Bitcoin Algorithm Explained - Mycryptopedia

QuarkCoin Cryptocurrency

Quark is a decentralized digital monetary system. It facilitates sending Quarks to Friends, Family Members Online Payments free of charges and charge-backs. Military Grade Encryption. No Bank or Government Control. Quark coins are based on the original idea of Bitcoin but improved, more secure, faster transaction times and zero fees. With improvements to design and security. There is also a greater coin supply with higher block rewards for miners. Quark is fully Open Source.
[link]

08-31 07:38 - 'I would appreciate if you explained how I'm wrong. I once wrote a Bitcoin miner (which connects to a stratum mining pool), and have dived quite deep into the math, data structures and algorithms behind Bitcoin, so I think I kn...' by /u/mort96 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 475-485min

'''
I would appreciate if you explained how I'm wrong. I once wrote a Bitcoin miner (which connects to a stratum mining pool), and have dived quite deep into the math, data structures and algorithms behind Bitcoin, so I think I know what I'm talking about, but I'm always receptive to a well-reasoned explanation of how I'm wrong so that I can learn something new.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: mort96
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Can someone explain the Bitcoin Cash Difficulty Algorithm to me?

I understand that in Bitcoin (Core) it works as follows:

difficulty = new_difficulty_target / difficulty
this new number is usually estimated by clients and it changes every 2016 blocks as to aim for 10 minutes between each block.

I know not much about the fork(s), other than the differing size blocks. I remember reading about a different algorithm that BCH used as to not cripple the forked chain when waiting for difficulty retargets because it was (correctly) anticipated to have a lower hashrate. Since it had a lower hashrate, it could have been possible for the chain to be stuck attempting to mine a block too high in difficulty for the current hashrate, effectively stopping the fork.

Can anyone help explain this algorithm to me and is it still implemented or did the codebase change back to the 2016-block retarget?

Thanks
EDIT 1: As of 2017: Bitcoin Cash uses 'Median Time Past' to determine if the difficulty will be readjusted. It looks at the current block and the 'MTP' of the past 6 blocks, and if the time difference is greater than 12 hours, the difficulty will become easier. I believe it is a 20% adjustment. Median Time Past is the median of the last 11 blocks.

EDIT 2: Thank to u/jonald_fyookball I was pointed to the Electron Cash implementation [here](https://github.com/Electron-Cash/Electron-Cash/blob/mastelib/blockchain.py)

I'm still working through this as I'm not much of a programmer, but I think this here is the relevant code:
def get_median_time_past(self, height, chunk=None): if height < 0: return 0 times = [ self.read_header(h, chunk)['timestamp'] for h in range(max(0, height - 10), height + 1) ] return sorted(times)[len(times) // 2] # # ... other code ... # not sure how to format as it is in the middle of a function # bitcoin cash EDA # Can't go below minimum, so early bail if bits == MAX_BITS: return bits mtp_6blocks = self.get_median_time_past(height - 1, chunk) - self.get_median_time_past(height - 7, chunk) if mtp_6blocks < 12 * 3600: return bits # If it took over 12hrs to produce the last 6 blocks, increase the # target by 25% (reducing difficulty by 20%). target = bits_to_target(bits) target += target >> 2 return target_to_bits(target) 
I am interested to see the implementation of this and learn more about it so I will (probably) be adding more to this post as time goes on as a reference for myself and anyone else who wants to know.
submitted by 0x4B40 to btc [link] [comments]

Consensus Algorithms, Explained: What You Need To Know About Proof-of-Work,... #blockchain #bitcoin #ico… https://t.co/3KML8kNx7B - Crypto Insider Info - Whales's

Posted at: May 14, 2018 at 08:46AM
By:
Consensus Algorithms, Explained: What You Need To Know About Proof-of-Work,... #blockchain #bitcoin #ico… https://t.co/3KML8kNx7B
Automate your Trading via Crypto Bot : https://ift.tt/2EU8PEX
Join Telegram Channel for FREE Crypto Bot: Crypto Signal
submitted by cryptotradingbot to cryptobots [link] [comments]

/u/Deadalnix's Bitcoin Cash Difficulty Algorithm Explained (x-post)

Deadalnix's Bitcoin Cash Difficulty Algorithm Explained (x-post) submitted by BitcoinIsTehFuture to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash - new difficulty adjustment algorithm explained /r/Bitcoincash

Bitcoin Cash - new difficulty adjustment algorithm explained /Bitcoincash submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash - new difficulty adjustment algorithm explained

Hello, I struggle to understand some of the details regarding the new difficulty adjustment algorithm and I was hoping someone here might get it ///https://www.bitcoinabc.org/november A couple of things: 1) To compute the difficulty, we begin with the three topmost blocks, and choose the one with the median timestamp of the three. Next, the process is repeated with blocks 144, 145, and 146 (blocks of 144-146 height less than the current) and a median timestamp block is again chosen from those 3. a. If you take the 3 topmost blocks,they are already in chronological order so the median timestamp will be the middle of the 3 topmost blocks…what am I missing here? 2) From these 2 blocks roughly 144 blocks apart, we define W as the amount of work done between the blocks, and T as the elapsed time between the blocks. A high-low filter is applied so that T has maximum value of 2 days and a minimum value of .5 days. This prevents difficulty from changing too abruptly. (Normally 144 blocks takes approximately 1 day). a. How is W calculated? Can anyone provide an example…is it the average hashpower between the 2 timestamps calculated above ? If yes, how are those calculated as I thought that hashpower is not observed. 3) This is our difficulty target. Lastly, a final filter is applied to enforce a maximal target. a. How is this applied to the formula? Not sure I understand what is meant here?
submitted by trans_crypto to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

/u/Deadalnix's Bitcoin Cash Difficulty Algorithm Explained (x-post)

Deadalnix's Bitcoin Cash Difficulty Algorithm Explained (x-post) submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Sorry for noob-ish question, but can anyone explain how this works?: "The way the bitcoin algorithm works, if 99 out of 100 connections to your [ground-based bitcoin machine] are malicious, that one honest connection will be discovered and honest data chosen over others," Garzik told VICE News.

Sorry for noob-ish question, but can anyone explain how this works?: submitted by bitvinda to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Can someone explain to me the algorithms used in mining Bitcoins?

Hey guys! I've been reading a lot about Bitcoin and I think I'm going to invest into it but before I do I have a couple questions.
I was wondering if anyone could explain to me the algorithms that are solved when mining Bitcoins. Where does that data go? What are they solving? Is it just a complicated formula that results in Bitcoins and nothing else?
If someone or a few people can shed some light on this I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks!!
submitted by ThatOneRandomGuy to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

01-07 12:27 - 'Advanced algorithm predicts all NFL Wildcard games - Bet on the NFL wildcard games with Bitcoin' (degenbet.com) by /u/explain-bitcoin removed from /r/Bitcoin within 3-8min

Advanced algorithm predicts all NFL Wildcard games - Bet on the NFL wildcard games with Bitcoin
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: explain-bitcoin
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

For all the people selling their BTC and investing in DeFi...

I just want to say what an enormous risk you are taking.
It's almost fall 2020, BTC is almost 12 years old, and institutional investors are only beginning to dip their toes into BTC. And just their little toes.
The last 4 years have seen significant financial infrastructure built around BTC such as Bakkt, CME futures and other futures markets, plus institutional funds with firms such as fidelity investments, and even after all that, investors from traditional finance are only beginning to think about the possibility of allocating a small % of capitol into BTC.
Do you seriously think these massive traditional finance players who are worth billions .... care about DeFi?
DeFi is so off the radar of these people, most have probably never hear of it, and if you explained it to them they'd probably laugh and say "sounds like a nice toy".
If you're in the crypto bubble, and are listening to the rantings of V. Buterin, and other blue-checkmark figure heads from the space, it's easy to get sucked in by the propaganda and really believe that DeFi will change the world - and it might - but don't hold your breath. The fact is DeFi is built on a blockchain (Ethereum) which has an enormous mountain to climb in terms of scaling beyond 15 TPS, and the entire DeFi space is built on this blockchain. The Ethereum blockchain size is ballooning out of control and soon will be out of the reach of the average hobbyist.
BTC on the other hand is built with incredible care and precision and nothing is rushed. Its blockchain and codebase are rock solid because the bitcoin ethos is quite the opposite of Ethereum's: Move slow and mend things. It's this attitude that has won BTC the attention of institutional investors and is the reason why they are beginning to consider looking at it as part of their portfolios.
I may be wrong, but I think Ethereum is a long way off being seen as anything but a toy by these big institutional players - especially for all the promises it makes - such as being the "world computer", when it's clearly not.
Buzzwords are great, but high net-worth investors who know what the fuck they're doing do not invest in buzzwords. They perform rigorous analyses of the performance of the asset, the underlying algorithms, monetary policy, people, developers, and scour the entire ecosystem for any signs of inconsistencies or weaknesses. They do not invest in complex things that they do not understand.
So the BTC price has taken a bit of a tumble in the last day - I urge you to stand firm and do not sell your precious BTC because you heard some random YouTuber say that DeFi is the future.
If you see this dip in price as anything other than an opportunity to accumulate more bitcoin, then you are on the wrong side of history.
submitted by odonnellnoel to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot
Reposting after was mistakenly removed by mods (since resolved - Thanks)
A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important.
For better formatting see https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b
https://preview.redd.it/e8s7dj3ivpq51.png?width=428&format=png&auto=webp&s=5d0463462702637118c7527ebf96e91f4a80b290

Overview

Cosmos

Cosmos is a heterogeneous network of many independent parallel blockchains, each powered by classical BFT consensus algorithms like Tendermint. Developers can easily build custom application specific blockchains, called Zones, through the Cosmos SDK framework. These Zones connect to Hubs, which are specifically designed to connect zones together.
The vision of Cosmos is to have thousands of Zones and Hubs that are Interoperable through the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC). Cosmos can also connect to other systems through peg zones, which are specifically designed zones that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Cosmos does not use Sharding with each Zone and Hub being sovereign with their own validator set.
For a more in-depth look at Cosmos and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Cosmos on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Polkadot

Polkadot is a heterogeneous blockchain protocol that connects multiple specialised blockchains into one unified network. It achieves scalability through a sharding infrastructure with multiple blockchains running in parallel, called parachains, that connect to a central chain called the Relay Chain. Developers can easily build custom application specific parachains through the Substrate development framework.
The relay chain validates the state transition of connected parachains, providing shared state across the entire ecosystem. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. This is to ensure that the validity of the entire system can persist, and no individual part is corruptible. The shared state makes it so that the trust assumptions when using parachains are only those of the Relay Chain validator set, and no other. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. The hope is to have 100 parachains connect to the relay chain.
For a more in-depth look at Polkadot and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Polkadot on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Avalanche

Avalanche is a platform of platforms, ultimately consisting of thousands of subnets to form a heterogeneous interoperable network of many blockchains, that takes advantage of the revolutionary Avalanche Consensus protocols to provide a secure, globally distributed, interoperable and trustless framework offering unprecedented decentralisation whilst being able to comply with regulatory requirements.
Avalanche allows anyone to create their own tailor-made application specific blockchains, supporting multiple custom virtual machines such as EVM and WASM and written in popular languages like Go (with others coming in the future) rather than lightly used, poorly-understood languages like Solidity. This virtual machine can then be deployed on a custom blockchain network, called a subnet, which consist of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance.
Avalanche was built with serving financial markets in mind. It has native support for easily creating and trading digital smart assets with complex custom rule sets that define how the asset is handled and traded to ensure regulatory compliance can be met. Interoperability is enabled between blockchains within a subnet as well as between subnets. Like Cosmos and Polkadot, Avalanche is also able to connect to other systems through bridges, through custom virtual machines made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin.
For a more in-depth look at Avalanche and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see here and here
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Avalanche on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Comparison between Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche

A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions. I want to stress that it’s not a case of one platform being the killer of all other platforms, far from it. There won’t be one platform to rule them all, and too often the tribalism has plagued this space. Blockchains are going to completely revolutionise most industries and have a profound effect on the world we know today. It’s still very early in this space with most adoption limited to speculation and trading mainly due to the limitations of Blockchain and current iteration of Ethereum, which all three of these platforms hope to address. For those who just want a quick summary see the image at the bottom of the article. With that said let’s have a look

Scalability

Cosmos

Each Zone and Hub in Cosmos is capable of up to around 1000 transactions per second with bandwidth being the bottleneck in consensus. Cosmos aims to have thousands of Zones and Hubs all connected through IBC. There is no limit on the number of Zones / Hubs that can be created

Polkadot

Parachains in Polkadot are also capable of up to around 1500 transactions per second. A portion of the parachain slots on the Relay Chain will be designated as part of the parathread pool, the performance of a parachain is split between many parathreads offering lower performance and compete amongst themselves in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. The number of parachains is limited by the number of validators on the relay chain, they hope to be able to achieve 100 parachains.

Avalanche

Avalanche is capable of around 4500 transactions per second per subnet, this is based on modest hardware requirements to ensure maximum decentralisation of just 2 CPU cores and 4 GB of Memory and with a validator size of over 2,000 nodes. Performance is CPU-bound and if higher performance is required then more specialised subnets can be created with higher minimum requirements to be able to achieve 10,000 tps+ in a subnet. Avalanche aims to have thousands of subnets (each with multiple virtual machines / blockchains) all interoperable with each other. There is no limit on the number of Subnets that can be created.

