namecoin Top Cryptocurrency News

An appeal to the community: Introduce Merge-Mining & switch to SHA256.

BTCP was launched as GPU-friendly coin, with the Equihash algo. Although I appreciate the arguing behind it, I strongly believe we should follow our big brother Bitcoin, and enable merge-mining BTC + BTCP.
With changing circumstances, we need to change our plans. With the current lower than expected price of Bitcoin Private, it is way too cheap to 51%-attack BTCP. In fact, it only costs a few hundred bucks per hour. That's way too cheap to take down a network currently valued at $55M. The current hashrate is atrocious, and in all honesty I'm not expecting it to be much higher any time soon. A changed algo will not magically increase the hashrate 10-fold, especially not with the current price.
This means that the network will remain insecure and susceptible to 51%-attacks. It has happened to Horizen (formerly ZenCash), Bitcoin Gold and Verge in recent months. A few days ago, BTCP was also targeted, though it did not succeed. A successful attempt seems to be a question of time.
By moving to SHA256, Bitcoin Private can take the advantage of Bitcoin's hashrate. In addition to the rebase, this also makes Bitcoin Private even closer to its big brother Bitcoin; the difference being BTCP's focus on Privacy.
submitted by 9arca to BTC_Private [link] [comments]

Looks like were going single-digits!

Looks like were going single-digits! submitted by infested999 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Here is what is currently HAPPENING!

If you missed any of the drama, here is what actually happened so far in the past few days
An altcoin which was created at 1st Aug was listed 2 days ago in the korean exchanges and as any new altcoin it was pumped by them and everyone got too excited and followed them ...
This resulted in a rapid increase in the mining profitability for the other chain after it adjusted the difficulty yesterday ... and miners started to jump in ...
That's what happened so far ... here is what is going to happen in the following days : hash power is far greater than the current difficulty ... as a result, about 36 new blocks are made / hour ... that is far more profitable than the bitcoin's mining ... until the next difficulty kicks in ( expected within 2 days at the current rate ), at this point the difficulty will adjust upwards exponentially resulting in a less profitable chain compared to the bitcoin ... miners will start to jump back to the btc chain leaving the other chain in a frozen state .. that actually happened before with namecoin
Here is a tweet from charlie lee confirming it https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/899418458349228032
tl;dr miners only care about profitability
submitted by antonesamy to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

For those who haven't heard: Merged mining basically triples you profit by giving you Bitcoin AND Namecoin

submitted by coffeetablesex to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

What Is Merged Mining?

Cryptocurrency mining is a broad subject, with many different facets. There are a number of different ways in which mining can be done, ranging from traditional dedicated hardware mining, like the ASICs, GPU mining, cloud mining or web browser mining, to name some.
However, a very interesting and less known concept is the one of merged mining. This process entails the mining of two coins that are based on the same algorithm, simultaneously. Basically, merged mining allows a miner to mine on more than one blockchain at a time. The added benefit to this is that the miner will contribute to both of the blockchain’s hashrates, hence increasing their security (lower threat of a 51% attack) and functionality.
Satoshi Nakamoto himself has written on the subject, in this Bitcointalk post from 2010 regarding Bitcoin specifically, saying:
I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a completely separate network and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin. The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks simultaneously.
The networks wouldn’t need any coordination. Miners would subscribe to both networks in parallel. They would scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they potentially solve both at once. A solution may be for just one of the networks if one network has a lower difficulty.
I think an external miner could call getwork on both programs and combine the work. Maybe call Bitcoin, get work from it, hand it to BitDNS getwork to combine into a combined work.
Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other’s total CPU power. This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one. Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength. It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners.
Perhaps the most discussed examples of merged mining are the pairs Bitcoin & Namecoin and Litecoin & Dogecoin. In a merged mining process, there always has to be a parent blockchain and an auxiliary one.
This process does not require any additional computing power from the miners, which is a big advantage.
First, a block of transactions for each chain has to be assembled. The next step is simply starting to mine. During the process there are 3 possible outcomes:
The biggest disadvantage of implementing merged mining is that within the auxiliary chain, there is implementation and development work involved and when switching, a hard fork is needed.
Overall, merged mining benefits miners, not so much investors, however it does offer other perks like increased security for the actual networks. Could be the perfect approach for new projects, in terms of protecting themselves from a 51% attack for example. It is an interesting implementation which more people should be aware of.
submitted by Gath3r_Web_Miner to Gath3r_WebMiner [link] [comments]

