The Quantitative Case for Bitcoin | Real Vision

Vitalik's response to Tuur

I interlaced everything between Vitalik and Tuur to make it easier to read.
1/ People often ask me why I’m so “against” Ethereum. Why do I go out of my way to point out flaws or make analogies that put it in a bad light?
Intro
2/ First, ETH’s architecture & culture is opposite that of Bitcoin, and yet claims to offer same solutions: decentralization, immutability, SoV, asset issuance, smart contracts, …
Second, ETH is considered a crypto ‘blue chip’, thus colors perception of uninformed newcomers.
Agree! I personally find Ethereum culture far saner, though I am a bit biased :)
3/ I've followed Ethereum since 2014 & feel a responsibility to share my concerns. IMO contrary to its marketing, ETH is at best a science experiment. It’s now valued at $13B, which I think is still too high.
Not an argument
4/ I agree with Ethereum developer Vlad Zamfir that it’s not money, not safe, and not scalable. https://twitter.com/VladZamfistatus/838006311598030848
@VladZamfir Eth isn't money, so there is no monetary policy. There is currently fixed block issuance with an exponential difficulty increase (the bomb).
I'm pretty sure Vlad would say the exact same thing about Bitcoin
5/ To me the first red flag came up when in our weekly hangout we asked the ETH founders about to how they were going to scale the network. (We’re now 4.5 years later, and sharding is still a pipe dream.)
Ethereum's Joe Lubin in June 2014: "anticipate blockchain bloat—working on various sharding ideas". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJG9g0lCPU8&feature=youtu.be&t=36m41s
The core principles have been known for years, the core design for nearly a year, and details for months, with implementations on the way. So sharding is definitely not at the pipe dream stage at this point.
6/ Despite strong optimism that on-chain scaling of Ethereum was around the corner (just another engineering job), this promise hasn’t been delivered on to date.
Sure, sharding is not yet finished. Though more incremental stuff has been going well, eg. uncle rates are at near record lows despite very high chain usage.
7/ Recently, a team of reputable developers decided to peer review a widely anticipated Casper / sharding white paper, concluding that it does not live up to its own claims.
Unmerciful peer review of Vlad Zamfir & co's white paper to scale Ethereum: "the authors do NOT prove that the CBC Casper family of protocols is Byzantine fault tolerant in either practice or theory".
That review was off the mark in many ways, eg. see https://twitter.com/technocrypto/status/1071111404340604929, and by the way CBC is not even a prerequisite for Serenity
8/ On the 2nd layer front, devs are now trying to scale Ethereum via scale via state channels (ETH’s version of Lightning), but it is unclear whether main-chain issued ERC20 type tokens will be portable to this environment.
Umm... you can definitely use Raiden with arbitrary ERC20s. That's why the interface currently uses WETH (the ERC20-fied version of ether) and not ETH
9/ Compare this to how the Bitcoin Lightning Network project evolved:
elizabeth stark @starkness: For lnd: First public code released: January 2016 Alpha: January 2017 Beta: March 2018…
Ok
10/ Bitcoin’s Lightning Network is now live, and is growing at rapid clip.
Jameson Lopp @lopp: Lightning Network: January 2018 vs December 2018
Sure, though as far as I understand there's still a low probability of finding routes for nontrivial amounts, and there's capital lockup griefing vectors, and privacy issues.... FWIW I personally never thought lightning is unworkable, it's just a design that inherently runs into ten thousand small issues that will likely take a very long time to get past.
11/ In 2017, more Ethereum scaling buzz was created, this time the panacea was “Plasma”.
@TuurDemeester Buterin & Poon just published a new scaling proposal for Ethereum, "strongly complementary to base-layer PoS and sharding": plasma.io https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/895467347502182401
Yay, Plasma!
12/ However, upon closer examination it was the recycling of some stale ideas, and the project went nowhere:
Peter Todd @peterktodd These ideas were all considered in the Treechains design process, and ultimately rejected as insecure.
Just because Peter Todd rejected something as "insecure" doesn't mean that it is. In general, the ethereum research community is quite convinced that the fundamental Plasma design is fine, and as far as I understand there are formal proofs on the way. The only insecurity that can't be avoided is mass exit vulns, and channel-based systems have those too.
13/ The elephant in the room is the transition to proof-of-stake, an “environmentally friendly” way to secure the chain. (If this was the plan all along, why create a proof-of-work chain first?)
@TuurDemeester "Changing from proof of work to proof of stake changes the economics of the system, all the rules change and it will impact everything."
Umm... we created a proof of work chain first because we did not have a satisfactory proof of stake algo initially?
14/ For the uninitiated, here’s a good write-up that highlights some of the fundamental design problems of proof-of-stake. Like I said, this is science experiment territory.
