 0.0001 Embers are burnt. As time goes on, say it gets down to 70M, an additional 30M are now created, some of those 30M are shared proportionally with the stake holders...its just an example and all the math has to be developed and worked out so that stake holders cannot be the sole holders.
With a financial service like this, there could be a need to create a larger supply and by operating in a manner like this and ensuring a relatively fixed supply, it provides stability. One thing it can also do, is on the back end, is that with the wild swings that take place with crypto, Ember can automate a process to mitigate those swings by doing automated buybacks to dampen major downturns and use its financial stockpile accumulated through financial services, a large majority is held in trust for the community with a solid amount allocated for the management team. As time goes on and Ember literally has 100M USD in the bank, if shit goes insane on the makets, everyone is dumping everything, Ember is buying itself back and keeping that coin stable. When the Market loves Ember, it does not intervene and it lets the market decide what it should be priced at, however only use tactics like that to insulate major downturns and build a reputation out that says Ember is a safe zone for economic crypto downturns.
There is so much potential here. Its not like you're building a car from scratch, we just walked into a garage that was ransacked by idiots. There are still plenty of tools, resources and lots of people who know how to build shit. Having faith and hope is important, but its not enough. It needs a solid, dedicated group, with a vision and plan, they need to work that plan, they need to respect the community, work with the community, reward the community and we will only continue to grow.
This could evolve into becoming like the crypto equivalent of a credit union. Owned by the community, profits shared with the community, but bleeding edge in technology, dead simple to use, powerful and fast and very advanced...and totally transparent and bullet proof because of it being open source.
Given how Ember has been pushed into this state, this could be the very best thing that could have ever happened to it, only because its now been released to the community. Yes, it needs a hierarchical leadership model. Fuck doing all the decisions by group consensus. Important ones yes, micromanagement no. Somewhere in this, is the optimal balance of community input to management model.
I believe if this works, Ember can surpass a dollar easily. As time goes on, AI systems can be integrated into its blockchain similar to how AGI is releasing theirs into their blockchain for it to make money in the financial services sector. There is no reason why Ember can't release some of its own AI over time. First thing is first and that is to address the technical issues at hand, then to sequentially and methodically, take it one step at a time.
As for mooning Ember....well, I believe in aiming for the stars.
submitted by AlwaysBeNiceToPeople to embercoin [link] [comments]

Interpreting nTime for the purpose of Bitcoin-attested timestamps | Peter Todd | Sep 18 2016

Peter Todd on Sep 18 2016:
As part of my recent work(1) on OpenTimestamps I've been putting some thought
towards how to interpret the nTime fields in block headers, for the purpose of
timestamping. I'd like to get some peer review on the following scheme I've
come up with.


We want to use the Bitcoin blockchain to provide evidence (the "attestation")
that a message M existed prior to some point in time T. Exactly how we do this
is beyond the scope of this post, but suffice to say we show that some block
header b cryptographically commits to the message, e.g. via a commitment
operation path proof, as implemented by OpenTimestamps.
A valid timestamp is simply one where T is a point in time where the message
did in fact exist. Of course, if a timestamp for time T is valid, all
subsequent T+d are also valid; such timestamps are simply more conservative
versions of the same statement.
A naively approach - as is implemented by most (all?) existing Bitcoin
timestamping schemes - is to assume that the block header's nTime field was
perfectly accurate, and thus M exists prior to the block's nTime. But that
doesn't take into account malicious miners, who may backdate their blocks.

Threat Model

We assume miners are divided into two categories:
1) Dishonest Miners --- These miners are actively conspiring to create invalid
timestamps for time's prior to when the message existed. A dishonest miner will
set the nTime field in blocks they create to the minimum possible value.
2) Honest Miners --- These miners set nTime in blocks they create to
approximately the current true time. An honest miner may use techniques such as
nTime-rolling. Additionally, all honest miners may be simultaneously affected
by systematic misconfigurations.