The Strange Birth & History of Monero, Part III: Decentralized team

You can read here part I (by americanpegaus). This is the post that motivated me to make the part II. Now i'm doing a third part, and there'll be a final 4th part. This is probably too much but i wasn't able to make it shorter. Some will be interested in going through all them, and maybe someone is even willing to make a summary of the whole serie :D.
Monero - an anonymous coin based on CryptoNote technology
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.0
Comentarios de interés:
-4: "No change, this is just a renaming. In the future, the binaries will have to be changed, as well as some URL, but that's all. By the way, this very account (monero) is shared by several user and is meant to make it easier to change the OP in case of vacancy of the OP. This idea of a shared OP comes from Karmacoin.
Some more things to come:
"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6362672#msg6362672)
-5: “Before this thread is too big, I would like to state that a bug has been identified in the emission curve and we are currently in the process of fixing it (me, TFT, and smooth). Currently coins are emitted at double the rate that was intended. We will correct this in the future, likely by bitshifting values of outputs before a certain height, and then correcting 1 min blocks to 2 min blocks. The changes proposed will be published to a Monero Improvement Protocol on github.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6363016#msg6363016)
[tacotime make public the bug in the emission curve: token creation is currently 2 times what was intended to be, see this chart BTC vs the actual XMR curve, as it was and it is now, vs the curve that was initially planned in yellow see chart]
-14: “Moving discussion to more relevant thread, previous found here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=578192.msg6364026#msg6364026
I have to say that I am surprised that such an idea [halving current balances and then changing block target to 2 min with same block reward to solve the emission curve issue] is even being countenanced - there are several obvious arguments against it.
Perception - what kind of uproar would happen if this was tried on a more established coin? How can users be expected to trust a coin where it is perceived that the devs are able and willing to "dip" into people's wallets to solve problems?
Technically - people are trying to suggest that this will make no difference since it applies to reward and supply, which might be fair enough if the cap was halved also, but it isn't. People's holdings in the coin are being halved, however it is dressed up.
Market price - How can introducing uncertainty in the contents of people's wallets possibly help market price? I may well be making a fool of myself here, but I have never heard of such a fix before, unless you had savings in a Cypriot bank - has this ever been done for another coin?”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364174#msg6364174)
-15: “You make good points but unfortunately conflicting statements were made and it isn't possible to stick to them all. It was said that this coin had a mining reward schedule similar to bitcoin. In fact it is twice as fast as intended, even even a bit more than twice as fast as bitcoin.
If you acquired your coins on the basis of the advertised reward schedule, you would be disappointed, and rightfully so, as more coins come to into existence more quickly than you were led to believe.
To simply ignore that aspect of the bug is highly problematic. Every solution may be highly problematic, but the one being proposed was agreed as being the least bad by most of the major stakeholders. Maybe it will still not work, this coin will collapse, and there will need to be a relaunch, in which case all your coins will likely be worthless. I hope that doesn't happen.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364242#msg6364242)
[smooth tries to justify his proposal to solve the emission curve issue: halve every current balance and change block target to 2 min with same block reward]
-16: “This coin wasn't working as advertised. It was supposed to be mined slowly like BTC but under the current emission schedule, 39% would be mined by the first year and 86% by the fourth year. Those targets have been moved out by a factor of 2, i.e. 86% mined by year 8, which is more like BTC's 75% by year 8. So the cap has been moved out much further into the future, constraining present and near-term supply, which is what determines the price.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364257#msg6364257)
[eizh supports smooth’s plan]
-20: “So long as the process is fair and transparent it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone. Correcting this now will avoid people accusing the coin of a favourable premine for people who mined in the first week.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364338#msg6364338)
[random user supporting smooth’s idea]
-21: “Why not a reduction in block reward of slightly more than half to bring it into line with the proposed graph? That would avoid all sorts of perceptual problems, would not upset present coin holders and be barely noticeable to future miners since less than one percent of coins have been mined so far, the alteration would be very small?”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364348#msg6364348)
-22: “Because that still turns into a pre-mine or instamine where a few people got twice as many coins as everyone else in the first week.
This was always a bug, and should be treated as such.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364370#msg6364370)
[smooth wants to be sure they can’t be stigmatized as “premine”]
-23: “No, not true [answering to "it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone"]. Your share of the 18,000,000 coins is being halved - rightly or wrongly.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364382#msg6364382)
[good point made by a user that is battling “hard” with smooth and his proposal]
-28: “+1 for halving all coins in circulation. Would they completely disappear? What would the process be?”
-31: “I will wait for the next coin based on CryptoNote. Many people, including myself, avoided BMR because TFT released without accepting input from anyone (afaik). I pm'ed TFT 8 days before launch to help and didn't get response until after launch. Based on posting within the thread, I bet there were other people. Now the broken code gets "fixed" by taking away coins.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364531#msg6364531)
-32: “What you say is true, and I can't blame anyone from simply dropping this coin and wanting a complete fresh start instead. On the other hand, this coin is still gaining in popularity and is already getting close to bytecoin in hash rate, while avoiding its ninja premine. There is a lot done right here, and definitely a few mistakes.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364574#msg6364574)
[smooth stands for the project legitimacy despite the bugs]
-37: “Since everything is scaled and retroactive, the only person to be affected is... me. Tongue Because I bought BMR with BTC, priced it with incorrect information, and my share relative to the eventual maximum has been halved. Oh well. The rest merely mined coins that never should have been mined. The "taking away coins" isn't a symptom of the fix: it's the fundamental thing that needed fixing. The result is more egalitarian and follows the original intention. Software is always a work-in-progress. Waiting for something ideal at launch is pretty hopeless. edit: Let me point out that most top cryptocurrencies today were released before KGW and other new difficulty retargeting algorithms became widespread. Consequently they had massive instamines on the first day, even favorites in good standing like LTC. Here the early miners are voluntarily reducing their eventual stake for the sake of fairness. How cool is that?”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364886#msg6364886)
[this is eizh supporting the project too]
-43: “I'm baffled that people are arguing about us making the emission schedule more fair. I'm an early adopter. This halves my money, and it's what I want to do. There's another change that needs to be talked about too: we don't believe that microscopic levels of inflation achieved at 9 or 10 years will secure a proof-of-work network. In fact, there's a vast amount of evidence from DogeCoin and InfiniteCoin that it will not. So, we'd like to fix reward when it goes between 0.25 - 1.00 coins. To do so, we need to further bitshift values to decrease the supply under 264-1 atomic units to accommodate this. Again, this hurts early adopters (like me), but is designed to ensure the correct operation of the chain in the long run. It's less than a week old, and if we're going to hardfork in economic changes that make sense we should do it now. We're real devs turning monero into the coin it should have been, and our active commitment should be nothing but good news. Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6366134#msg6366134)
[tacotime brings to the public for first time the tail emission proposal and writes what is my favourite sentence of the whole monero history: “Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use”]
-51: “I think this is the right attitude. Like you I stand to "lose" from this decision in having my early mining halved, but I welcome it. Given how scammy the average coin launch is, I think maximizing fairness for everyone is the right move. Combining a fair distribution with the innovation of Cryptonote tech could be what differentiates Monero from other coins.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6366346#msg6366346)
-59: “Hello! It is very good that you've created this thread. I'm ok about renaming. But I can't agree with any protocol changes based only on decisions made by bitcointalk.org people. This is because not all miners are continiously reading forum. Any decision about protocol changes are to be made by hashpower-based voting. From my side I will agree on such a decision only if more than 50% of miners will agree. Without even such a simple majority from miners such changes are meaningless. In case of hardfork that isn't supported by majority of miners the network will split into two nets with low-power fork and high-power not-forking branches. I don't think that this will be good for anybody. Such a voting is easy to be implemented by setting minor_version of blocks to a specific value and counting decisions made after 1000 of blocks. Do you agree with such a procedure?”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368478#msg6368478)
[TFT appears after a couple days of inactivity]
-63: “In few days I will publish a code with merged mining support. This code will be turned ON only by voting process from miners. What does it mean:
The same procedure is suitable for all other protocol changes.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368720#msg6368720)
[And now he is back, TFT is all about merged mining]
-67: “We don't agree that a reverse split amounts to "taking" coins. I also wouldn't agree that a regular forward split would be "giving" coins. It's an exchange of old coins with new coins, with very nearly the exact same value. There is a very slight difference in value due to the way the reward schedule is capped, but that won't be relevant for years or decades. Such a change is entirely reasonable to fix an error in a in coin that has only existed for a week.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368861#msg6368861)
-68: “There were no error made in this coin but now there is an initiative to make some changes. Changes are always bad and changes destroy participant confidence even in case these changes are looking as useful. We have to be very careful before making any changes in coins”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368939#msg6368939)
[TFT does not accept the unexpected emission curve as a bug]
-72: “You are wrong TFT. The original announcement described the coin as having a reward curve "close to Bitcoin's original curve" (those are your exact words). The code as implemented has a reward curve that is nothing like bitcoin. It will be 86% mined in 4 years. It will be 98% mined in 8 years. Bitcoin is 50% mined in 4 years, and 75% in 8 years.
With respect TFT, you did the original fork, and you deserve credit for that. But this coin has now gone beyond your initial vision. It isn't just a question of whether miners are on bitcointalk or not.
There is a great team of people who are working hard to make this coin a success, and this team is collaborating regularly through forum posts, IRC, PM and email. And beyond that a community of users who by and large have been very supportive of the efforts we've taken to move this forward.
Also, miners aren't the only stakeholders, and while a miner voting process is great, it isn't the answer to every question. Though I do agree that miners need to be on board with any hard fork to avoid a harmful split.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369137#msg6369137)
[smooth breaks out publicily for first time against TFT]
-75: “I suppose that merged mining as a possible option is a good idea as soon as nobody is forced to use it. MM is a possibility to accept PoW calculated for some other network. It helps to increase a security of both networks and makes it possible for miners not to choose between two networks if they want both:
