The Bitcoin Cryptography & Bitcoin Algorithm Pluralsight ...

My collection of amazing early Bitcoin comments, right here from Reddit:

On buying (or not) a gaming rig to mine Bitcoin:
With the difficulty skyrocketing and exchange rates sitting stagnant at $5~8 for the last week or so, you pretty much missed the boat to buy dedicated mining hardware, IMHO. If you already have the hardware, or are looking for an excuse to buy a couple bitchin' new graphics cards for a gaming rig, there's definitely money to be made mining when you're not using it.
But I don't think I'd drop $1k into a rig that's only to mine with unless it was $1k I'd blow on something even more retarded. I certainly wouldn't sink next month's rent into it.
https://reddit.com/AskReddit/comments/hnp7f/_/c1wuv1b/?context=1
On easily cashing out Bitcoin using mtgox:
I think getting money is not that difficult. The daily volume on mtgox is over $100K, so I think anyone can currently sell Bitcoins for USD without problems.
https://reddit.com/AskReddit/comments/hnp7f/_/c1wuhjh/?context=1
On it being $10:
Is Bitcoin 10 usd yet?
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hpq6c/is_bitcoin_10_usd_yet/
Bonus: Snapshot of the isbitcoin10usdyet website from 2011: https://web.archive.org/web/20110606125320/http://www.isbitcoin10usdyet.com/
Mtgox might disappear:
400K bitcoins is $4M dollars. Given all risks and uncertainties around bitcoins, no wonder some of the early founders exit their investments. Tomorrow mtgox or dwolla may disappear. It is the matter of one government intervention.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hq1wj/_/c1xgesq/?context=1
Bitcoin is terrible at friendly front-end:
This is a dangerous point-of-view. The entire bitcoin ecosystem is ugly, confusing, and deeply unusable. Really think about the questions posed in the article. The client works, as in, it creates a functional front-end for some bitcoin-related tasks, but it isn't at all designed for how humans would want to interact with the currency. The point of the article isn't that the client is hard, it's that the client works pretty well for obsessive nerds (present company included), but if bitcoin is really going to succeed at the goals it sets out to accomplish, it needs to not only be usable by normal people, it needs to be exceptional. If you think it's reasonably usable, you're welcome to that opinion, but please understand that you're the exact sort of person Mr. Falkvinge was referring to. Great with complex logic, terrible at friendly front-end.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hrqpm/_/c1xtfuy/?context=1
On wallets going out of sync:
One thing that I think is lacking is the ability to functionally use wallets on different machines as they will tend to get out of sync. This might be able to be overcome if new addresses were deterministically created from a seed contained in the wallet, but there are probably better ways.
Also, the UI for the official client is kind of a bone.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hrqpm/_/c1y730k/?context=1
On Bitcoin’s ease of use:
In fact, BTC is in such an infant state right now only enthusiasts investors, and geeks who can actually grasp how the system truly works, are using it for real.
The usability issues raised by the article are real. No grandma, or any well respected enterprise for that matter, would accept working with this type of GUI. If anything, a REAL enterprise backend still needs to be developed to handle the BTC's ungly guts, with all transactions details, hashes, mining, wallets, proxy connections, peer discovery via IRC channels... I mean... this is all too RAW for the end user. I can see a near future where startups will begin to offer user friendly GUIs, online access, maybe even online banking for your bitcoin accounts, automated backups and safety mechanisms to protect your coins in case of theft.
All of us geeks will end up supporting the bootstrap of this network so that, later on, your grandma will be able to use this just as she would use a credit card today.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hrqpm/_/c1xungz/?context=1
rBitcoin is not a sub for memes:
This isnt a subreddit for memes. Take it back to pics
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/i7z0v/_/c21m3ld/?context=1
I think I’ll keep my money elsewhere:
This further reinforces BC's image as nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. When the distribution is skewed that heavily towards early adopters, they will have almost total control over the market. Those 32 could manipulate to their hearts content. I think I'll keep my money elsewhere....
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/ifl26/_/c23e3ei/?context=1
Tulip mania:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
https://www.reddit.com/AskReddit/comments/hnp7f/i_just_invested_half_of_my_next_months_rent_in/c1wuhkt/
submitted by wisequote to btc [link] [comments]

Transcript of discussion between an ASIC designer and several proof-of-work designers from #monero-pow channel on Freenode this morning