nTime Rolling

Prior to BIP113, reducing a block's nTime from the work given by a pool by even
a second could easily render it invalid, as the pool may have included
nLockTime'd transactions in the block. Thus hashing software was designed to
only roll nTime in the forward direction, not reverse, even though rolling
could be done in the reverse direction, up to the limit of the median-time-past
The Stratum mining protocol doesn't even have a way to tell clients what the
minimum allowed time is, just a single field, nTime, which is defined as "the
current time". Thus Stratum hashers will only ever increase nTime, which can
never result in an invalid timestamp if the original, unrolled, nTime would
have been a valid timestamp.
The getblocktemplate protocol does support telling hashers the minimum time via
the mintime field, which Bitcoin Core sets to the median-time-past. Regardless,
it appears that the pools supporting GBT (Eligius) return a much tighter limit
on mintime than the median-time-past, just 180 seconds, and as of writing,
don't actually declare that the ntime field is mutable anyway.
From an implementation point of view, relying on being able to roll nTime
backwards is unwise anyway, as the amount you can roll it back may be minimal
(e.g. if multiple blocks were recently found).
Since all miners have an incentive for time to move forward to keep difficulty
down it's reasonable to assume that the above observed behavior will continue,
and nTime rolling in the reverse direction will be a minimal effect; we'll
assume no miner rolls nTime backwards more than 1 hour.

Systematic Errors

1) Botched daylight savings time changes --- While internal clocks should be
unaffected by timezone changes, it's plausible that some kind of mistake
related to daylight savings could result in the time being set incorrectly +- 1
hour. For example, multiple large miners might manually set their clocks, based
on an incorrect understanding of what time it was.
2) Broken NTP servers --- It's reasonable to assume that many miners are using
NTP to set their clocks, and it's plausible that they're using the same NTP
servers. Of course, a broken NTP server could return any time at all! The
Bitcoin protocol considers blocks to be valid if nTime is set up to 2 hours in
the future (from the perspective of the local node) so we'll say instead that
we expect systematic NTP errors to be corrected with high probability if
they're more than 2 hours in magnitude - more than that and the Bitcoin network
is broken in a very visible way anyway.
Thus, we'll assume honest miners always create blocks with nTime greater than
the true time minus two hours, which accounts for both likely daylight savings
time misconfigurations, and likely NTP server misconfigurations. Additionally,
two hours is greater than any expected effects from nTime rolling.

Proposed Algorithm

For a timestamp anchored at a block of height x we'll define the time T it
represents as:
T = max(block[i].nTime for i in {x, ..., x + N-1}) + max_offset 
In short, T is the maximum nTime out of the N blocks that confirmed the
timestamp, including first block that actually committed the timestamp;
max_offset is the maximum nTime offset we expect from a block created by an
honest miner, discussed above.
The dishonest miners can successfully create an invalid timestamp iff all N
blocks are found by them; if any block is found by an honest miner, the nTime
field will be set correctly. Of course T may not be the minimum possible value,
but the timestamp will be at least valid.
So how big should N be? Let q be the ratio of dishonest miners to total hashing
power. The probability that all N blocks are found by dishonest miners is qN,
and thus the probability P that at least one block is found by an honest miner
P = 1 - q^N => N = log(1 - P)/log(q) 
If the dishonest miners have q>0.5, the situation is hopeless, as they can
reject blocks from honest miners entirely; the only limit on them setting nTime
is the median-time-past rule, which only requires blocks timestamps to
increment by one second per block (steady state). Thus we'll assume q=0.5, the
worst possible case where a Bitcoin timestamp can still be meaningful evidence:
P = 97% => N = 5 P = 99% => N = 7 P = 99.9% => N = 10 P = 99.99% => N = 14 P = 99.999% => N = 17 P = 99.9999% => N = 20 
The reliability for the higher N is higher than the actual reliability of
Bitcoin itself. On the other hand, there's no known instance where miners have
ever created blocks with nTime's significantly less than true time on a wide
scale; even in the well-known cases where the Bitcoin network has temporarily
failed due to forks, timestamps produced during those times would be valid, if
delayed by a few hours.
Similarly, if we assume a lower q, say a single "rogue" 20% mining pool, we
q = 0.20, P = 99.99% => N = 6 
Another way to think about the choice of N is to compare its contribution to
how conservative the timestamp is - T as compared to the true time - to the
effect of the max-honest-miner-offset we choose earlier. For example, 98% of
the time at least 6 blocks will be found within 2 hours, which means that if we
pick N=7, 98% of the time the conservatism added by N will be less than the
contribution of the max offset.