And here's a set of long arguments from me on why proof of stake is just fine: https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-FAQ. For a more philosophical piece, see https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/a-proof-of-stake-design-philosophy-506585978d51
15/ Also check out this thread about how Proof of Stake blockchains require subjectivity (i.e. a trusted third party) to achieve consensus: https://forum.blockstack.org/t/pos-blockchains-require-subjectivity-to-reach-consensus/762?u=muneeb … and this thread on Bitcoin: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/59t48m/proofofstake_question/
Yes, we know about weak subjectivity, see https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity/. It's really not that bad, especially given that users need to update their clients once in a while anyway, oh and by the way even if the weak subjectivity assumption is broken an attacker still needs to gather up that pile of old keys making up 51% of the stake. And also to defend against that there's Universal Hash Time.
16/ Keep in mind that Proof of Stake (PoS) is not a new concept at all. Proof-of-Work actually was one of the big innovations that made Bitcoin possible, after PoS was deemed impractical because of censorship vulnerability.
@TuurDemeester TIL Proof-of-stake based private currency designs date at least back to 1998. https://medium.com/swlh/the-untold-history-of-bitcoin-enter-the-cypherpunks-f764dee962a1
Oh I definitely agree that proof of work was superior for bootstrap, and I liked it back then especially because it actually managed to be reasonably egalitarian around 2009-2012 before ASICs fully took over. But at the present time it doesn't really have that nice attribute.
17/ Over the years, this has become a pattern in Ethereum’s culture: recycling old ideas while not properly referring to past research and having poor peer review standards. This is not how science progresses.Tuur Demeester added,
[email protected] has been repeatedly accused of /criticised for not crediting prior art. Once again with plasma: https://twitter.com/DamelonBCWS/status/895643582278782976
I try to credit people whenever I can; half my blog and ethresear.ch posts have a "special thanks" section right at the top. Sometimes we end up re-inventing stuff, and sometimes we end up hearing about stuff, forgetting it, and later re-inventing it; that's life as an autodidact. And if you feel you've been unfairly not credited for something, always feel free to comment, people have done this and I've edited.
18/ One of my big concerns is that sophistry and marketing hype is a serious part of Ethereum’s success so far, and that overly inflated expectations have lead to an inflated market cap.
Ok, go on.
19/ Let’s illustrate with an example.
...
20/ A few days ago, I shared a critical tweet that made the argument that Ethereum’s value proposition is in essence utopian.
@TuurDemeester Ethereum-ism sounds a bit like Marxism to me:
  • What works today (PoW) is 'just a phase', the ideal & unproven future is to come: Proof-of-Stake.…
...
21/ I was very serious about my criticism. In fact, each one of the three points addressed what Vitalik Buterin has described as “unique value propositions of Ethereum proper”. https://www.reddit.com/ethereum/comments/5jk3he/how_to_prevent_the_cannibalism_of_ethereum_into/dbgujr8/
...
22/ My first point, about Ethereum developers rejecting Proof-of-Work, has been illustrated many times over By Vitalik and others. (See earlier in this tweetstorm for more about how PoS is unproven.)
Vitalik Non-giver of Ether @VitalikButerin: I don't believe in proof of work!
See above for links as to why I think proof of stake is great.
23/ My second point addresses Ethereum’s romance with the vague and dangerous notion of ‘social consensus’, where disruptive hard-forks are used to ‘upgrade’ or ‘optimize’ the system, which inevitably leads to increased centralization. More here:
See my rebuttal to Tuur's rebuttal :)
24/ My third point addresses PoS’ promise of perpetual income to ETHizens. Vitalik is no stranger to embracing free lunch ideas, e.g. during his 2014 ETH announcement speech, where he described a coin with a 20% inflation tax as having “no cost” to users.
Yeah, I haven't really emphasized perpetual income to stakers as a selling point in years. I actually favor rewards being as low as possible while still being high enough for security.
25/ In his response to my tweet, Vitalik adopted my format to “play the same game” in criticizing Bitcoin. My criticisms weren't addressed, and his response was riddled with errors. Yet his followers gave it +1,000 upvotes!
Vitalik Non-giver of Ether @VitalikButerin: - What works today (L1) is just a phase, ideal and unproven future (usable L2) is to come - Utopian concept of progress: we're already so confident we're finished we ain't needin no hard forks…
Ok, let's hear about what the errors are...
26/ Rebuttal: - BTC layer 1 is not “just a phase”, it always will be its definitive bedrock for transaction settlement. - Soft forking digital protocols has been the norm for over 3 decades—hard-forks are the deviation! - Satoshi never suggested hyperbitcoinization as a goal.
Sure, but (i) the use of layer 1 for consumer payments is definitely, in bitcoin ideology, "just a phase", (ii) I don't think you can make analogies between consensus protocols and other kinds of protocols, and between soft forking consensus protocols and protocol changes in other protocols, that easily, (iii) plenty of people do believe that hyperbitcoinization as a goal. Oh by the way: https://twitter.com/tuurdemeestestatus/545993119599460353
27/ This kind of sophistry is exhausting and completely counter-productive, but it can be very convincing for an uninformed retail public.
Ok, go on.
28/ Let me share a few more inconvenient truths.
...
29/ In order to “guarantee” the transition to PoS’ utopia of perpetual income (staking coins earns interest), a “difficulty bomb” was embedded in the protocol, which supposedly would force miners to accept the transition.