[08:07:01] lukminer contains precompiled cn/r math sequences for some blocks: https://lukminer.org/2019/03/09/oh-kay-v4r-here-we-come/
[08:07:11] try that with RandomX :P
[08:09:00] tevador: are you ready for some RandomX feedback? it looks like the CNv4 is slowly stabilizing, hashrate comes down...
[08:09:07] how does it even make sense to precompile it?
[08:09:14] mine 1% faster for 2 minutes?
[08:09:35] naturally we think the entire asic-resistance strategy is doomed to fail :) but that's a high-level thing, who knows. people may think it's great.
[08:09:49] about RandomX: looks like the cache size was chosen to make it GPU-hard
[08:09:56] looking forward to more docs
[08:11:38] after initial skimming, I would think it's possible to make a 10x asic for RandomX. But at least for us, we will only make an ASIC if there is not a total ASIC hostility there in the first place. That's better for the secret miners then.
[08:13:12] What I propose is this: we are working on an Ethash ASIC right now, and once we have that working, we would invite tevador or whoever wants to come to HK/Shenzhen and we walk you guys through how we would make a RandomX ASIC. You can then process this input in any way you like. Something like that.
[08:13:49] unless asics (or other accelerators) re-emerge on XMR faster than expected, it looks like there is a little bit of time before RandomX rollout
[08:14:22] 10x in what measure? $/hash or watt/hash?
[08:14:46] watt/hash
[08:15:19] so you can make 10 times more efficient double precisio FPU?
[08:16:02] like I said let's try to be productive. You are having me here, let's work together!
[08:16:15] continue with RandomX, publish more docs. that's always helpful.
[08:16:37] I'm trying to understand how it's possible at all. Why AMD/Intel are so inefficient at running FP calculations?
[08:18:05] midipoet ([email protected]/web/irccloud.com/x-vszshqqxwybvtsjm) has joined #monero-pow
[08:18:17] hardware development works the other way round. We start with 1) math then 2) optimization priority 3) hw/sw boundary 4) IP selection 5) physical implementation
[08:22:32] This still doesn't explain at which point you get 10x
[08:23:07] Weren't you the ones claiming "We can accelerate ProgPoW by a factor of 3x to 8x." ? I find it hard to believe too.
[08:30:20] sure
[08:30:26] so my idea: first we finish our current chip
[08:30:35] from simulation to silicon :)
[08:30:40] we love this stuff... we do it anyway
[08:30:59] now we have a communication channel, and we don't call each other names immediately anymore: big progress!
[08:31:06] you know, we russians have a saying "it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about ravines"
[08:31:12] So I need a bit more details
[08:31:16] ha ha. good!
[08:31:31] that's why I want to avoid to just make claims
[08:31:34] let's work
[08:31:40] RandomX comes in Sep/Oct, right?
[08:31:45] Maybe
[08:32:20] We need to audit it first
[08:32:31] ok
[08:32:59] we don't make chips to prove sw devs that their assumptions about hardware are wrong. especially not if these guys then promptly hardfork and move to the next wrong assumption :)
[08:33:10] from the outside, this only means that hw & sw are devaluing each other
[08:33:24] neither of us should do this
[08:33:47] we are making chips that can hopefully accelerate more crypto ops in the future
[08:33:52] signing, verifying, proving, etc.
[08:34:02] PoW is just a feature like others
[08:34:18] sech1: is it easy for you to come to Hong Kong? (visa-wise)
[08:34:20] or difficult?
[08:34:33] or are you there sometimes?
[08:34:41] It's kind of far away
[08:35:13] we are looking forward to more RandomX docs. that's the first step.
[08:35:31] I want to avoid that we have some meme "Linzhi says they can accelerate XYZ by factor x" .... "ha ha ha"
[08:35:37] right? we don't want that :)
[08:35:39] doc is almost finished
[08:35:40] What docs do you need? It's described pretty good
[08:35:41] so I better say nothing now
[08:35:50] we focus on our Ethash chip
[08:36:05] then based on that, we are happy to walk interested people through the design and what else it can do
[08:36:22] that's a better approach from my view than making claims that are laughed away (rightfully so, because no silicon...)
[08:36:37] ethash ASIC is basically a glorified memory controller
[08:36:39] sech1: tevador said something more is coming (he just did it again)
[08:37:03] yes, some parts of RandomX are not described well
[08:37:10] like dataset access logic
[08:37:37] RandomX looks like progpow for CPU
[08:37:54] yes
[08:38:03] it is designed to reflect CPU
[08:38:34] so any ASIC for it = CPU in essence
[08:39:04] of course there are still some things in regular CPU that can be thrown away for RandomX
[08:40:20] uncore parts are not used, but those will use very little power
[08:40:37] except for memory controller
[08:41:09] I'm just surprised sometimes, ok? let me ask: have you designed or taped out an asic before? isn't it risky to make assumptions about things that are largely unknown?
[08:41:23] I would worry
[08:41:31] that I get something wrong...
[08:41:44] but I also worry like crazy that CNv4 will blow up, where you guys seem to be relaxed
[08:42:06] I didn't want to bring up anything RandomX because CNv4 is such a nailbiter... :)
[08:42:15] how do you guys know you don't have asics in a week or two?
[08:42:38] we don't have experience with ASIC design, but RandomX is simply designed to exactly fit CPU capabilities, which is the best you can do anyways
[08:43:09] similar as ProgPoW did with GPUs
[08:43:14] some people say they want to do asic-resistance only until the vast majority of coins has been issued
[08:43:21] that's at least reasonable
[08:43:43] yeah but progpow totally will not work as advertised :)
[08:44:08] yeah, I've seen that comment about progpow a few times already
[08:44:11] which is no surprise if you know it's just a random sales story to sell a few more GPUs
[08:44:13] RandomX is not permanent, we are expecting to switch to ASIC friendly in a few years if possible
[08:44:18] yes
[08:44:21] that makes sense
[08:44:40] linzhi-sonia: how so? will it break or will it be asic-able with decent performance gains?
[08:44:41] are you happy with CNv4 so far?
[08:45:10] ah, long story. progpow is a masterpiece of deception, let's not get into it here.
[08:45:21] if you know chip marketing it makes more sense
[08:45:24] linzhi-sonia: So far? lol! a bit early to tell, don't you think?
[08:45:35] the diff is coming down
[08:45:41] first few hours looked scary
[08:45:43] I remain skeptical: I only see ASICs being reasonable if they are already as ubiquitous as smartphones
[08:45:46] yes, so far so good
[08:46:01] we kbew the diff would not come down ubtil affter block 75
[08:46:10] yes
[08:46:22] but first few hours it looks like only 5% hashrate left
[08:46:27] looked
[08:46:29] now it's better
[08:46:51] the next worry is: when will "unexplainable" hashrate come back?
[08:47:00] you hope 2-3 months? more?
[08:47:05] so give it another couple of days. will probably overshoot to the downside, and then rise a bit as miners get updated and return
[08:47:22] 3 months minimum turnaround, yes
[08:47:28] nah
[08:47:36] don't underestimate asicmakers :)
[08:47:54] you guys don't get #1 priority on chip fabs
[08:47:56] 3 months = 90 days. do you know what is happening in those 90 days exactly? I'm pretty sure you don't. same thing as before.
[08:48:13] we don't do any secret chips btw
[08:48:21] 3 months assumes they had a complete design ready to go, and added the last minute change in 1 day
[08:48:24] do you know who is behind the hashrate that is now bricked?
[08:48:27] innosilicon?
[08:48:34] hyc: no no, and no. :)
[08:48:44] hyc: have you designed or taped out a chip before?
[08:48:51] yes, many years ago
[08:49:10] then you should know that 90 days is not a fixed number
[08:49:35] sure, but like I said, other makers have greater demand
[08:49:35] especially not if you can prepare, if you just have to modify something, or you have more programmability in the chip than some people assume
[08:50:07] we are chipmakers, we would never dare to do what you guys are doing with CNv4 :) but maybe that just means you are cooler!
[08:50:07] and yes, programmability makes some aspect of turnaround easier
[08:50:10] all fine
[08:50:10] I hope it works!
[08:50:28] do you know who is behind the hashrate that is now bricked?
[08:50:29] inno?
[08:50:41] we suspect so, but have no evidence
[08:50:44] maybe we can try to find them, but we cannot spend too much time on this
[08:50:53] it's probably not so much of a secret
[08:51:01] why should it be, right?
[08:51:10] devs want this cat-and-mouse game? devs get it...
[08:51:35] there was one leak saying it's innosilicon
[08:51:36] so you think 3 months, ok
[08:51:43] inno is cool
[08:51:46] good team
[08:51:49] IP design house
[08:51:54] in Wuhan
[08:52:06] they send their people to conferences with fake biz cards :)
[08:52:19] pretending to be other companies?
[08:52:26] sure
[08:52:28] ha ha
[08:52:39] so when we see them, we look at whatever card they carry and laugh :)
[08:52:52] they are perfectly suited for secret mining games
[08:52:59] they made at most $6 million in 2 months of mining, so I wonder if it was worth it
[08:53:10] yeah. no way to know
[08:53:15] but it's good that you calculate!
[08:53:24] this is all about cost/benefit
[08:53:25] then you also understand - imagine the value of XMR goes up 5x, 10x
[08:53:34] that whole "asic resistance" thing will come down like a house of cards
[08:53:41] I would imagine they sell immediately
[08:53:53] the investor may fully understand the risk
[08:53:57] the buyer
[08:54:13] it's not healthy, but that's another discussion
[08:54:23] so mid-June
[08:54:27] let's see
[08:54:49] I would be susprised if CNv4 ASICs show up at all
[08:54:56] surprised*
[08:54:56] why?
[08:55:05] is only an economic question
[08:55:12] yeah should be interesting. FPGAs will be near their limits as well
[08:55:16] unless XMR goes up a lot
[08:55:19] no, not *only*. it's also a technology question
[08:55:44] you believe CNv4 is "asic resistant"? which feature?
[08:55:53] it's not
[08:55:59] cnv4 = Rabdomx ?
[08:56:03] no
[08:56:07] cnv4=cryptinight/r
[08:56:11] ah
[08:56:18] CNv4 is the one we have now, I think
[08:56:21] since yesterday
[08:56:30] it's plenty enough resistant for current XMR price
[08:56:45] that may be, yes!
[08:56:55] I look at daily payouts. XMR = ca. 100k USD / day
[08:57:03] it can hold until October, but it's not asic resistant
[08:57:23] well, last 24h only 22,442 USD :)
[08:57:32] I think 80 h/s per watt ASICs are possible for CNv4
[08:57:38] linzhi-sonia where do you produce your chips? TSMC?
[08:57:44] I'm cruious how you would expect to build a randomX ASIC that outperforms ARM cores for efficiency, or Intel cores for raw speed
[08:57:48] curious
[08:58:01] yes, tsmc
[08:58:21] Our team did the world's first bitcoin asic, Avalon
[08:58:25] and upcoming 2nd gen Ryzens (64-core EPYC) will be a blast at RandomX
[08:58:28] designed and manufactured
[08:58:53] still being marketed?
[08:59:03] linzhi-sonia: do you understand what xmr wants to achieve, community-wise?
[08:59:14] Avalon? as part of Canaan Creative, yes I think so.
[08:59:25] there's not much interesting oing on in SHA256
[08:59:29] Inge-: I would think so, but please speak
[08:59:32] hyc: yes
[09:00:28] linzhi-sonia: i am curious to hear your thoughts. I am fairly new to this space myself...
[09:00:51] oh
[09:00:56] we are grandpas, and grandmas
[09:01:36] yet I have no problem understanding why ASICS are currently reviled.
[09:01:48] xmr's main differentiators to, let's say btc, are anonymity and fungibility
[09:01:58] I find the client terribly slow btw
[09:02:21] and I think the asic-forking since last may is wrong, doesn't create value and doesn't help with the project objectives
[09:02:25] which "the client" ?
[09:02:52] Monero GUI client maybe
[09:03:12] MacOS, yes
[09:03:28] What exactly is slow?
[09:03:30] linzhi-sonia: I run my own node, and use the CLI and Monerujo. Have not had issues.
[09:03:49] staying in sync
[09:03:49] linzhi-sonia: decentralization is also a key principle
[09:03:56] one that Bitcoin has failed to maintain
[09:04:39] hmm
[09:05:00] looks fairly decentralized to me. decentralization is the result of 3 goals imo: resilient, trustless, permissionless
[09:05:28] don't ask a hardware maker about physical decentralization. that's too ideological. we focus on logical decentralization.
[09:06:11] physical decentralization is important. with bulk of bitnoin mining centered on Chinese hydroelectric dams
[09:06:19] have you thought about including block data in the PoW?
[09:06:41] yes, of course.
[09:07:39] is that already in an algo?
[09:08:10] hyc: about "centered on chinese hydro" - what is your source? the best paper I know is this: https://coinshares.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Mining-Whitepaper-Final.pdf
[09:09:01] linzhi-sonia: do you mine on your ASICs before you sell them?
[09:09:13] besides testing of course
[09:09:45] that paper puts Chinese btc miners at 60% max
[09:10:05] tevador: I think everybody learned that that is not healthy long-term!
[09:10:16] because it gives the chipmaker a cost advantage over its own customers
[09:10:33] and cost advantage leads to centralization (physical and logical)
[09:10:51] you guys should know who finances progpow and why :)
[09:11:05] but let's not get into this, ha ha. want to keep the channel civilized. right OhGodAGirl ? :)
[09:11:34] tevador: so the answer is no! 100% and definitely no
[09:11:54] that "self-mining" disease was one of the problems we have now with asics, and their bad reputation (rightfully so)
[09:13:08] I plan to write a nice short 2-page paper or so on our chip design process. maybe it's interesting to some people here.
[09:13:15] basically the 5 steps I mentioned before, from math to physical
[09:13:32] linzhi-sonia: the paper you linked puts 48% of bitcoin mining in Sichuan. the total in China is much more than 60%
[09:13:38] need to run it by a few people to fix bugs, will post it here when published
[09:14:06] hyc: ok! I am just sharing the "best" document I know today. it definitely may be wrong and there may be a better one now.
[09:14:18] hyc: if you see some reports, please share
[09:14:51] hey I am really curious about this: where is a PoW algo that puts block data into the PoW?
[09:15:02] the previous paper I read is from here http://hackingdistributed.com/2018/01/15/decentralization-bitcoin-ethereum/
[09:15:38] hyc: you said that already exists? (block data in PoW)
[09:15:45] it would make verification harder
[09:15:49] linzhi-sonia: https://the-eye.eu/public/Books/campdivision.com/PDF/Computers%20General/Privacy/bitcoin/meh/hashimoto.pdf
[09:15:51] but for chips it would be interesting
[09:15:52] we discussed the possibility about a year ago https://www.reddit.com/Monero/comments/8bshrx/what_we_need_to_know_about_proof_of_work_pow/
[09:16:05] oh good links! thanks! need to read...
[09:16:06] I think that paper by dryja was original
[09:17:53] since we have a nice flow - second question I'm very curious about: has anyone thought about in-protocol rewards for other functions?
[09:18:55] we've discussed micropayments for wallets to use remote nodes
[09:18:55] you know there is a lot of work in other coins about STARK provers, zero-knowledge, etc. many of those things very compute intense, or need to be outsourced to a service (zether). For chipmakers, in-protocol rewards create an economic incentive to accelerate those things.
[09:19:50] whenever there is an in-protocol reward, you may get the power of ASICs doing something you actually want to happen
[09:19:52] it would be nice if there was some economic reward for running a fullnode, but no one has come up with much more than that afaik
[09:19:54] instead of fighting them off
[09:20:29] you need to use asics, not fight them. that's an obvious thing to say for an asicmaker...
[09:20:41] in-protocol rewards can be very powerful
[09:20:50] like I said before - unless the ASICs are so useful they're embedded in every smartphone, I dont see them being a positive for decentralization
[09:21:17] if they're a separate product, the average consumer is not going to buy them
[09:21:20] now I was talking about speedup of verifying, signing, proving, etc.
[09:21:23] they won't even know what they are
[09:22:07] if anybody wants to talk about or design in-protocol rewards, please come talk to us
[09:22:08] the average consumer also doesn't use general purpose hardware to secure blockchains either
[09:22:14] not just for PoW, in fact *NOT* for PoW
[09:22:32] it requires sw/hw co-design
[09:23:10] we are in long-term discussions/collaboration over this with Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash. just talk right now.
[09:23:16] this was recently published though suggesting more uptake though I guess https://btcmanager.com/college-students-are-the-second-biggest-miners-of-cryptocurrency/
[09:23:29] I find it pretty hard to believe their numbers
[09:24:03] well
[09:24:09] sorry, original article: https://www.pcmag.com/news/366952/college-kids-are-using-campus-electricity-to-mine-crypto
[09:24:11] just talk, no? rumors
[09:24:18] college students are already more educated than the average consumer
[09:24:29] we are not seeing many such customers anymore
[09:24:30] it's data from cisco monitoring network traffic
[09:24:33] and they're always looking for free money
[09:24:48] of course anyone with "free" electricity is inclined to do it
[09:24:57] but look at the rates, cannot make much money
[09:26:06] Ethereum is a bloated collection of bugs wrapped in a UI. I suppose they need all the help they can get
[09:26:29] Bitcoin Cash ... just another get rich quick scheme
[09:26:38] hmm :)
[09:26:51] I'll give it back to you, ok? ha ha. arrogance comes before the fall...
[09:27:17] maye we should have a little fun with CNv4 mining :)
[09:27:25] ;)
[09:27:38] come on. anyone who has watched their track record... $75M lost in ETH at DAO hack
[09:27:50] every smart contract that comes along is just waiting for another hack
[09:27:58] I just wanted to throw out the "in-protocol reward" thing, maybe someone sees the idea and wants to cowork. maybe not. maybe it's a stupid idea.
[09:29:18] linzhi-sonia: any thoughts on CN-GPU?
[09:29:55] CN-GPU has one positive aspect - it wastes chip area to implement all 18 hash algorithms
[09:30:19] you will always hear roughly the same feedback from me:
[09:30:52] "This algorithm very different, it heavy use floating point operations to hurt FPGAs and general purpose CPUs"
[09:30:56] the problem is, if it's profitable for people to buy ASIC miners and mine, it's always more profitable for the manufacturer to not sell and mine themselves
[09:31:02] "hurt"
[09:31:07] what is the point of this?
[09:31:15] it totally doesn't work
[09:31:24] you are hurting noone, just demonstrating lack of ability to think
[09:31:41] what is better: algo designed for chip, or chip designed for algo?
[09:31:43] fireice does it on daily basis, CN-GPU is a joke
[09:31:53] tevador: that's not really true, especially in a market with such large price fluctuations as cryptocurrency
[09:32:12] it's far less risky to sell miners than mine with them and pray that price doesn't crash for next six months
[09:32:14] I think it's great that crypto has a nice group of asicmakers now, hw & sw will cowork well
[09:32:36] jwinterm yes, that's why they premine them and sell after
[09:32:41] PoW is about being thermodynamically and cryptographically provable
[09:32:45] premining with them is taking on that risk
[09:32:49] not "fork when we think there are asics"
[09:32:51] business is about risk minimization
[09:32:54] that's just fear-driven
[09:33:05] Inge-: that's roughly the feedback
[09:33:24] I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I think it's not so simple as saying "it always happens"
[09:34:00] jwinterm: it has certainly happened on BTC. and also on XMR.
[09:34:19] ironically, please think about it: these kinds of algos indeed prove the limits of the chips they were designed for. but they don't prove that you cannot implement the same algo differently! cannot!
[09:34:26] Risk minimization is not starting a business at all.
[09:34:34] proof-of-gpu-limit. proof-of-cpu-limit.
[09:34:37] imagine you have a money printing machine, would you sell it?
[09:34:39] proves nothing for an ASIC :)
[09:35:05] linzhi-sonia: thanks. I dont think anyone believes you can't make a more efficient cn-gpu asic than a gpu - but that it would not be orders of magnitude faster...
[09:35:24] ok
[09:35:44] like I say. these algos are, that's really ironic, designed to prove the limitatios of a particular chip in mind of the designer
[09:35:50] exactly the wrong way round :)
[09:36:16] like the cache size in RandomX :)
[09:36:18] beautiful
[09:36:29] someone looked at GPU designs
[09:37:31] linzhi-sonia can you elaborate? Cache size in RandomX was selected to fit CPU cache
[09:37:52] yes
[09:38:03] too large for GPU
[09:38:11] as I said, we are designing the algorithm to exactly fit CPU capabilities, I do not claim an ASIC cannot be more efficient
[09:38:16] ok!
[09:38:29] when will you do the audit?
[09:38:35] will the results be published in a document or so?
[09:38:37] I claim that single-chip ASIC is not viable, though
[09:39:06] you guys are brave, noone disputes that. 3 anti-asic hardforks now!
[09:39:18] 4th one coming
[09:39:31] 3 forks were done not only for this
[09:39:38] they had scheduled updates in the first place
[09:48:10] Monero is the #1 anti-asic fighter
[09:48:25] Monero is #1 for a lot of reasons ;)
[09:48:40] It's the coin with the most hycs.
[09:48:55] mooooo
[09:59:06] sneaky integer overflow, bug squished
[10:38:00] p0nziph0ne ([email protected]/vpn/privateinternetaccess/p0nziph0ne) has joined #monero-pow
[11:10:53] The convo here is wild
[11:12:29] it's like geo-politics at the intersection of software and hardware manufacturing for thermoeconomic value.
[11:13:05] ..and on a Sunday.
[11:15:43] midipoet: hw and sw should work together and stop silly games to devalue each other. to outsiders this is totally not attractive.
[11:16:07] I appreciate the positive energy here to try to listen, learn, understand.
[11:16:10] that's a start
[11:16:48] <-- p0nziph0ne ([email protected]/vpn/privateinternetaccess/p0nziph0ne) has quit (Quit: Leaving)
[11:16:54] we won't do silly mining against xmr "community" wishes, but not because we couldn'd do it, but because it's the wrong direction in the long run, for both sides
[11:18:57] linzhi-sonia: I agree to some extent. Though, in reality, there will always be divergence between social worlds. Not every body has the same vision of the future. Reaching societal consensus on reality tomorrow is not always easy
[11:20:25] absolutely. especially at a time when there is so much profit to be made from divisiveness.
[11:20:37] someone will want to make that profit, for sure
[11:24:32] Yes. Money distorts.
[11:24:47] Or wealth...one of the two
[11:26:35] Too much physical money will distort rays of light passing close to it indeed.
submitted by jwinterm to Monero [link] [comments]

Hard coded UTXO checkpoints are the way to go. They're safe. They're necessary.