Important things to know about MM:
Actually the only change that goes with MM is that we are able to accept PoW from some other net with same hash-function. Each miner can decide his own other net he will merge mine BMR with.
And this is still very secure.
This way I don't see any disadvantage in merged mining. What disadvantages do you see in MM?”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369255#msg6369255)
[TFT stands for merged mining]
-77: “Merged mining essentially forces people to merge both coins because that is the only economically rational decision. I do not want to support the ninja-premined coin with our hash rate.
Merged mining makes perfect sense for a coin with a very low hash rate, otherwise unable to secure itself effectively. That is the case with coins that merge mine with bitcoin. This coin already has 60% of the hash rate of bytecoin, and has no need to attach itself to another coin and encourage sharing of hash rate between the two. It stands well on its own and will likely eclipse bytecoin very soon.
I want people to make a clear choice between the fair launched coin and the ninja-premine that was already 80% mined before it was made public. Given such a choice I believe most will just choose this coin. Letting them choose both allows bytecoin to free ride on what we are doing here. Let the ninja-preminers go their own way.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369386#msg6369386)
[smooth again]
-85: “One of you is saying that there was no mistake in the emission formula, while the other is. I'm not asking which I should believe . . I'm asking for a way to verify this”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369874#msg6369874)
[those that have not been paying attention to the soap opera since the beginning do not understand anything at all]
-86: “The quote I posted "close to Bitcoin's original curve" is from the original announcement here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563821.0
I think there was also some discussion on the thread about it being desirable to do that.
At one point in that discussion, I suggested increasing the denominator by a factor of 4, which is what ended up being done, but I also suggested retaining the block target at 2 minutes, which was not done. The effect of making one change without the other is to double the emission rate from something close to bitcoin to something much faster (see chart a few pages back on this thread).”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369935#msg6369935)
[smooth answers just a few minutes later]
-92: “I'm happy the Bitmonero attracts so much interest.
I'm not happy that some people want to destroy it.
Here is a simple a clear statement about plans: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582670
We have two kind of stakeholders we have respect: miders and coin owners.
Before any protocol changes we will ask miners for agreement. No changes without explicit agreement of miners is possible.
We will never take away or discount any coins that are already emitted. This is the way we respect coin owners.
All other issues can be discussed, proposed and voted for. I understand that there are other opinions. All decisions that aren't supported in this coin can be introduced in any new coin. It's ok to start a new fork. It's not ok to try to destroy an existsing network.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6370324#msg6370324)
[TFT is kinda upset – he can see how the community is “somehow” taking over]
-94: “Sounds like there's probably going to be another fork then. Sigh.
I guess it will take a few tries to get this coin right.
The problem with not adjusting existing coins is that it make this a premine/instamine. If the emission schedule is changed but not as a bug fix, then earlier miners got an unfair advantage over everyone else. Certainly there are coins with premines and instamines, but there's a huge stigma and such a coin will never achieve the level of success we see for this coin. This was carefully discussed during the team meeting, which was announced a day ahead of time, and everyone with any visible involvement with the coin, you included, was invited. It is unfortunate you couldn't make it to that meeting TFT.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6370411#msg6370411)
[smooth is desperate due to TFT lack of interest in collaboration, and he publicly speaks about an scission for first time]
-115: “Very rough website online, monero.cc (in case you asked, the domain name was voted on IRC, like the crypto name and its code). Webdesigner, webmaster, writers... wanted.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6374702#msg6374702)
[Even though the lack of consensus and the obvious chaos, the community keeps going on: Monero already has his own site]
-152: “Here's one idea on fixing the emissions without adjusting coin balances.
We temporarily reduce the emission rate to half of the new target for as long as it takes for the total emission from 0 to match the new curve. Thus there will be a temporary period when mining is very slow, and during that period there was a premine.
But once that period is compete, from the perspective of new adopters, there was no premine -- the total amount of coins emitted is exactly what the slow curve says it should be (and the average rate since genesis is almost the same as the rate at which they are mining, for the first year or so at least).
This means the mining rewards will be very low for a while (if done now then roughly two weeks), and may not attract many new miners. However, I think there enough of us early adopters (and even some new adopters who are willing to make a temporary sacrifice) who want to see this coin succeed to carry it through this period.
The sooner this is done the shorter the catch up period needs to be.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6378032#msg6378032)
[smooth makes a proposal to solve the “emission curve bug” without changing users balances and without favoring the early miners]
-182: “We have added a poll in the freenode IRC room "Poll #2: "Emission future of Monero, please vote!!" started by stickh3ad. Options: #1: "Keep emission like now"; #2: "Keep emission but change blocktime and final reward"; #3: "Keep emission but change blocktime"; #4: "Keep emission but change final reward"; #5: "Change emission"; #6: "Change emission and block time"; #7: "Change emission and block time and final reward"
Right now everyone is voting for #4, including me.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6379518#msg6379518)
[tacotime announces an ongoing votation on IRC]
-184: “ change emission: need to bitshift old values on the network or double values after a certain block. controversial. not sure if necessary. can be difficult to implement. keep emission: straightforward, we don't keep change emission or block time. change final reward is simple. if (blockSubsidy < finalSubsidy) return finalSubsidy; else return blockSubsidy;”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6379562#msg6379562)
-188: “Yeah, well. We need to change the front page to reflect this if we can all agree on it.
We should post the emissions curve and the height and value that subsidy will be locked in to.
In my opinion this is the least disruptive thing we can do at the moment, and should ensure that the fork continues to be mineable and secure in about 8 years time without relying on fees to secure it (which I think you agree is a bad idea).”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6379871#msg6379871)
[tacotime]
-190: “I don't think the proposed reward curve is bad by any means. I do think it is bad to change the overall intent of a coin's structure and being close to bitcoins reward curve was a bit part of the intent of this coin. It was launched in response to the observation that bytecoin was 80% mined in less than two years (too fast) and also that it was ninja premined, with a stated goal that the new coin have a reward curve close to bitcoin.
At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:
  1. No GUI
  2. No web site
  3. Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
  4. No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
  5. No effective team behind it at launch
  6. No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)
I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure.
I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.).
We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6380065#msg6380065)
[smooth is disappointed]
-191: “The website does exist now, it's just not particularly informative yet. :) But, I agree that thankful_for_today has severely mislead everyone by stating the emission was "close to Bitcoin's" (if he's denying that /2 rather than /4 emission schedule was unintentional, as he seems to be). I'm also against BCN merge mining. It works against the goal of overtaking BCN and if that's not a goal, I don't know what we're even doing here. I'll dedicate my meagre mining to voting against that.
That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6380235#msg6380235)
[eizh tries to keep smooth on board]
-196: “BCN is still growing as well. It is up to 1.2 million now. If merged mining happens, (almost) everyone will just mine both. The difficulty on this coin will jump up to match BCN (in fact both will likely go higher since the hash rate will be combined) and again it is an instamine situation. (Those here the first week get the benefit of easy non-merged mining, everyone else does not.) Comments were made on this thread about this not being yet another pump-and-dump alt. I think that could have been the case, but sadly, I don't really believe that it is.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6380778#msg6380778)
-198: “There's no point in fragmenting talent. If you don't think merge mining is a good idea, I'd prefer we just not add it to the code.
Bitcoin had no web site or GUI either initially. Bitcoin-QT was the third Bitcoin client.
If people want a pool, they can make one. There's no point in centralizing the network when it's just began, though. Surely you must feel this way.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6381866#msg6381866)
[tacotime also wants smooth on board]
-201: “My personal opinion is that I will abandon the fork if merge mining is added. And then we can discuss a new fork. Until then I don't think Monero will be taken over by another fork.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6381970#msg6381970)
[tacotime opens the season: if merged mining is implemented, he will leave the ship]
-203: “Ditto on this. If the intention wasn't to provide a clearweb launched alternative to BCN, then I don't see a reason for this fork to exist. BCN is competition and miners should make a choice.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6382097#msg6382097)
[eizh supports tacotime]
-204: “+1 Even at the expense of how much I already "invested" in this coin.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6382177#msg6382177)
[NoodleDoodle is also against merged mining]
This is basically everything worth reading in this thread. This thread was created in the wrong category, and its short life of about 2 days was pretty interesting. Merged mining was rejected and it ended up with the inactivity of TFT for +7 days and the creation of a new github repo the 30th of April. It is only 12 days since launch and a decentralized team is being built.
Basically the community had forked (but not the chain) and it was evolving and moving forward to its still unclear future.
These are the main takeaways of this thread:
  • The legitimacy of the "leaders" of the community is proven when they proposed and supported the idea of halving the balances for the greater good to solve the emission curve issue without any possible instamine accusation. Also their long-term goals and values rejecting merged-mining with a "primined scam"
  • It is decided that, as for now, it is “too late” to change the emission curve, and finally monero will mint 50% of its coin in ~1.3 years (bitcoin did it after 3.66 years) and 86% of its coins in 4 years (bitcoin does it in ~11 years) (was also voted here) (see also this chart)
  • It is decided that a “minimum subsidy” or “tail emission” to incentivize miners “forever” and avoid scaling fees will be added (it will be finally added to the code march 2015)
  • Merged mining is plainly rejected by the future “core team” and soon rejected by "everyone". This will trigger TFT inactivity.
  • The future “core team” is somehow being formed in a decentralized way: tacotime, eizh, NoodleDoodle, smooth and many others
And the most important. All this (and what is coming soon) is a proof of the decentralization of Monero. Probably comparable to Bitcoin first days. This is not a company building a for-profit project (even if on the paper it is not for-profit), this a group of disconnected individuals sharing a goal and working together to reach it.
Soon will be following a final part where i'll collect the bitcointalk logs in the current official announcement threads. There you'll be able to follow the decentralized first steps of develoment (open source pool, miner optimizations and exchanges, all surrounded by fud trolls, lots of excitmen and a rapidly growing collaborative community.
submitted by el_hispano to Monero [link] [comments]