Results

All three platforms offer vastly superior performance to the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0. Avalanche with its higher transactions per second, no limit on the number of subnets / blockchains that can be created and the consensus can scale to potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot claims to offer more tps than cosmos, but is limited to the number of parachains (around 100) whereas with Cosmos there is no limit on the number of hubs / zones that can be created. Cosmos is limited to a fairly small validator size of around 200 before performance degrades whereas Polkadot hopes to be able to reach 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit only a small number of validators are assigned to each parachain). Thus Cosmos and Polkadot scores ✅✅
https://preview.redd.it/2o0brllyvpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f62bb696ecaafcf6184da005d5fe0129d504518

Decentralisation

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus is limited to around 200 validators before performance starts to degrade. Whilst there is the Cosmos Hub it is one of many hubs in the network and there is no central hub or limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created.

Polkadot

Polkadot has 1000 validators in the relay chain and these are split up into a small number that validate each parachain (minimum of 14). The relay chain is a central point of failure as all parachains connect to it and the number of parachains is limited depending on the number of validators (they hope to achieve 100 parachains). Due to the limited number of parachain slots available, significant sums of DOT will need to be purchased to win an auction to lease the slot for up to 24 months at a time. Thus likely to lead to only those with enough funds to secure a parachain slot. Parathreads are however an alternative for those that require less and more varied performance for those that can’t secure a parachain slot.

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus scan scale to tens of thousands of validators, even potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus through repeated sub-sampling. The more validators, the faster the network becomes as the load is split between them. There are modest hardware requirements so anyone can run a node and there is no limit on the number of subnets / virtual machines that can be created.

Results

Avalanche offers unparalleled decentralisation using its revolutionary consensus protocols that can scale to millions of validators all participating in consensus at the same time. There is no limit to the number of subnets and virtual machines that can be created, and they can be created by anyone for a small fee, it scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is limited to 200 validators but no limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created, which anyone can create and scores ✅✅. Polkadot hopes to accommodate 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit these are split amongst each of the parachains). The number of parachains is limited and maybe cost prohibitive for many and the relay chain is a ultimately a single point of failure. Whilst definitely not saying it’s centralised and it is more decentralised than many others, just in comparison between the three, it scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/ckfamee0wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=c4355f145d821fabf7785e238dbc96a5f5ce2846

Latency

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus used in Cosmos reaches finality within 6 seconds. Cosmos consists of many Zones and Hubs that connect to each other. Communication between 2 zones could pass through many hubs along the way, thus also can contribute to latency times depending on the path taken as explained in part two of the articles on Cosmos. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Polkadot

Polkadot provides a Hybrid consensus protocol consisting of Block producing protocol, BABE, and then a finality gadget called GRANDPA that works to agree on a chain, out of many possible forks, by following some simpler fork choice rule. Rather than voting on every block, instead it reaches agreements on chains. As soon as more than 2/3 of validators attest to a chain containing a certain block, all blocks leading up to that one are finalized at once.
If an invalid block is detected after it has been finalised then the relay chain would need to be reverted along with every parachain. This is particularly important when connecting to external blockchains as those don’t share the state of the relay chain and thus can’t be rolled back. The longer the time period, the more secure the network is, as there is more time for additional checks to be performed and reported but at the expense of finality. Finality is reached within 60 seconds between parachains but for external ecosystems like Ethereum their state obviously can’t be rolled back like a parachain and so finality will need to be much longer (60 minutes was suggested in the whitepaper) and discussed in more detail in part three

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus achieves finality within 3 seconds, with most happening sub 1 second, immutable and completely irreversible. Any subnet can connect directly to another without having to go through multiple hops and any VM can talk to another VM within the same subnet as well as external subnets. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Results

With regards to performance far too much emphasis is just put on tps as a metric, the other equally important metric, if not more important with regards to finance is latency. Throughput measures the amount of data at any given time that it can handle whereas latency is the amount of time it takes to perform an action. It’s pointless saying you can process more transactions per second than VISA when it takes 60 seconds for a transaction to complete. Low latency also greatly increases general usability and customer satisfaction, nowadays everyone expects card payments, online payments to happen instantly. Avalanche achieves the best results scoring ✅✅✅, Cosmos with comes in second with 6 second finality ✅✅ and Polkadot with 60 second finality (which may be 60 minutes for external blockchains) scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/kzup5x42wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=320eb4c25dc4fc0f443a7a2f7ff09567871648cd

Shared Security

Cosmos

Every Zone and Hub in Cosmos has their own validator set and different trust assumptions. Cosmos are researching a shared security model where a Hub can validate the state of connected zones for a fee but not released yet. Once available this will make shared security optional rather than mandatory.

Polkadot

Shared Security is mandatory with Polkadot which uses a Shared State infrastructure between the Relay Chain and all of the connected parachains. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. Every parachain makes the same trust assumptions, and as such the relay chain validates state transition and enables seamless interoperability between them. In return for this benefit, they have to purchase DOT and win an auction for one of the available parachain slots.
However, parachains can’t just rely on the relay chain for their security, they will also need to implement censorship resistance measures and utilise proof of work / proof of stake for each parachain as well as discussed in part three, thus parachains can’t just rely on the security of the relay chain, they need to ensure sybil resistance mechanisms using POW and POS are implemented on the parachain as well.

Avalanche

A subnet in Avalanche consists of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. So unlike in Cosmos where each zone / hub has their own validators, A subnet can validate a single or many virtual machines / blockchains with a single validator set. Shared security is optional

Results

Shared security is mandatory in polkadot and a key design decision in its infrastructure. The relay chain validates the state transition of all connected parachains and thus scores ✅✅✅. Subnets in Avalanche can validate state of either a single or many virtual machines. Each subnet can have their own token and shares a validator set, where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. It scores ✅ ✅. Every Zone and Hub in cosmos has their own validator set / token but research is underway to have the hub validate the state transition of connected zones, but as this is still early in the research phase scores ✅ for now.
https://preview.redd.it/pbgyk3o3wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=61c18e12932a250f5633c40633810d0f64520575

Current Adoption

Cosmos

The Cosmos project started in 2016 with an ICO held in April 2017. There are currently around 50 projects building on the Cosmos SDK with a full list can be seen here and filtering for Cosmos SDK . Not all of the projects will necessarily connect using native cosmos sdk and IBC and some have forked parts of the Cosmos SDK and utilise the tendermint consensus such as Binance Chain but have said they will connect in the future.

Polkadot

The Polkadot project started in 2016 with an ICO held in October 2017. There are currently around 70 projects building on Substrate and a full list can be seen here and filtering for Substrate Based. Like with Cosmos not all projects built using substrate will necessarily connect to Polkadot and parachains or parathreads aren’t currently implemented in either the Live or Test network (Kusama) as of the time of this writing.

Avalanche

Avalanche in comparison started much later with Ava Labs being founded in 2018. Avalanche held it’s ICO in July 2020. Due to lot shorter time it has been in development, the number of projects confirmed are smaller with around 14 projects currently building on Avalanche. Due to the customisability of the platform though, many virtual machines can be used within a subnet making the process incredibly easy to port projects over. As an example, it will launch with the Ethereum Virtual Machine which enables byte for byte compatibility and all the tooling like Metamask, Truffle etc. will work, so projects can easily move over to benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. In the future Cosmos and Substrate virtual machines could be implemented on Avalanche.

Results

Whilst it’s still early for all 3 projects (and the entire blockchain space as a whole), there is currently more projects confirmed to be building on Cosmos and Polkadot, mostly due to their longer time in development. Whilst Cosmos has fewer projects, zones are implemented compared to Polkadot which doesn’t currently have parachains. IBC to connect zones and hubs together is due to launch Q2 2021, thus both score ✅✅✅. Avalanche has been in development for a lot shorter time period, but is launching with an impressive feature set right from the start with ability to create subnets, VMs, assets, NFTs, permissioned and permissionless blockchains, cross chain atomic swaps within a subnet, smart contracts, bridge to Ethereum etc. Applications can easily port over from other platforms and use all the existing tooling such as Metamask / Truffle etc but benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. Currently though just based on the number of projects in comparison it scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/4zpi6s85wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e91ade1a86a5d50f4976f3b23a46e9287b08e373

Enterprise Adoption

Cosmos

Cosmos enables permissioned and permissionless zones which can connect to each other with the ability to have full control over who validates the blockchain. For permissionless zones each zone / hub can have their own token and they are in control who validates.

Polkadot

With polkadot the state transition is performed by a small randomly selected assigned group of validators from the relay chain plus with the possibility that state is rolled back if an invalid transaction of any of the other parachains is found. This may pose a problem for enterprises that need complete control over who performs validation for regulatory reasons. In addition due to the limited number of parachain slots available Enterprises would have to acquire and lock up large amounts of a highly volatile asset (DOT) and have the possibility that they are outbid in future auctions and find they no longer can have their parachain validated and parathreads don’t provide the guaranteed performance requirements for the application to function.

Avalanche

Avalanche enables permissioned and permissionless subnets and complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. For example a subnet can be created where its mandatory that all validators are from a certain legal jurisdiction, or they hold a specific license and regulated by the SEC etc. Subnets are also able to scale to tens of thousands of validators, and even potentially millions of nodes, all participating in consensus so every enterprise can run their own node rather than only a small amount. Enterprises don’t have to hold large amounts of a highly volatile asset, but instead pay a fee in AVAX for the creation of the subnets and blockchains which is burnt.

Results

Avalanche provides the customisability to run private permissioned blockchains as well as permissionless where the enterprise is in control over who validates the blockchain, with the ability to use complex rulesets to meet regulatory compliance, thus scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is also able to run permissioned and permissionless zones / hubs so enterprises have full control over who validates a blockchain and scores ✅✅. Polkadot requires locking up large amounts of a highly volatile asset with the possibility of being outbid by competitors and being unable to run the application if the guaranteed performance is required and having to migrate away. The relay chain validates the state transition and can roll back the parachain should an invalid block be detected on another parachain, thus scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/li5jy6u6wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2a95f1f88e5efbcf9e23c789ae0f002c8eb73fc

Interoperability

Cosmos

Cosmos will connect Hubs and Zones together through its IBC protocol (due to release in Q1 2020). Connecting to blockchains outside of the Cosmos ecosystem would either require the connected blockchain to fork their code to implement IBC or more likely a custom “Peg Zone” will be created specific to work with a particular blockchain it’s trying to bridge to such as Ethereum etc. Each Zone and Hub has different trust levels and connectivity between 2 zones can have different trust depending on which path it takes (this is discussed more in this article). Finality time is low at 6 seconds, but depending on the number of hops, this can increase significantly.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s shared state means each parachain that connects shares the same trust assumptions, of the relay chain validators and that if one blockchain needs to be reverted, all of them will need to be reverted. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Finality time between parachains is around 60 seconds, but longer will be needed (initial figures of 60 minutes in the whitepaper) for connecting to external blockchains. Thus limiting the appeal of connecting two external ecosystems together through Polkadot. Polkadot is also limited in the number of Parachain slots available, thus limiting the amount of blockchains that can be bridged. Parathreads could be used for lower performance bridges, but the speed of future blockchains is only going to increase.

Avalanche

A subnet can validate multiple virtual machines / blockchains and all blockchains within a subnet share the same trust assumptions / validator set, enabling cross chain interoperability. Interoperability is also possible between any other subnet, with the hope Avalanche will consist of thousands of subnets. Each subnet may have a different trust level, but as the primary network consists of all validators then this can be used as a source of trust if required. As Avalanche supports many virtual machines, bridges to other ecosystems are created by running the connected virtual machine. There will be an Ethereum bridge using the EVM shortly after mainnet. Finality time is much faster at sub 3 seconds (with most happening under 1 second) with no chance of rolling back so more appealing when connecting to external blockchains.

Results

All 3 systems are able to perform interoperability within their ecosystem and transfer assets as well as data, as well as use bridges to connect to external blockchains. Cosmos has different trust levels between its zones and hubs and can create issues depending on which path it takes and additional latency added. Polkadot provides the same trust assumptions for all connected parachains but has long finality and limited number of parachain slots available. Avalanche provides the same trust assumptions for all blockchains within a subnet, and different trust levels between subnets. However due to the primary network consisting of all validators it can be used for trust. Avalanche also has a much faster finality time with no limitation on the number of blockchains / subnets / bridges that can be created. Overall all three blockchains excel with interoperability within their ecosystem and each score ✅✅.
https://preview.redd.it/ai0bkbq8wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=3e85ee6a3c4670f388ccea00b0c906c3fb51e415

Tokenomics

Cosmos

The ATOM token is the native token for the Cosmos Hub. It is commonly mistaken by people that think it’s the token used throughout the cosmos ecosystem, whereas it’s just used for one of many hubs in Cosmos, each with their own token. Currently ATOM has little utility as IBC isn’t released and has no connections to other zones / hubs. Once IBC is released zones may prefer to connect to a different hub instead and so ATOM is not used. ATOM isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for ATOM as of the time of this writing is $1 Billion with 203 million circulating supply. Rewards can be earnt through staking to offset the dilution caused by inflation. Delegators can also get slashed and lose a portion of their ATOM should the validator misbehave.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s native token is DOT and it’s used to secure the Relay Chain. Each parachain needs to acquire sufficient DOT to win an auction on an available parachain lease period of up to 24 months at a time. Parathreads have a fixed fee for registration that would realistically be much lower than the cost of acquiring a parachain slot and compete with other parathreads in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. DOT isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for DOT as of the time of this writing is $4.4 Billion with 852 million circulating supply. Delegators can also get slashed and lose their DOT (potentially 100% of their DOT for serious attacks) should the validator misbehave.