The intended goal of the difficulty bomb was to prevent the protocol from ossifying, by ensuring that it has to hard fork eventually to reset the difficulty bomb, at which point the status quo bias in favor of not changing other protocol rules at the same time would be weaker. Though forcing a switch to PoS was definitely a key goal.
30/ Of course, nothing came of this, because anything in the ETH protocol can be hard-forked away. Another broken promise.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Looks like another Ethereum hard-fork is going to remove the "Ice Age" (difficulty increase meant to incentivize transition to PoS). https://www.cryptocompare.com/coins/guides/what-is-the-ethereum-ice-age/
How is that a broken promise? There was no social contract to only replace the difficulty-bombed protocol with a PoS chain.
31/ Another idea that was marketed heavily early on, was that with ETH you could program smart contract as easily as javascript applications.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: I forgot, but in 2014 Ethereum was quite literally described as "Javascript-on-the-blockchain"
Agree that was over-optimistic, though the part of the metaphor that's problematic is the "be done with complex apps in a couple hours" part, NOT the "general-purpose languages are great" part.
32/ This was criticized by P2P & OS developers as a reckless notion, given that every smart contracts is actually a “de novo cryptographic protocol”. In other words, it’s playing with fire. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1427885.msg14601127#msg14601127
See above
33/ The modular approach to Bitcoin seems to be much better at compartmentalizing risk, and thus reducing attack surfaces. I’ve written about modular scaling here...
To be fair, risk is reduced because Bitcoin does less.
34/ Another huge issue that Ethereum has is with scaling. By putting “everything on the blockchain” (which stores everything forever) and dubbing it “the world computer”, you are going to end up with a very slow and clogged up system.
Christopher Allen @ChristopherA: AWS cost: $0.000000066 for calc, Ethereum: $26.55. This is about 400 million times as expensive. World computer? https://hackernoon.com/ether-purchase-power-df40a38c5a2f
We never advocated "putting everything on the blockchain". The phrase "world computer" was never meant to be interpreted as "everyone's personal desktop", but rather as a common platform specifically for the parts of applications that require consensus on shared state. As evidence of this, notice how Whisper and Swarm were part of the vision as complements to Ethereum right from the start.
35/ By now the Ethereum bloat is so bad that cheaply running an individual node is practically impossible for a lay person. ETH developers are also imploring people to not deploy more smart contract apps on its blockchain.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: But... deploying d-apps on the "Ethereum Virtual Machine" is exactly what everyone was encouraged to do for the past 4 years. Looks like on-chain scaling wasn't such a great idea after all.
Umm.... I just spun up a node from scratch last week. On a consumer laptop.
36/ As a result, and despite the claims that running a node in “warp” mode is easy and as good as a full node, Ethereum is becoming increasingly centralized.
@TuurDemeester Finally a media article touching on the elephant in the room: Ethereum has become highly centralized. #infura https://www.coindesk.com/the-race-is-on-to-replace-ethereums-most-centralized-layeamp?__twitter_impression=true
See above
37/ Another hollow claim: in 2016, Ethereum was promoted as being censorship resistant…
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Pre TheDAO #Ethereum presentation: "uncensorable, code is law, bottom up". http://ow.ly/qW49302Pp92
Yes, the DAO fork did violate the notion of absolute immutability. However, the "forking the DAO will lead to doom and gloom" crowd was very wrong in one key way: it did NOT work as a precedent justifying all sorts of further state interventions. The community clearly drew a line in the sand by firmly rejecting EIP 867, and EIP 999 seems to now also be going nowhere. So it seems like there's some evidence that the social contract of "moderately but not infinitely strong immutability" actually can be stable.
38/ Yet later that year, after only 6% of ETH holders had cast a vote, ETH core devs decided to endorse a hard-fork that clawed back the funds from a smart contract that held 4.5% of all ETH in circulation. More here: ...
See above
39/ Other potential signs of centralization: Vitalik Buterin signing a deal with a Russian government institution, and ETH core developers experimenting with semi-closed meetings: https://twitter.com/coindesk/status/902892844955860993 …,
Hudson Jameson @hudsonjameson: The "semi-closed" Ethereum 1.x meeting from last Friday was an experiment. The All Core Dev meeting this Friday will be recorded as usual.
Suppose I were to tomorrow sign up to work directly for Kim Jong Un. What concretely would happen to the Ethereum protocol? I suspect very little; I am mostly involved in the Serenity work, and the other researchers have proven very capable of both pushing the spec forward even without me and catching any mistakes with my work. So I don't think any argument involving me applies. And we ended up deciding not to do more semi-closed meetings.
40/ Another red flag to me is the apparent lack of relevant expertise in the ETH development community. (Check the responses…)
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Often heard: "but Ethereum also has world class engineers working on the protocol". Please name names and relevant pedigree so I can follow and learn. https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/963029019447955461
I personally am confident in the talents of our core researchers, and our community of academic partners. Most recently the latter group includes people from Starkware, Stanford CBR, IC3, and other groups.