UI Considerations

One problem with the above algorithm is that it will frequently return
timestamps in the future, from the perspective of the user. A user who sees a
message like the following at 2:00 pm, immediately after their timestamp
confirms, is understandably going to be confused:
Bitcoin: 99% chance that existed prior to 4:00 pm, Jan 1st 2016
A reasonable approach to this problem might just to refrain from displaying
timestamps at all until the local time is after the timestamp; the UI could
describe the timestamp as "Not yet confirmed"
It may also be reasonable to round the timestamp up to the nearest day when
displaying it. However what timezone to use is a tricky issue; people rarely
expect to see timezones specified alongside dates.
Of course, in some cases a less conservative approach to interpreting the
timestamp is reasonable; those users however should be reading and
understanding the calculations in this post!


1) https://petertodd.org/2016/opentimestamps-announcement

https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160918/4552f035/attachment-0001.sig
original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-Septembe013120.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Bitcoin-Mine: Hier werden Millionen verdient  Galileo ... Bitcoin Mining 2019 - Should We Mine Bitcoin? - YouTube Bitcoin Trading for Beginners (A Guide in Plain English ... Ano ang BITCOIN for Beginners (tagalog) Bitcoin Basics ... Online CryptoCurrency Calculator with multi-Cryptocurrencies Simple Bitcoin Converter

Find out what your expected return is depending on your hash rate and electricity cost. Find out if it's profitable to mine Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, DASH or Monero. Do you think you've got what it takes to join the tough world of cryptocurrency mining? Bitcoin price conversions on Paxful The current market price of Bitcoin is updated every 3 minutes and is automatically sourced in USD. Bitcoin prices in other currencies are based on their corresponding USD exchange rates. Below, you'll also find popular converter value denominations in USD. 0.0001 BTC to USD. 13 053,28 USD (-0,36%) 1,00000000 BTC (0,00%) Market Cap. $241 834 068 606 18 526 690 BTC. Volume (24h) $24 343 666 166 1 864 946 BTC. Circulating Supply. 18 526 700 BTC. Max Supply. 21 000 000 BTC . Overview; Chart New; Converter; Markets; BTC to USD. BTC - Bitcoin. USD - US Dollar; AUD - Australian Dollar; BRL - Brazil Real; CAD - Canadian Dollar; CHF - Swiss Franc; CNY ... /PRNewswire/ -- MicroBitcoin (MBC) modernise son réseau en octobre 2019. La principale mise à jour consiste à brûler les volumes qui n'ont pas été déplacés... n = 1 p = 0.0001 We define the number (n) of elements we plan to insert into the filter and the false positive rate (p) we want to help protect our privacy. For this example, we will set n to one element and p to a rate of 1-in-10,000 to produce a small and precise filter for illustration purposes.

[index] [38168] [714] [45104] [43523] [27883] [29149] [39671] [35717] [41168] [1749]

Bitcoin-Mine: Hier werden Millionen verdient Galileo ...

Latest Video: http://bit.ly/BW10000 1. Buy Bitcoins: http://bit.ly/BWCoinbase 2. Best Crypto Exchange: http://bit.ly/BWBinance 3. ROBINHOOD http://bit.ly/ROB... Try to solve the problem and see if you can find the problem! The correct answer is: When we turn 0.0001 into exponential form we turn it into scientific not... The minimum withdrawal amount is 0.0001 BTC I have a YouTube channel and I want to advertise the platform, who do I contact? Email us at [email protected]oinminer.com Zu Besuch in der Bitcoin-Mine: Hier fließt die virtuelle Währung in Millionenhöhe. Mehr Galileo: http://www.galileo.tv/ Galileo auf YouTube abonnieren: htt... ano ang Bitcoin ...Mga kelangan malaman kung bakit kelangan natin pasukin ang cryptocurrency.sa susunod na gagawin ko na mga video ay magtuturo ako ng mga techn...