Is this true?

This was on bitcoins reddit I hold both coins and just wanted clarification
"If you missed any of the drama, here is what actually happened so far in the past few days An altcoin which was created at 1st Aug was listed 2 days ago in the korean exchanges and as any new altcoin it was pumped by them and everyone got too excited and followed them ... This resulted in a rapid increase in the mining profitability for the other chain after it adjusted the difficulty yesterday ... and miners started to jump in ... That's what happened so far ... here is what is going to happen in the following days : hash power is far greater than the current difficulty ... as a result, about 36 new blocks are made / hour ... that is far more profitable than the bitcoin's mining ... until the next difficulty kicks in ( expected within 2 days at the current rate ), at this point the difficulty will adjust upwards exponentially resulting in a less profitable chain compared to the bitcoin ... miners will start to jump back to the btc chain leaving the other chain in a frozen state .. that actually happened before with namecoin Here is a tweet from charlie lee confirming it https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/899418458349228032 tl;dr miners only care about profitability "
submitted by mmohound to btc [link] [comments]

A few thoughts - Saturday, June 7, 2014

Today's thoughts are all about altcoins.

Litecoins are not dead

Several people have started to agree with me recently that litecoins aren't dead yet. But I wasn't quite able to give a concrete answer as to why, until a comment reminded me that litecoins are the most widely traded of all the altcoins. BTC-e, for example, doesn't deal in phoenixcoins and ronpaulcoins. Being widely traded is a significant advantage, even if the coin doesn't itself have any advantages.
I'm not sure why ASICs are relevant to the price of altcoins. ASICs are going to be distributed amongst miners just like they were with bitcoins; this just makes the miners fight a losing battle with each other, costing each other money. As long as one person doesn't get all the ASICs, it doesn't have any effect on network security.
A while back, all the speculation was that litecoins would overtake bitcoins once Mt Gox accepted them for trading. In the interim, however, we have several major exchanges trading them. When an exchange wants to expand into altcoins, they don't look towards the trendiest new thing; the first mainstay they adopt is litecoins.
The other advantage litecoins have is that there is a certain amount of "lock-in" with other coins. I've already commented about the concept of technological "lock-in." In this case, you have exchanges like Cryptsy that denominate some altcoins solely in litecoins. I found out that there is a class of altcoins that can only be traded Bitcoins -> Litecoins -> Altcoin. Even if you don't want litecoins, you still have to buy them if you want to play the game with these "penny stock" coins. That keeps their price high because even if merchants do not accept them, they still have utility and "acceptance" by exchanges.
Also, a quick thought to ponder: a lot of the reason why people buy bitcoins is that bubbles crash, things change, and bitcoins are still around. Have litecoins reached the point where people expect them to die, they don't, and therefore they think there must be something to them?

Max Keiser recommends Darkcoins; I do not

Max Keiser put out a tweet trying to sell darkcoins to his followers, saying he thinks they will recover after their recent bug-fueled crash. Remember that Keiser was also the one who said to buy the essentially 98% premined Quarks too, and that failure alone might be reason enough to ignore whatever he says.
I like the idea that when an altcoin has a lot of hype, it's not time to buy it. Darkcoins may have some benefits, but there is so much hype around them that there is almost certainly a bubble there. Don't confuse that with the idea that darkcoins won't have a niche in the future. However, just like bitcoins, there are times when hype gets out of proportion to the advantages the technology has.

Today's altcoin mining report

Altcoin mining profitability is all over the map today. If I had started testing this pool back during the last cycle, it would have been interesting to see if we could deduce any patterns from this data. As you can see in the charts at:
http://shoemakervillage.org/temp/altcoins2014-06-07.jpg
there are about 20 coins that are constantly switching as the most profitable. This may be partially a result of those new coins that have extremely fast difficulty adjustments. The chart isn't as useful without being able to mouse over the bars, but it gets the general point across just seeing all the colors. People obviously do not value most altcoins for their specific features anymore; most of them are just a game. There is one trend that is not all over the place:
http://shoemakervillage.org/temp/altcoins2014-06-07-2.jpg
The expected payout of scrypt coins is at $1.33/Mh/day now, which is completely opposite the trend of increasing bitcoin prices.

The effects of orphanage

Some altcoins reduce the block confirmation time by making the coin ridiculously easy to mine. There's no advantage to creating an altcoin that has huge numbers of blocks, because then all that happens is that your "confirmed' transaction is more likely to get orphaned. In testing, I was getting 30% orphanage rates on some of these fast coins. Look at what happened last night in the course of a few blocks:
http://shoemakervillage.org/temp/altcoins2014-06-07-3.jpg
However, I'm still trying to figure out whether orphanage actually reduces the pool's revenue or not. The conclusion I'm coming to is that it only cuts miners' revenue from the expected value if your orphan rate is higher than the average orphan rate of the network. If everyone has 30% of blocks rejected, then the blocks are still being created at the same rate and everyone gets the same amount of money. You only lose money if you have more orphans than everyone else does.
Am I missing something here? If not, then orphanage is only an indicator of a bug or of monetary losses if I have orphaned blocks for long networks like bitcoin, where having another pool finding a block within a second or two is very unlikely.

None of the altcoins has the innovation that bitcoin needs

The only true innovation from any altcoin that would pose a threat to bitcoin is if someone came up with a yet-unknown solution to the 1MB transaction limit, that will be permanent for an indefinite period of time, and released a new coin with it.
Some people mistakenly say that people will switch to altcoins to get around the block size limit, but that isn't the case because the most any altcoin has done to resolve it is to make blocks more frequent, which only raises the limit to some hardcoded value. Raising the limit to some hardcoded value isn't "solving" the problem, it's just putting it off into the future. Don't make a mistake and buy altcoins thinking that some altcoin is going to address that limit, because none has.

Altcoin code is a mess

Altcoins are a mess, when you are trying to compile their code. If you haven't done this with many coin daemons, which most probably haven't, then you probably don't know that almost all altcoins are just clones of bitcoin with some minor changes. This is one of the reasons why bitcoins have such an advantage, because you can't be innovative when you just copy stuff from the bitcoin developers.
What some people don't know is that most altcoins aren't even doing that. There are a few altcoins that have changed little in many years, so instead of incorporating fixes that have been included in bitcoin since then, those coins never upgraded to newer block templates and they don't include the latest features. It also means that bugs that were later fixed are still present in those coins. Some coins, like namecoin, are in horrible shape and for many, it's a matter of time before this code aging causes some sort of security issue to be discovered.

Dogecoins are doomed?

Dogecoins are supposedly doomed. The idea is that the block reward is decreasing too rapidly, and the price of dogecoins needs to rise to avoid a 51% attack. I'm not so sure that the developers of dogecoins will just roll over and die, given how large that community is.
More likely is that if the price stays stable and more block reward decreases occur, they will release a fork to stop the reward decline earlier than expected. That will devalue dogecoins significantly. If the hashrate of dogecoins starts to drop, I would get out. I don't think the network is "doomed," but I do think that the only solution to the problem is to devalue coins, and you obviously don't want to be holding when that is announced.

Negative "interest" rates

Apparently, the speculation now is that negative interest rates are going to spread to the rest of the world, and that banks will start charging an account maintenance fee, along with eliminating interest payments. In that case, what is the purpose of using a bank? I won't be keeping a checking account if that happens. Instead, I'll close my account, buy a safe and store cash in it, using banks only to trade stocks. I don't think I spent a single dollar in actual cash for the past year before this, so this is a technological regression.
What kind of world is this where it is a better idea for me to store wads of cash in a safe instead of putting it in a bank, where they actually take money from me?

Other

submitted by quintin3265 to BitcoinThoughts [link] [comments]

Hello, I summarized what I could find out about Bitcoin for my convenience, thought you might find it useful.