Avalanche

AVAX is the native token for the primary network in Avalanche. Every validator of any subnet also has to validate the primary network and stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX. There is no limit to the number of validators like other consensus methods then this can cater for tens of thousands even potentially millions of validators. As every validator validates the primary network, this can be a source of trust for interoperability between subnets as well as connecting to other ecosystems, thus increasing amount of transaction fees of AVAX. There is no slashing in Avalanche, so there is no risk to lose your AVAX when selecting a validator, instead rewards earnt for staking can be slashed should the validator misbehave. Because Avalanche doesn’t have direct slashing, it is technically possible for someone to both stake AND deliver tokens for something like a flash loan, under the invariant that all tokens that are staked are returned, thus being able to make profit with staked tokens outside of staking itself.
There will also be a separate subnet for Athereum which is a ‘spoon,’ or friendly fork, of Ethereum, which benefits from the Avalanche consensus protocol and applications in the Ethereum ecosystem. It’s native token ATH will be airdropped to ETH holders as well as potentially AVAX holders as well. This can be done for other blockchains as well.
Transaction fees on the primary network for all 3 of the blockchains as well as subscription fees for creating a subnet and blockchain are paid in AVAX and are burnt, creating deflationary pressure. AVAX is a fixed capped supply of 720 million tokens, creating scarcity rather than an unlimited supply which continuously increase of tokens at a compounded rate each year like others. Initially there will be 360 tokens minted at Mainnet with vesting periods between 1 and 10 years, with tokens gradually unlocking each quarter. The Circulating supply is 24.5 million AVAX with tokens gradually released each quater. The current market cap of AVAX is around $100 million.

Results

Avalanche’s AVAX with its fixed capped supply, deflationary pressure, very strong utility, potential to receive air drops and low market cap, means it scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot’s DOT also has very strong utility with the need for auctions to acquire parachain slots, but has no deflationary mechanisms, no fixed capped supply and already valued at $3.8 billion, therefore scores ✅✅. Cosmos’s ATOM token is only for the Cosmos Hub, of which there will be many hubs in the ecosystem and has very little utility currently. (this may improve once IBC is released and if Cosmos hub actually becomes the hub that people want to connect to and not something like Binance instead. There is no fixed capped supply and currently valued at $1.1 Billion, so scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/mels7myawpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=df9782e2c0a4c26b61e462746256bdf83b1fb906
All three are excellent projects and have similarities as well as many differences. Just to reiterate this article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions, you may have different criteria which is important to you, and score them differently. There won’t be one platform to rule them all however, with some uses cases better suited to one platform over another, and it’s not a zero-sum game. Blockchain is going to completely revolutionize industries and the Internet itself. The more projects researching and delivering breakthrough technology the better, each learning from each other and pushing each other to reach that goal earlier. The current market is a tiny speck of what’s in store in terms of value and adoption and it’s going to be exciting to watch it unfold.
https://preview.redd.it/dbb99egcwpq51.png?width=1388&format=png&auto=webp&s=aeb03127dc0dc74d0507328e899db1c7d7fc2879
For more information see the articles below (each with additional sources at the bottom of their articles)
Avalanche, a Revolutionary Consensus Engine and Platform. A Game Changer for Blockchain
Avalanche Consensus, The Biggest Breakthrough since Nakamoto
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two
Cosmos Hub ATOM Token and the commonly misunderstood staking tokens — Part Three
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One — Overview and Benefits
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two — How Consensus Works
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Three — Limitations and Issues
submitted by xSeq22x to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

can anyone explain the bitcoin hashing algorithm as implemented on graphics card miners?

submitted by masterm to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[CCS Results] Monero Atomic Swaps research

Hi Monero community!
Two months ago I posted a CCS for continuing my research on Monero Atomic Swaps. That research is now complete and I'm happy to present my results.
This post will be a summary of my research, but you can also find the whitepaper that describes the full protocol and all the details here.

Shiny BTC/XMR Atomic Swap Protocol!

We found it! With the help of the MRL, my colleagues, and the community, we created the first (to our knowledge) protocol to atomically swap bitcoin and monero. And this resulting protocol is implementable today - no more obscure crypto!

Why now? What changed?

When I started studying Monero for a Bitcoin/Monero atomic swap three and a half years ago, most of the swap protocols where based on 'Hash Time Locked Contract' (HTLC), something that we all know as non-existent on Monero. So the goal at the beginning of the project was to create an atomic swap where all the logic (timeouts, possible sequences of operation, secret disclosures, etc) is managed on the other chain: the Bitcoin chain.
The second difficulty with Monero and Bitcoin is their respective underlying cryptographic parameters: they don't share the same elliptic curve, they don't share the same signing algorithm; they have nothing in common! This makes the pair a bad candidate for other types of atomic swap that don't (solely) rely on HTLC.
In November 2018 we came up with a draft protocol that respects the above constraints. Thus, the protocol requires a specific type of zero-knowledge proof to be trustless: a hash pre-image zero-knowledge proof. This type of zkp is not wildly used in practice, if at all. Thus the protocol works in theory, but with some obscure crypto, making the protocol a bad candidate for an implementation.
In early 2020, after presenting the draft protocol at 36C3 in December 2019, I discovered, by reference from Sarang Noether (MRL), Andrew Poelstra's idea of doing a discrete logarithm equality across group zero-knowledge proof of knowledge (MRL-0010), meaning that we can prove some relations between elements in two different groups (two curves to simplify) and the paper by LLoyd Fournier on One-Time Verifiably Encrypted Signatures allowing secret disclosure with ECDSA.
With these two new (to me) cryptographic primitives, we were able to replace the previous zero-knowledge proof with a combination of the latter, making the protocol complete and practically feasible.

How it works

As a broad overview (and simplified) the protocol work as follow:
If the swap succeeds, A reveals to B, and if the swap is cancelled, B reveals to A. (We have a third scenario explained in the paper to force reaction and avoid deadlock.)

Next steps

The obvious next step would be to have a working implementation on mainnet, but a ready-to-use implementation that is also robust and safe-to-use requires a lot of engineering work. Furthermore, even though the cryptography is not too obscure, most of it still also lacks an implementation.
I'll post soon, if the community wants it, a CCS proposal to get my team and I to work on implementing this protocol, step by step, with the end goal of creating a working client/daemon for swapping Bitcoin and Monero. It would be very exciting to build that!

Conclusion

Thanks to the MRL and its researchers for their help, the CCS team, and the community for its support!
I hope I fulfilled the community's expectations for my my first CCS - all feedback is appreciated.
submitted by h4sh3d to Monero [link] [comments]

Zano Newcomers Introduction/FAQ - please read!

Welcome to the Zano Sticky Introduction/FAQ!

https://preview.redd.it/al1gy9t9v9q51.png?width=424&format=png&auto=webp&s=b29a60402d30576a4fd95f592b392fae202026ca
Hopefully any questions you have will be answered by the resources below, but if you have additional questions feel free to ask them in the comments. If you're quite technically-minded, the Zano whitepaper gives a thorough overview of Zano's design and its main features.
So, what is Zano? In brief, Zano is a project started by the original developers of CryptoNote. Coins with market caps totalling well over a billion dollars (Monero, Haven, Loki and countless others) run upon the codebase they created. Zano is a continuation of their efforts to create the "perfect money", and brings a wealth of enhancements to their original CryptoNote code.
Development happens at a lightning pace, as the Github activity shows, but Zano is still very much a work-in-progress. Let's cut right to it:
Here's why you should pay attention to Zano over the next 12-18 months. Quoting from a recent update:
Anton Sokolov has recently joined the Zano team. ... For the last months Anton has been working on theoretical work dedicated to log-size ring signatures. These signatures theoretically allows for a logarithmic relationship between the number of decoys and the size/performance of transactions. This means that we can set mixins at a level from up to 1000, keeping the reasonable size and processing speed of transactions. This will take Zano’s privacy to a whole new level, and we believe this technology will turn out to be groundbreaking!
If successful, this scheme will make Zano the most private, powerful and performant CryptoNote implementation on the planet. Bar none. A quantum leap in privacy with a minimal increase in resource usage. And if there's one team capable of pulling it off, it's this one.

What else makes Zano special?

You mean aside from having "the Godfather of CryptoNote" as the project lead? ;) Actually, the calibre of the developers/researchers at Zano probably is the project's single greatest strength. Drawing on years of experience, they've made careful design choices, optimizing performance with an asynchronous core architecture, and flexibility and extensibility with a modular code structure. This means that the developers are able to build and iterate fast, refining features and adding new ones at a rate that makes bigger and better-funded teams look sluggish at best.
Zano also has some unique features that set it apart from similar projects:
Privacy Firstly, if you're familiar with CryptoNote you won't be surprised that Zano transactions are private. The perfect money is fungible, and therefore must be untraceable. Bitcoin, for the most part, does little to hide your transaction data from unscrupulous observers. With Zano, privacy is the default.
The untraceability and unlinkability of Zano transactions come from its use of ring signatures and stealth addresses. What this means is that no outside observer is able to tell if two transactions were sent to the same address, and for each transaction there is a set of possible senders that make it impossible to determine who the real sender is.
Hybrid PoW-PoS consensus mechanism Zano achieves an optimal level of security by utilizing both Proof of Work and Proof of Stake for consensus. By combining the two systems, it mitigates their individual vulnerabilities (see 51% attack and "nothing at stake" problem). For an attack on Zano to have even a remote chance of success the attacker would have to obtain not only a majority of hashing power, but also a majority of the coins involved in staking. The system and its design considerations are discussed at length in the whitepaper.
Aliases Here's a stealth address: ZxDdULdxC7NRFYhCGdxkcTZoEGQoqvbZqcDHj5a7Gad8Y8wZKAGZZmVCUf9AvSPNMK68L8r8JfAfxP4z1GcFQVCS2Jb9wVzoe. I have a hard enough time remembering my phone number. Fortunately, Zano has an alias system that lets you register an address to a human-readable name. (@orsonj if you want to anonymously buy me a coffee)
Multisig
Multisignature (multisig) refers to requiring multiple keys to authorize a Zano transaction. It has a number of applications, such as dividing up responsibility for a single Zano wallet among multiple parties, or creating backups where loss of a single seed doesn't lead to loss of the wallet.
Multisig and escrow are key components of the planned Decentralized Marketplace (see below), so consideration was given to each of them from the design stages. Thus Zano's multisig, rather than being tagged on at the wallet-level as an afterthought, is part of its its core architecture being incorporated at the protocol level. This base-layer integration means months won't be spent in the future on complicated refactoring efforts in order to integrate multisig into a codebase that wasn't designed for it. Plus, it makes it far easier for third-party developers to include multisig (implemented correctly) in any Zano wallets and applications they create in the future.
(Double Deposit MAD) Escrow
With Zano's escrow service you can create fully customizable p2p contracts that are designed to, once signed by participants, enforce adherence to their conditions in such a way that no trusted third-party escrow agent is required.
https://preview.redd.it/jp4oghyhv9q51.png?width=1762&format=png&auto=webp&s=12a1e76f76f902ed328886283050e416db3838a5
The Particl project, aside from a couple of minor differences, uses an escrow scheme that works the same way, so I've borrowed the term they coined ("Double Deposit MAD Escrow") as I think it describes the scheme perfectly. The system requires participants to make additional deposits, which they will forfeit if there is any attempt to act in a way that breaches the terms of the contract. Full details can be found in the Escrow section of the whitepaper.
The usefulness of multisig and the escrow system may not seem obvious at first, but as mentioned before they'll form the backbone of Zano's Decentralized Marketplace service (described in the next section).

What does the future hold for Zano?

The planned upgrade to Zano's privacy, mentioned at the start, is obviously one of the most exciting things the team is working on, but it's not the only thing.
Zano Roadmap
Decentralized Marketplace
From the beginning, the Zano team's goal has been to create the perfect money. And money can't just be some vehicle for speculative investment, money must be used. To that end, the team have created a set of tools to make it as simple as possible for Zano to be integrated into eCommerce platforms. Zano's API’s and plugins are easy to use, allowing even those with very little coding experience to use them in their E-commerce-related ventures. The culmination of this effort will be a full Decentralized Anonymous Marketplace built on top of the Zano blockchain. Rather than being accessed via the wallet, it will act more as a service - Marketplace as a Service (MAAS) - for anyone who wishes to use it. The inclusion of a simple "snippet" of code into a website is all that's needed to become part a global decentralized, trustless and private E-commerce network.
Atomic Swaps
Just as Zano's marketplace will allow you to transact without needing to trust your counterparty, atomic swaps will let you to easily convert between Zano and other cyryptocurrencies without having to trust a third-party service such as a centralized exchange. On top of that, it will also lead to the way to Zano's inclusion in the many decentralized exchange (DEX) services that have emerged in recent years.

Where can I buy Zano?

Zano's currently listed on the following exchanges:
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/zano/markets/
It goes without saying, neither I nor the Zano team work for any of the exchanges or can vouch for their reliability. Use at your own risk and never leave coins on a centralized exchange for longer than necessary. Your keys, your coins!
If you have any old graphics cards lying around(both AMD & NVIDIA), then Zano is also mineable through its unique ProgPowZ algorithm. Here's a guide on how to get started.
Once you have some Zano, you can safely store it in one of the desktop or mobile wallets (available for all major platforms).

How can I support Zano?

Zano has no marketing department, which is why this post has been written by some guy and not the "Chief Growth Engineer @ Zano Enterprises". The hard part is already done: there's a team of world class developers and researchers gathered here. But, at least at the current prices, the team's funds are enough to cover the cost of development and little more. So the job of publicizing the project falls to the community. If you have any experience in community building/growth hacking at another cryptocurrency or open source project, or if you're a Zano holder who would like to ensure the project's long-term success by helping to spread the word, then send me a pm. We need to get organized.
Researchers and developers are also very welcome. Working at the cutting edge of mathematics and cryptography means Zano provides challenging and rewarding work for anyone in those fields. Please contact the project's Community Manager u/Jed_T if you're interested in joining the team.
Social Links:
Twitter
Discord Server
Telegram Group
Medium blog
I'll do my best to keep this post accurate and up to date. Message me please with any suggested improvements and leave any questions you have below.
Welcome to the Zano community and the new decentralized private economy!
submitted by OrsonJ to Zano [link] [comments]

August / September monthly report from v1docq47 (CCS + XRM.RU)

This is my monthly progress report (CCS.html) + XMR.RU).
Below is a list of what has been done and translated into Russian for two months of my work.