Update 3:
Pieter convinced me in the comments of his Stack Exchange answer that these checkpoints don't give any material improvement over assumevalid and assumeutxo. He made me realize why my Case IV below would not actually cause a huge disruption for assumevalid users. So I rescind my call for UTXO checkpoints.
However, I maintain that UTXO checkpoints done properly (with checkpoints sufficiently in the past) are not a security model change and would not meaningfully alter consensus. It sounded like Pieter agreed with me on that point as well.
I think UTXO checkpoints might still be a useful tool
I will call for Assume UTXO tho. It plus assumevalid adds pretty much much all the same benefits as my proposal.
OP:
Luke Jr has been proposing lowering the maximum block size to 300mb in order to limit how long it takes a new node to sync up. He makes the good point that if processor power is growing at only 17%/year, that's how much we can grow the number of transactions a new node needs to verify on initial sync.
But limiting the blocksize is not the only way to do it. As I'm sure you can foresee from the title, I believe the best way to do it is a hardcoded checkpoint built into the software (eg bitcoin core). This is safe, this is secure, and it is a scalability improvement that has no downsides.
So what is a hardcoded checkpoint? This would consist of a couple pieces of data being hardcoded into the source code of any bitcoin full-node software. The data would be a blockheight, block hash, and UTXO hash. With those three pieces of information, a new client can download the block at that height and the UTXO set built up to that height, and then it can verify that the block and UTXO set are correct because they both have the correct hashes.
This way, a new node can start syncing from that height rather than from the first block ever mined. What does this improve?
While not strictly necessary, its likely that the UTXO data would come from the same source as the software, since otherwise full nodes would have to store UTXO sets at multiple block heights just in case someone asks for it as part of their checkpoint. Also, full-nodes should store block information going back historically significantly further than their checkpoint, so they have data to pass to clients that have an earlier checkpoint. So perhaps if a client is configured for a checkpoint 6 months ago, it should probably still store block data from up to 2 years ago (tho it wouldn't need to verify all that data - or rather, verifying it would be far simpler because the header chain connecting to their checkpoint block would all that needs to be validated).
To be perfectly clear, I'm absolutely not suggesting a live checkpoint beacon that updates the software on-the-fly from a remote source. That is completely unsafe and insecure, because it forces you to trust that one source. At any time, whoever controls the live source could disrupt millions of people by broadcasting an invalid block or a block on a malicious chain. So I'm NOT suggesting having a central source, or even any distributed set of sources, that automatically send checkpoint information to clients that connect to it. That would 100% be unsafe. What I'm suggesting is a checkpoint hardcoded into the software, which can be safely audited.
So is a hardcoded checkpoint safe and secure? Yes it is. Bitcoin software already needs to be audited. That's why you should never use bitcoin software that isn't open source. So by including the three pieces of data described above, all you're doing is adding a couple more things that need to be audited. If you're downloading a bitcoin software binary without auditing it yourself, then you already take on the risk of trusting the distributor of that binary, and adding hardcoded checkpoints does not increase that risk at all.
However, most people can't even audit the bitcoin software if they wanted to. Most people aren't programmers and can't feasibly understand the code. Not so for the checkpoints. The checkpoints could easily be audited by anyone who runs a full node, or anyone who can check block hashes and UTXO hashes from multiple sources they trust. Auditing the hardcoded checkpoint would be so easy we could sell T shirts that say "I helped audit Bitcoin source code!"
The security profile of a piece of bitcoin node software with hardcoded checkpoints or without hardcoded checkpoints is identical. Not similar. Not almost. Actually identical. There is no downside.
Imagine this twice-a-year software release process:
Month 0: After the last release, development on the next release start (or rather, continues).
Month 3: The next candidate version of the software is finalized, including a checkpoint from some non-contentious distance ago, say 1 month ago.
Month 6: After 3 months of auditing and bug fixing, the software is released. At this point, the checkpoint would be 4 months old.
In this process, downloading the latest version of bitcoin software would mean the maximum months of blocks you have to sync is 10 months (if you download and run the software the day before the next release happens). This process is safe, its secure, its auditable, and it saves tons of processing time and harddrive space. This also means that it would allow bitcoin full nodes to be run by lower-power computers, and would allow more people to run full nodes. I think everyone can agree that outcome would be a good one.
So why do we need this change? Because 300kb blocks is the alternative. That's not enough space, even with the lightning network. I'm redacting the previous because I don't have the data to support it and I don't think its necessary to argue that we need this change.
So why do we need this change? This change represents a substantial scalability improvement from O(n) to O(Δn). It removes a major bottleneck to increasing on-chain transaction throughput, reducing fees, increasing user security as well as network-wide security (through more full nodes), or a combination of those.
What does everyone think?
Update:
I think its useful to think of 4 different types of users relevant in the hypothetical scenario where Bitcoin adopts this kind of proposal:
  1. Upfront Auditors - Early warnings
  2. After-the-fact Auditors - Late warnings
  3. Non-full-auditors - Late warnings
  4. Non full nodes - No warnings
Upfront auditors look at the source code of the software they use, the keep up to date with changes, and they make sure that what they're running looks good to them. They're almost definitely building directly from source code - no binaries for them. They'll alert people to a problem potentially before buggy or malicious software is even released. In this scenario, their security is obviously unchanged because they're not taking advantage of the check-pointing feature. We want to encourage as many people as possible to do this and to make it as easy as possible to do.
After-the-fact Auditors want to start a new node and start using Bitcoin immediately. They want to audit, but are ok with a period of time where they're trusting the code to be connecting the chain they want. They take on a slight amount of personal risk here, but once they back-validate the chain, they can sound the alert if there is a validation problem.
Non-full-auditors are simply content to trust that the software is good. They'll run the node without looking at most or any of the code. They take on more risk than After-the-fact Auditors, but their risk is not actually much worse than After-the-fact Auditors. Why? Because as soon as you're sure you're on the right chain (ie you do a few monetary transactions with people who accept your bitcoin), you're golden for as long as you use that node and the part of the chain it validated. The can also still help the network to pretty much the same degree as After-the-fact Auditors, because if there are a problem with their transactions, they can sound the alarm about a problem with that software.
Non full nodes obviously have less security and they don't help the network.
So why did I bother to talk about these different types of users?
Well, we obviously want as many Upfront auditors as possible. However, doing that out of the starting gate is time consuming. It takes time to audit the code and time to sync the blockchain. Its costly. For this reason, for better or worse, most people simply won't do it.
Without checkpoints, we don't have type 2 or type 3 users. The only alternative to being an Upfront Auditor is to be an SPV node that doesn't help the network and is less secure. With checkpoints, we could potentially change many of those people who would just use SPV to doing something much more helpful for the network.
One of the huge benefits of After-the-fact Auditors and Non-full-auditors is that once they're on the network, they can act like Upfront Auditors in the next release. Maybe they're not auditing the source code, but they can sure audit the checkpoint very easily. That means they can also sound the alarm before malicious or broken software is released, just like Upfront Auditors. Why? Because they now have a chain they believe to be the true one (with an incredibly high degree of confidence).
What this means is that Upfront Auditors, After-the-fact Auditors, and Non-full-auditors help the network to a very similar degree. If software that doesn't sync to the right chain, they will find out about it and alert others. Type 2 and 3 take on personal risk, but they don't put the network at greater risk, like SPV nodes do.
If we can convert most Non-full nodes into Type 2 or Type 3 users, that would be massive gain for the security of Bitcoin. Luke Jr said it himself, making nodes that support the network as easy as possible to run is critical. This is one good way to do that.
Update 2: Comparison to -assumevalid and why using checkpoints upgrades scalability
The -assumevalid option allows nodes to skip validation of blocks before the hardcoded golden block hash. This is similar to my proposal, but has a critical difference. A node with -assumevalid on (which I've heard is the default now) will still validate the whole chain in the case that a longer chain is floating around. Because of this, -assumevalid can be an optimization that works as long as there's no other longer chain also claiming to be bitcoin floating around the network.
The important points brought up by the people that wrote and discussed adding this feature was that:
A. Its not a change in security model, and
B. Its not a change in consensus rules.
This meant that it was a pure implementation detail that would never and could never change what chain your node follows.
The checkpoints I'm describing are different. On point A, some have said that checkpoints are a security model change, and I've addressed that above. I'd like to add that there is no way for bitcoin to be 100% trustless. That is impossible. Bitcoin at the deepest level is a specified protocol many people have agreed to use together. In order to join that group even on the most fundamental level, you need to find the spec people are agreeing to use. You have to trust that the person or people that gave you a copy of that spec gave you the right one. If different people claim that different specs are "bitcoin", you have to choose which people to trust. The same is true of checkpoints. New entrants want to join the network that the people they care about interacting with believe is Bitcoin, and those are the people they will trust to get the spec, or the source code, or the hash of the UTXO set. This is why I say the security profile of Bitcoin with checkpoints is identical to Bitcoin without checkpoints. The amount of trust you have to put in your social network is not materially different.
While its not a security model change, as I've supported above, using checkpoints is consensus rules change. Every new checkpoint would change the consensus rules. However, I would argue this isn't a problem as long as those checkpoints are at a non-contentious number of blocks ago. While it would change consensus rules, it should not change consensus at all. There are 4 scenarios to consider:
I. There's no contention.
II. There's a long-range reorg from before the checkpoint.
III. There exists a contentious public chain that branched before the checkpoint would usually be taken.
IV. There exists an invalid chain that's longer than the valid chain.
In case I, none of it matters, and checkpoints have pretty much exactly the same result as -assumevalid.
In case II, Bitcoin has much bigger problems. Its simply unacceptable for Bitcoin to allow for long-range reorgs, so this case must be prevented entirely. The downsides of a long-range reorg for bitcoin without checkpoints is MUCH MUCH larger than the additional downsides with checkpoints.
In case III, the obvious solution is to checkpoint from an earlier non-contentious blockheight, so nodes validate both chains.
Case IV is where things really differ between checkpoints and -assumevalid. In this case, nodes using a checkpoint will only validate blocks after the checkpoint. However, nodes using -assumevalid will be forced to validate both chains back to their branch-point.
I don't believe there are other relevant cases, but as long as checkpoints are chosen from non-contentious heights and have time to be audited, there is no possibility that honestly-run bitcoin software would in any way affect the consensus for what chain is the right chain.
This brings me back to why checkpoints upgrades scalability, and -assumevalid does not. Case IV is the case that prevents -assumevalid from being a scalability improvement. You want new nodes to be able to sync to the network relatively quickly, so say the 90th percentile of machines should be able to do it in less than a week (or maybe we want to ensure sync happens within a day - that's up for debate). With checkpoints, invalid chains branched before the checkpoint will not disrupt new entrants to the network. With -assumevalid, those invalid change will disrupt new entrants. Since an invalid chain can have branched arbitrarily far in the past, this disruption could be arbitrarily large.
One way to deal with this is to ensure that most machines can handle validating not only the whole valid chain, but the whole invalid chain as well. The other way to deal with this is checkpoints.
So back to scalability, with checkpoints all we need to ensure is that the lowest power machines we want to support can sync in a timely manner back to the checkpoint.
submitted by fresheneesz to BitcoinDiscussion [link] [comments]

⚡ Lightning Network Megathread ⚡

Last updated 2018-01-29
This post is a collaboration with the Bitcoin community to create a one-stop source for Lightning Network information.
There are still questions in the FAQ that are unanswered, if you know the answer and can provide a source please do so!

⚡What is the Lightning Network? ⚡

Explanations:

Image Explanations:

Specifications / White Papers

Videos

Lightning Network Experts on Reddit

  • starkbot - (Elizabeth Stark - Lightning Labs)
  • roasbeef - (Olaoluwa Osuntokun - Lightning Labs)
  • stile65 - (Alex Akselrod - Lightning Labs)
  • cfromknecht - (Conner Fromknecht - Lightning Labs)
  • RustyReddit - (Rusty Russell - Blockstream)
  • cdecker - (Christian Decker - Blockstream)
  • Dryja - (Tadge Dryja - Digital Currency Initiative)
  • josephpoon - (Joseph Poon)
  • fdrn - (Fabrice Drouin - ACINQ )
  • pmpadiou - (Pierre-Marie Padiou - ACINQ)

Lightning Network Experts on Twitter

  • @starkness - (Elizabeth Stark - Lightning Labs)
  • @roasbeef - (Olaoluwa Osuntokun - Lightning Labs)
  • @stile65 - (Alex Akselrod - Lightning Labs)
  • @bitconner - (Conner Fromknecht - Lightning Labs)
  • @johanth - (Johan Halseth - Lightning Labs)
  • @bvu - (Bryan Vu - Lightning Labs)
  • @rusty_twit - (Rusty Russell - Blockstream)
  • @snyke - (Christian Decker - Blockstream)
  • @JackMallers - (Jack Mallers - Zap)
  • @tdryja - (Tadge Dryja - Digital Currency Initiative)
  • @jcp - (Joseph Poon)
  • @alexbosworth - (Alex Bosworth - yalls.org)

Medium Posts

Learning Resources

Books

Desktop Interfaces

Web Interfaces

Tutorials and resources

Lightning on Testnet

Lightning Wallets

Place a testnet transaction

Altcoin Trading using Lightning

  • ZigZag - Disclaimer You must trust ZigZag to send to Target Address

Lightning on Mainnet

Warning - Testing should be done on Testnet

Atomic Swaps

Developer Documentation and Resources

Lightning implementations

  • LND - Lightning Network Daemon (Golang)
  • eclair - A Scala implementation of the Lightning Network (Scala)
  • c-lightning - A Lightning Network implementation in C
  • lit - Lightning Network node software (Golang)
  • lightning-onion - Onion Routed Micropayments for the Lightning Network (Golang)
  • lightning-integration - Lightning Integration Testing Framework
  • ptarmigan - C++ BOLT-Compliant Lightning Network Implementation [Incomplete]