41/ For a while, Microsoft veteran Lucius Meredith was mentioned as playing an important role in ETH scaling, but now he is likely distracted by the failure of his ETH scaling company RChain. https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/12/24/understanding-serenity-part-i-abstraction/
I have no idea who described Lucius Meredith's work as being important for the Serenity roadmap.... oh and by the way, RChain is NOT an "Ethereum scaling company"
42/ Perhaps the recently added Gandalf of Ethereum, with his “Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians” [sic] can save the day, but imo that seems unlikely...
Honestly, I don't see why Ethereum Gandalf needs to save the day, because I don't see what is in danger and needs to be saved...
43/ This is becoming a long tweetstorm, so let’s wrap up with a few closing comments.
Yay!
44/ Do I have a conflict of interest? ETH is a publicly available asset with no real barriers to entry, so I could easily get a stake. Also, having met Vitalik & other ETH founders several times in 2013-’14, it would have been doable for me to become part of the in-crowd.
Agree there. And BTW I generally think financial conflicts of interest are somewhat overrated; social conflicts/tribal biases are the bigger problem much of the time. Though those two kinds of misalignments do frequently overlap and reinforce each other so they're difficult to fully disentangle.
45/ Actually, I was initially excited about Ethereum’s smart contract work - this was before one of its many pivots.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Ethereum is probably the first programming language I will teach myself - who wouldn't want the ability to program smart BTC contracts?
Ethereum was never about "smart BTC contracts"..... even "Ethereum as a Mastercoin-style meta-protocol" was intended to be built on top of Primecoin.
46/ Also, I have done my share of soul searching about whether I could be suffering from survivor’s bias.
@TuurDemeester I just published “I’m not worried about Bitcoin Unlimited, but I am losing sleep over Ethereum” https://medium.com/p/im-not-worried-about-bitcoin-unlimited-but-i-am-losing-sleep-over-ethereum-b5251c54e66d
Ok, good.
47/ Here’s why Ethereum is dubious to me: rather than creating an open source project & testnet to work on these interesting computer science problems, its founders instead did a securities offering, involving many thousands of clueless retail investors.
What do you mean "instead of"? We did create an open source project and testnet! Whether or not ETH is a security is a legal question; seems like SEC people agree it's not: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/14/bitcoin-and-ethereum-are-not-securities-but-some-cryptocurrencies-may-be-sec-official-says.html
48/ Investing in the Ethereum ICO was akin to buying shares in a startup that had “invent time travel” as part of its business plan. Imo it was a reckless security offering, and it set the tone for the terrible capital misallocation of the 2017 ICO boom.
Nothing in the ethereum roadmap requires time-travel-like technical advancements or anything remotely close to that. Proof: we basically have all the fundamental technical advancements we need at this point.
49/ In my view, Ethereum is the Yahoo of our day - an unscalable “blue chip” cryptocurrency:
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: 1/ The DotCom bubble shows that the market isn't very good at valuing early stage technology. I'll use Google vs. Yahoo to illustrate.
Got it.
50/ I’ll close with a few words from Gregory Maxwell from 2016,: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1427885.msg14601127#msg14601127
See my rebuttal to Greg from 2 years ago: https://www.reddit.com/ethereum/comments/4g1bh6/greg_maxwells_critique_of_ethereum_blockchains/
submitted by shouldbdan to ethtrader [link] [comments]

IRC Log from Ravencoin Open Developer Meeting - Aug 24, 2018

[14:05] <@wolfsokta> Hello Everybody, sorry we're a bit late getting started
[14:05] == block_338778 [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.72.214.222.226] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:06] <@wolfsokta> Here are the topics we would like to cover today • 2.0.4 Need to upgrade - What we have done to communicate to the community • Unique Assets • iOS Wallet • General Q&A
[14:06] == Chatturga changed the topic of #ravencoin-dev to: 2.0.4 Need to upgrade - What we have done to communicate to the community • Unique Assets • iOS Wallet • General Q&A
[14:06] <@wolfsokta> Daben, could you mention what we have done to communicate the need for the 2.0.4 upgrade?
[14:07] == hwhwhsushwban [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.172.58.37.35] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:07] <@wolfsokta> Others here are free to chime in where they saw the message first.
[14:07] == hwhwhsushwban [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.172.58.37.35] has quit [Client Quit]
[14:08] Whats up bois
[14:08] hi everyone
[14:08] hi hi
[14:08] <@wolfsokta> Discussing the 2.0.4 update and the need to upgrade.
[14:08] <@Chatturga> Sure. As most of you are aware, the community has been expressing concerns with the difficulty oscillations, and were asking that something be done to the difficulty retargeting. Many people submitted suggestions, and the devs decided to implement DGW.
[14:09] <@Tron> I wrote up a short description of why we're moving to a new difficulty adjustment. https://medium.com/@tronblack/ravencoin-dark-gravity-wave-1da0a71657f7
[14:09] <@Chatturga> I have made posts on discord, telegram, bitcointalk, reddit, and ravencointalk.org from testnet stages through current.