Monero Video (YouTube)

The following video posted on Monero Russian Community YouTube Channel.

Weekly News:

Short Q&A about Monero:

Monero into Russian (Translation)

The following articles / guides have been translated into Russian and posted on the XMR.RU website and my Github repository.
Note: If you would like to read the original article in English, then, open the article you are interested in, and at the end of each article you will find a link to the source.

Critical Decentralisation Cluster 36c3 (transcriptions (EN + RU) + translation (RU)):

01 - Monero Introduction (Diego "rehrar" Salazar) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 02 - RIAT Introduction (parasew) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 03 - Swiss Cryptoeconomics Assembly (polto, Ome) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 04 - Namecoin Introduction (Jeremy Rand) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 05 - Open Hardware developed at FOSSASIA (Mario Behling) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 06 - Paralelni Polis (Juraj Bednar) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 07 - Introduction to Replicant (dllud, Denis ‘GNUtoo’ Carikli)​ | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 08 - Open Source Hardware and OSHWA (Drew Fustini) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 09 - ImplicitCAD (Juila Longtin) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 10 - Program in Detail | Transcriptions - EN / RU / XMR.RU 11 - about:freedom (Bonnie Mehring, Blipp)​ | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 13 - Funding Models of FOSS (Diego “rehrar” Salazar) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 14 - The Sharp Forks We Follow​ | Transcriptions - EN / RU / XMR.RU 16 - P2P Trading in Cryptoanarchy | Transcriptions - EN / RU / XMR.RU 17 - Monero’s Adaptive Blockweight Approach to Scaling | Transcriptions - EN / RU / XMR.RU 18 - Nym (Harry Halpin)​ | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 19 - Digital Integrity of the Human Person | Transcriptions - EN / RU / XMR.RU 20 - cyber~Congress (Sergey Simanovsky) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 21 - KYC & Crypto-AML Tools (polto) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 22 - Parallel Polis, Temporary Autonomous Zones and Beyond | Transcriptions - EN / RU 23 - MandelBot:HAB - Open Source Ecotecture and Horizontalism | Transcriptions - EN / RU 24 - Adventures and Experiments Adding Namecoin to Tor Browser | Transcriptions - EN / RU 25 - Fair Data Society (Gregor Zavcer) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 45 - Designing a Communal Computing Interface | Transcriptions - EN / RU / XMR.RU 47 - Hackatoshi’s Flying Circuit | Transcriptions - EN / RU / XMR.RU

Zero to Monero - Second Edition

https://www.overleaf.com/read/hcmqnvgtfmyh - Chapter 00 - Abstract - Chapter 01 - Introduction - Chapter 02 - Basic Concepts - Chapter 03 - Advanced Schnorr-like Signatures

Monero Outreach Articles

Getmonero.org Posts Blog

LocalMonero Articles

Note: You need "Change Language" to Russian - Why Monero Has A Tail Emission - How CLSAG Will Improve Monero's Efficiency - How Monero Solved the Block Size Problem That Plagues Bitcoin - How Ring Signatures Obscure Monero's Outputs - Monero Best Practices for Beginners - Monero Outputs Explained

Monero Meeting logs

CCS Result / Report

Monero News

Other Articles

Pull / Merge Request

Monero Project Translations (Weblate)

Thanks for your support!
submitted by v1docq47 to Monero [link] [comments]

[ CryptoCurrency ] Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot

[ 🔴 DELETED 🔴 ] Topic originally posted in CryptoCurrency by xSeq22x [link]
A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important.
For better formatting see https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b
https://preview.redd.it/lg16iwk2dhq51.png?width=428&format=png&auto=webp&s=6c899ee69800dd6c5e2900d8fa83de7a43c57086

Overview

Cosmos

Cosmos is a heterogeneous network of many independent parallel blockchains, each powered by classical BFT consensus algorithms like Tendermint. Developers can easily build custom application specific blockchains, called Zones, through the Cosmos SDK framework. These Zones connect to Hubs, which are specifically designed to connect zones together.
The vision of Cosmos is to have thousands of Zones and Hubs that are Interoperable through the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC). Cosmos can also connect to other systems through peg zones, which are specifically designed zones that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Cosmos does not use Sharding with each Zone and Hub being sovereign with their own validator set.
For a more in-depth look at Cosmos and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
https://youtu.be/Eb8xkDi_PUg

Polkadot

Polkadot is a heterogeneous blockchain protocol that connects multiple specialised blockchains into one unified network. It achieves scalability through a sharding infrastructure with multiple blockchains running in parallel, called parachains, that connect to a central chain called the Relay Chain. Developers can easily build custom application specific parachains through the Substrate development framework.
The relay chain validates the state transition of connected parachains, providing shared state across the entire ecosystem. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. This is to ensure that the validity of the entire system can persist, and no individual part is corruptible. The shared state makes it so that the trust assumptions when using parachains are only those of the Relay Chain validator set, and no other. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. The hope is to have 100 parachains connect to the relay chain.
For a more in-depth look at Polkadot and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
https://youtu.be/_-k0xkooSlA

Avalanche

Avalanche is a platform of platforms, ultimately consisting of thousands of subnets to form a heterogeneous interoperable network of many blockchains, that takes advantage of the revolutionary Avalanche Consensus protocols to provide a secure, globally distributed, interoperable and trustless framework offering unprecedented decentralisation whilst being able to comply with regulatory requirements.
Avalanche allows anyone to create their own tailor-made application specific blockchains, supporting multiple custom virtual machines such as EVM and WASM and written in popular languages like Go (with others coming in the future) rather than lightly used, poorly-understood languages like Solidity. This virtual machine can then be deployed on a custom blockchain network, called a subnet, which consist of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance.
Avalanche was built with serving financial markets in mind. It has native support for easily creating and trading digital smart assets with complex custom rule sets that define how the asset is handled and traded to ensure regulatory compliance can be met. Interoperability is enabled between blockchains within a subnet as well as between subnets. Like Cosmos and Polkadot, Avalanche is also able to connect to other systems through bridges, through custom virtual machines made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin.
For a more in-depth look at Avalanche and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see here and here
https://youtu.be/mWBzFmzzBAg

Comparison between Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche

A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions. I want to stress that it’s not a case of one platform being the killer of all other platforms, far from it. There won’t be one platform to rule them all, and too often the tribalism has plagued this space. Blockchains are going to completely revolutionise most industries and have a profound effect on the world we know today. It’s still very early in this space with most adoption limited to speculation and trading mainly due to the limitations of Blockchain and current iteration of Ethereum, which all three of these platforms hope to address. For those who just want a quick summary see the image at the bottom of the article. With that said let’s have a look

Scalability

Cosmos

Each Zone and Hub in Cosmos is capable of up to around 1000 transactions per second with bandwidth being the bottleneck in consensus. Cosmos aims to have thousands of Zones and Hubs all connected through IBC. There is no limit on the number of Zones / Hubs that can be created

Polkadot

Parachains in Polkadot are also capable of up to around 1500 transactions per second. A portion of the parachain slots on the Relay Chain will be designated as part of the parathread pool, the performance of a parachain is split between many parathreads offering lower performance and compete amongst themselves in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. The number of parachains is limited by the number of validators on the relay chain, they hope to be able to achieve 100 parachains.

Avalanche

Avalanche is capable of around 4500 transactions per second per subnet, this is based on modest hardware requirements to ensure maximum decentralisation of just 2 CPU cores and 4 GB of Memory and with a validator size of over 2,000 nodes. Performance is CPU-bound and if higher performance is required then more specialised subnets can be created with higher minimum requirements to be able to achieve 10,000 tps+ in a subnet. Avalanche aims to have thousands of subnets (each with multiple virtual machines / blockchains) all interoperable with each other. There is no limit on the number of Subnets that can be created.

Results

All three platforms offer vastly superior performance to the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0. Avalanche with its higher transactions per second, no limit on the number of subnets / blockchains that can be created and the consensus can scale to potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot claims to offer more tps than cosmos, but is limited to the number of parachains (around 100) whereas with Cosmos there is no limit on the number of hubs / zones that can be created. Cosmos is limited to a fairly small validator size of around 200 before performance degrades whereas Polkadot hopes to be able to reach 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit only a small number of validators are assigned to each parachain). Thus Cosmos and Polkadot scores ✅✅
https://preview.redd.it/ththwq5qdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=92f75152c90d984911db88ed174ebf3a147ca70d

Decentralisation

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus is limited to around 200 validators before performance starts to degrade. Whilst there is the Cosmos Hub it is one of many hubs in the network and there is no central hub or limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created.

Polkadot

Polkadot has 1000 validators in the relay chain and these are split up into a small number that validate each parachain (minimum of 14). The relay chain is a central point of failure as all parachains connect to it and the number of parachains is limited depending on the number of validators (they hope to achieve 100 parachains). Due to the limited number of parachain slots available, significant sums of DOT will need to be purchased to win an auction to lease the slot for up to 24 months at a time. Thus likely to lead to only those with enough funds to secure a parachain slot. Parathreads are however an alternative for those that require less and more varied performance for those that can’t secure a parachain slot.

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus scan scale to tens of thousands of validators, even potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus through repeated sub-sampling. The more validators, the faster the network becomes as the load is split between them. There are modest hardware requirements so anyone can run a node and there is no limit on the number of subnets / virtual machines that can be created.

Results

Avalanche offers unparalleled decentralisation using its revolutionary consensus protocols that can scale to millions of validators all participating in consensus at the same time. There is no limit to the number of subnets and virtual machines that can be created, and they can be created by anyone for a small fee, it scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is limited to 200 validators but no limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created, which anyone can create and scores ✅✅. Polkadot hopes to accommodate 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit these are split amongst each of the parachains). The number of parachains is limited and maybe cost prohibitive for many and the relay chain is a ultimately a single point of failure. Whilst definitely not saying it’s centralised and it is more decentralised than many others, just in comparison between the three, it scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/lv2h7g9sdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=56eada6e8c72dbb4406d7c5377ad15608bcc730e

Latency

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus used in Cosmos reaches finality within 6 seconds. Cosmos consists of many Zones and Hubs that connect to each other. Communication between 2 zones could pass through many hubs along the way, thus also can contribute to latency times depending on the path taken as explained in part two of the articles on Cosmos. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Polkadot

Polkadot provides a Hybrid consensus protocol consisting of Block producing protocol, BABE, and then a finality gadget called GRANDPA that works to agree on a chain, out of many possible forks, by following some simpler fork choice rule. Rather than voting on every block, instead it reaches agreements on chains. As soon as more than 2/3 of validators attest to a chain containing a certain block, all blocks leading up to that one are finalized at once.
If an invalid block is detected after it has been finalised then the relay chain would need to be reverted along with every parachain. This is particularly important when connecting to external blockchains as those don’t share the state of the relay chain and thus can’t be rolled back. The longer the time period, the more secure the network is, as there is more time for additional checks to be performed and reported but at the expense of finality. Finality is reached within 60 seconds between parachains but for external ecosystems like Ethereum their state obviously can’t be rolled back like a parachain and so finality will need to be much longer (60 minutes was suggested in the whitepaper) and discussed in more detail in part three

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus achieves finality within 3 seconds, with most happening sub 1 second, immutable and completely irreversible. Any subnet can connect directly to another without having to go through multiple hops and any VM can talk to another VM within the same subnet as well as external subnets. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Results

With regards to performance far too much emphasis is just put on tps as a metric, the other equally important metric, if not more important with regards to finance is latency. Throughput measures the amount of data at any given time that it can handle whereas latency is the amount of time it takes to perform an action. It’s pointless saying you can process more transactions per second than VISA when it takes 60 seconds for a transaction to complete. Low latency also greatly increases general usability and customer satisfaction, nowadays everyone expects card payments, online payments to happen instantly. Avalanche achieves the best results scoring ✅✅✅, Cosmos with comes in second with 6 second finality ✅✅ and Polkadot with 60 second finality (which may be 60 minutes for external blockchains) scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/qe8e5ltudhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=18a2866104590f81a818690337f9121161dda890

Shared Security

Cosmos

Every Zone and Hub in Cosmos has their own validator set and different trust assumptions. Cosmos are researching a shared security model where a Hub can validate the state of connected zones for a fee but not released yet. Once available this will make shared security optional rather than mandatory.

Polkadot

Shared Security is mandatory with Polkadot which uses a Shared State infrastructure between the Relay Chain and all of the connected parachains. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. Every parachain makes the same trust assumptions, and as such the relay chain validates state transition and enables seamless interoperability between them. In return for this benefit, they have to purchase DOT and win an auction for one of the available parachain slots.
However, parachains can’t just rely on the relay chain for their security, they will also need to implement censorship resistance measures and utilise proof of work / proof of stake for each parachain as well as discussed in part three, thus parachains can’t just rely on the security of the relay chain, they need to ensure sybil resistance mechanisms using POW and POS are implemented on the parachain as well.

Avalanche

A subnet in Avalanche consists of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. So unlike in Cosmos where each zone / hub has their own validators, A subnet can validate a single or many virtual machines / blockchains with a single validator set. Shared security is optional

Results

Shared security is mandatory in polkadot and a key design decision in its infrastructure. The relay chain validates the state transition of all connected parachains and thus scores ✅✅✅. Subnets in Avalanche can validate state of either a single or many virtual machines. Each subnet can have their own token and shares a validator set, where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. It scores ✅ ✅. Every Zone and Hub in cosmos has their own validator set / token but research is underway to have the hub validate the state transition of connected zones, but as this is still early in the research phase scores ✅ for now.
https://preview.redd.it/0mnvpnzwdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=8927ff2821415817265be75c59261f83851a2791

Current Adoption

Cosmos

The Cosmos project started in 2016 with an ICO held in April 2017. There are currently around 50 projects building on the Cosmos SDK with a full list can be seen here and filtering for Cosmos SDK . Not all of the projects will necessarily connect using native cosmos sdk and IBC and some have forked parts of the Cosmos SDK and utilise the tendermint consensus such as Binance Chain but have said they will connect in the future.