Libraries

Lightning Network Visualizers/Explorers

Testnet

Mainnet

Payment Processors

  • BTCPay - Next stable version will include Lightning Network

Community

Slack

IRC

Slack Channel

Discord Channel

Miscellaneous

⚡ Lightning FAQs ⚡

If you can answer please PM me and include source if possible. Feel free to help keep these answers up to date and as brief but correct as possible
Is Lightning Bitcoin?
Yes. You pick a peer and after some setup, create a bitcoin transaction to fund the lightning channel; it’ll then take another transaction to close it and release your funds. You and your peer always hold a bitcoin transaction to get your funds whenever you want: just broadcast to the blockchain like normal. In other words, you and your peer create a shared account, and then use Lightning to securely negotiate who gets how much from that shared account, without waiting for the bitcoin blockchain.
Is the Lightning Network open source?
Yes, Lightning is open source. Anyone can review the code (in the same way as the bitcoin code)
Who owns and controls the Lightning Network?
Similar to the bitcoin network, no one will ever own or control the Lightning Network. The code is open source and free for anyone to download and review. Anyone can run a node and be part of the network.
I’ve heard that Lightning transactions are happening “off-chain”…Does that mean that my bitcoin will be removed from the blockchain?
No, your bitcoin will never leave the blockchain. Instead your bitcoin will be held in a multi-signature address as long as your channel stays open. When the channel is closed; the final transaction will be added to the blockchain. “Off-chain” is not a perfect term, but it is used due to the fact that the transfer of ownership is no longer reflected on the blockchain until the channel is closed.
Do I need a constant connection to run a lightning node?
Not necessarily,
Example: A and B have a channel. 1 BTC each. A sends B 0.5 BTC. B sends back 0.25 BTC. Balance should be A = 0.75, B = 1.25. If A gets disconnected, B can publish the first Tx where the balance was A = 0.5 and B = 1.5. If the node B does in fact attempt to cheat by publishing an old state (such as the A=0.5 and B=1.5 state), this cheat can then be detected on-chain and used to steal the cheaters funds, i.e., A can see the closing transaction, notice it's an old one and grab all funds in the channel (A=2, B=0). The time that A has in order to react to the cheating counterparty is given by the CheckLockTimeVerify (CLTV) in the cheating transaction, which is adjustable. So if A foresees that it'll be able to check in about once every 24 hours it'll require that the CLTV is at least that large, if it's once a week then that's fine too. You definitely do not need to be online and watching the chain 24/7, just make sure to check in once in a while before the CLTV expires. Alternatively you can outsource the watch duties, in order to keep the CLTV timeouts low. This can be achieved both with trusted third parties or untrusted ones (watchtowers). In the case of a unilateral close, e.g., you just go offline and never come back, the other endpoint will have to wait for that timeout to expire to get its funds back. So peers might not accept channels with extremely high CLTV timeouts. -- Source
What Are Lightning’s Advantages?
Tiny payments are possible: since fees are proportional to the payment amount, you can pay a fraction of a cent; accounting is even done in thousandths of a satoshi. Payments are settled instantly: the money is sent in the time it takes to cross the network to your destination and back, typically a fraction of a second.
Does Lightning require Segregated Witness?
Yes, but not in theory. You could make a poorer lightning network without it, which has higher risks when establishing channels (you might have to wait a month if things go wrong!), has limited channel lifetime, longer minimum payment expiry times on each hop, is less efficient and has less robust outsourcing. The entire spec as written today assumes segregated witness, as it solves all these problems.
Can I Send Funds From Lightning to a Normal Bitcoin Address?
No, for now. For the first version of the protocol, if you wanted to send a normal bitcoin transaction using your channel, you have to close it, send the funds, then reopen the channel (3 transactions). In future versions, you and your peer would agree to spend out of your lightning channel funds just like a normal bitcoin payment, allowing you to use your lightning wallet like a normal bitcoin wallet.
Can I Make Money Running a Lightning Node?
Not really. Anyone can set up a node, and so it’s a race to the bottom on fees. In practice, we may see the network use a nominal fee and not change very much, which only provides an incremental incentive to route on a node you’re going to use yourself, and not enough to run one merely for fees. Having clients use criteria other than fees (e.g. randomness, diversity) in route selection will also help this.
What is the release date for Lightning on Mainnet?
Lightning is already being tested on the Mainnet Twitter Link but as for a specific date, Jameson Lopp says it best
Would there be any KYC/AML issues with certain nodes?
Nope, because there is no custody ever involved. It's just like forwarding packets. -- Source
What is the delay time for the recipient of a transaction receiving confirmation?
Furthermore, the Lightning Network scales not with the transaction throughput of the underlying blockchain, but with modern data processing and latency limits - payments can be made nearly as quickly as packets can be sent. -- Source
How does the lightning network prevent centralization?
Bitcoin Stack Exchange Answer
What are Channel Factories and how do they work?
Bitcoin Stack Exchange Answer
How does the Lightning network work in simple terms?
Bitcoin Stack Exchange Answer
How are paths found in Lightning Network?
Bitcoin Stack Exchange Answer
How would the lightning network work between exchanges?
Each exchange will get to decide and need to implement the software into their system, but some ideas have been outlined here: Google Doc - Lightning Exchanges
Note that by virtue of the usual benefits of cost-less, instantaneous transactions, lightning will make arbitrage between exchanges much more efficient and thus lead to consistent pricing across exchange that adopt it. -- Source
How do lightning nodes find other lightning nodes?
Stack Exchange Answer
Does every user need to store the state of the complete Lightning Network?
According to Rusty's calculations we should be able to store 1 million nodes in about 100 MB, so that should work even for mobile phones. Beyond that we have some proposals ready to lighten the load on endpoints, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. -- Source
Would I need to download the complete state every time I open the App and make a payment?
No you'd remember the information from the last time you started the app and only sync the differences. This is not yet implemented, but it shouldn't be too hard to get a preliminary protocol working if that turns out to be a problem. -- Source
What needs to happen for the Lightning Network to be deployed and what can I do as a user to help?
Lightning is based on participants in the network running lightning node software that enables them to interact with other nodes. This does not require being a full bitcoin node, but you will have to run "lnd", "eclair", or one of the other node softwares listed above.
All lightning wallets have node software integrated into them, because that is necessary to create payment channels and conduct payments on the network, but you can also intentionally run lnd or similar for public benefit - e.g. you can hold open payment channels or channels with higher volume, than you need for your own transactions. You would be compensated in modest fees by those who transact across your node with multi-hop payments. -- Source
Is there anyway for someone who isn't a developer to meaningfully contribute?
Sure, you can help write up educational material. You can learn and read more about the tech at http://dev.lightning.community/resources. You can test the various desktop and mobile apps out there (Lightning Desktop, Zap, Eclair apps). -- Source
Do I need to be a miner to be a Lightning Network node?
No -- Source
Do I need to run a full Bitcoin node to run a lightning node?
lit doesn't depend on having your own full node -- it automatically connects to full nodes on the network. -- Source
LND uses a light client mode, so it doesn't require a full node. The name of the light client it uses is called neutrino
How does the lightning network stop "Cheating" (Someone broadcasting an old transaction)?
Upon opening a channel, the two endpoints first agree on a reserve value, below which the channel balance may not drop. This is to make sure that both endpoints always have some skin in the game as rustyreddit puts it :-)
For a cheat to become worth it, the opponent has to be absolutely sure that you cannot retaliate against him during the timeout. So he has to make sure you never ever get network connectivity during that time. Having someone else also watching for channel closures and notifying you, or releasing a canned retaliation, makes this even harder for the attacker. This is because if he misjudged you being truly offline you can retaliate by grabbing all of its funds. Spotty connections, DDoS, and similar will not provide the attacker the necessary guarantees to make cheating worthwhile. Any form of uncertainty about your online status acts as a deterrent to the other endpoint. -- Source
How many times would someone need to open and close their lightning channels?
You typically want to have more than one channel open at any given time for redundancy's sake. And we imagine open and close will probably be automated for the most part. In fact we already have a feature in LND called autopilot that can automatically open channels for a user.
Frequency will depend whether the funds are needed on-chain or more useful on LN. -- Source
Will the lightning network reduce BTC Liquidity due to "locking-up" funds in channels?
Stack Exchange Answer
Can the Lightning Network work on any other cryptocurrency? How?
Stack Exchange Answer
When setting up a Lightning Network Node are fees set for the entire node, or each channel when opened?
You don't really set up a "node" in the sense that anyone with more than one channel can automatically be a node and route payments. Fees on LN can be set by the node, and can change dynamically on the network. -- Source
Can Lightning routing fees be changed dynamically, without closing channels?
Yes but it has to be implemented in the Lightning software being used. -- Source
How can you make sure that there will be routes with large enough balances to handle transactions?
You won't have to do anything. With autopilot enabled, it'll automatically open and close channels based on the availability of the network. -- Source
How does the Lightning Network stop flooding nodes (DDoS) with micro transactions? Is this even an issue?
Stack Exchange Answer

Unanswered Questions

How do on-chain fees work when opening and closing channels? Who pays the fee?
How does the Lightning Network work for mobile users?
What are the best practices for securing a lightning node?
What is a lightning "hub"?
How does lightning handle cross chain (Atomic) swaps?

Special Thanks and Notes

  • Many links found from awesome-lightning-network github
  • Everyone who submitted a question or concern!
  • I'm continuing to format for an easier Mobile experience!
submitted by codedaway to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Decred Journal – July 2018

Note: you can read this on Medium, GitHub or old Reddit to view all the links

Development

dcrd: Several steps towards multipeer downloads completed: an optimization to use in-memory block index and a new 1337 chain view. Maintenance: improved test coverage, upgrading dependency management system and preparing for the upcoming Go 1.11 release.
dcrwallet: A big change introducing optional privacy-preserving SPV sync mode was merged. In this mode dcrwallet does not download the full blockchain but only gets the "filters", uses them to determine which blocks it needs and fetches them from random nodes on the network. This has on-disk footprint of 300-400 MB and sync time of minutes, compared to ~3.4 GB and sync time of hours for full sync (these are rough estimates).
jy-p: the server side of SPV (in dcrd) was deployed in v1.2.0, the client side of SPV (in dcrwallet) is in our next release, v1.3.0. Still some minor bugs in SPV that are being worked out. There will be an update to add the latest features from BIP 157/158 in the next few months. SPV will be optional in v1.3.0, but it will become the default after we get a proper header commitment for it (#general)
Decrediton: besides regular bugfixes and design improvements, several components are being developed in parallel like SPV mode, Politeia integration and Trezor support.
Politeia: testing started on mainnet, thanks to everyone who is participating. A lot of testing, bugfixing and polishing is happening in preparation for full mainnet launch. There are also a few missing features to be added before launch, e.g. capacity to edit a proposal and versioning for that, discussion to remain open once voting starts. Decrediton integration is moving forward, check out this video for a demo and this meta issue for the full checklist.
Trezor: Decrediton integration of initial Trezor support is in progress and there is a demo.
Android: app design version 2.0 completed.
dcrdata: development of several chart visualizations was completed and is awaiting deployment. Specifically, voting agendas and historic charts are merged while ticket pool visualization is in testing.
atomicswap: @glendc is seeking reviews of his Ethereum support pull request.
Dev activity stats for July: 252 active PRs, 220 master commits, 34,754 added and 12,847 deleted lines spread across 6 repositories. Contributions came from 6-10 developers per repository. (chart)

Network

Hashrate: the month started at 40.5 and ended at 51.6 PH/s, with a low of 33.3 and a new all time high of 68.4 PH/s. F2Pool is leading with 40-45%, followed by the new BeePool at 15-25% and coinmine.pl at 18-23%.
Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 92.6 DCR (-2.1). The price started the month at 94.6 and quickly retreated to month's low of 85 until 1,860 tickets were bought within a single period (versus target 720). This pushed the pool of tickets to 41,970 (2.5% above target), which in turn caused 10 price increases in a row to the month's high of 100.4. This was the highest ticket price seen on the new ticket price algorithm which has been in effect since Jul 2017. Second half of the month there was unusually low volatility between 92 and 94 DCR per ticket. Locked DCR held between 3.75 and 3.87 million or 46.6-48.0% of supply (+0.1% from previous peak).
Nodes: there are 212 public listening and 216 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 67% on v1.2.0 (+10%), 24% on v1.1.2 (-1%), 7% on v1.1.0 (-7%). Node count data is not perfect but we can see the steady trend of upgrading to v1.2.0. This version of dcrd is notable for serving compact filters. The increased count of such full nodes allows the developers to test SPV client mode in preparations for the upcoming v1.3.0 release.

ASICs

Obelisk posted three updates in July. For the most recent daily updates join their Discord.
New miner from iBeLink: DSM7T hashes Blake256 at 7 TH/s or Blake2b at 3.5 TH/s, consumes 2,100 W and costs $3,800, shipping Aug 5-10.
There were also speculations about the mysterious Pangolin Whatsminer DCR with the speed of 44 TH/s at 2,200 W and the cost of $3,888, shipping November. If you know more about it please share with us in #pow-mining channel.