[14:10] <@Chatturga> If there are any other channels that can reach a large number of community members, I would love to have more.
[14:10] <@wolfsokta> Thanks Tron, that hasn't been shared to the community at large yet, but folks feel free to share it.
[14:10] When was this decision made and by whom and how?
[14:10] <@Chatturga> I have also communicated with the pool operators and exchanges about the update. Of all of the current pools, only 2 have not yet updated versions.
[14:11] <@wolfsokta> The decision was made by the developers through ongoing requests for weeks made by the community.
[14:12] <@wolfsokta> Evidence was provided by the community of the damages that could be caused to projects when the wild swings continue.
[14:12] So was there a meeting or vote? How can people get invited
[14:12] <@Tron> It was also informed by my conversations with some miners that recommended that we make the change before the coin died. They witnessed similar oscillations from which other coins never recovered.
[14:13] only two pools left to upgrade is good, what about the exchanges? Any word on how many of those have/have not upgraded?
[14:13] <@wolfsokta> We talked about here in our last meeting Bruce_. All attendees were asked if they had any questions or concerns.
[14:13] == blondfrogs [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.185.245.87.219] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:13] == roshii [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.41.251.25.100] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:13] sup roshii long time no see
[14:14] <@Chatturga> Bittrex, Cryptopia, and IDCM have all either updated or have announced their intent to update.
[14:14] == wjcgiwgu283ik3cj [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.172.58.37.35] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:15] sup russki
[14:15] what's the status here?
[14:15] I don’t think that was at all clear from the last dev meeting
[14:15] I can’t be the only person who didn’t understand it
[14:15] <@wolfsokta> Are there any suggestions on how to communicate the need to upgrade even further? I am concerned that others might also not understand.
[14:17] I’m not sold on the benefit and don’t understand the need for a hard fork — I think it’s a bad precedent to simply go rally exchanges to support a hard fork with little to no discussion
[14:17] so just to note, the exchanges not listed as being upgraded or have announced their intention to upgrade include: qbtc, upbit, and cryptobridge (all with over $40k usd volume past 24 hours according to coinmarketcap)
[14:18] <@wolfsokta> I don't agree that there was little or no discussion at all.
[14:19] <@wolfsokta> Looking back at our meeting notes from two weeks ago "fork" was specifically asked about by BrianMCT.
[14:19] If individual devs have the power to simple decide to do something as drastic as a hard fork and can get exchanges and miners to do it that’s got a lot of issues with centralization
[14:19] <@wolfsokta> It had been implemented on testnet by then and discussed in the community for several weeks before that.
[14:19] == under [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.72.200.168.56] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:19] howdy
[14:19] Everything I’ve seen has been related to the asset layer
[14:19] I have to agree with Bruce_, though I wasn't able to join the last meeting here. That said I support the fork
[14:20] Which devs made this decision to do a fork and how was it communicated?
[14:20] well mostly the community made the decision
[14:20] Consensus on a change is the heart of bitcoin development and I believe the devs have done a great job building that consensus
[14:20] a lot of miners were in uproar about the situation
[14:20] <@wolfsokta> All of the devs were supporting the changes. It wasn't done in isolation at all.
[14:21] This topic has been a huge discussion point within the RVN mining community for quite some time
[14:21] the community and miners have been having issues with the way diff is adjusted for quite some time now
[14:21] Sure I’m well aware of that -
[14:21] Not sold on the benefits of having difficulty crippled by rented hashpower?
[14:21] The community saw a problem. The devs got together and talked about a solution and implemented a solution
[14:21] I’m active in the community
[14:22] So well aware of the discussions on DGW etc
[14:22] Hard fork as a solution to a problem community had with rented hashpower (nicehash!!) sounds like the perfect decentralized scenario!
[14:23] hard forks are very dangerous
[14:23] mining parties in difficulty drops are too
[14:23] <@wolfsokta> Agreed, we want to keep them to an absolute minimum.
[14:23] But miners motivation it’s the main vote
[14:24] What would it take to convince you that constantly going from 4 Th/s to 500 Gh/s every week is worse for the long term health of the coin than the risk of a hard fork to fix it?
[14:24] == Tron [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.173.241.144.77] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
[14:24] This hardfork does include the asset layer right? if so why is it being delayed in implementation?
[14:24] <@wolfsokta> Come back Tron!
[14:24] coudl it have been implement through bip9 voting?
[14:24] also hard fork is activated by the community! that's a vote thing!
[14:24] @mrsushi to give people time to upgrade their wallet
[14:25] @under, it would be much hard to keep consensus with a bip9 change
[14:25] <@wolfsokta> We investigated that closely Under.
[14:25] == Tron [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.173.241.144.77] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:25] <@wolfsokta> See Tron's post for more details about that.
[14:25] <@spyder_> Hi Tron
[14:25] <@wolfsokta> https://medium.com/@tronblack/ravencoin-dark-gravity-wave-1da0a71657f7
[14:25] Sorry about that. Computer went to sleep.