First introduced in 2008, Bitcoin is the first example of a peer-to-peer cryptographic currency.
In Bitcoin;
• Computers solve randomly created equations, whose difficulty automatically adjusts so that they are solved to the tune of one every ten minutes, regardless of processing power.
• Difficulty of these equations is set to adjust every 2016 blocks, or two weeks. So after significant advances in mining technology (Such as Asic miners) up to two weeks of Bitcoins might be mined in a significantly shorter period of time.
• Through solving these equations “Blocks” are created, which encode all new transactions, and impart a set number of Bitcoins to the solver.
• The number of Bitcoins rewarded per block is set to halve every 210,000 blocks or approximately every four years.
• The current Block reward of Bitcoins is 25 Bitcoins, the reward has been halved once so far. The next halving is set to occur in late 2016.
• This reward structure means that assuming the value of Bitcoins continues to rise, while the total number of new Bitcoins minted yearly may continue to fall, their value might not.
• The total number of Bitcoins is capped at 21 million units, the last of which is expected to be minted in the year 2140 AD.
Regarding Bitcoin;
• Bitcoins are sub-divisible up to the eighth decimal place, although this limit may easily be removed if the value of Bitcoins rises to the point of requiring it.
• This smallest unit (0.00000001 Bitcoins) is currently called a Satoshi, and should cover most needs until valuations of more than a million USD, at which point a Satoshi would be worth 1 us penny.
• The number of possible Bitcoin addresses is 2160 as each address is a 160 byte hash of a public key
Benefits of Bitcoins;
• Bitcoin allows near instant transactions with no required cost, although speeds can be expedited through a reward of approximately 1-5 US cents (0.0001-0.0005 BTC currently) attached to the transaction for the first miner who verifies it.
• This is quite useful for merchants as methods of payment such as credit cards or paypal generally have high fees of up to 3%.
• Wallets can be generated at will, without need of any form of credentials or verification.
• Transactions are unblockable so long as the sending party has access to an internet connection.
• Bitcoin Funds do not exist in any specific country (unlike regular money which even when in digital form must exist in some country) but exists on the internet, and hence essentially in all countries at once.
• Lack of inflation, Bitcoin is designed to prevent any third party from being able to artificially increase the supply of Bitcoins, although minor predetermined inflation will occur through mining until approximately the year 2140.
• Irreversibility of transactions, A Bitcoin transaction confirmed once is essentially irreversible from the sender’s side, reversing transactions before the first confirmation, meanwhile, is possible, but highly difficult, and only useable with goods which are dispatched instantly such as internet downloads.
• Ease of movement, Bitcoin is one of the first means of Capital which is essentially perfectly mobile, as owners of Bitcoin can easily transfer funds(in Bitcoin) over any regional/political boundaries.
History of Bitcoins;
Intro; Bitcoin is currently one of the world’s most volatile currencies, and although the average price of a Bitcoin has been rising continuously when looked at from a yearly point of view, it has several times crashed and lost up to 68 percent of its value over a relatively short period of time.
• This is commonly attributed to Bitcoins similarity to both economic bubbles in the seventeenth century, and the advent of the tcp/ip(internet) protocol in the more recent past.
• After each bubble the total viability of Bitcoin as a currency grew as more people gained Bitcoins, became aware of Bitcoins, as more businesses started accepting Bitcoins, and as more services grew around Bitcoins.
Crashes;
• The first crash in Bitcoins value was in June2011 when Bitcoins price fell from a high of 32 USD to a low of 2 USD.
• The second crash occurred approximately seven months later in January 2012 when Bitcoins price fell from a high of 7.20 USD to a low of 4.6 USD , eventually settling at around 6.23 USD
• The third crash occurred another seven months later in August 2012, when Bitcoins price fell from a high of 15.25 USD to a low of 7.5 USD.
• Two mini crashes occurred approximately another seven months later in March 2013, when Bitcoins price twice fell from a high of 49 USD to a low of around 34 USD, Bitcoin ended the month on a high note however at above 90 USD.
• The fourth crash occurred a month after these two mini-crashes in April 2013 when Bitcoins Price fell from a high of 266 USD to a low of approximately 54 USD, before settling at a price of around 100 USD around which value it remained until early October 2013
• In early October 2013 the price of Bitcoin once again began to rise, reaching a six month high of approximately 200 USD by the end of the month. Rises in Price continued in November, where the news concerning Bitcoins senate hearing briefly propelled Bitcoins to values of over 1000 usd, before a price correction to approximately 500 USD from where it has since been rising to a current value of approximately 700 USD.
Limits/Criticisms of Bitcoin;
  1. • Bitcoin currently has a transaction limit of 7 per second, due a 1mb per block restriction on Block size, created to prevent block chain bloat. This is quite low compared to Visa’s average of 2000 transactions per second. Bitcoin is currently, however, only averaging one transaction per second, and it is expected that the limit will be removed long before the average number of Bitcoin transactions reaches this point.
  2. • Bitcoins relatively unstable value renders it unsuitable for merchants or as a store of value.
• Supporters of Bitcoin claim that this this relative instability of value only exists as Bitcoin is currently in its introductory stage, and that these fluctuations in value will reach usual levels when Bitcoin approaches it’s true valuation.(estimates of this range from 10 thousand USD per Bitcoin to 1 Million USD per Bitcoin)
• Supporters also point out that services such as Bitpay allow merchants accept Bitcoin while distancing themselves from its risks, as through these services they link the items price in Bitcoins to the conversion rate between Bitcoin and a chosen currency, and through this get paid in their chosen currency, despite accepting Bitcoin.
  1. • Bitcoins once lost are irretrievable. If a Bitcoin key is lost, or the Bitcoins are sent to an inactive or non-existent address there is no recourse by which to re-obtain those Bitcoins.
  2. • Ease of duplicating the Bitcoin code. Although it is impossible to generate fake Bitcoins, critics point out that there is nothing to stop the generation of new and improved versions of Bitcoin, as has already occurred through coins such as Namecoin, or Peercoin.
• Supporters point out several issues with this
• The First school of thought says that Bitcoin has several advantages over altcoins, such as having the greatest amount of services and developers, which form a barrier to success for other crypto currencies. They also point out that Bitcoins great sub-divisibility renders any need for alternate crypto currencies moot, and that if a notable improvement does come out, bitcoin can just build it into their own code.(see colored coins/mastercoin/zerocoin)
• The second school of thought claims that although Alternate coins debuted early enough with significant differences from Bitcoin(see Peercoin, Namecoin, Zerocoin, Primecoin) might manage to capture a portion of the crypto coin market, Bitcoins will remain the most prominent Crypto currency for the foreseeable future.
  1. • Governments/Big banks will not allow Bitcoin to succeed.
• Supporters argue against this point on several fronts claiming;
• Firstly that although some governments might decide to outlaw Bitcoin, or some Big businesses might try to stop it, Crypto currency is a new technology whose time has come and the most such actions will be able to do is to stall/delay the success of Bitcoin, and in the process lose any business generated by Bitcoin.
• Secondly that it would be very difficult to legally stop Bitcoin, as laws outlawing Bitcoin leave several avenues open for lawsuits, and although it might be possible to hinder Bitcoin through inefficient legislation/red tape this would be against a countries best interests, due to potential growth offered by upcoming Bitcoin industries.
edit; some formatting issues occured in the last line, the numbers should go 1 2 3 4 5 6... rather than 1 2 1 2 1 2
The dots and explanation only apply the one point(number) above them not both.
submitted by Bagog- to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

11-28 21:33 - 'Thanks for your detailed response! / [quote] [The link you provided] seems to be very specifically talking about how he wants "transaction types" to be flexible, and so he coded in the possibility for scripts to be created that co...' by /u/AD1AD removed from /r/Bitcoin within 2-12min

'''
Thanks for your detailed response!
I linked to a quote from Satoshi where he talks about how much effort he went through when designing Bitcoin to make sure it could be upgraded via soft-forks, and in the link, it's almost uncanny how well his description of potential future upgrades he envisioned matches how SegWit was implemented (he even talks about how transaction version upgrades -- like SegWit -- can be ignored by older nodes that don't understand them yet, without problems).
[The link you provided]1 seems to be very specifically talking about how he wants "transaction types" to be flexible, and so he coded in the possibility for scripts to be created that could be evaluated by the network. Does segwit take advantage of those scripts?
My understanding is that segwit puts the merkle root of the witness data in the coinbase transaction, and uses addresses that are treated by default as anyone-can-spend address until you reference the witness data broadcast separate from the block itself. Does any of that have to do with these transaction scripts he's referencing?
In that very same link, Satoshi talks about how Bitcoin's core design was "set in stone" from the very beginning, essentially doing his utmost to discourage what are now known as "hard forks" a la BCH. It is worth reading the full comment directly, in my opinion. In fact, over the years, Satoshi spent a lot of time and effort to discourage alternative forks of Bitcoin, and would say things like "I don't think a separate implementation will ever be a good idea" (because he considered network consensus so sacrosanct). BCH proponents consistently ignore inconvenient truths like this.
He's almost definitely not discouraging hard forks in that link... he's discouraging "a second, compatible implementation" (emphasis mine). By which it looks like he means a second client software that is compatible with the Bitcoin network, which is the opposite of a hard fork (which becomes incompatible by default and results in its own network). He's discouraging the attempt at a second compatible implementation because of the possibility that if "the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both". That isn't the case with BCH, which made a clean break.
It's important to remember that Satoshi was the one who put the blocksize limit consensus rule in place in the first place, and in every instance where someone tried to raise it, he chimed in to say that he disagreed and that it should only be raised if the network truly needed it (and only with a long lead time and with extensive precautions taken to notify all users of the change). He was actually surprisingly fanatical about keeping blocks (and the blockchain in general) as small as possible, and if you go digging through his writings, you'll see tons of cases where he was adamantly opposing blockchain bloat and championing keeping Bitcoin as lightweight as we possibly can.
Yes, he put it there as an anti-spam/anti-DoS measure, right? Do you have a reference to what he considered the sort of situation that would constitute "if the network truly needed it"?
The most relevant quote I can find is this one:
It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don’t have it are already obsolete.
Where he seems to treat it as a non-issue. What could possibly more constitute the the network "truly needing" a blocksize increase than the blocks being full?
In fact, when BitDNS was first proposed (which eventually evolved into Namecoin), people started discussing the possibility of merging this functionality directly into Bitcoin. They even proposed a generalized state machine (just like Ethereum) and many were of the opinion that this, too, should be added to Bitcoin. Satoshi weighed in to say that he was strongly opposed to doing this, because (in his words): "piling every proof of work quorum into a single dataset doesn't scale" and he went on to say that over time, Bitcoin users might (and apparently in his opinion should) become "increasingly tyrannical" about limiting the size of Bitcoin's chain so as to keep it lightweight and thus available (and affordable) for as many users as possible to join in and participate on the network.
Right, that makes sense, and at the end you mention that it would be being kept lightweight so that it would be "available (and affordable) for as many users as possible to join in and participate on the network".
Doesn't that last sentence apply to transactions at least as much as, if not more than running nodes? As in, the majority of block space should to go to transactions so that the transaction capacity could be maximized? And isn't transaction capacity now being limited by the blocksize?
Satoshi thought that lite client (SPV) security would be a good way to allow users to get most of the benefits of Bitcoin without running a full node themselves, but he said that this would make sense when the network got to be "very large", and the exact figure he mentioned for such a scenario was 100,000 nodes (which we're sadly woefully short of at the moment).This is why some people (like Luke-Jr) argue that the current blocksize limit is already too high; the network node count is very much on the low side, right now, and it seems like Satoshi would probably agree with his take on the subject.
It seems like you're arguing here that because we don't have enough full nodes running, we should reduce transaction capacity. But isn't transaction capacity necessary for adoption? In which case we should go the opposite direction?
I guess what it really comes down to is: Do you think that the number of nodes would not increase as adoption increases? Sure, a smaller percentage of users might run full nodes as blocks got bigger (if blocksize outpaced moore's law), but bigger blocks would imply higher adoption rate, and as long as adoption rate increase (percentage-wise) outpaced the decrease in those who run nodes, then we would end up with a net increase in nodes.
Beyond mere blocksizes, there are other aspects of BCH that would almost certainly invoke the wrath of Satoshi. For one, the cumulative chain difficulty is massively lower than that of the real Bitcoin network, and even though most of the proponents of BCH spent incredible amounts of effort arguing that "hashrate defines Bitcoin" (which, in my opinion, is total bunk), by this criteria BCH is as far as you can get from Bitcoin and it should have died long ago. Of course, they don't like to acknowledge this nowadays.
Sure, anyone who argues that hashrate defines Bitcoin (or probably more accurately, total accumulated proof of work defines Bitcoin), and then defines Bitcoin Cash as Bitcoin is contradicting themselves. But how would its lack of lacking the most accumulated proof of work invoke the wrath of Satoshi? It seems like he would just says "Bitcoin Cash is not Bitcoin until, if ever, it overtakes the current Bitcoin in accumulated proof of work."
Finally, mining of BCH is incredibly centralized; it seems that almost all (if not all) mining pools that mine it are subsidiaries of Bitmain.
Do you have a source for this? Specifically about most mining pools that mine bch being subsidiaries of Bitmain?
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: AD1AD
1: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611#msg1611
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