Polkadot

The Polkadot project started in 2016 with an ICO held in October 2017. There are currently around 70 projects building on Substrate and a full list can be seen here and filtering for Substrate Based. Like with Cosmos not all projects built using substrate will necessarily connect to Polkadot and parachains or parathreads aren’t currently implemented in either the Live or Test network (Kusama) as of the time of this writing.

Avalanche

Avalanche in comparison started much later with Ava Labs being founded in 2018. Avalanche held it’s ICO in July 2020. Due to lot shorter time it has been in development, the number of projects confirmed are smaller with around 14 projects currently building on Avalanche. Due to the customisability of the platform though, many virtual machines can be used within a subnet making the process incredibly easy to port projects over. As an example, it will launch with the Ethereum Virtual Machine which enables byte for byte compatibility and all the tooling like Metamask, Truffle etc. will work, so projects can easily move over to benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. In the future Cosmos and Substrate virtual machines could be implemented on Avalanche.

Results

Whilst it’s still early for all 3 projects (and the entire blockchain space as a whole), there is currently more projects confirmed to be building on Cosmos and Polkadot, mostly due to their longer time in development. Whilst Cosmos has fewer projects, zones are implemented compared to Polkadot which doesn’t currently have parachains. IBC to connect zones and hubs together is due to launch Q2 2021, thus both score ✅✅✅. Avalanche has been in development for a lot shorter time period, but is launching with an impressive feature set right from the start with ability to create subnets, VMs, assets, NFTs, permissioned and permissionless blockchains, cross chain atomic swaps within a subnet, smart contracts, bridge to Ethereum etc. Applications can easily port over from other platforms and use all the existing tooling such as Metamask / Truffle etc but benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. Currently though just based on the number of projects in comparison it scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/rsctxi6zdhq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=ff762dea3cfc2aaaa3c8fc7b1070d5be6759aac2

Enterprise Adoption

Cosmos

Cosmos enables permissioned and permissionless zones which can connect to each other with the ability to have full control over who validates the blockchain. For permissionless zones each zone / hub can have their own token and they are in control who validates.

Polkadot

With polkadot the state transition is performed by a small randomly selected assigned group of validators from the relay chain plus with the possibility that state is rolled back if an invalid transaction of any of the other parachains is found. This may pose a problem for enterprises that need complete control over who performs validation for regulatory reasons. In addition due to the limited number of parachain slots available Enterprises would have to acquire and lock up large amounts of a highly volatile asset (DOT) and have the possibility that they are outbid in future auctions and find they no longer can have their parachain validated and parathreads don’t provide the guaranteed performance requirements for the application to function.

Avalanche

Avalanche enables permissioned and permissionless subnets and complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. For example a subnet can be created where its mandatory that all validators are from a certain legal jurisdiction, or they hold a specific license and regulated by the SEC etc. Subnets are also able to scale to tens of thousands of validators, and even potentially millions of nodes, all participating in consensus so every enterprise can run their own node rather than only a small amount. Enterprises don’t have to hold large amounts of a highly volatile asset, but instead pay a fee in AVAX for the creation of the subnets and blockchains which is burnt.

Results

Avalanche provides the customisability to run private permissioned blockchains as well as permissionless where the enterprise is in control over who validates the blockchain, with the ability to use complex rulesets to meet regulatory compliance, thus scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is also able to run permissioned and permissionless zones / hubs so enterprises have full control over who validates a blockchain and scores ✅✅. Polkadot requires locking up large amounts of a highly volatile asset with the possibility of being outbid by competitors and being unable to run the application if the guaranteed performance is required and having to migrate away. The relay chain validates the state transition and can roll back the parachain should an invalid block be detected on another parachain, thus scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/7phaylb1ehq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=d86d2ec49de456403edbaf27009ed0e25609fbff

Interoperability

Cosmos

Cosmos will connect Hubs and Zones together through its IBC protocol (due to release in Q1 2020). Connecting to blockchains outside of the Cosmos ecosystem would either require the connected blockchain to fork their code to implement IBC or more likely a custom “Peg Zone” will be created specific to work with a particular blockchain it’s trying to bridge to such as Ethereum etc. Each Zone and Hub has different trust levels and connectivity between 2 zones can have different trust depending on which path it takes (this is discussed more in this article). Finality time is low at 6 seconds, but depending on the number of hops, this can increase significantly.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s shared state means each parachain that connects shares the same trust assumptions, of the relay chain validators and that if one blockchain needs to be reverted, all of them will need to be reverted. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Finality time between parachains is around 60 seconds, but longer will be needed (initial figures of 60 minutes in the whitepaper) for connecting to external blockchains. Thus limiting the appeal of connecting two external ecosystems together through Polkadot. Polkadot is also limited in the number of Parachain slots available, thus limiting the amount of blockchains that can be bridged. Parathreads could be used for lower performance bridges, but the speed of future blockchains is only going to increase.

Avalanche

A subnet can validate multiple virtual machines / blockchains and all blockchains within a subnet share the same trust assumptions / validator set, enabling cross chain interoperability. Interoperability is also possible between any other subnet, with the hope Avalanche will consist of thousands of subnets. Each subnet may have a different trust level, but as the primary network consists of all validators then this can be used as a source of trust if required. As Avalanche supports many virtual machines, bridges to other ecosystems are created by running the connected virtual machine. There will be an Ethereum bridge using the EVM shortly after mainnet. Finality time is much faster at sub 3 seconds (with most happening under 1 second) with no chance of rolling back so more appealing when connecting to external blockchains.

Results

All 3 systems are able to perform interoperability within their ecosystem and transfer assets as well as data, as well as use bridges to connect to external blockchains. Cosmos has different trust levels between its zones and hubs and can create issues depending on which path it takes and additional latency added. Polkadot provides the same trust assumptions for all connected parachains but has long finality and limited number of parachain slots available. Avalanche provides the same trust assumptions for all blockchains within a subnet, and different trust levels between subnets. However due to the primary network consisting of all validators it can be used for trust. Avalanche also has a much faster finality time with no limitation on the number of blockchains / subnets / bridges that can be created. Overall all three blockchains excel with interoperability within their ecosystem and each score ✅✅.
https://preview.redd.it/l775gue3ehq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=b7c4b5802ceb1a9307bd2a8d65f393d1bcb0d7c6

Tokenomics

Cosmos

The ATOM token is the native token for the Cosmos Hub. It is commonly mistaken by people that think it’s the token used throughout the cosmos ecosystem, whereas it’s just used for one of many hubs in Cosmos, each with their own token. Currently ATOM has little utility as IBC isn’t released and has no connections to other zones / hubs. Once IBC is released zones may prefer to connect to a different hub instead and so ATOM is not used. ATOM isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for ATOM as of the time of this writing is $1 Billion with 203 million circulating supply. Rewards can be earnt through staking to offset the dilution caused by inflation. Delegators can also get slashed and lose a portion of their ATOM should the validator misbehave.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s native token is DOT and it’s used to secure the Relay Chain. Each parachain needs to acquire sufficient DOT to win an auction on an available parachain lease period of up to 24 months at a time. Parathreads have a fixed fee for registration that would realistically be much lower than the cost of acquiring a parachain slot and compete with other parathreads in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. DOT isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for DOT as of the time of this writing is $4.4 Billion with 852 million circulating supply. Delegators can also get slashed and lose their DOT (potentially 100% of their DOT for serious attacks) should the validator misbehave.

Avalanche

AVAX is the native token for the primary network in Avalanche. Every validator of any subnet also has to validate the primary network and stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX. There is no limit to the number of validators like other consensus methods then this can cater for tens of thousands even potentially millions of validators. As every validator validates the primary network, this can be a source of trust for interoperability between subnets as well as connecting to other ecosystems, thus increasing amount of transaction fees of AVAX. There is no slashing in Avalanche, so there is no risk to lose your AVAX when selecting a validator, instead rewards earnt for staking can be slashed should the validator misbehave. Because Avalanche doesn’t have direct slashing, it is technically possible for someone to both stake AND deliver tokens for something like a flash loan, under the invariant that all tokens that are staked are returned, thus being able to make profit with staked tokens outside of staking itself.
There will also be a separate subnet for Athereum which is a ‘spoon,’ or friendly fork, of Ethereum, which benefits from the Avalanche consensus protocol and applications in the Ethereum ecosystem. It’s native token ATH will be airdropped to ETH holders as well as potentially AVAX holders as well. This can be done for other blockchains as well.
Transaction fees on the primary network for all 3 of the blockchains as well as subscription fees for creating a subnet and blockchain are paid in AVAX and are burnt, creating deflationary pressure. AVAX is a fixed capped supply of 720 million tokens, creating scarcity rather than an unlimited supply which continuously increase of tokens at a compounded rate each year like others. Initially there will be 360 tokens minted at Mainnet with vesting periods between 1 and 10 years, with tokens gradually unlocking each quarter. The Circulating supply is 24.5 million AVAX with tokens gradually released each quater. The current market cap of AVAX is around $100 million.

Results

Avalanche’s AVAX with its fixed capped supply, deflationary pressure, very strong utility, potential to receive air drops and low market cap, means it scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot’s DOT also has very strong utility with the need for auctions to acquire parachain slots, but has no deflationary mechanisms, no fixed capped supply and already valued at $3.8 billion, therefore scores ✅✅. Cosmos’s ATOM token is only for the Cosmos Hub, of which there will be many hubs in the ecosystem and has very little utility currently. (this may improve once IBC is released and if Cosmos hub actually becomes the hub that people want to connect to and not something like Binance instead. There is no fixed capped supply and currently valued at $1.1 Billion, so scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/zb72eto5ehq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=0ee102a2881d763296ad9ffba20667f531d2fd7a
All three are excellent projects and have similarities as well as many differences. Just to reiterate this article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions, you may have different criteria which is important to you, and score them differently. There won’t be one platform to rule them all however, with some uses cases better suited to one platform over another, and it’s not a zero-sum game. Blockchain is going to completely revolutionize industries and the Internet itself. The more projects researching and delivering breakthrough technology the better, each learning from each other and pushing each other to reach that goal earlier. The current market is a tiny speck of what’s in store in terms of value and adoption and it’s going to be exciting to watch it unfold.
https://preview.redd.it/fwi3clz7ehq51.png?width=1388&format=png&auto=webp&s=c91c1645a4c67defd5fc3aaec84f4a765e1c50b6
xSeq22x your post has been copied because one or more comments in this topic have been removed. This copy will preserve unmoderated topic. If you would like to opt-out, please send a message using [this link].
submitted by anticensor_bot to u/anticensor_bot [link] [comments]

I built a decentralized legal-binding smart contract system. I need peer reviewers and whitepaper proof readers. Help greatly appreciated!

I posted this on /cryptotechnology . It attracted quite a bit of upvotes but not many potential contributors. Someone mentioned I should try this sub. I read the rules and it seems to fit within them. Hope this kind of post is alright here...
EDIT: My mother language is french (I'm from Montreal/Canada). Please excuse any blatant grammatical errors.
TLDR: I built a decentralized legal-binding smart contract system. I need peer reviewers and whitepaper proof readers. If you're interested, send me an email to discuss: [email protected] . Thanks in advance!
Hi guys,
For the last few years, I've been working on a decentralized legal-binding contract system. Basically, I created a PoW blockchain software that can receive a hash as an address, and another hash as a bucket, in each transaction.
The address hash is used to tell a specific entity (application/contract/company/person, etc) that uses the blockchain that this transaction might be addressed to them. The bucket hash simply tells the nodes which hashtree of files they need to download in order to execute that contract.
The buckets are shared within the network of nodes. Someone could, for example, write a contract with a series of nodes in order to host their data for them. Buckets can hold any kind of data, and can be of any size... including encrypted data.
The blockchain's blocks are chained together using a mining system similar to bitcoin (hashcash algorithm). Each block contains transactions. The requested difficulty increases when the amount of transactions in a block increases, linearly. Then, when a block is mined properly, another smaller mining effort is requested to link the block to the network's head block.
To replace a block, you need to create another block with more transactions than the amount that were transacted in and after the mined block.
I expect current payment processors to begin accepting transactions and mine them for their customers and make money with fees, in parallel. Using such a mechanism, miners will need to have a lot of bandwidth available in order to keep downloading the blocks of other miners, just like the current payment processors.
The contracts is code written in our custom programming language. Their code is pushed using a transaction, and hosted in buckets. Like you can see, the contract's data are off-chain, only its bucket hash is on-chain. The contract can be used to listen to events that occurs on the blockchain, in any buckets hosted by nodes or on any website that can be crawled and parsed in the contract.
There is also an identity system and a vouching system...which enable the creation of soft-money (promise of future payment in hard money (our cryptocurrency) if a series of events arrive).
The contracts can also be compiled to a legal-binding framework and be potentially be used in court. The contracts currently compile to english and french only.
I also built a browser that contains a 3D viewport, using OpenGL. The browser contains a domain name system (DNS) in form of contracts. Anyone can buy a new domain by creating a transaction with a bucket that contains code to reserve a specific name. When a user request a domain name, it discovers the bucket that is attached to the domain, download that bucket and executes its scripts... which renders in the 3D viewport.
When people interact with an application, the application can create contracts on behalf of the user and send them to the blockchain via a transaction. This enables normal users (non-developers) to interact with others using legal contracts, by using a GUI software.
The hard money (cryptocurrency) is all pre-mined and will be sold to entities (people/company) that want to use the network. The hard money can be re-sold using the contract proposition system, for payment in cash or a bank transfer. The fiat funds will go to my company in order to create services that use this specific network of contracts. The goal is to use the funds to make the network grow and increase its demand in hard money. For now, we plan to create:
A logistic and transportation company
A delivery company
A company that buy and sell real estate options
A company that manage real estate
A software development company
A world-wide fiat money transfer company
A payment processor company
We chose these niche because our team has a lot of experience in these areas: we currently run companies in these fields. These niche also generate a lot of revenue and expenses, making the value of exchanges high. We expect this to drive volume in contracts, soft-money and hard-money exchanges.
We also plan to use the funds to create a venture capital fund that invests in startups that wants to create contracts on our network to execute a specific service in a specific niche.
I'm about to release the software open source very soon and begin executing our commercial activities on the network. Before launching, I'd like to open a discussion with the community regarding the details of how this software works and how it is explained in the whitepaper.
If you'd like to read the whitepaper and open a discussion with me regarding how things work, please send me an email at [email protected] .
If you have any comment, please comment below and Ill try to answer every question. Please note that before peer-reviewing the software and the whitepaper, I'd like to keep the specific details of the software private, but can discuss the general details. A release date will be given once my work has been peer reviewed.
Thanks all in advance!
P.S: This project is not a competition to bitcoin. My goal with this project is to enable companies to write contracts together, easily follow events that are executed in their contracts, understand what to expect from their partnership and what they need to give in order to receive their share of deals... and sell their contracts that they no longer need to other community members.
Bitcoin already has a network of people that uses it. It has its own value. In fact, I plan to create contracts on our network to exchange value from our network for bitcoin and vice-versa. Same for any commodity and currency that currently exits in this world.
submitted by steve-rodrigue to compsci [link] [comments]

Is time to buy Microsoft stock for GPT3?