Integrations

Meet new stake pool: dcrpool.ibitlin.com has 1% fees and is hosted by @life.
An interesting detail about decredbrasil.com stake pool was posted in chat:
emiliomann: stakebrasil is one of the pools with the lowest number of missed and expired tickets. It was one of the first and has a smaller percentage than the most recent ones who haven’t had the time to do so. (...) The Brazilian pool should be the one with the more servers spread around the world: 6 to decrease the latency. This is to explain to you why the [pool fee] rate of 5% (currently around 0.06 DCR) on the reward is also one of the highest. girino: 8 voting wallets now. I just finished setting up a new one yesterday. All of them in different datacenters, 3 in europe, 3 in north america, 1 in brazil and one in asia. We also have 3 more servers, 1 for the front end, one for "stats" and one for dcrdata. (#general)
On the mining side, Luxor started a new set of pool servers inside mainland China, while zpool has enabled Decred mining.
StatX announced Decred integration into their live dashboard and public chat.
Decred was added to Satowallet with BTC and ETH trading pairs. Caution: do your best to understand the security model before using any wallet software.

Adoption

VotoLegal update:
Marina Silva is the first presidential candidate in Brazil using blockchain to keep all their electoral donations transparent and traceable. VotoLegal uses Decred technology, awesome use case! (reddit)
The story was covered by criptonoticias.com (translated) and livecoins.com.br (translated), the latter received hundreds of upvotes and comments on brasil.
On the OTC trading front, @i2Rav from i2trading reports:
We continue to see institutional interest in DCR. Large block buyers love the concept of staking as a way to earn additional income and appreciate the stakeholder rights it affords them. Likening a DCR investment to an activist shareholdebondholder gives these institutions some comfort while dipping their toes into a burgeoning new asset class.

Marketing

Targeted advertising reports released for June and July. As usual, reach @timhebel for full versions.
Big news in June: Facebook reversed their policy on banning crypto ads. ICO ads are still banned, but we should be OK. My team filled out the appeal today, so we should hopefully hear something within a few days. (u/timhebel on reddit)
After couple weeks Facebook finally responded to the appeal and the next step is to verify the domain name via DNS.
A pack of Stakey Telegram stickers is now available. Have fun!

Events

Attended:
Upcoming:

Media

Featured articles:
Articles:
Some articles are omitted due to low quality or factual errors.
Translations:
Videos:

Community Discussions

Community stats:
Comm systems update:
Articles:
Twitter: Ari Paul debates "There can be only one" aka "highlander argument".
Reddit and Forum: how ticket pool size influences average vote time; roadmap concerns; why ticket price was volatile; ideas for using Reddit chat for dcrtrader and alternative chat systems; insette's write-up on Andrew Stone's GROUP proposal for miner-validated tokenization that is superior to current OP_RETURN-based schemes; James Liu's paper to extend atomic swaps to financial derivatives; what happens when all DCR are mined, tail emission and incentives for miners.
Chats: why tickets don't have 100% chance to vote; ideas for more straightforward marketing; long-running chat about world economy and failure modes; @brandon's thoughts on tokenizing everything, ICOs, securities, sidechains and more; challenges of staking with Trezor; ideas how to use CryptoSteel wallet with Decred; why exchange can't stake your coins, how staking can increase security, why the function to export seed from wallet is bad idea and why dcrwallet doesn't ever store the seed; ticket voting math; discussion about how GitHub workflow forces to depend on modern web browser and possible alternatives; funding marketing and education in developing markets, vetting contractors based on deliverables, "Decred contractor clearance", continued in #governance.
#dex channel continues to attract thinkers and host chats about influence of exchanges, regulation, HFT, lot sizes, liquidity, on-chain vs off-chain swaps, to name a few topics. #governance also keeps growing and hosting high quality conversations.

Markets

In July DCR was trading in USD 56-76 and BTC 0.0072-0.0109 range. A recovery started after a volume boost of up to $10.5 m on Fex around Jul 13, but once Bitcoin headed towards USD ~8,000 DCR declined along with most altcoins.
WalletInvestor posted a prediction on dcrtrader.
Decred was noticed in top 10 mineable coins on coinmarketcap.com.

Relevant External

One million PCs in China were infected via browser plugins to mine Decred, Siacoin and Digibyte.
In a Unchained podcast episode David Vorick shared why ASICs are better than GPUs even if they tend toward mining centralization and also described Obelisk's new Launchpad service. (missed in June issue)
Sia project moved to GitLab. The stated reasons are to avoid the risk of depending on centralized service, to avoid vendor lock-in, better continuous integration and testing, better access control and the general direction to support decentralized and open source projects.
Luxor explained why PPS pools are better.
@nic__carter published slides from his talk "An Overview of Governance in Blockchains" from Zcon0.
This article arguing the importance of governance systems dates back to 2007.
Bancor wallet was hacked. This reminds us about the fake feeling of decentralizaion, that custody of funds is dangerous and that smart contracts must have minimum complexity and be verifiable.
Circle announced official Poloniex mobile apps for iOS and Android.
On Jul 27 Circle announced delisting of 9 coins from Poloniex that led to a loss of 23-81% of their value same day. Sad reminder about how much a project can depend on a single centralized exchange.
DCR supply and market cap is now correct on onchainfx.com and finally, on coinmarketcap.com. Thanks to @sumiflow, @jz and others doing the tedious work to reach out the various websites.

About This Issue

This is the 4th issue of Decred Journal. It is mirrored on GitHub, Medium and Reddit. Past issues are available here.
Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research.
Chat links were changed to riot.im from the static web viewer that suffered from UX issues (filed here and here). We will consider changing back to the static viewer once they are resolved because it does not require javascript to read chat logs.
In the previous issue we introduced "Featured articles". The judgement is subjective by definition, if you feel unfairness or want to debate the criteria please check this issue.
Feedback is appreciated: please comment on Reddit, GitHub or #writers_room.
Contributions are also welcome, some areas are adding content, pre-release review or translations to other languages.
Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee, Haon and Richard-Red.
submitted by jet_user to decred [link] [comments]

Start Here for Much Wallet WOW!

EDIT 2017-02-10: A word about Nodes

There is a discussion about nodes that came up today, where it seems I'm discouraging people from running the full QT/Core client. Yes and No. What I'm trying to make sure people understand is how things work, and that it is NOT mandatory to run a client in order to use Dogecoins (and yes, I realise that browser-based tools like coinb.in and wallet sweepers are 'clients' by strict definition).
That said, more nodes is absolutely a good thing for the network. Preferrably full nodes. How do you run a full node? Just run Core/QT and open up Port 22556 on your router so it can connect to more than 8 peers. What will it cost you? You need your machine to be on 24/7/365, you need enough storage for the full blockchain (currently about 20Gb. Bitcoin is over 120Gb) and enough bandwidth to keep it in sync and share blocks with peers. A couple of Gb a month, most likely. This is best done with a desktop on a wired broadband link. Or maybe a hosted VM in the cloud. :)

EDIT 2017-01-09: Wallets WITHOUT Clients

Since I started helping people on /BitcoinBeginners, I'm getting a lot of questions about how to use wallets without running clients or trusting third parties. So here are a couple of resources that will make that possible, and not just for Dogecoin:
Multi-Coin Wallet Generator Now supporting 129 currencies! Coinb.in Start by setting the currency, found in the gear wheel in the Broadcast tab. Dogecoin Wallet Sweeper Redeem 'paper' wallets containing up to about 100 UTXOs. Bitinfo Charts My favourite block explorer, handles a bunch of cryptos.
Using these resources, it is possible to hold, receive and spend coins in various currencies, without having to run QT or a 'lite' client. You can also download and run the pages on your own device.

EDIT 2016-11-23: SEMANTICS about MINING! :P

Even though there is already a section on mining below, it has been suggested given the huge number of posts on the subject that this needs to be made clearer. Since people get their panties in a twist over the word 'dead', lets change that...

MINING IS DEAD!

MINING DOGECOIN IS UNPROFITABLE!

Put simply, there is no way to mine Dogecoin and make a profit because of the massive hashpower provided by industrial-scale Litecoin miners. Mining Doge directly stopped being viable when our hashrate exploded with the introduction of AuxPoW. Mining with CPU's and GPU's died when ASICs were introduced. And mining with a laptop WILL kill your laptop and cost you a fortune to repair or replace. Mining Litecoin with an exchange that also mines Doge and others will earn less than the electricity consumed, and you won't recover your costs. Probably ever, but certainly not in any reasonable time.
Mining other currencies may be a thing, but that's beyond our scope here. This is /Dogecoin, not /GetRichMiningCryptos after all. If you want to mine the newest scamcoin for fun and profit, look elsewhere for advice. :/
Oh, and most important:

READ BEFORE YOU POST!

At any given time, there are half a dozen posts on the frontpage just like the one you're about to write, where the answers have already been given. Read them. Don't make people waste their time repeating themselves because you were too lazy to bother reading stuff. :P
So there I was, having a quiet Sundy arvo bludge, as you do, when 42points turned up on Facebook and asked me to write a new sticky post for /dogecoin. Why would he do this, when he should be having a bludge himself, I hear you ask? Well, seems he was doing exactly that, and wanted to fob off the work he’s too slack to do himself. ;) Ah well, being a sucker for punishment, I’ll grudgingly oblige I guess.
OK, first things first.

The Clients:

Dogecoin Core 1.10.0 2015-Nov-01
Bootstrap file for Core to save some download time.
Dogecoin Core Guide Wiki
MultiDoge v0.1.7 2016-Jan-31
Android Dogecoin Wallet 2.0.8 2016-Jan-18
Android Coinomi Wallet
Java Cate 0.14 alpha 2 Multicoin wallet 2016-Feb-14
Exodus multicoin wallet
iOS Doughwallet

Do you REALLY need a client?

Wallet ELI5
UTXO ELI5
Paper Wallet Generator
Sample HTML Wallet List
Dogetipbot subreddit and website
Dogechain Wallet
Block.io Wallet
Exchanges
BTC38
Poloniex
CoinSpot
ShapeShift - Not really an exchange, rather a currency trader.

Mining

Litecoinpool
Prohashing
Zpool

Explorers

BitInfoCharts - My favourite, has charts!
chain.so
dogechain.info
/dogecoindev where the devs hang out

More Info

Dogeducation
Technical Wiki
Preev currency value calculator

EDITS:

From peoplma
I was wondering if you could add just a couple things. A link to the coinomi android wallet, it's probably the best one out there. And a sentence somewhere along the lines of "if you need help with any dogecoin software you are welcome to make a post, but PLEASE include your OS, version number of the client, and any relevant transaction IDs that you are willing to share" if you can fit that in somewhere.
Also, if you want to link to Prohashing, I'm pretty sure it's the only Scrypt mining pool that will actually pay out in doge. The others I know of pay out in litecoin or bitcoin. And it's a profit switching multipool, so gives a better return than just mining ltc/doge.
And there's these two wiki articles I thought would be helpful to link /dogecoin/wiki/technical for those technically minded newbies or intermediate users who want to dig a little deeper. And maybe a link to /dogecoin/wiki/dogecoincoreguide next to the link for dogecoin core.
From pts2002
Finally a proper sticky post! Here's some other stuff you could add:
zpool.ca mining pool - You can get paid in pretty much any coin, and you can mine in multiple algos (currently mining lyra2v2 with my GPU). Doing about 500Ð/day
shapeshift.io exchange - My favourite exchange, quick and easy. No registration required!
Also, you should add some blockchain explorers!
chain.so - Support for bitcoin, litecoin and doge.
dogechain.info - Official blockchain explorer. Includes a wallet (already mentioned). Live update currently not working (?)
EDIT: Here's another thing I found!
preev.com currency value calculator - Easy way to check the value of your dogecoins (or bitcoins, or litecoins, or peercoins)!
submitted by Fulvio55 to dogecoin [link] [comments]

IPFS for flashcards. Cards could be used by any program.

Background:
I’m a teacher who’s very interested in technology. I’m planning on going to grad school for educational technology. I’ve been interested in and following the developments of decentralized networks/technology but definitely not treating it as a new hammer that I’m making everything into a nail to use on. I also don’t believe in using technology for tech’s sake, especially in education.
I used flashcards as part of my Chinese studies to great success, and now I use Quizlet to help my students review and store knowledge points. There are third party apps like Kahoot and Gimkit that can let you host a live competition using your cards. My students love it, but the import/export process is kind of annoying and can generate errors like lost information or mixed up cards.
Idea:
I propose to make an Universal Flashcard Standard. I want the cards to be hosted on a cloud server (or the IPFS, here to ask advice about that) that would allow users to instantly access their cards on any platform without worry that the platform they are using will disappear along with their data. Data about answers guessed correctly and incorrectly could also be included to make seamless SRS(Spaced repetition Software) experiences across platforms. The time you spend using the flashcards in a game would update your use history such that those cards are presented to you less frequently in subsequent sessions. I’d prefer the IPFS than a cloud server account or even github account that someone owns, because developers might feel wary of joining the network if they feel they could be suddenly cut off from the data.
I believe this could unlock a lot of potential for innovation. When someone has a new game idea that uses flashcards, users could instantly try it out with their existing sets. New apps could also be developed for more convenient flashcard generation, and it would improve cross platform functionality.
Technical considerations:

  1. The format of the data. I’d likely start with something that can easily use the data of the most popular current sites Quizlet and Anki. In my own experiments I’ve started using Json files and have successfully imported Quizlet files.
  2. Cloud/IPFS hosting (what I could use your advice on!) no one’s going to want to use this service if it costs money, even micropayments. From my understanding of IPFS, if the cards are used and adopted, they will become free to users, but someone will have to pay for an initial node to store files that haven’t been accessed yet. If we allowed media files only in the form of links, the files could be all text, and therefore very small. So the cots wouldn’t be so high. I’m not sure what the total data use would be so I’m not sure of the cost of running the server. I’m debating setting up my own server (Aliyun would be the best cause I’m in China, but might need help setting it up) or using cloudflare/pinata. I wish they had bitcoin payments so I could accept donations for the project and people could see the money was going righ to server upkeep, but it seems they don’t have the option.
  3. Data sharing methods and data privacy issues. I’m thinking that cause all card sets on IPFS are publicly viewable by default. People can clone your decks and change their own version. If you want a private deck, you could first encrypt it before putting it on IPFS. I have some more ideas though about how people could make collaborative notes for shared decks that might complicate this.
  4. Syncing issues. I think IPFS handles this pretty will with versioning? client side apps might need some kind of reviewing mode for handling unwanted discrepancies.
I’m still rather new to programming. I’m learning python and trying to test out some of my ideas already. In this simple text based flashcard program I wrote, I included an importer that converts Quizlet export files into the format I use.
To bootstrap adoption, I want to make a webcrawler app that takes all of the public decks currently on Quizlet and Ankiwebb, converts them to our universal format and puts them on IPFS. That way as soon as someone makes an app that uses our format, users instantly have access to all of their cards. As a new programmer I also could use some guidance on how to achieve this.
Current project (haven’t really started implementing any of these ideas yet) https://github.com/Jewcub/PythonFlashCards
Thanks!
submitted by Jewcub_Rosenderp to ipfs [link] [comments]

[ELI5] How to send coins using Coinb.in

How to send coins from ANY wallet using https://coinb.in/#settings

Why?