12 Reasons to Invest in Primecoin

‎1- Primecoin‬ is the First non Hash-Cash PoW Crypto-Currency.
2- Naturally Scarce
3- Very fast confirmations - 1min/block
4- Elastic supply
5- Primecoin is sustainable
6- Primecoin is currently the “fairest” coin to mine
7- Primecoin can introduce new participants to the new digital economy
8- Proof-of-work cryptos will gradually transition toward energy-multiuse, ie providing both security & technological computing values. And Primecoin is the pioneer in this realm.
9- Primecoin has anti-centralization features
10- Primecoin captures the Wasted Energy of Bitcoin's Algorithm - The mining is actually useful
11- Primecoin has direct by-products
12- Primecoin has been developed by Sunny King, one of the most talented crypto-technologists of the rank of Satoshi Nakamoto
submitted by crypto_coiner to primecoin [link] [comments]

12-04 16:31 - 'Idea about an ethical hard fork' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/when_im removed from /r/Bitcoin within 341-351min

'''
I can see this getting buried instantly, but no worries, just putting it out there.
I like the idea of a Bitcoin hard fork that does a few good things.
First, why a hard fork and not a new coin? Well just to give the coin som instant traction, hodlers get a kick start. That's all.
And now the "good" things:
What is the point of all this? Well I just like the idea of attracting low income users to a potentially very attractive "savings" account, that pays interest and encourages keeping the savings balance healthy. It also leverages the masses of tokens that have never moved and are perhaps lost forever. Even if these tokens are not lost, they are held by super-rich BTC holders, who are hopefully altruistic enough to support such an initiative.
Vision: The true vision is a cryptocurrency that is more global in an altruistic sense. I.e. super-poor people can sign up with identification and receive credit straight off the bat. Yes, redistribution of wealth is the mindset here.
Would love some comments. Thanks.
'''
Idea about an ethical hard fork
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: when_im
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Idea about an ethical hard fork

The following post by when_im is being replicated because the post has been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7hgjzk
The original post's content was as follows:
I can see this getting buried instantly, but no worries, just putting it out there.
I like the idea of a Bitcoin hard fork that does a few good things.
First, why a hard fork and not a new coin? Well just to give the coin som instant traction, hodlers get a kick start. That's all.
And now the "good" things:
  • The coin will be essentially identical to BTC in terms of block size, difficulty adjustment etc.. the usual stuff people fight about.
  • Users can claim a significant starter's bounty by registering a scan of their national passport/ID card (yeah, sorry, I'm serious lol). How and who will check this, I don't yet know. Maybe a sort of core team, or crowd sourced.. ideas?
  • Using a Namecoin type system, a user that has identified themselves will have an identifier that will point to their "main" address.
  • Wealth will gradually be redistributed from addresses where funds have never moved to an identified users' main address, paying a sort of interest.
  • For security you transfer funds to a new "main" address at any time (e.g. you pks are compromised)
  • Also, once a market has become established, an algorithm will be used to set the starter's bounty to an amount that is equivalent to about $5000 to make it reasonably attractive to new subscribers.
  • "Interest" will only be paid on funds that stay in the "main" address. (A user can cash out, sure, but no more intrest until they pay back into the main address.)
  • "Interest" will be paid on any funds on the main address. Not capped.
  • The starter's bounty will be controllable by the core team to ensure this remains a viable system, and potentially increase it if it seems viable.
  • If the bounty increases, then users that have identified themselves in the past will be credited with the additional starter's bounty, so there's never a disadvantage to 'starting too early'.
What is the point of all this? Well I just like the idea of attracting low income users to a potentially very attractive "savings" account, that pays interest and encourages keeping the savings balance healthy. It also leverages the masses of tokens that have never moved and are perhaps lost forever. Even if these tokens are not lost, they are held by super-rich BTC holders, who are hopefully altruistic enough to support such an initiative.
Vision: The true vision is a cryptocurrency that is more global in an altruistic sense. I.e. super-poor people can sign up with identification and receive credit straight off the bat. Yes, redistribution of wealth is the mindset here.
Would love some comments. Thanks.
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

08-21 17:22 - 'Here is what is currently HAPPENING!' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/antonesamy removed from /r/Bitcoin within 233-243min

'''
If you missed any of the drama, here is what actually happened so far in the past few days
An altcoin which was created at 1st Aug was listed 2 days ago in the korean exchanges and as any new altcoin it was pumped by them and everyone got too excited and followed them ...
This resulted in a rapid increase in the mining profitability for the other chain after it adjusted the difficulty yesterday ... and miners started to jump in ...
That's what happened so far ... here is what is going to happen in the following days : hash power is far greater than the current difficulty ... as a result, about 36 new blocks are made / hour ... that is far more profitable than the bitcoin's mining ... until the next difficulty kicks in ( expected within 2 days at the current rate ), at this point the difficulty will adjust upwards exponentially resulting in a less profitable chain compared to the bitcoin ... miners will start to jump back to the btc chain leaving the other chain in a frozen state .. that actually happened before with namecoin
Here is a tweet from charlie lee confirming it [link]1
tl;dr miners only care about profitability
'''
Here is what is currently HAPPENING!
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: antonesamy
1: https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/899418458349228032
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