Microsoft have GTP3 license now, I think GPT3 will change world, at least change stock. Like bitcoin, any stock relevant to blockchain can rise twice in one night in 2017. Gpt3 is much more important than blockchain, I think such thing may be happen again with gpt3.
Let me explain more about my understanding for gpt3, correct me if wrong.
1, Gpt3 use more much resouce to run than normal face recognize algorithm, so it need much more graphic cards, it is good for nvdia. But it use text data, instead face image, text is easy to get in Internet, so it easy to reproduce the software(not like face recognize, it need to collect many face images, which is hard working), it is bad for Microsoft, because any company can copy the model.
2, As far as I can found, gpt3 can use many place, such as searching data, note-taking, advertising, write novel, coding, chat bot etc, so it will show power in many domains in next year quickly, and if I want to make profit from gpt3, next year will be crucial.
Next problem is how to buy stock, I just make some strategies:
1, Buy microsoft and nvidia stock and option now, drawback is thing change may be slower than I expected, alought microsoft seem to ready to work hard in gpt3.
2, Wait for market crash or microsoft and nvdia stock price signal, and then buy the stock and option, now the stock seem to miss including the gpt3 power, so wait a minute for a better chance may be better.
3, Wait for a another smaller company using gpt3 and buy their stock, like AI Dungeons . Because microsoft is too big, a pure gpt3 company stock may be rise much more.
I think missing opportunity of Gpt3 growth is painful, it will like missing mobile market growth in 2008.
submitted by nillouise to singularity [link] [comments]

Stakenet (XSN) - A DEX with interchain capabilities (BTC-ETH), Huge Potential [Full Writeup]

Preface
Full disclosure here; I am heavily invested in this. I have picked up some real gems from here and was only in the position to buy so much of this because of you guys so I thought it was time to give back. I only invest in Utility Coins. These are coins that actually DO something, and provide new/build upon the crypto infrastructure to work towards the end goal that Bitcoin itself set out to achieve(financial independence from the fiat banking system). This way, I avoid 99% of the scams in crypto that are functionless vapourware, and if you only invest in things that have strong fundamentals in the long term you are much more likely to make money.
Introduction
Stakenet is a Lightning Network-ready open-source platform for decentralized applications with its native cryptocurrency – XSN. It is powered by a Proof of Stake blockchain with trustless cold staking and Masternodes. Its use case is to provide a highly secure cross-chain infrastructure for these decentralized applications, where individuals can easily operate with any blockchain simply by using Stakenet and its native currency XSN.
Ok... but what does it actually do and solve?
The moonshot here is the DEX (Decentralised Exchange) that they are building. This is a lightning-network DEX with interchain capabilities. That means you could trade BTC directly for ETH; securely, instantly, cheaply and privately.
Right now, most crypto is traded to and from Centralised Exchanges like Binance. To buy and sell on these exchanges, you have to send your crypto wallets on that exchange. That means the exchanges have your private keys, and they have control over your funds. When you use a centralised exchange, you are no longer in control of your assets, and depend on the trustworthiness of middlemen. We have in the past of course seen infamous exit scams by centralised exchanges like Mt. Gox.
The alternative? Decentralised Exchanges. DEX's have no central authority and most importantly, your private keys(your crypto) never leavesYOUR possession and are never in anyone else's possession. So you can trade peer-to-peer without any of the drawbacks of Centralised Exchanges.
The problem is that this technology has not been perfected yet, and the DEX's that we have available to us now are not providing cheap, private, quick trading on a decentralised medium because of their technological inadequacies. Take Uniswap for example. This DEX accounts for over 60% of all DEX volume and facilitates trading of ERC-20 tokens, over the Ethereum blockchain. The problem? Because of the huge amount of transaction that are occurring over the Ethereum network, this has lead to congestion(too many transaction for the network to handle at one time) so the fees have increased dramatically. Another big problem? It's only for Ethereum. You cant for example, Buy LINK with BTC. You must use ETH.
The solution? Layer 2 protocols. These are layers built ON TOP of existing blockchains, that are designed to solve the transaction and scaling difficulties that crypto as a whole is facing today(and ultimately stopping mass adoption) The developers at Stakenet have seen the big picture, and have decided to implement the lightning network(a layer 2 protocol) into its DEX from the ground up. This will facilitate the functionalities of a DEX without any of the drawbacks of the CEX's and the DEX's we have today.
Heres someone much more qualified than me, Andreas Antonopoulos, to explain this
https://streamable.com/kzpimj
'Once we have efficient, well designed DEX's on layer 2, there wont even be any DEX's on layer 1'
Progress
The Stakenet team were the first to envision this grand solution and have been working on it since its conception in June 2019. They have been making steady progress ever since and right now, the DEX is in an open beta stage where rigorous testing is constant by themselves and the public. For a project of this scale, stress testing is paramount. If the product were to launch with any bugs/errors that would result in the loss of a users funds, this would obviously be very damaging to Stakenet's reputation. So I believe that the developers conservative approach is wise.
As of now the only pairs tradeable on the DEX are XSN/BTC and LTC/BTC. The DEX has only just launched as a public beta and is not in its full public release stage yet. As development moves forward more lightning network and atomic swap compatible coins will be added to the DEX, and of course, the team are hard at work on Raiden Integration - this will allow ETH and tokens on the Ethereum blockchain to be traded on the DEX between separate blockchains(instantly, cheaply, privately) This is where Stakenet enters top 50 territory on CMC if successful and is the true value here. Raiden Integration is well underway is being tested in a closed public group on Linux.
The full public DEX with Raiden Integration is expected to release by the end of the year. Given the state of development so far and the rate of progress, this seems realistic.
Tokenomics
2.6 Metrics overview (from whitepaper)
XSN is slightly inflationary, much like ETH as this is necessary for the economy to be adopted and work in the long term. There is however a deflationary mechanism in place - all trading fees on the DEX get converted to XSN and 10% of these fees are burned. This puts constant buying pressure on XSN and acts as a deflationary mechanism. XSN has inherent value because it makes up the infrastructure that the DEX will run off and as such Masternode operators and Stakers will see the fee's from the DEX.
Conclusion
We can clearly see that a layer 2 DEX is the future of crypto currency trading. It will facilitate secure, cheap, instant and private trading across all coins with lightning capabilities, thus solving the scaling and transaction issues that are holding back crypto today. I dont need to tell you the implications of this, and what it means for crypto as a whole. If Stakenet can launch a layer 2 DEX with Raiden Integration, It will become the primary DEX in terms of volume.
Stakenet DEX will most likely be the first layer 2 DEX(first mover advantage) and its blockchain is the infrastructure that will host this DEX and subsequently receive it's trading fee's. It is not difficult to envision a time in the next year when Stakenet DEX is functional and hosting hundreds of millions of dollars worth of trading every single day.
At $30 million market cap, I cant see any other potential investment right now with this much potential upside.
This post has merely served as in introduction and a heads up for this project, there is MUCH more to cover like vortex liquidity, masternodes, TOR integration... for now, here is some additional reading. Resources
TLDR; No. Do you want to make money? I'd start with learning how to read.
submitted by hotprocession to CryptoMoonShots [link] [comments]

"Read.cash Founder Threatens Ban & Permanent Fund Blacklist of 100 Users by Midnight London Time Tonight" Response from the read.cash founder

(Sorry that I post it here, the letters will be small, it would have been much better on read.cash, but it contains personal attacks on C. Edward Kelso and Shammah Chancellor, so I would have to ban me on read.cash for this post)
This is probably the most personal story I've ever published on the Internet on how your project will come back to haunt you and destroy your mind and your life.
CoinSpice should find enough "juicy" details here to humiliate me even further, I think they still could! I believe in their potential! Should I send you my nudes to post, CoinSpice, for you new article? (No, I'm not a girl, in case you're wondering)
Enjoy it if you like long reads. Warning: it contains quite a few jabs at some people.
So, you might have read this "piece" from afriendofsatoshi C. Edward Kelso Chief editor of CoinSpice https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/i067py/readcash_founder_threatens_ban_permanent_fund/fznpi0x/
I'm really disappointed in CoinSpice. Anecdote from the past about them: my interview with them was terribly handled. I started the interview with them with "English is not my native language, so feel free to fix any errors you see in my answer", what did they write in CoinSpice? "We were able to determine that he is not a native English speaker" Seriously, "were able to determine", Sherlock?... why did you even need to publish that? To add a bit of a sensation? But this new piece from CoinSpice just breaks through the floor... I'm speechless... If you are ever offered to being interviewed by CoinSpice - run away! Save yourself!

What happened

28 July, 2020
An uneventful day on read.cash, people posting pictures of flowers, telling stories how they met their spouses, doing contests about who will sponsor whom, posting articles about teamwork and interviews with prominent Bitcoin Cash figures. Seriously, read.cash guys interviewed tons of Bitcoin Cash supporters (After the interview with CoinSpice I never gave anoter interview to anyone fearing it will be exactly unprofessional as CoinSpice - trying to get every little dirt the could dig out there)
micropresident (the guy who does not yet know he's going to, very professionally, like a normal stable developer he is, later go on to tell me "fuck read.cash") publishes a contest where he calls for memes that contain the following phrases: "Amaury the Socialist Dictator", "Marc De Mesel is Calvin Ayre Lite") promising up to 2 BCH in return (I believe, I didn't read his rules) for these memes.
Since a lot of read.cash users are from Philippines, Nigeria and other poor countries, where $300 is a lot of money (maybe something you will make in a year), people proceed to create these memes.
This goes directly against the rules of the site that everyone must agree before they sign up, directly violating the rule: "No name-calling, trash-talking, personal attacks or insults."
I log in to read.cash and notice the homepage full of low quality posts attacking Amaury, Marc, ABC, upvoted to no end, tons of boosted posts and Shammah giving $$ left and right for this stuff.
I publish 2 responses where I tell people to remove the memes that contain personal attacks or face a ban. https://read.cash/@Read.Cash/the-state-of-things-33c3d68a and https://read.cash/@Read.Cash/post-a4935cbd
Most of the people agreed and removed the offending memes and had no problem with it, many said they were sorry.
u/micropresident in a very professional manner proceeds to tell us to "fuck [ourselves]" and tells he's building a clone (non-moderated I presume). He also quotes us very calmly and professionally adding: "Complete bullshit" referring to rules of read.cash
CoinSpice proceeds to publish the "celebrity upskirt" kind of article "Read.cash Founder Threatens Ban & Permanent Fund Blacklist of 100 Users by Midnight London Time Tonight". Emphasis mine, I just can't stand this kind of language... this is yellow press at best. It only lacks "Reason #2 will shock you!" in the title...
So, back to the story.

Why do we even have this rule?