Because cold wallets, such as those stored offline in a text file as I keep recommending in my standard advice below:
All you need is a text file to put your wallets in, like this example from https://walletgenerator.net/?currency=Dogecoin
1,"D7WBUpdgLRtG6WyPsqjhaKiJR65X8ZGnkZ","6KieLMW1poAzNVnmLuQZqA262gxEQ51eLGdDK8e2GL2B4LHCKKb" 2,"DM8LT16d49zHr8ByXbUwZb9UBXDGMaZRdc","6Ktgxdv6vN9v2bDHwcJBBb3oMRAgXJumESzBnxaXUSGFZoq6pWQ" 3,"D5UCa51AfxjtVHQ46oYXe2YfkctTeLXPhx","6L2WSPWadRYCwt2L1CxH6zC7PoTYY3KyjxdiUoCqi5eyq6hQKvj"
Use https://coinb.in/#settings to move coins. Download both sites and run them offline. Use https://bitinfocharts.com/dogecoin/ to check balances and transactions. See http://www.mocacinno.com/blog/create-sign-broadcast-transactions-using-coinb/ for coinb.in tutorial. And read the ELI5s (and my history) for more info.
Are without doubt THE SAFEST way to store your coins. Plus, they consume no resources. No bandwidth, no network stress for every node we have, no storage of 20Gb+ blockchains, no weeks of waiting for things to sync, no tearing your hair out and posting desperate pleas for help, and most importantly, no coins irretrievably lost because you or your client screwed up.

What?

Wallets, ALL WALLETS are nothing but numbers. Very large numbers, but fundamentally no different from “7”, “42”, “911” or a phone number. They cannot be created nor destroyed, and you either know them or you don’t. Anyone who knows a key can use it to spend any coins it controls. Anyone who doesn’t know it, can’t. Don’t be the guy who doesn’t know his own keys. Keep them safe. Make copies. Keep those safe. Don’t let your friends, kid brother or random burglar find them, but don’t lose them either.
The only other thing you need for a fully functional wallet is a way to spend coins. Coinb.in is such a way. There are others, such as DogeCoinMultiSig.org which tomcarbon built.
Oh, and you can and should download it and run it locally.

Where?

The default entry point for coinb.in is https://coinb.in/#settings because this settings page is very well hidden. Its in the tiny gear wheel on the Broadcast page.
Looking across the top of the page, you can see
  • + New
  • Verify
  • Sign
  • Broadcast
  • Wallet
  • About
We’re only going to use three of these. New, Sign, Broadcast.
Now, keep in mind that coinb.in is an old Bitcoin tool which tomcarbon added Dogecoin to. Sometimes it thinks its dealing with Bitcoin still, so if you see anything odd, go and make sure you’ve selected Dogecoin in the Settings page.

When?

This tool should be the only place you spend coins. Sure, some clients may look more convenient, but they all suffer from a very big coin-losing flaw. Whenever you split a UTXO, they create a new wallet to send the change to. And they DON’T TELL YOU! This means unless you back up after every transaction, you run a high risk of finding all your coins have ‘disappeared’ from your wallet, and you don’t recognise where they went.
So if you use a client for the convenience as well as a text list of your wallets, you won’t know to add a new wallet to your masterfile. Its best to ditch the clients entirely.

How?

Now we come to the nitty-gritty. Lets use those three wallets above and assume that #1 is the source, #2 the destination and #3 the change wallet. Note that these won’t actually work, as none of them have ever been used, but they will do as examples.
New Transaction
Located at the bottom of the New menu, this will give you a page to enter your wallets and amounts.
In the top field, you enter your source address or Key. If you use the key, it will calculate the address when you click the Load button, which should match what you expected. Note that Load only brings in the first 100 UTXOs. This is so that you can retrieve coins from high-volume wallets which would kill any client. Coinb.in is in fact the ONLY WAY to do this, as even QT falls over around 600 UTXOs.
You will see the total balance that was loaded in the Transaction Fee field. And also in the Inputs tab, where you can go to adjust which UTXOs to spend.
Now you need to add the wallet(s) and amounts to send to them. Lets suppose the source contained a single UTXO for 1,000 Doge. You want to send 500 of them. So you would enter the #2 address in the Address field, and 500 in the Amount field. The Fee now changes to 500, which is not what you want.
So you click the + button to bring up a new line, enter the change address and the other 500, making the fee zero.
And you’re done. Check that the Fee is indeed zero. Check that the amounts shown in the Outputs and Inputs tabs match exactly.

THIS IS CRITICAL!

There is a bug which will send all the coins to the miners if the Outputs exceed the Inputs. I would have expected the Fee to show as negative in such a situation, but it doesn’t. BE WARNED!
Once everything looks right, hit the Submit button.
This will give you a block of hex code. Copy it.
Sign
Go to the Sign tab and paste it. Add your private key for the source wallet and click Submit. Note this can be done offline for safety.
This will give you another block of hex, the SIGNED transaction.
Broadcast
Copy this and paste it in the Broadcast tab and click Submit.
That’s it. Your coins are on their way. Make a cuppa and settle in while they arrive in a minute or three.
Note: All fields retain their values unless you refresh the page! This can be a boon when doing multiple transactions, such as when emptying a huge wallet. But it can also be a trap for the unsuspecting. Refresh or close the window when you’re done.

Who?

Who should use this?
Absolutely EVERYONE!
Even if you’re wedded to your client in some satanic blood-contract, you should still know how this works, because sooner or later you’re going to have a problem you can’t fix without it.
Definitely download the site and store it on every device you have. On every USB backup of your wallets. On your phone (well, except iOS which doesn’t do local HTML), etc, etc, etc.
Oh, and if you’re a programmer SmartyShibe, do consider improving the code over on GitHub.
EDIT: https://github.com/OutCast3k/coinbin added courtesy of AtomHearth
submitted by Fulvio55 to dogecoin [link] [comments]

Understanding Bitcoin - Validity is in the Eye of the Beholder

Preamble
There are currently a lot of misconceptions and misinformation in the bitcoin community about the 'validity' of a blockchain or block, specifically in the case of hard forks. 'Validity' is mentioned a number of times in the bitcoin whitepaper and it is mentioned in different but similar contexts. Currently there seems to be a growing (incorrect) understanding that the validity of the chain is determined by whether the chain follows the original consensus protocol. If this were to be true, then any upgrades to bitcoin that fall outside the original consensus protocol that was initiated in bitcoin in 2009, would be considered 'invalid' and therefore not bitcoin. i.e. any and all hard forks would by definition be considered invalid. This would then mean that there is an argument that the bitcoin that currently exists is in fact not bitcoin at all, as it is not possible to deterministicly sync the full blockchain using a pre 0.8.1 bitcoin client. This is obviously not true as everyone considers the current network to be bitcoin, therefore there must be a more nuanced definition to describe validity. Another growing belief that is being pushed by certain people is that bitcoin consensus follows 'community consensus'. This is also not true, at least in the way it has been presented, and will be debunked in this article. Luckily there is a more nuanced and completed definition of 'validity' and it is described in the white paper but is not well understood by the community.
(If you want to skip straight to the meat of this article, scroll down to the section titled 'Validity of Network Forks'.)
In the whitepaper 'valid', 'invalid' and 'validity' are mentioned 6 times. A number of these times it is mentioned outside the context of network forks but I made a quick summary of them anyway below so as to clear up any confusion. The first time is in the section titled 'Network'. It states;
The steps to run the network are as follows: 1. New transactions are broadcast to all nodes. 2. Each node collects new transactions into a block. 3. Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block. 4. When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes. 5. Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent. 6. Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash.
The word 'invalid' is used in the same context in the 'Calculations' section of the white paper. Specifically, it states;
We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to generate an alternate chain faster than the honest chain. Even if this is accomplished, it does not throw the system open to arbitrary changes, such as creating value out of thin air or taking money that never belonged to the attacker. Nodes are not going to accept an invalid transaction as payment, and honest nodes will never accept a block containing them. An attacker can only try to change one of his own transactions to take back money he recently spent.
In this context 'valid' and 'invalid' is referring to the validity of individual transactions that have been published into a block. For example a transaction's outputs cannot spend/total more than its combined inputs. This meaning of 'valid' is well understood so I will not discuss this further.    
    One more place in the bitcoin whitepaper that contains a reference to validity is in the 'Incentives' section (This is one of the most important and most misunderstood and under-appreciated sections in the whitepaper). In it it states:
The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.
In this context Satoshi is talking about the fact that by undermining bitcoin and the blockchain by trying to steal from it, he is devaluing his own spoils. i.e. there is a disincentive to try and attack the network. This is unfortunately not a well understood concept but is not relevant to the word 'validity' in terms of hard forks.
Another section of the white paper that mentions 'validity' is in the 'Simplified Payment Verification' section. In this section it states;
While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency.
In this context, an 'invalid' block is simply a block that contains invalid transactions (as discussed earlier in this article) that are being used by an attacker to steal funds. This only works on an SPV (simplified payment verification) node because they do not have the full blockchain to check against. As this is not relevant to the 'validity' of network forks it is outside the scope of this article.
   
   
Validity of Network Forks
The other places that the words 'valid' or 'invalid' are used in the white paper are all in the context that is relevant to network hard forks. In the 'Conclusion' section of the white paper it states;
They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.
The absolutely key word in these sentences is 'vote'. The mining nodes in the network vote in every block by accepting blocks they consider 'valid' and rejecting blocks they consider 'invalid'. Well this then begs the question; if the miners are voting on what is invalid and what is valid, what determines the validity? This is the crux of the issue. The currently held misunderstanding, often purveyed by a number of Core developers is that validity is determined by whether the blocks fit within the current consensus protocol. This is nonsensical. With each block being a vote, this would be the equivalent of when Fifa had a vote for their president in 2011 and the only name on the ballot paper was Sepp Blatter. In fact it is worse than that, as in the case for bitcoin it would be the same name (rules) on the ballet paper for every single block forever. Just like Fifa, this would make bitcoin into a kind of banana republic where the vote is totally meaningless, and in reality, there is no vote at all. This is in total contradiction to the white paper. In fact what it states is "Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism." This means that the rules can be changed and voted upon if the majority of the hash power agrees.
There is another section of the white paper specifically dedicated to this concept and goes into further detail. Although it doesn't directly reference the words 'invalid' or 'valid' it does directly reference the voting of hashing power. This is in the 'Proof-of-Work' section and it states;
The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains. To modify a past block, an attacker would have to redo the proof-of-work of the block and all blocks after it and then catch up with and surpass the work of the honest nodes.
The first sentence "The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making." directly links to the statement in the white paper conclusion that "Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.". What is being stated is that the rules of the system, and any changes to them, can be determined and enforced using the proof-of-work system. It is stating that the majority of the hash power decides their representation in decision making.
There is seemingly currently a sub-section of the bitcoin community and developers pushing the narrative that the 'users' control the network and determine what is 'valid'. This is wrong and is also explained in this section of the white paper. It states; "If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote.". What this is saying is that with proof-of-work you cannot over inflate your representation beyond what you actually represent. There is no computational or systematic way for the network to determine a vote based on what 'users' 'want'. We can't use a twitter poll. We can't get a feeling from comments in a forum. Not only can you not know the intentions of any anonymous or pseudonymous social media accounts, we also cannot even know the intentions of known and identified entities. Even if you could get every supposed network participant in one room and have a direct vote, there would be no way to determine the difference between who is a real network participant who wants the network to thrive and who is against the network. There also would be no way to even apply the result of that vote into the network.
This is a very very key point in proof-of-work and why it was used in bitcoin.
The intentions of arbitrary entities CANNOT be determined. Miners are the only set of entities who's intentions we can determine. This is because bitcoin itself has given the miners their intentions and that is to make as much money as possible using bitcoin. This means that the miner's intentions are alligned with the network participants because the miners want to maximise the value of bitcoin to maximise their profit. If we cannot trust the majority of miners then the entire security model of bitcoin fails.
I will discuss his further in another article as it is a fundamental yet misunderstood aspect of bitcoin that needs further illumination.
   