On the Behavior of Crypto Securities

I've watched the crypto-securities space a while, and in trying to understand my own thoughts and observations, I wrote this long essay. I'd like to share my thoughts, challenge my own assumptions and hear some differing opinions, what-if's, etc. So, for your reading pleasure...
Preface: I'm long crypto-securities in general. I think there's major innovation coming in this space, and we'll see awesome new business models in the coming years, disruptive ideas that haven't been possible or profitable until now. That said, the current space has some challenges to overcome.
I. General Comments and Challenges
1) Challenge of Valuation.
All this has lead me to price out securities based on a range of Bitcoin prices, a wide range (at the present time) from $2000 to $100 per coin. This outputs as a matrix of BTC prices on one axis, and the target asset's price on the other, and forces me to think of where BTC price is going within the next 3 months (at least), and consider the trade-off for coin / security. I don't always get my target prices in the matrix, but the idea is to provide some analysis and restraint, and try to think long-term.
2) Challenge with IPOs.
So, not rocket science exactly, but a concise business plan and the company's approach to the IPO should point the way to a decent business model worth investment. Risk, both possible good and bad, must be included.
3) Challenge of making an informed, semi-rational decision, based on the above. For extra fun and unpredictability:
These further complicate the task of trying to act rationally in exposing your investment to risk.
II. Observations on assets classes, and risk/reward.
1) Mining
A company buys racks of hardware and configures to mine coins. The SHA-256 proof of work coins require a high capital investment in ASIC mining that ultimately result in diminishing returns due to the fierce competition and increasing difficulty. The next generation of hardware released to market erases differences between mining groups, so the only advantage is temporary, assuming your new hashing hardware even ships at all. Other advantages, such as lower operating overhead, seem short-lived. Many of these mining securities show a quick spike, and then fall flat, as would be expected in an industry where competition is mostly neck-and-neck tied. ASICMINER basically did this, along with the added salt in the wound when the BTC price exploded, share price, as denominated in BTC, collapsed. So, with regret, I don't see crypto-mining as a good long-term investment.
2) Fiat-gateway industries
This is perhaps the most promising sector. People are taking notice of BTC and altcoins, and fiat-for-coin exchanges are popping up all over. Great possibility for attractive profits because they set their own fees for a product in demand and short supply, and can hedge against both fiat and coins. The success of these companies will much depend on how their home jurisdiction acts towards cryptocurrency. China and India seem to hate BTC right now, but these are also states infamous for capital controls. Look for a friendly regulatory environment, good legal counsel, good technical/security expertise, smooth money transfers and a good marketing plan. Then cross your fingers and hope they don't delist.
3) Security exchanges
Rough times for these guys lately. Bitfunder and BCTO shut down a while ago, and some people still have value locked up in limbo. Havelock, CryptoStocks and a few others are still out there, but longterm I think the future belongs to a decentralized exchange system. A single point of attack or failure in this day and age is… unfashionable. These exist in early forms, Ripple, OpenTransactions and colored coins but it's hard to say what's going to catch on and dominate. Everyone seems to have a favorite…
4) Vice industries
Gambling sites like Satoshi dice and variants offer an obvious business model: the house always wins. Then there's CANNABIT, which could be lucrative, but I cannot imagine this going well long-term. There will likely be more innovation in this sector, and more ability for these services to operate outside the bounds of the authorities to quash them, but the risk to investment, the risk of de-anonymization and criminal charges under RICO? No thanks. Vice is nice but not necessarily in the portfolio.
III. Exciting, gamechanging stuff
Interesting thought: What if this innovation is unstoppable? What then?
If you got this far, I hope this was an interesting read and food for thought. So: What do you like/hate in your portfolio? What risk exposures do you like, and which do you think are poisonous? What gamechangers on the horizon do you like/hate? Is it, in fact, nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune? :)
submitted by BewareOfGod to BitcoinStocks [link] [comments]

1st BTC/Altcoin Mining Guide, Feedback Welcome!

When I decided to write this guide, I was throwing cryptocurrencies around like they were nothing. I was foolish in the fact that I disregarded the exchange fees that are attached with the services that those exchanges provided. I'm in by no means a cryptocurrency genius, and I'm still not extremely seasoned at it, but I've learned enough about cryptocurrencies in the past month that I feel confident to pass on the knowledge I have learned and to help those who are overwhelmed on where to start.
So what exactly is a cryptocurrency? According to technopedia (n.d.) a Cryptocurrency is a type of digital currency that is based on cryptography. Cryptocurrency uses cryptography for security, making it difficult to counterfeit. Public and private keys are often used to transfer the currency from one person to another.
When mining cryptocurrencies, one important concept needs to be established, and that's hash rate. Hash rate is simply a unit of measurement of processing power. The more your hash rate is, the more profitable mining becomes.
This guide uses specific sites and software, chosen by myself, as a great springboard into the cryptocurrency world. These sites and software are extremely flexible, easy to use, and integrate very well together. The mining pools I've chosen are multiple currency pools, designed to consolidate a major of the cryptocurrencies together, and instead of using several mining pools, you use three.
These are the things you'll need to get started: MultiMiner
Accounts at Coinotron, The Mining Pool Co., and BitMinter
Accounts at Cryptsy and Coinbase
There are a few different ways to mine for cryptocurrencies, the common of which are using your Central Processing Unit (CPU), Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), and Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) devices. CPU based mining is not profitable any longer, and will cost you money in the end by increasing electricity costs. GPU based mining is still popular, but losing steam against ASIC based mining. If you choose to use your GPU for mining, AMD/ATI based graphics cards (especially the Radeon HD 79xx series of cards), are the most efficient. If you have an nVidia based graphics card, I'm sorry. You can still mine on nVidia cards, but your hash rates are going to be much slower when compared to their AMD/ATI counterparts. If you chose to use GPU mining, Black Friday or Cyber Monday are you best bets for upgrading your equipment. ASIC based mining is quickly losing value with the changing difficulty on all networks, but it's the most cost effective way to increase your hash rate, and see a positive return on any equipment purchases. If my math is correct, using the methods in this guide, in order for any ASIC device to yield a positive cash flow, you've got to get a device that has at least a 5Gh/s rate (such as the Butterfly Labs Jalapeno).
Now for the fun part, explaining how everything in this well greased machine is going to work. Patience plays a big part in the cryptocurrency world, and when I first started, I had none. I was so eager to see the amount of Bitcoin go up, regardless of how much I was getting penalized in fees from trading. So, that's the first step on your journey. PATIENCE. I CANNOT emphasize this enough. Sometimes, you've just got to hurry up and wait, the effects of waiting things out on the cryptocurrency market WILL PAY OFF.
Step one of this machine is signing up for all three pools (BitMinter, Coinotron, and Mining Pool Co.). This is so that you can actually get server addresses to plug into MultiMiner, after signing up for these services though, you've still got a ways to go.
Step two is sign up for Cryptsy. I chose Cryptsy because of the features they're going to offer at a later time, as well as support for 60 cryptocurrencies (which covers all but one of which we can mine). When your Cryptsy account is setup, you will need to go into the Balances portion of Cryptsy, and find all of the currencies in which you will be mining from the pools. Once Balances are loaded up, you will need to click on the Actions button next to the currency, and click Deposit / Autosell, and then Generate Address. There's a small clipboard near the address it generated, and that will copy the address for pasting in the mining pool websites. You will want to copy, and paste all of them to a text document, along with which currency it belongs to. Not only does this keep you from juggling back and forth trying to figure out things, but it helps for reference and setting up MultiMiner.
Once you have those accounts setup, you'll want to sign up for Coinbase. A WORD OF WARNING FOR THOSE WHO ARE PARANOID... Coinbase will want to link to a bank account, this is mandatory if you want to trade your currencies for cash. If you want to trade currencies, just for the sake of trading, then you can skip Coinbase altogether. You can transfer your Bitcoins from Cryptsy straight into Coinbase, and then sell the Bitcoins from Coinbase, and straight into your designated bank account.
MultiMiner, oh how amazing you are. For every cryptocurrency available in all pools, you will need to add these coins, along with server addresses, log-ins and passwords. To do so, click on the drop down next to the Settings button, and click Coins. From there, click on Add Coin, and choose each coin from a pool. This will list it in the box to the left, and give you the ability to add information on the right. You can add multiple servers as well, in case the current server you're mining on goes down. After all your coins are setup, you'll need to setup your Strategies. Click the drop down next to Settings, and chose Strategies. Check the Enable Strategies check box, choosing Straight Profitability from the drop down, and checking the Strategy every five minutes (that way you're not losing money by mining something that has dropped in price). This aggressive price checking makes it to where you're always on top with whatever you're mining. Also make sure you have Mine the Single Most Profitable Coin selected. Stick with CoinChoose as your price source (under Settings), as CoinWarz charges for there services beyond a certain point. Click Start, and take a vacation.
Reading the charts on Cryptsy can be a little tricky, and scary if you've never saw those types of graphs before. Those graphs are called Candlestick Charts, and are used primarily in the stock market. I won't go in to great detail on this, however, you can find a nice cheat sheet on the subject here.
I hope everyone enjoyed the guide, sorry for being punctual and brief, but there isn't anything too elaborate of complicated about searching for cryptocurrencies. I love mining as a hobby, mining's fun, and if there is any money to be made off of mining from my end, great, if not, I had fun mining.
While compiling a spreadsheet of the minable currencies in this guide, if everything is set up correctly (and assuming servers aren't down), you should be able to mine the following:
And while Mining Pool Co. offers ASICcoin and Unobtainium, ASICcoin isn't supported in MultiMiner, and Unobtanium isn't supported in Cryptsy. I still mine for Unobtanium in hopes that Cryptsy will include it one day.
References
Cryptocurrency. (n.d.). In technopedia. Retrieved from http://www.technopedia.com/
submitted by ford0415 to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Namecoins or Bitcoins?