[14:26] I'm wrong
[14:26] 2 cents. the release deadline of october 31st puts a bit of strain on getting code shipped. (duh). but fixing daa was important to the current health of the coin, and was widely suppported by current mining majority commuity. could it have been implemented in a different manner? yes . if we didnt have deadlines
[14:27] == wjcgiwgu283ik3cj [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.172.58.37.35] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[14:27] sushi this fork does not include assets. it's not being delayed though, we're making great progress for an Oct 31 target
[14:28] I don’t see the urgency but my vote doesn’t matter since my hash power is still CPUs
[14:28] <@wolfsokta> We're seeing the community get behind the change as well based on the amount of people jumping back in to mine through this last high difficulty phase.
[14:28] So that will be another hardfork?
[14:28] the fork does include the asset code though set to activate on oct 30th
[14:28] yes
[14:29] <@wolfsokta> Yes, it will based on the upgrade voting through the BIP9 process.
[14:29] I wanted to ask about burn rates from this group: and make a proposal.
[14:29] we're also trying hard to make it the last for awhile
[14:29] Can you clear up the above — there will be this one and another hard fork?
[14:29] <@wolfsokta> Okay, we could discuss that under towards the end of the meeting.
[14:30] If this one has the asset layer is there something different set for October
[14:30] <@wolfsokta> Yes, there will be another hard fork on October 31st once the voting process is successful.
[14:31] <@wolfsokta> The code is in 2.0.4 now and assets are active on testnet
[14:31] Bruce, the assets layer is still being worked on. Assets is active on mainnet. So in Oct 31 voting will start. and if it passes, the chain will fork.
[14:31] this one does NOT include assets for mainnet Bruce -- assets are targeted for Oct 31
[14:31] not***
[14:31] not active****
[14:31] correct me if I'm wrong here, but if everyone upgrades to 2.0.4 for this fork this week, the vote will automatically pass on oct 31st correct? nothing else needs to be done
[14:31] Will if need another download or does this software download cover both forks?
[14:31] <@wolfsokta> Correct Urgo
[14:32] thats how the testnet got activated and this one shows "asset activation status: waiting until 10/30/2018 20:00 (ET)"
[14:32] Will require another upgrade before Oct 31
[14:32] thank you for the clarification wolfsokta
[14:32] <@wolfsokta> It covers both forks, but we might have additional bug fixes in later releases.
[14:32] So users DL one version now and another one around October 30 which activates after that basically?
[14:33] I understand that, but I just wanted to make it clear that if people upgrade to this version for this fork and then don't do anything, they are also voting for the fork on oct 31st
[14:33] Oh okay — one DL?
[14:33] Bruce, Yes.
[14:33] Ty
[14:33] well there is the issue that there maybe some further consensus bugs dealing with the pruneability of asset transactions that needs to be corrected between 2.0.4 and mainnet. so i would imagine that there will be further revisions required to upgrade before now and october 31
[14:33] @under that is correct.
[14:34] I would highly recommend bumping the semver up to 3.0.0 for the final pre 31st release so that the public know to definitely upgrade
[14:34] @under +1
[14:35] out of curiosity, have there been many bugs found with the assets from the version released in july for testnet (2.0.3) until this version? or is it solely a change to DGW?
[14:35] <@wolfsokta> That's not a bad idea under.
[14:35] <@spyder_> @under good idea
[14:35] @urgo. Bugs are being found and fixed daily.
[14:35] Any time the protocol needs to change, there would need to be a hard fork (aka upgrade). It is our hope that we can activate feature forks through the BIP process (as we are doing for assets). Mining pools and exchanges will need to be on the newest software at the point of asset activation - should the mining hash power vote for assets.
[14:35] blondfrogs: gotcha
[14:35] There have been bugs found (and fixed). Testing continues. We appreciate all the bug reports you can give us.
[14:36] <@wolfsokta> Yes! Thank you all for your help in the community.
[14:37] (pull requests with fixes and test coverage would be even better!)
[14:37] asset creation collision is another major issue. current unfair advantage or nodes that fore connect to mining pools will have network topologies that guarantee acceptance. I had discussed the possibility of fee based asset creation selection and i feel that would be a more equal playing ground for all users
[14:38] *of nodes that force
[14:38] <@wolfsokta> What cfox said, we will always welcome development help.
[14:38] So just to make sure everyone know. When assets is ready to go live on oct 31st. Everyone that wants to be on the assets chain without any problems will have to download the new binary.
[14:39] <@wolfsokta> The latest binary.
[14:39] under: already in the works
[14:39] excellent to hear
[14:39] == UserJonPizza [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.24.218.60.237] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:39] <@wolfsokta> Okay, we've spent a bunch of time on that topic and I think it was needed. Does anybody have any other suggestions on how to get the word out even more?
[14:40] maybe preface all 2.0.X releases as pre-releases... minimize the number of releases between now and 3.0 etc
[14:41] <@wolfsokta> Bruce_ let's discuss further offline.