   
Conclusion
Getting back to the crux of this article, how does this relate to 'validity'? Well as we now know, the miners are the ones who get to make the decision on whether a block is valid or not. This means that each individual miner is able to decide on what block is valid or not valid. This does not mean that different miners will always choose different arbitrary rules. In fact the opposite is true. In almost all situation the miners will chose to follow the exact same set of rules as all the other miners. This is because if one miner makes a decision to follow a new set of rules by considering blocks valid that other miners consider invalid, then their blocks will not be accepted by the rest of the network. In almost all situations this would be considered an adverse situation as the network is stronger working together as a whole, with as much hashing power and network effect as possible. In some situations like in the recent Bitcoin Cash fork it may be considered beneficial to enough entities and miners that a fork is made to occur. This sub-set of miners now view blocks with a new set of rules as valid, that other miners on the original chain consider invalid. This is when a hard fork occurs. Without going into too much detail on the economics of hard forks (an article about this will come later), it is important to realise that if the newly separated network has value and blocks are being mined on it then it will continue to exist. In this situation, what is a valid block? Well a block that is valid on one network will be considered invalid on the other and vice versa. Validity is in the eye of the beholder. From the perspective of a specific miner their own blocks are always valid, but they may consider blocks from other miners invalid and vice versa. The newly introduced concept by certain bitcoin Core developers that 'validity' is whether you follower the current chain or not, is at best incomplete and could be more accurately described as incorrect. Validity is determined by the miners as individual entities and not by the collective community. If the validity of blocks was determined by the collective community then there would be no need for miners at all and the network could be undermined trivially using a social attack.
This new narrative that validity is determined by the collective community has created perverse concepts like 'miners hard forking is an attack on the network', when really all that is happening is that miners are changing what rules determine what is considered valid by using their hash power to vote, which is something that was explained in the white paper before the genesis block had even been mined.
This is part of my 'Understanding Bitcoin' series of articles. If you found this article valid I appreciate any upvotes and tips on my your.org articles which you can find below.
Understanding Bitcoin - Validity is in the Eye of the Beholder
Understanding Bitcoin - What is 'Centralisation'?
Understanding Bitcoin - Incentives & The Power Dynamic
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
submitted by singularity87 to btc [link] [comments]

What if Bitcoin Core becomes a major altcoin after a fork?

Hello. This is from a conversation about the Bitcoin XT fork over here.
First I will post the full quote then reply to individual quotes:
But as for the three coins though- remember that unless explicitly told not to, nodes on the two chains will still try to relay transactions to each other. That leads to a few scenarios:
The real problem comes when an address gets mixed coins- for example when you take an old-coin address (such as a paper wallet) and then send coins to it in a transaction that only works on one chain. Now you have two copies of that address, one on each chain, each with different ideas about how many coins are in the address and where they came from.
I will respond to these ideas one by one:
Old-coin transaction with low fee- overloaded Core chain rejects, 101 chain accepts. Core chain thinks coins haven't moved, 101 chain thinks they have. Core chain thinks coins haven't moved, 101 chain thinks they have.
That isn't what blockchains think, it is what people think when they are living in the fantasy that "Bitcoin" will exist if Core becomes a major "altcoin". There will be at least three distinct currencies (or four if we can figure out how to launch an ethereum clone on the same block that bitcoin 101 forks).
Double spend possible (spend once with 101 merchant and low fee, spend again with Core merchant and higher fee). Since old coins make up a majority of the market right now, this attack may become common.
Wait a second. How many people believe this gibberish? If Core is making blocks much slower than 101, won't RBF make it extremely easy to keep the 101 transactions from being included on Core? [Update: Apparently it will be easier to split the dual-chain-bitcoins by tainting them. Please ignore my instructions before this edit on New Years day 2016.] This doesn't even require a modified Bitcoin Core client, does it?
That isn't really a "double spend", that is why a Core client allows it. Let me name the three currencies that will exist after the fork:
The only way to be sure we have "Bitcoin" back is if Core reverts 101 and everyone gives up on 101. If that happens it means that the transaction on the 101 chain was not really a Bitcoin transaction. Either everyone gives up on Core, or we have three currencies, or everyone splits all their dual-chain-bitcoin into the two currencies, and/or Core reverts 101. None of these scenarios require "double spending" or a "51% attack", they are conflicting/competing definitions of Bitcoin.
Old-coin transaction with high fee- overloaded Core chain accepts, 101 chain accepts. Both chains see coins have moved. As long as they are moved to a fresh address they stay 'old' and in sync on both chains. Double spend not possible.
You don't want to be waiting for confirmations on Core every time you spend your 101-bitcoins do you? So the first thing anyone with a brain will want to do is split their dual-chain-bitcoin. Do this by sending bitcoin to a new wallet on the 101 chain and using RBF to send it to a different wallet on Core.
The real problem comes when an address gets mixed coins- for example when you take an old-coin address (such as a paper wallet) and then send coins to it in a transaction that only works on one chain. Now you have two copies of that address, one on each chain, each with different ideas about how many coins are in the address and where they came from.
That is a small educational problem for the clueless. The real problem is if Bitcoin whales choose Core.
Splitting the dual-chain-bitcoin is going to be a pain in the ass if Core is going very slow with all blocks being filled to the max. Therefore Core miners are likely to use another patch that will prioritize ALL transactions by fee no matter when they were sent (okay you could call this legalized "double spending" if you consider unconfirmed transactions to be "spent"). The 101 believers will want to sell their Core-bitcoins so they pay very high transaction fees on the Core chain. They will pay these fees with "Bitcoins" they have already spent on the 101 chain so this will not be expensive if Core quickly dies as they believe it will. Then Theymos, etc, sell their 101-bitcoins and buy Core-bitcoins. Then more miners go back to Core because it becomes more profitable (even if they want to be paid in 101-bitcoins). We have observed how far the price of Bitcoin can fall when it is one currency and most of the bitcoin has hardly moved. Who is going to buy all Theymos' and Satoshi's 101-bitcoins? Bitstamp? BitPay? CORE MINERS?!?!? Can they even afford to do so? Miners may have to mine both chains just to pay their bills. Then 101 "investors" may have big problem.
You could make a poll of Bitcoin holders and ask when they might buy/sell 101-bitcoins or Core-bitcoins, but just like the miner "votes" this isn't any kind of binding commitment. A well-funded Ethereum prediction market would be a very good way to predict the outcome of this battle, especially after the decentralized Bitcoin exchange Dapp has had its "security audit". Notice that Satoshi will soon have a third chain they can buy into without identifying themselves or trusting an exchange. She could also bet on this prediction market. If she is lucky, someone will write an exchange Dapp to allow separate trading of Core-bitcoins, 101-bitcoins, and dual-chain-bitcoins. Bitcoin/ASIC owners would be wise to make sure this Dapp will be available. If Satoshi's only way out of 101 or Core, is to trade them for Ether or Dogecoin, this bitcoin's price may fall through the floor and many sha256 miners could go out of business.
submitted by Ceuch to bitcoin_uncensored [link] [comments]