Is it because I'm an egomaniac that hates people? Is it because I'm secretly funded by BSV? Is it because Marc de Mesel donated nearly $100,000 to the fund? Is it because I love censoring people?
No, no and no.
It's because I want Bitcoin Cash adoption. I frankly wanted Bitcoin adoption since 2013, alas, the tiny blocks and huge fees won't allow that. So I had to switch to Bitcoin Cash which kept Bitcoin idea going.
Do you have a friend that is not deep into cryptocurrency? Tell him/her to join the Crypto Twitter. They will look at it for five minutes and tell you: "Are you crazy? These people are constantly attacking and mocking each other. What if I do something wrong? Why are they doing it? Are they mentally ill? Is this really the money of the future?"
This will be his answer for nearly every site or platform that talks about cryptocurrency.
It's everywhere. But with Bitcoin Cash somehow it's very ingrained into the nature. I understand, Bitcoin Cash was attacked so often that it became a second nature of some people to attack everything they don't like.
Don't like Amaury? Let's attack him! Why? Don't care! I just don't like him!
Don't like Marc de Mesel? Let's attack him!
Don't like CSW and Calvin? - Let's attack them. - But why? They don't do anything bad to us now. - Wait, are you one of THEM? Let's attack or you'll be attacked! Fuck you, you and you and read.cash, fuck yeah! Attaccckkk!!!
This all seems totally crazy to a newcomer.
But what do we want to achieve with read.cash? Getting newcomers to use Bitcoin Cash. Without the drama or craziness. Just some flower pictures.
Up until 28 July, 2020 this was the case. People were posting innocent pictures, got payments from the fund, tipped each other, sponsored each other, yelled at me for not getting paid enough.
Occasionally, we had some dissenters, like *****, who proceeded to tell spammers that they are "fucking cunts", got a warning for that, left forever, deleting all articles, returned, started attacking people again, got banned for that, started telling people on memo.cash how stupid read.cash is because we didn't manually ban the spammers and wasted time programming software to detect them...
Ok, weird thing - she seems to recommend people to join read.cash now, which is confusing, so I removed her name.
Then there were people who wasted hours upon hours of my day by asking stupid questions, who got blocked (from me, not from read.cash)...
But mostly things were okay with read.cash (not with me though). We've got 12,000 users, very few incidents, the fund got a donation from Marc de Mesel for nearly $100,000 which will pay new users for a year or so. We gave away money to 5,700 people (for free)!
I want to stress one part here. Marc has donated (unconditionally) more than 97% of the fund. More than 30 times more than all of the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem combined donated.
Read that part again. Marc donated 30 times more than everyone else in the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem combined! Unconditionally. I haven't received any condition about the donation use.
Marc even told us that he's willing to donate much more! Which we hastily declined, because read.cash is not profitable and it doesn't make sense to spend more than we would have gotten from ads if we were monetized.
read.cash can't be living off donations forever. It's unsustanable. So we spend via the fund approximately what we would have gotten if read.cash was plastered with ads.
But again, 12,000 users of read.cash is 97% MarcDeMesel's achievement.
That's 12,000 users of Bitcoin Cash.
Isn't "adoption" what you wanted?
Yet, the guy who said "fuck read.cash!", all the while getting top payments from the read.cash fund, proceeds to create a contest about "Marc is Calvin Ayre Lite"...
Told that this is a personal attack, replies "Complete bullshit!" (exact quote)
Note: Marc is actually OK with memes about him and asked us directly to revert our policy to allow the [offensive] memes It wasn't Marc's initiative, it was mine.
And it wasn't only Marc who were being mocked.
I'll admit right here - I don't like Amaury's actions, I don't like IFP (and I listed my reasons), but I'll warn/ban anyone directly attacking him on read.csah (not his thoughts, but just him). Wanna discuss how Amaury's idea about DAA is bad? Feel free! Wanna call him an idiot? Welcome to ban'sville, population - you. Well, usually a warning, then a ban if you insist on doing that.
The same will go for CSW, Calvin or anyone anywhere.

Are you crazy? Did you just say you'll protect CSW and Calvin? We've got a BSV shill here! Attackkk!!!!

No, no and no. We have no funds from BSV (as far as I know, the fund is non-custodial and permissionless - anyone can donate and cancel at any time), I've never contacted Calvin or CSW and I've been attacked by BSV people on multiple occasions and was accused of being a BSV shill on multiple occasions (besides people telling me to "fuck [my project]").
One thing I figured early on is that if you allow people to do something, you need to apply that rule to everyone.
Otherwise, you are a hippocrite and you should hang your head in shame.
If you allow people to mock and denigrate Amaury, Marc, BSV, BTC supporters, that's the fine line that you'll have to keep later on, when BTC and BSV supporters come. How come you're allowing people to mock a BTC supporter, yet you protect a BCH supporter? That's dishonest.
So we will have to allow BTC and BSV supporters to mock us and denigrate us. Because that's the rule. You allowed it!
They will be right.
So if we allow people to attack other people (even if I don't like them), everybody would be entitled to attack everybody.
That's where you start your journey to becoming a Crypto Twitter, where you will be attacked for nothing, where a snowball will roll on you (it did on me, but thats another story), where people would start to stalk you and try to ruin your life, because you like the coin they don't like.
That's a place which normal people won't ever join.
Read it again: No adoption for you, no world money!
So, you either have "no censorship" (which is really moderation) or you have normal people. Choose one, choose wisely, you won't be able to change it later.
We chose "normal people".
The plan was working fine (almost) until the eventful post.
But I will not revert this policy. I hope I explained why.

Koush: But you allow worse crimes to happen on read.cash!

Ok, here's a yellow press sensation worthy of coinspice.io! Listen carefully! #1 will shock you!
I am... one guy.
Yes, read.cash is a one-man shitshow.
I'm the backend developer, I'm the frontend developer, I'm the system administrator, I'm the moderator, I'm the policy maker, I'm the one who replies to 100+ emails daily on [email protected], I'm the one getting up to 200 notifications per day on read.cash, I'm the one who writes articles, I'm the one who wakes up at night when a server fails, I'm the one who logged 1000 hours developing read.cash according to my IDE's time tracking plugin, I'm the one responsible for the bug that took your money, I'm the one who returned you your money, I'm the one fighting spam, I'm the one writing code to catch spammers, I'm read.cash.
I'm the one responsible to keep 7,500 comments per day (that's one comment every 10 seconds, 24/7), 800 articles per day, 400 short posts per day clean. See the stats yourself, the damn thing is growing and growing...
It is an impossible task. But I do read every one of 100+ reports sent to me per day. And each one of them is a moral dilemma for me - what to do here. This guy has copied an article from the Internet, but edited it so that it looks like another article, what do I do here? Ok, this guy is posting non-sense - is that against rules? It's surely annoying, but doesn't violate the rules. What to do here? Now try this 100 times a day. This guy, Koush, I know, he's a good guy, but now he's attacking the only guy who really helped read.cash when no one else did? WTF do I do here?
That's why I'm always telling people to report anything that they see that violates rules. I can't be everywhere. I can't make the right decision every time too. I'm a regular fucking person. Two legs, two hands, one medium-sized brain.
Ok, to be honest, a few months ago I asked a developer friend to join me to help (paid with my own money, not using read.cash fund for that), so he helps some 10 hours per month. That helps, surely, not enough.
Though I'll still call read.cash we, as it is still a registered company.
BTW To be clear - I never got any money from the read.cash fund, but I spent more than $5,000 giving away. Here's a screenshot from an internal tool that I call "the random rewarder": https://i.imgur.com/ucQEvVM.png
As you can see, I'm entitled to about $1.31 - $1.39 for today, but I get $0.00. That was always the case, because I strongly believe that I must give it to people of read.cash to attract new users.
I also gave away 100% of the funds that came to me as tips on read.cash.
BTW Did you notice that on the screenshot the guy who said "Marc de Mesel is Calvin Ayre Lite" and "fuck read.cash" got the top payment from the fund, which is at the moment 97% funded by Marc de Mesel?
My friend, the developer, who joined me, told me a few days ago: "I read your history on read.cash, you sound progressively ..." "..depressive and passively aggressive," I ended his sentence, "I know."
Yes, I know. I'm pretty passive agressive already, because every day I met with demands from users. "Why am I not getting paid?" "I work for read.cash for 8 hours a day, why is my pay so low?" "I sent some money and now I have $0.01 less than I should?" "How do I get sponsors?" "I think this guy is cheating!" "Hey, our family of 20 people joined read.cash and it says that I have 19 colocated accounts on the same IP! That's not true!"
I loathe my morning, when I open my email and there's 50 new alerts from Sentry, there are 100+ emails from users demanding stuff from me, accusing me of being unfair, wrong, an idiot, telling me "fuck read.cash"!
etc.. etc.. etc.. daily grind.. I never experienced anything like that. I was always a lead developer or manager managing small teams of 5-10 people. Nothing close to this shit I experience now.
You get progressively less sensitive. You start to think that it's ok to just delete an email, since you can't reply to everyone. You can't research why someone of 12,000 people didn't get paid, since the algorithms are now so complex that you yourself will have to spend a week just researching one guy why he gets $0.10 instead of maybe $0.50... you have no idea who your users are. The project is out of your control. But you can't do anything, because it's not profitable enough to even cover the server costs, let alone hire additional programmer or a support guy.
Then one day you log and see the beautiful garden full of dog shit. Crappy memes. A guy telling you "fuck you, there's $25K for the clone of this!" Thank God Shammah didn't offer that $25K for my head...
You find this about the only guy who really helped read.cash with money and demanded nothing in return (not a single condition was made) being compared to a midget version of a guy who was in a FBI Top Wanted list!
Again, Marc says he's ok with this, I'm not! Whoever did this meme is an asshole, I don't have any other words for this human. (Yes, I would have been banned on read.cash for this alone. You can ban me here, I no longer care...)
You find yourself increasingly grumpy, angry towards those around you, your family, because everybody is angry at you in the Internet, people are demanding and people is attacking the only people you can trust (Roger, Marc)...
You think about your previous nice cozy job. You think about 5 recruiters sending you daily mails to just name the price to join their company. You realize that these 9 months you could have made maybe $100,000, maybe $200,000 sitting on your ass, managing 5-10 people like you always did.. Instead you spent 9 months, $5,000 in Bitcoin Cash, got grumpy and depressed.
You start to ponder why you do this and whether you should even continue.
That's your future, Mr. Shammah Chancellor!
That's the reality of running a social media platform with cryptocurrency.
I will be happy to see your platform, Mr. "fuck read.cash", grow and flourish, but I warn you - it's not going to cost you $25K, but much much more. It's going to eat you alive if you are mildly successful with it and you have a little bit of conscience.
You will be attacked, you will be spammed. People will tell you "fuck you!"
I honestly have no idea why you think you will fare better than yours.org or honest.cash...
What's your advantage? being censorship free, so that people can shit and pee on each other?
Then one day 9 months later, 12,000 users, $50,000 in tips later, a guy will come in and tell you "Fuck you, Shammah and your project! Fuck you! I'm building a clone for $5K of this shit of a platform!" You will look at the clock where it's 8pm, you will look at your inbox, where there's still 50 more people yelling at you.. you'll ponder why do you even do this...
That day you'll understand me, Mr. Chancellor. Or maybe not, I have no idea what kind of a human being you are. Maybe you're reading this and laughing madly: "poor pussy can't take a beating! boo-hoo! Get off the internet, you wuss!" Maybe that's your thoughts, I don't know. You certainly don't seem to care about other people's feelings dismissing them as "complete bullshit".
Well kept gardens die by pacifism is a wonderful read about this.
Somewhere in the vastness of the Internet, it is happening even now. It was once a well-kept garden of intelligent discussion, where knowledgeable and interested folk came, attracted by the high quality of speech they saw ongoing. But into this garden comes a fool, and the level of discussion drops a little—or more than a little, if the fool is very prolific in their posting. (It is worse if the fool is just articulate enough that the former inhabitants of the garden feel obliged to respond, and correct misapprehensions—for then the fool dominates conversations.)
Peace, and out.
P.S. I remind people that there's an ongoing fundraiser going for mainnet.cash, so anyone agreeing with "fuck read.cash" policy of Mr. Chancellor should cancel their donations while there's still time. It's very easy to cancel. Don't give your money to idealistic fools like me.
P.P.S. I blocked u/afriendofsatoshi, so somebody please forward it to him so he can humiliate me further, only on coinspice.io! Subscribe now!
submitted by readcash to btc [link] [comments]

WaykiChain (WICC) Monthly Report (September 2020)

WaykiChain (WICC) Monthly Report (September 2020)