[14:41] wolfsokta: which are the remaining two pools that need to be upgraded? I've identified qbtc, upbit, and cryptobridge as high volume exchanges that haven't said they were going to do it yet
[14:41] so people can help reach out to them
[14:41] f2pool is notoriously hard to contact
[14:41] are they on board?
[14:42] <@wolfsokta> We could use help reaching out to QBTC and Graviex
[14:42] I can try to contact CB if you want?
[14:42] <@Chatturga> The remaining pools are Ravenminer and PickAxePro.
[14:42] <@Chatturga> I have spoken with their operators, the update just hasnt been applied yet.
[14:42] ravenminer is one of the largest ones too. If they don't upgrade that will be a problem
[14:42] okay good news
[14:42] (PickAxePro sounds like a Ruby book)
[14:43] I strongly feel like getting the word out on ravencoin.org would be beneficial
[14:44] that site is sorely in need of active contribution
[14:44] Anyone can volunteer to contribute
[14:44] <@wolfsokta> Okay, cfox can you talk about the status of unique assets?
[14:44] sure
[14:45] <@wolfsokta> I'll add website to the end of our topics.
[14:45] code is in review and will be on the development branch shortly
[14:45] would it make sense to have a page on the wiki (or somewhere else) that lists the wallet versions run by pools & exchanges?
[14:45] will be in next release
[14:45] furthermore, many sites have friendly link to the standard installers for each platform, if the site linked to the primary installers for each platform to reduce github newb confusion that would be good as well
[14:46] likely to a testnetv5 although that isn't settled
[14:46] <@wolfsokta> Thanks cfox.
[14:46] <@wolfsokta> Are there any questions about unique assets, and how they work?
[14:47] after the # are there any charachters you cant use?
[14:47] will unique assets be constrained by the asset alphanumeric set?
[14:47] ^
[14:47] <@Chatturga> @Urgo there is a page that tracks and shows if they have updated, but it currently doesnt show the actual version that they are on.
[14:47] a-z A-Z 0-9
[14:47] <@Chatturga> https://raven.wiki/wiki/Exchange_notifications#Pools
[14:47] There are a few. Mostly ones that mess with command-line
[14:47] you'll be able to use rpc to do "issueunique MATRIX ['Neo','Tank','Tank Brother']" and it will create three assets for you (MATRIX#Neo, etc.)
[14:47] @cfox - No space
[14:48] @under the unique tags have an expanded set of characters allowed
[14:48] Chatturga: thank you
[14:48] @UJP yes there are some you can't use -- I'll try to post gimmie a sec..
[14:49] Ok. Thank you much!
[14:49] 36^36 assets possible and 62^62 uniques available per asset?
[14:49] <@spyder_> std::regex UNIQUE_TAG_CHARACTERS("^[[email protected]$%&*()[\\]{}<>_.;?\\\\:]+$");
[14:50] regex UNIQUE_TAG_CHARACTERS("^[[email protected]$%&*()[\\]{}<>_.;?\\\\:]+$")
[14:50] oh thanks Mark
[14:51] <@wolfsokta> Okay, next up. I want to thank everybody for helping test the iOS wallet release.
[14:51] <@wolfsokta> We are working with Apple to get the final approval to post it to the App Store
[14:51] @under max asset length is 30, including unique tag
[14:51] Does the RVN wallet have any other cryptos or just RVN?
[14:52] == BruceFenton [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.67.189.233.170] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:52] will the android and ios source be migrated to the ravenproject github?
[14:52] I've been adding beta test users. I've added about 80 new users in the last few days.
[14:52] <@wolfsokta> Just RVN, and we want to focus on adding the asset support to the wallet.
[14:53] == Bruce_ [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.67.189.233.170] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
[14:53] <@wolfsokta> Yes, the code will also be freely available on GitHub for both iOS and Android. Thank you Roshii!
[14:53] Would you consider the iOS wallet to be a more secure place for one's holdings than say, a Mac connected to the internet?
[14:53] will there be a chance of a more user freindly wallet with better graphics like the iOS on PC?
[14:53] the android wallet is getting updated for DGW, correct?
[14:53] <@wolfsokta> That has come up in our discussion Pizza.
[14:54] QT framework is pretty well baked in and is cross platform. if we get some qt gurus possibly
[14:54] Phones are pretty good because the wallet we forked uses the TPM from modern phones.
[14:54] Most important is to write down and safely store your 12 word seed.
[14:54] TPM?
[14:54] <@wolfsokta> A user friendly wallet is one of our main goals.
[14:55] TPM == Trusted Platform Module
[14:55] Ahhh thanks
[14:55] just please no electron apps. they are full of security holes
[14:55] <@spyder_> It is whats makes your stuffs secure
[14:55] not fit for crypto
[14:55] under: depends on who makes it
[14:55] The interface screenshots I've seen look like Bread/Loaf wallet ... I assume that's what was forked from
[14:55] ;)
[14:56] <@wolfsokta> @roshii did you see the question about the Android wallet and DGW?
[14:56] Yes, it was a fork of breadwallet. We like their security.