Blockchain Wallets

Hello! My name is Inna Halahuz, I am a sales manager at Platinum, the largest listing service provider for the STO and ICO projects. We know all about the best and most useful STO and ICO marketing services.
By the way, we developed the best blockchain platform:
[Platinum.fund] (https://platinum.fund/sto/)
We also created the UBAI, the unique educational project with the best and most useful online courses. We not only share our knowledge but also help the best graduates to find a job! After finishing our courses you will know all about crypto securities, ICO and STO advertizing and best blockchain platforms.
What a Blockchain Wallet is? What is its purpose?
Find the answer after reading this article.
Public/Private Key
The public key is the digital code you give to someone that wants to transfer ownership of a unit of cryptocurrency to you; and a private key is what you need to be able to unlock your own wallet to transfer a unit of a cryptocurrency to someone else. The encoding of information within a wallet is done by the private and public keys. That is the main component of the encryption that maintains the security of the wallet. Both keys function in simultaneous encryption systems called symmetric and asymmetric encryption. The former, alternatively known as private key encryption, makes use of the same key for encryption and decryption. The latter, asymmetric encryption, utilizes two keys, the public and private key, wherein a message-sender encrypts the message with the public key, and the recipient decodes it with their private key. The public key uses asymmetric algorithms that convert messages into an unreadable format. A person who possesses a public key can encrypt the message for a specific receiver.
Accessing wallets
Methods of wallet access vary depending on the type of wallet being used. Various types of currency wallets on an exchange will normally be accessed via the exchange’s entrance portal, normally involving a combination of a username/password and optionally, 2FA (Two factor authentication, which we explain in more detail later). Whereas hardware wallets need to be connected to an internet enabled device, and then have a pin code entered manually by the user in possession of the hardware wallet in order for access to be gained. Phone wallets are accessed through the device on which the wallet application has been downloaded. Ordinarily, a passcode and/or security pattern must be entered before entry is granted, in addition to 2FA for withdrawals.
Satoshi Nakamoto built the Satoshi client which evolved into Bitcoin in 2009. This software allowed users to create wallets and send money to other addresses. However, it proved to be a nightmarish user experience, with many transactions being sent to incorrect addresses and private keys being lost. The MtGox (Magic the Gathering Online exchange, named after the original intended use of the exchange) incident, which will be covered in greater detail later, serves as a reminder of the dangers present in the cryptosphere regarding security, and the need to constantly upgrade your defenses against all potential hacks. The resulting loss of 850k BTC is a still unresolved problem, weighing heavily on the victims and the markets at large. This caused a huge push for a constantly evolving and improving focus on security. Exchanges that developed later, and are thus considered more legitimate and secure, such as Gemini and Coinbase, put a much greater emphasis on vigilance as a direct result of the MtGox hacking incident. We also saw the evolution of wallet security into the physical realm with the creation of hardware wallets, most notable among them the Ledger and Trezor wallets.
Types of Wallets & Storage Methods
The simplest way to sift through the dozens of cryptocurrency storage methods available today, is to divide them up into digital and non-digital, software and hardware wallets. There are also less commonly used methods of storage of private keys, like paper wallets and brain wallets. We will examine them all at least briefly, because in the course of your interaction with cryptocurrencies and Blockchain technology, it is essential to master all the different types of hardware and software wallets. Another distinction must be made between hot wallets and cold wallets. A hot wallet is one that is connected to the internet, and a cold wallet is one that is not. Fun fact: The level below cold storage, deep cold storage has just recently been implemented by the Regal RA DMCC, a subsidiary of an internationally renowned gold trading company licensed in the Middle East. After having been granted a crypto trading license, Regal RA launched their “deep cold” storage solution for traders and investors, which offers the ability to store crypto assets in vaults deep below the Almas Tower in Dubai. This storage method is so secure that at no point is the vault connected to a network or the internet; meaning the owners of the assets can be sure that the private keys are known only to the rightful owners.
Lets take a quick look at specific features and functionality of varieties of crypto wallets. Software wallets: wallet applications installed on a laptop, desktop, phone or tablet. Web Wallets: A hot wallet by definition. Web Wallets are accessible through the web browser on your phone or computer. The most important feature to recognize about any kind of web wallet, is that the private keys are held and managed by a trusted third party. MyEtherWallet is the most commonly used non-exchange web wallet, but it can only be used to store Ethereum and ERC-20 tokens.
Though the avenue of access to MEW is through the web, it is not strictly speaking a web wallet, though this label will suffice for the time being. The MEW site gives you the ability to create a new wallet so you can store your ETH yourself. All the data is created and stored on your CPU rather than their servers. This makes MEW a hybrid kind of web wallet and desktop wallet. Exchange Wallets: A form of Web Wallet contained within an exchange. An exchange will hold a wallet for each individual variety of cryptocurrency you hold on that exchange. Desktop Wallets: A software program downloaded onto your computer or tablet hard drive that usually holds only one kind of cryptocurrency. The Nano Wallet (Formerly Raiwallet) and Neon wallet for storage of NEO and NEP-5 tokens are notable examples of desktop wallets Phone Wallets: These are apps downloaded onto a mobile phone that function in the same manner as a desktop wallet, but actually can hold many different kinds of cryptocurrency. The Eidoo Wallet for storing Ethereum and its associated tokens and Blockchain Wallet which currently is configured to hold BTC, ETH and Bitcoin Cash, are some of the most widely used examples.
Hardware wallets — LedgeTrezoAlternatives
Hardware wallets are basically physical pathways and keys to the unique location of your crypto assets on the Blockchain. These are thought to be more secure than any variety of web wallet because the private key is stored within your own hard wallet, an actual physical device. This forcibly removes the risk your online wallet, or your exchange counter party, might be hacked in the same manner as MtGox. In hardware wallet transactions, the wallet’s API creates the transaction when a user requests a payment. An API is a set of functions that facilitates the creation of applications that interact and access features or data of an operating system. The hardware then signs the transaction, and produces a public key, which is given to the network. This means the signing keys never leave the hardware wallet. The user must both enter a personal identification number and physically press buttons on the hardware wallet in order to gain access to their Blockchain wallet address through this method, and do the same to initiate transfers.
Paper Wallets
Possibly the safest form of cryptocurrency storage in terms of avoiding hacking, Paper Wallets are an offline form of crypto storage that is free to set up, and probably the most secure way for users, from beginners to experts, to hold on to their crypto assets. To say it simply, paper wallets are an offline cold storage method of storing cryptocurrency. This includes actually printing out your public and private keys on a piece of paper, which you then store and save in a secure place. The keys are printed in the form of QR codes which you can scan in the future for all your transactions. The reason why it is so safe is that it gives complete control to you, the user. You do not need to worry about the security or condition of a piece of hardware, nor do you have to worry about hackers on the net, or any other piece of malware. You just need to take care of one piece of paper!
Real World Historical Examples of Different Wallet Types
Web Wallet: Blockchain.info Brief mechanism & Security Blockchain.info is both a cryptocurrency wallet, supporting Bitcoin, Ethereum and Bitcoin cash, and also a block explorer service. The wallet service provided by blockchain.info has both a Web Wallet, and mobile phone application wallet, both of which involve signing up with an email address, and both have downloadable private keys. Two Factor Authentication is enabled for transfers from the web and mobile wallets, as well as email confirmation (as with most withdrawals from exchanges). Phone Wallet: Eidoo The Eidoo wallet is a multi-currency mobile phone app wallet for storage of Ethereum and ERC-20 tokens. The security level is the standard phone wallet level of email registration, confirmation, password login, and 2 factor authentication used in all transfers out. You may find small volumes of different varieties of cryptocurrencies randomly turning up in your Eidoo wallet address. Certain projects have deals with individual wallets to allow for “airdrops” to take place of a particular token into the wallet, without the consent of the wallet holder. There is no need to be alarmed, and the security of the wallet is not in any way compromised by these airdrops.
Neon Wallet
The NEON wallet sets the standard for web wallets in terms of security and user-friendly functionality. This wallet is only designed for storing NEO, Gas, and NEP-5 tokens (Ontology, Deep Brain Chain, RPX etc.). As with all single-currency wallets, be forewarned, if you send the wrong cryptocurrency type to a wallet for which it is not designed, you will probably lose your tokens or coins. MyEtherWallet My Ether Wallet, often referred to as MEW, is the most widely used and highly regarded wallet for Ethereum and its related ERC-20 tokens. You can access your MEW account with a hardware wallet, or a different program. Or you can also get access by typing or copying in your private key. However, you should understand this method is the least safe way possible,and therefore is the most likely to result in a hack. Hardware: TrezoLedger Brief History Mechanism and Security A hardware wallet is a physical key to your on-chain wallet location, with the private keys contained within a secure sector of the device. Your private key never leaves your hardware wallet. This is one of the safest possible methods of access to your crypto assets. Many people feel like the hardware wallet strikes the right balance between security, peace of mind, and convenience. Paper Wallet Paper wallets can be generated at various websites, such as https://bitcoinpaperwallet.com/ and https://walletgenerator.net/. They enable wallet holders to store their private keys totally offline, in as secure a manner as is possible.
Real World Example — Poor Practices
MtGox Hack history effects and security considerations MtGox was the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the world before it was hacked in 2014. They were handling over 70% of BTC transactions before they were forced to liquidate their business. The biggest theft of cryptocurrency in history began when the private keys for the hot wallets were stolen in 2011 from a wallet.dat file, possibly by hacking, possibly by a rogue employee. Over the course of the next 3 years the hot wallets were emptied of approximately 650000 BTC. The hacker only needed wallet.dat file to access and make transfers from the hot wallet, as wallet encryption was only in operation from the time of the Bitcoin 0.4.0 release on Sept 23rd 2011. Even as the wallets were being emptied, the employees at Mt Gox were apparently oblivious to what was taking place. It seems that Mt Gox workers were interpreting these withdrawals as large transfers being made to more secure wallets. The former CEO of the exchange, Mark Karpeles, is currently on trial for embezzlement and faces up to 5 years in prison if found guilty. The Mt Gox hack precipitated the acceleration of security improvements on other exchanges, for wallets, and the architecture of bitcoin itself. As a rule of thumb, no small-to-medium scale crypto holders should use exchange wallets as a long-term storage solution. Investors and experienced traders may do this to take advantage of market fluctuations, but exchange wallets are perhaps the most prone to hacking, and storing assets on exchanges for an extended time is one of the riskiest ways to hold your assets.
In a case strikingly similar to the MtGox of 2011–2014, the operators of the BitGrail exchange “discovered” that approximately 17 million XRB ($195 million worth in early 2018) were missing. The operators of the exchange were inexplicably still accepting deposits, long after they knew about the hack. Then they proceeded to block withdrawals from non-EU users. And then they even requested a hard fork of the code to restore the funds. This would have meant the entire XRB Blockchain would have had to accept all transactions from their first “invalid” transaction that were invalid, and rollback the ledger. The BitGrailexchange attempted to open operations in May 2018 but was immediately forced to close by order of the Italian courts. BitGrail did not institute mandatory KYC (Know your customer) procedures for their clients until after the theft had been reported, and allegedly months after the hack was visible. They also did not have 2 factor authentication mandatory for withdrawals. All big, and very costly mistakes.
Case Study: Good Practice Binance, the Attempted Hack
During the 2017 bull run, China-based exchange Binance quickly rose to the status of biggest altcoin exchange in the world, boasting daily volumes that surged to over $4 billion per day in late December. Unfortunately, this success attracted the attention of some crafty hackers. These hackers purchased domain names that were confusingly similar to “binance.com”. And then they created sufficiently convincing replica websites so they could phish traders for their login information. After obtaining this vital info, the scammers created API keys to place large buy orders for VIAcoin, an obscure, low volume digital currency. Those large buy orders spiked VIA’s price. Within minutes they traded the artificially high-priced VIA for BTC. Then they immediately made withdrawal requests from the hacked BTC wallets to wallets outside of the exchange. Almost a perfect fait accompli! But, Binance’s “automating risk management system” kicked in, as it should, and all withdrawals were temporarily suspended, resulting in a foiled hacking attempt.
Software Wallets Web/Desktop/Phone/Exchange Advantages and Limitations
As we said before, it is inadvisable to store crypto assets in exchange wallets, and, to a lesser extent, Web Wallets. The specific reason we say that is because you need to deliver your private keys into the hands of another party, and rely on that website or exchange to keep your private key, and thus your assets, safe. The advantages of the less-secure exchange or web wallets, are the speed at which you can transfer assets into another currency, or into another exchange for sale or for arbitrage purposes. Despite the convenience factor, all software wallets will at some point have been connected to the internet or a network. So, you can never be 100% sure that your system has not been infected with malware, or some kind of keylogging software, that will allow a third party to record your passwords or private keys. How well the type of storage method limits your contact with such hazards is a good way to rate the security of said variety of wallet. Of all the software wallets, desktop and mobile wallets are the most secure because you download and store your own private key, preferably on a different system. By taking the responsibility of private key storage you can be sure that only one person has possession of it, and that is you! Thereby greatly increasing the security of your crypto assets. By having their assets in a desktop wallet, traders can guard their private key and enjoy the associated heightened security levels, as well keep their assets just one swift transfer away from an exchange.
Hardware Wallets Advantages and Limitations
We briefly touched on the features and operation of the two most popular hardware wallets currently on the market, the Ledger and Trezor wallets. Now it will be helpful to take a closer look into the pros and cons of the hardware wallet storage method. With hardware wallets, the private keys are stored within a protected area of the microcontroller, and they are prevented from being exported out of the device in plain text. They are fortified with state-of-the-art cryptography that makes them immune to computer viruses and malware. And much of the time, the software is open source, which allows user validation of the entire performance of the device. The advantages of a hardware wallet over the perhaps more secure paper wallet method of crypto storage is the interactive user experience, and also the fact that the private key must at some stage be downloaded in order to use the paper wallet. The main disadvantage of a hardware wallet is the time-consuming extra steps needed to transfer funds out of this mode of storage to an exchange, which could conceivably result in some traders missing out on profits. But with security being the main concern of the vast majority of holders, investors and traders too, this slight drawback is largely inconsequential in most situations.
Paper Wallets Advantages and Limitations
Paper wallets are thought by some to be the safest way to store your crypto assets, or more specifically, the best method of guarding the pathways to your assets on the Blockchain. By printing out your private key information, the route to your assets on the Blockchain is stored 100% offline (apart from the act of printing the private key out, the entire process is totally offline). This means that you will not run the risk of being infected with malware or become the victim of keylogging scams. The main drawback of using paper wallets is that you are in effect putting all your eggs in one basket, and if the physical document is destroyed, you will lose access to your crypto assets forever.
Key things to keep in mind about your Wallet Security: Recovery Phrases/Private Key Storage/2FA/Email Security
Recovery phrases are used to recover the on-chain location for your wallet with your assets for hardware wallets like ledgers and Trezors that have been lost. When you purchase a new ledger for example, you just have to set it up again by entering the recovery phrase into the display and the lost wallets will appear with your assets intact. Private key storage is of paramount importance to maintain the safety of your on-chain assets! This should be done in paper wallet form, or stored offline on a different computer, or USB device, from the one you would typically use to connect to the 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) sometimes known as “two step authentication”. This feature offers an extra security layer when withdrawing funds from cryptocurrency wallets. A specialized app, most commonly Google Authenticator, is synced up to the exchange to provide a constantly changing code. This code must be entered within a short time window to initiate transfers, or to log into an exchange, if it has also been enabled for that purpose.
You must always consider the level of fees, or the amount of Gas, that will be needed to carry out the transaction. In times of high network activity Gas prices can be quite high. In fact, in December 2017 network fees became so high that some Bitcoin transactions became absolutely unfeasible. But that was basically due to the anomalous network congestion caused by frantic trading of Bitcoin as it was skyrocketing in value. When copying wallet addresses, double check and triple check that they are correct. If you make a mistake and enter an incorrect address, it is most likely your funds will be irretrievably lost; you will never see those particular assets again. Also check that you haven’t input the address of another one of your wallets that is designed to hold a different variety of cryptocurrency. You would similarly run the very great risk of losing your funds forever. Or, at the very least, if you have sent the wrong crypto to a large exchange wallet, for example on Coinbase, maybe you could eventually get those funds back, but it would still entail a long and unenjoyable wait.
How to Monitor Funds
There are two ways to monitor you funds and your wallets. The first is by searching for individual wallet addresses on websites specifically designed to let you view all the transactions on a particular Blockchain. The other is to store a copy of your wallet contents on an application that tracks the prices of all cryptocurrencies. Blockchain.info is the block explorer for Bitcoin, and it allows you to track all wallet movements so you can view your holdings and all the historical transactions within the wallet. The Ethereum blockchain’s block explorer is called Ether scanner, and it functions in the same way. There is a rival to Ether scanner produced by the Jibrel Network, called JSearch which will be released soon. JSearch will aim to offer a more streamlined and faster search method for Ethereum blockchain transactions. There are many different kinds of block explorer for each individual crypto currency, including nanoexplorer.io for Nano (formerly Rai Blocks) and Neotracker for NEO. If you simply want to view the value of your portfolio, the Delta and Blockfolio apps allow you to easily do that. But they are not actually linked to your specific wallet address, they just show price movements and total value of the coins you want to monitor.
That’s not all! You can learn how to transfer and monitor the funds in and out of your wallet by clicking on the link.
To be continued!
UBAI.co
Contact me via Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn to learn more about the best online education:
LinkedIn Facebook Instagram
submitted by UBAI_UNIVERSITY to u/UBAI_UNIVERSITY [link] [comments]

How to Sync Your Bitcoin or Dodgecoin Wallet Bitcoin Core Server for Windows 2016 bitcoin mining pool Get your Bitcoin Core Wallet Up and Running Link in Duscription MintCoin - How to Download, Update and Run Your Wallet or Client

This document does not cover those precautions—it only describes running a full node to help support the Bitcoin network in general. Please seek out assistance in the community if you need help setting up your full node correctly to handle high-value and privacy-sensitive tasks. Do your own diligence to ensure who you get help from is ethical, reputable and qualified to assist you. Secure ... Die Bitcoin-Blockchain wächst stetig, da ständig neue Blöcke mit neu abgeschlossenen Bitcoin-Transaktionen hinzukommen. Jeder Computer, der an das Bitcoin-Netz angeschlossen ist und neue Bitcoins erzeugt oder die bisher erzeugten verwaltet, hält eine 1:1-Kopie der vollständigen Blockchain vor, die derzeit rund 284 Gigabyte groß ist (Juni 2020; hier geht's zum aktuellen Stand). Bitcoin's taking a lot of space on my C drive, and I would like to move it to another drive. I've figured out to do it using symbolic links, but the problem is that my Bitcoin client is currently This tag should be used for questions regarding Bitcoin clients. A client is any application which allows a user to connect to the Bitcoin (or alternate) network. Alternately, "client" may refer to a non-standard user interface which interacts with the Bitcoin network through a standard client. The Bitcoin client accepts the resulting hash values only if they meet strict criteria, so miners typically need to compute many hash values before stumbling upon one that meets the requirements. That process costs a lot of computing power—so much that it would be prohibitively difficult for anyone to come along and redo the work. Each new block that gets added and sealed strengthens all the ...

[index] [2294] [26260] [51054] [37933] [35213] [27202] [6584] [1786] [2221] [37978]

How to Sync Your Bitcoin or Dodgecoin Wallet

wiki bitcoin bitcoin forums bitcoin client bitcoin watch bitcoin buy,bitcoin otc bitcoin trade bitcoin scam bitcoin rates bitcoin gpu bitcoin ubuntu bitcoin.conf bitcoin linux bitcoin block ... In this video find out how to run parity client and use wallet to send some Ether. -~-~~-~~~-~~-~- Please watch: "Making money with lending platforms - ICO that has fast ROI return on investment ... Each block includes a certain number of Bitcoins in a "coinbase" transaction that is paid out to the successful miner. This reward was set at 50 Bitcoins when the system first commenced operations ... Find out why Close. How to Sync Your Bitcoin or Dodgecoin Wallet Radioactive Chipmunks. Loading... Unsubscribe from Radioactive Chipmunks? Cancel Unsubscribe. Working... Subscribe Subscribed ... Find out why Close. How To Quickly Sync A Wallet with Bootstrap (Litecoin/Bitcoin) Franklyn [Crypto] ... The De-Throning of Bitcoin: If It Happens, This Will Be Why - Duration: 5:29. Amanda B ...

#