I recently "inherited" a 5870 ATI card, with which I can mine with about 400Mhash/s.
I heard that with the recent difficulty increase for bitcoin mining, namecoins have become more profitable. Is there any truth behind this, or should I just farm bitcoins in a pool?
submitted by miningjoe to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Could a miner crash cause the end of bitcoin?

So namecoin recently had a huge drop in mining power (~87%). It will now take 6 weeks before the next difficulty at the current mining power.
Let's say this happened to bitcoin. Some of the fad of mining goes away and there is sudden drop of say 70%. Mining would not be profitable at that difficulty. Some miners, say 30% of those would just stop until the next difficulty so they weren't loosing money.
This increases the lose taken and also the time to recover with a new difficulty. The cycle continues to the point where we can't actually get to the next (much lower) difficulty.
I just wonder. Is there a way around it? Gather the remaining miners and fork the block chain with a new difficulty algo?
submitted by bgog to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

KNCMiner open for preorder

Hi everyone, it’s time for another newsletter from us. Today we will cover: Online video demo of Mars The future of Mars More specifications of Jupiter and Saturn Our little lottery giveaway Order book opening
Online video demo of Mars We made a promise to you all not to take any payment of any device until we could show you a working prototype, well today it’s finally here. Our developers have been working almost round the clock to get this box hashing as fast as possible, we said Mars would hash at 6 GH/s and in the video you can see exactly how fast we managed to make it go. The Mars prototype is as the name suggests, a prototype. As you can see it doesn’t even have a case yet. The performance of our device is, and always will be, more important to us than the look. We know it won’t win any design awards but we are engineering for speed first and foremost. Please have a look at the video which can be found here. http://youtu.be/foeBUcagT2s 100%
The Future of Mars Even with the new improvements of the Mars device it still has a few issues. It’s not anywhere near as efficient as Jupiter or Saturn in terms of $’s per Hash and it will really only mine Bitcoins. To sum up, we don’t think with the difficulty increasing at the current rate it’s good value for money and if it’s not good for you it’s not good for us. We will let our competitors sell devices with this kind of speed so we can concentrate on the ground breaking devices. We know a lot of people have ordered the device simply to gain a queue placement for Jupiter and quite a few people have asked us not to send them the device but to charge them and just allow them to use the queue placement. So given all of the above we have decided that we will remove Mars in its current form from sale. That leaves a few questions I’m sure. So let me try to alleviate your worries, anyone who has a registration for the Mars device will be able to use that queue placement for either a Jupiter or a Saturn, simply order one of those in the our shop with the same email address you registered your Mars device against and we will do the rest. Then there are the people who wanted the Mars device to mine other types of coins, what we will do is produce a new device based on the Mars type setup (with a case). It will be announced fully in the next few months but I can tell a few things today. We will target this new device against all the currencies we can. Not just litecoin, namecoin etc but also many others. The new FPGA based device will then have a much longer life expectancy and produce a much better ROI than Mars ever could. We will also be making updates available to the firmware if and when new types of coins come out. Removing Mars from sale will also free up some of our internal resources enabling them to work on Jupiter and Saturn and hopefully bring the delivery of those devices forward.
Order books now open for payment
The order books are now open for the first time allowing full ordering and payment of the Jupiter and Saturn devices. Everyone already has their place in the queue so we are giving everyone 7 days to pay and maintain that place. If there are any technical issues with our website or payment portals over the next 7 days we will of course increase this period accordingly. Once the 7 days are over we will provide everyone with their final shipping queue placement. We are able to ship hundreds of devices a week using the agreements we have in place with the factories so we still expect to be able to serve the vast majority of customers in September. Unlike others in this industry we will not be doing the assembly in house it will be done at the same professional assembly lines which ORSoC have been using for years. visit www.kncminer.com for more info
Our little lottery giveaway
for those of you who are able to pay in the first 48 hours starting from now. we will enter your email address into a lottery. After 48 hours we will randomly select three queue numbers, the first name chosen will get a free Jupiter and Saturn, the second will get a free Jupiter and the third will get a free Saturn. We will then contact you and ask if we can make your name and country/state public on our site. We will add the devices to your account and ship them free of charge to you along with your order.
Hosting
We will also be offering tailored hosting of our own devices. Hosting packages offered will be specially made for each hosting customer. Please contact us at [email protected] for more information about hosting. Some benefits of hosting:
No costs for shipping/import taxes All costs included no hidden extra management fees Your hardware will be monitored 24/7 by our staff Your box will hash for you on day one 95% uptime guarantee For those of you interested in hosting please choose Stockholm pickup as the shipping method We will release final costs soon and if you want to use our hosting that’s fine, if you want to then have the box shipped you can simply pay for the shipping and we will ship your box instead. What’s next? What we will do over the next few weeks is provide more news on our Website/Facebook page and our Twitter feed. We will send out regular newsletters and keep the news section of our site up to date with all development.
If you have any questions or comments feel free to email us at [email protected]
submitted by vortigan to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Difficulty Increases 20%! Genesis Mining Bitcoin Contracts Coming Back Soon! First 2018 Bitcoin Difficulty Increase! How bad is it? Bitcoin difficulty increase Bitcoin vs. Bitcoin Cash: Coexistence or Downfall of Bitcoin Cash Cryptocurrency Mining Difficulty Explained - Mining Difficulty And Analysis

NMC is a fascinating idea with interesting capabilities for decentralizing access to information but why is the difficulty so... jump to content. my subreddits. edit subscriptions. popular-all-random-users AskReddit-news-funny-aww -pics-gifs-worldnews-todayilearned-gaming-videos-tifu-nottheonion-Showerthoughts-Jokes-mildlyinteresting-movies-OldSchoolCool-explainlikeimfive-science-LifeProTips ... Bitcoin; Contact; Sign in. Welcome! Log into your account. your username. your password. Forgot your password? Create an account. Sign up. Welcome! Register for an account. your email. your username. A password will be e-mailed to you. Password recovery. Recover your password. your email. Search. Sign in. Welcome! Log into your account . your username. your password. Forgot your password? Get ... Staunch increases in mining and harsh-rate may shut out old guard miners, but suggests good things for bitcoin. Early last month, bitcoin mining difficulty soared, up an estimated 9.89% since March. Hitting record highs for the history of the coins mining process. The day also ushered in a new high in hash rate, suggesting that more money is ... Namecoin is a fork of Bitcoin, and therefore Namecoin (like Bitcoin) supports a wide variety of smart contract schemes, including the ability for a transaction to have an arbitrary number of outputs (thereby making multiple payments atomically). Because Namecoin represents names as transaction outputs, it is naturally possible to atomically transfer a name in combination with a currency ... Based the mining hardware inputs provided, 0.00250964 Namecoin can be mined per day with a Namecoin mining hashrate of 110.00 TH/s, a block reward of 12.5 NMC, and a Namecoin difficulty of 11,021,604,455,095.00. After deducting mining power costs and mining fees, the final daily Namecoin mining profit is ($3.90) Namecoin to USD.

[index] [46363] [5102] [22723] [16333] [28625] [14873] [20625] [18678] [8416] [46406]

Bitcoin Difficulty Increases 20%! Genesis Mining Bitcoin Contracts Coming Back Soon!

This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue Bitcoin difficulty increase is to be expected, I'm all in as I upgrade my hashpower with Genesis Mining! ASK QUESTIONS! I will try to help you the best that I can. I also use Genesis Mining you ... Download and watch How Much Will Bitcoin Difficulty Increase HD high quality mp4 3gp 144p 320p 720p 1080p videos to your phone free What is Bitcoin Mining Difficulty Bitcoin Mining Guide - Getting ... Bitcoin Difficulty Increases By 21.39% - Duration: 9:30. Gbonikz Bits 425 views. 9:30. Make a Living in 1 Hour a Day Trading the 3 Bar Play!! - Duration: 34:34. Live Traders 1,760,071 views. 34:34 ... Arnold Schwarzenegger This Speech Broke The Internet AND Most Inspiring Speech- It Changed My Life. - Duration: 14:58. Andrew DC TV Recommended for you

#