https://preview.redd.it/nnuhfz6q01t51.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=15ce35581f2ebad02af140180f5a8b1fe7931f00
Technology & Products
Public Chain Development
· WASM AMPL contract debugging (100%)
· Research on WASM zero-knowledge proof anonymous transfer (50%)
· WASM Sushi contract coding (100%)
· WASM RPC iOS asynchronous library commissioning (100%)
· Verification of the signature push public key algorithm and testing its codability (C++, go) through RPC (100%)
· The new lock-up airdrop contract function: lock-up users can claim the unlocked assets by entering RegID (100%)
· Porting ASWAP contract to public chain 3.0, adding platform fee processing (100%)
· Optimization of Yield Farming contract reward distribution (100%)
· Optimization of Yield Farming contract penalty distribution mechanism (100%)
· Yield Farming contract testing (100%)
· Deployment and initial configuration of WICC and WGRT yield farming contracts and Wayki-X contract completed (100%)
· Ownership of issuance and transfer rights of the bottom-level token ROG transferred to Wayki-X contract (100%)
· The initial generation of ROG completed. 10.08M ROG entered the WICC pool, 2.52M ROG entered the WGRT pool (100%)
· The first 189,000 ROG was minted in Wayki-X contract for rewards by inflation (12.6M × 1.5%) (100%)
· Transfer of 70,000 ROG to AEX for Ecosystem Yield Farming completed (100%)
· WASM developer documentation: added detailed WASM table (Simplified Chinese) (100%)
· WASM developer documentation: added call of multiple contracts and multisignature transactions in WASM contract (Simplified Chinese) (100%)
Application Development
· Yield Farming back end API (100%)
· Yield Farming front end page optimization (100%)
· Yield Farming front end localization (100%)
· Yield Farming pre-release initial API docking (100%)
· Yield Farming application testing (100%)
· Yield Farming application release (100%)
· xUSD & ROG added to Instant in WaykiTimes Android (100%)
· Memory leak issue fixed in Instant in WaykiTimes (100%)
· Data loading error when swiping in Discover fixed in WaykiTimes (100%)
· Data display optimized in Getting Started in WaykiTimes
· UI debugging of several pages in WaykiTimes (100%)
· WaykiTimes 3.0.4 released (100%)
· WaykiTimes Help Center released (100%)
· WaykiTimes Getting Started released (100%)
· WaykiTimes remember password function released (100%)
· WaykiTimes iOS App Store version tested (100%)
· Google crash analysis and testing added to WaykiTimes Android (100%)
· Solved the data loading issue when swiping in Wayki-X Synths (100%)
· Wayki-X price feed delay fixed (100%)
· Amount issue in the plug-in wallet fixed (100%)
· Display error of release contract type of universal transactions fixed on the blockchain explorer (100%)
· WASM contract display specifications for the blockchain explorer completed (100%)
· Development of the Coinbase integration project (wicc-rosetta-api) (85%)
Plan for October
Public Chain Development
· Research on WASM zero-knowledge proof anonymous transfer
· Correction of ASWAP contract proof of liquidity token generation rules
· ASWAP contract testing
· Docking of ASWAP contract with third parties
· Continuous updating of coind RPC interface documentation
Application Development
· Trade — transaction details HTML5 page to native page transfer in WaykiTimes
· Development of the Coinbase integration project (wicc-rosetta-api)
Market
International Market
· On September 4, Russian volunteers opened the second WaykiChain Russian group in Telegram: https://t.me/waykichainrussian.
· On September 6, WaykiChain opened the official community in Discord: https://discord.gg/XyAkqa.
· On September 6, WaykiChain CTO Richard Chen was invited to the Blockchain + Innovative Service and Industrial Application Conference and the China Chamber of International Commerce Blockchain Innovation Service Industry Committee Establishment Conference as a member of the expert group.
· On September 11, the famous US blockchain TV program Exploring the Block tweeted about WaykiChain, showing it is optimistic about the future development of the integrated DeFi ecology of WaykiChain.
· On September 11, the famous business platform Yahoo Finance released WaykiChain project information and announced that WaykiChain CEO Gordon Gao gives an interview to NASDAQ MarketSite’s Jane King on September 12.
· At 7:00 PM EDT on September 12, world’s largest financial channel Bloomberg TV reported that WaykiChain CEO Gordon Gao was interviewed by Jane King of NASDAQ MarketSite. The interview aired on Fox Business Network at 10:30 PM EDT on September 14.
· On September 12, cryptocurrency Twitter account Crypto Catalog tweeted about WaykiChain, showing it is optimistic about the future development of the integrated DeFi ecology of WaykiChain.
· On September 13, DeFi List added WaykiChain governance token WGRT.
· On September 13, WaykiChain reached market cooperation with the Indian blockchain influencer Gmadvice who started to serve as WaykiChain community manager in India.
· On September 16, WaykiChain released “WaykiChain Launches Phoenix Yield Farming with WICC/WGRT Dual-pool for ROG Genesis Issuance” on Twitter. Up to September 21, the news hit 2,400+ retweets.
· On September 17, the cryptocurrency influencer DeFi List retweeted “WaykiChain Launches Phoenix Yield Farming with WICC/WGRT Dual-pool for ROG Genesis Issuance”.
· On September 18, WaykiChain reached strategic market cooperation with the Korean crypto influencer Pantera who will help WaykiChain establish a broad and strong consensus in Korea.
· On September 19, “WaykiChain Dual-pool ROG Yield Farming Korean Group” community established.
· On September 20, the influencer Crypto Wendy retweeted “WaykiChain Launches Phoenix Yield Farming with WICC/WGRT Dual-pool for ROG Genesis Issuance”.
· On September 21, 130+ Korean media outlets published “WaykiChain Launches Phoenix Yield Farming with WICC & WGRT Dual-pool for ROG Genesis Issuance”.
· On September 23, WaykiChain co-founder and CEO Gordon Gao was invited to an AMA session with ICO Pantera Group, Korea’s top Telegram group (stats by u/combot), where he shared his insights into DeFi with 4,000+ Korean users and introduced WaykiChain’s ROG Genesis Yield Farming.
· On September 24, WaykiChain tweeted “ROG Genesis Yield Farming FAQ” and “Leave your question/problem toward WaykiTimes/Wayki-X/ROG Genesis Yield Farming in the Google forms below to share 800 WICC Giveaway!”, the number of engagements is 1,500+.
· On September 24, WaykiChain global partner Vincent Lionheart was invited to an AMA session to D’va Community.
· On September 24, The Business Telegraph, Bitcoin Garden, and other media published “WaykiChain Launches Phoenix Yield Farming with WICC & WGRT Dual-pool”.
· On September 24, WaykiChain tweeted the ROG Genesis Yield Farming Countdown. The news hit 1,000+ retweets.
· On September 25, ROG Genesis Yield Farming news was the day’s hit in Korea with 5,000+ views on Korean cryptocurrency forums.
National Market
· On September 1, CoinTiger listed WaykiChain governance token WGRT and opened the WGRT/USDT pair. WGRT net buy & hold competition started and the CoinTiger community joined a series of WGRT-themed challenges.
· On September 1, WaykiChain governance token WGRT successfully mapped to Ethereum and ERC-20 WGRT was created. The world’s largest DEX Uniswap officially supported it and listed the WGRT/USDT pair.
· On September 2, WaykiChain Strategic Analyst Jing Tao gave the speech “WGRT Dragon, Fly, Tiger, and Leap: Community Governance Upstart” to the MXC community and distributed 3 gold bars to the event participants.
· On September 7, WaykiChain Strategy Analyst Jing Tao attended [This Is Coin Coffee] live DeFi contest co-sponsored by Coinka, fogwu.com, and tuoniaox.com. WEDEX founder & CEO, Loopring co-founder Chen Xiaoliang and ChainNews Research Director Pan Zhixiong joined the event.
· On September 9, Gate.io selected WaykiChain governance token WGRT for the Listing Vote. Each voter had a chance to share an airdrop of 420,875.43 WGRT. WGRT passed the voting with 53,293,775 votes and was successfully listed on Gate.io.
· On September 10, WGRT/USDT trading pair and WGRT withdrawals opened on Gate.io.
· On September 10, WaykiChain released WaykiChain Governance Token WGRT Information and Addresses. The team announced that before July 1, 2021, WGRT circulating supply will be strictly controlled at 10% of the total supply, or 2.1 billion.
· On September 9 to 11, WaykiChain was invited to IoT World China & 5G China along with 400+ exhibitors including Huawei, Baidu, and Tencent. WaykiChain demonstrated the integrated public chain DeFi ecosystem that will help China’s digital construction.
· On September 11, WaykiChain Strategy Analyst Jing Tao was invited to the Bepal community and shared the speech “WaykiChain Governance Token WGRT: Accumulation and Breakout”. WaykiChain airdropped 3,000 WGRT and cash red envelopes to the Bepal community members.
· On September 12, WaykiChain Technology & Development Manager Yuanhang Xiao and Strategy Analyst Jing Tao introduced [New WaykiChain DeFi Product: Decentralized Synthetic Asset Issuance Protocol Wayki-X] in the official WaykiChain yizhibo account. During the live broadcast, WaykiChain distributed pure gold bars and branded gifts to lucky users.
· On September 13, WaykiChain co-founder & CEO Gordon Gao and Overseas Director Qiyuan Mei shared the speech “WaykiChain Opens the Era of Integrated DeFi Public Chains” in the Gate.io live broadcast room. Gate.io CPO Jiuer was the broadcast host. The guests explained WaykiChain’s DeFi strategy and revealed the launch of Yield Farming.
· On September 15, WaykiChain CEO Gordon Gao and BTC38 co-founder Tianwei Huang held the live stream titled “Eight Questions to Explain DeFi Trends and Opportunities” in yizhibo. The hosts analyzed the status and trends of DeFi, discussed DeFi deployment by public chains and exchanges, and new opportunities in synthetic asset trading. WaykiChain distributed pure gold bars and branded gifts to lucky viewers of the stream.
· On September 16, WaykiChain Strategy Analyst Jing Tao shared the speech titled “WaykiChain’s Integrated DeFi Ecosystem Layout” as the guest of btcmoney.cc.
· On September 18, Bying community invited WaykiChain Strategy Analyst Jing Tao to share the speech “New DeFi Opportunity: Phoenix Yield Farming”. WaykiChain held a WICC airdrop for Bying community members.
· On September 18, WaykiChain published the article “No Pre-mining, ICO, or Reserve! WaykiChain Launches Dual-pool Phoenix Yield Farming”.
· On September 19, WaykiChain published the article “Chapter 1. The Financial Innovation of Blockchain Reformation. The Origin, Logic, and Value of WaykiChain ROG” introducing the background of ROG, the operation mechanism of the decentralized synthetic asset system Wayki-X, and the value foundation of ROG in detail.
· On September 23, “No Pre-mining, ICO, or Reserve! WaykiChain ROG Genesis Farming and Early Release Guide” was released across Chinese media.
· On September 24, WaykiChain CEO Gordon Gao, CTO Richard Chen, and CPO Xi Zhang held a joint live stream on yizhibo explaining the future planning of WaykiChain decentralized synthetic asset issuance protocol Wayki-X, ROG, and WaykiChain DeFi in terms of business model, technology, and products. WaykiChain distributed 1 pure gold bar and 6 branded gifts to the lucky stream viewers.
· On September 24, Gate.io and WaykiChain launched the WGRT Investment Competition. The prizes are a BMW G 310 R motorcycle, a 13” MacBook Pro, a 10.2” iPad, 17 pure gold bars and 99,000 WGRT.
· On September 25, various Chinese media released “Wayki-X 101: WaykiChain Decentralized Synthetic Asset Protocol” introducing the functions and mechanism of the decentralized synthetic asset issuance protocol Wayki-X and the value of its token ROG in detail.
· On September 25, WaykiChain launched the “Looking for the Genesis Prophet” community event. The winners received 10 branded gifts.
· On September 25, WaykiChain ROG Genesis Yield Farming launched. WICC and WGRT pool quotas (5 million and 25 million, respectively) were full within just one hour.
· On September 25, WaykiChain reached ecosystem partnership with AEX. AEX became the first platform to join ROG Ecosystem Yield Farming.
· On September 25, WaykiChain partnered with Bying wallet. ROG Genesis Yield Farming is available in Bying wallet.
· On September 26, ROG, the main token of WaykiChain’s decentralized synthetic asset issuance protocol Wayki-X, was listed on AEX. ROG/USDT trading pair is available.
· On September 26, WaykiChain CEO Gordon Gao gave lectures “DeFi Financial Principles and Commercial Applications” and “DeFi Industry Panoramic Scan” at The First Offline Practical Training Camp of Hash Power University, Shanghai Station. Participants included Ontology founder Jun Li, Chainlink Labs — China Head Philip Fei, Digital Renaissance Foundation Managing Director Cao Yin, and Waterdrip Capital founding partner Zheng Yushan.
· On September 28, WaykiChain co-founder and CEO Gordon Gao was a guest at Hash Power Knowledge Base Private Meeting, Shenzhen Station where he shared the speech titled “Feasible Ways of DeFi Application Popularization”. Other guests included Ontology founder Jun Li, DeBank founder and CEO Tang Hongbo, and Huobi Research Chief Technical Researcher Tianyuan Ma.
submitted by Waykichain to WICCProject [link] [comments]

Bitcoin and cryptocurrency mining explained - YouTube How Bitcoin mining actually works - What is the ... Bitcoin - Proof of work - YouTube Did a human just solve a bitcoin algorithm But how does bitcoin actually work? - YouTube

Bitcoin is used on the SHA-256 algorithm, as well as some other cryptocurrencies, mainly forks of Bitcoin. Bitcoin (BTC) Price Prediction For 2020, 2025, 2030 & 2040. Cryptocurrencies of the SHA-256 algorithm: Bitcoin (BTC) Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Bitcoin SV (BSV) Peercoin (PPC) BitcoinDark (BTCD) Litecoin Cash (LCC) Scrypt. Scrypt is a cryptocurrency mining algorithm. The speed of creating blocks ... In Bitcoin, private keys produce a public key via an Elliptical Curve Digital Signature Algorithm, or ECDSA. A private key that is an input for that algorithm will always produce its corresponding public key. However, the public key can never be reverse-engineered to produce its corresponding private key due to the one-sided nature of this algorithm. Bitcoin Explained Discover how Bitcoin works and why it’s so popular. How to Use This Guide. Use the left slides to get a quick overview. Switch to the right slides to find out more. Why does Bitcoin exist? Learn why Bitcoin was created and why it is so valuable. Bitcoin is designed to let you store, send, and receive money without any banks or credit card companies. Until Bitcoin came ... How Hash Algorithms Work – Bitcoin Hash Algorithm Explained. The body of the block contains the transactions. These are hashed only indirectly through the Merkle root. Because transactions aren't hashed directly, hashing a block with 1 transaction takes exactly the same amount of effort as hashing a block with 10,000 transactions. The compact format of target is a special kind of floating ... When mining bitcoin, the hashcash algorithm repeatedly hashes the block header while incrementing the counter & extraNonce fields. Incrementing the extraNonce field entails recomputing the merkle tree, as the coinbase transaction is the left most leaf node. The block is also occasionally updated as you are working on it.

[index] [50768] [6009] [24663] [13691] [32778] [1420] [4825] [4718] [7487] [50191]

Bitcoin and cryptocurrency mining explained - YouTube

In this video I try to breakdown the "cryptographic problem" that people reference when they talk about bitcoin mining. Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm ECDSA Part 10 Cryptography Crashcourse - Duration: 35:32. Dr. Julian Hosp - Bitcoin, Aktien, Gold und Co. 5,803 views In the early days of bitcoin mining, it was feasible to use a powerful CPU. Once the mining software was modified to support graphic cards, GPUs became the new preferred form of mining hardware ... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue The math behind cryptocurrencies. Home page: https://www.3blue1brown.com/ Brought to you by you: http://3b1b.co/btc-thanks And by Protocol Labs: https://prot...

#