[14:56] chromium 58 is the last bundled electron engine and has every vuln documented online by google. so unless you patch every vuln.... methinks not
[14:56] Agreed, great choice
[14:57] <@wolfsokta> @Under, what was your proposal?
[14:58] All asset creation Transactions have a mandatory OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY of 1 year(or some agreed upon time interval), and the 500 RVN goes to a multisig devfund, run by a custodial group. We get: 1) an artificial temporary burn, 2) sustainable community and core development funding for the long term, after OSTK/Medici 3) and the reintroduction of RVN supply at a fixed schedule, enabling the removal of the 42k max cap of total As
[14:58] *im wrong on the 42k figure
[14:58] <@wolfsokta> Interesting...
[14:59] <@wolfsokta> Love to hear others thoughts.
[14:59] Update: I posted a message on the CryptoBridge discord and one of their support members @stepollo#6276 said he believes the coin team is already aware of the fork but he would forward the message about the fork over to them right now anyway
[14:59] Ifs 42 million assets
[14:59] yep.
[15:00] I have a different Idea. If the 500 RVN goes to a dev fund its more centralized. The 500 RVN should go back into the unmined coins so miners can stay for longer.
[15:01] *without a hardfork
[15:01] <@wolfsokta> lol
[15:01] that breaks halving schedule, since utxos cant return to an unmined state.
[15:01] @UJP back into coinbase is interesting. would have to think about how that effects distribution schedule, etc.
[15:01] only way to do that would be to dynamicaly grow max supply
[15:02] and i am concerned already about the max safe integer on various platforms at 21 billion
[15:02] js chokes on ravencoin already
[15:02] <@wolfsokta> Other thoughts on Under's proposal? JS isn't a real language. ;)
[15:02] Well Bitcoin has more than 21 bn Sats
[15:02] Is there somebody who wants to volunteer to fix js.
[15:02] hahaha
[15:03] I honestly would hate for the coins to go to a dev fund. It doesn't seem like Ravencoin to me.
[15:03] Yep, but we're 21 billion x 100,000,000 -- Fits fine in a 64-bit integer, but problematic for some languages.
[15:03] <@wolfsokta> Thanks UJP
[15:04] <@wolfsokta> We're past time but I would like to continue if you folks are up for it.
[15:04] Yeah no coins can go anywhere centrality contorted like a dev fund cause that would mean someone has to run it and the code can’t decide that so it’s destined to break
[15:05] currently and long term with out the financial backing of development then improvements and features will be difficult. we are certainly thankful for our current development model. but if a skunkworks project hits a particular baseline of profitability any reasonable company would terminate it
[15:05] Yes let’s contibue for sure
[15:05] the alternative to a dev fund in my mind would be timelocking those funds back to the issuers change address
[15:06] But we can’t have dev built in to the code — it has to be open source like Bitcoin and monero and Litecoin - it’s got drawbacks but way more advantages- it’s the best model
[15:06] Dev funding
[15:06] i highly reccommend not reducing the utility of raven by removing permanently the supply
[15:07] == BW_ [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.138.68.243.202] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[15:07] timelocking those funds accompllishes the same sacrifice
[15:07] @under timelocking is interesting too
[15:07] How exactly does timelocking work?
[15:07] <@wolfsokta> ^
[15:07] I mean you could change the price of assets with the Block reward halfing.
[15:07] == Roshiix [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.105.67.2.212] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[15:08] funds cant be spent from an address until a certain time passes
[15:08] but in a what magical fairy land do people continue to work for free forever. funding development is a real issue... as much as some might philosphically disagree. its a reality
[15:08] You’d still need a centralized party to decide how to distribute the funds
[15:08] even unofficially blockstream supports bitcoin devs
[15:08] on chain is more transparent imho
[15:09] == Tron_ [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.173.241.144.77] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[15:09] @UJP yes there are unlimited strategies. one factor that I think is v important is giving application developers a way to easily budget for projects which leads to flat fees
[15:09] If the project is a success like many of believe it will be, I believe plenty of people will gladly done to a dev fund. I don't think the 500 should be burned.
[15:09] *donate
[15:09] centralized conservatorship, directed by community voting process
[15:10] == Tron [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.173.241.144.77] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
[15:10] <@wolfsokta> Thanks Under, that's an interesting idea that we should continue to discuss in the community. You also mentioned the existing website.
[15:10] It would need to be something where everyone with a QT has a vote
[15:10] think his computer went to sleep again :-/
[15:10] I agree UJP
[15:10] with the website
[15:10] No that’s ico jargon — any development fund tied to code would have to be centralized and would therefor fail
[15:11] ^
[15:11] ^
[15:11] ^
[15:11] dashes model for funding seems to be pretty decentralized
[15:11] community voting etc
[15:11] Once you have a dev fund tied to code then who gets to run it? Who mediates disputes?
[15:11] oh well another discussion
[15:11] Dash has a CEO
[15:12] <@wolfsokta> Yeah, let's keep discussing in the community spaces.
[15:12] Dash does have a good model. It's in my top ten.
[15:12] having the burn go to a dev fund is absolute garbage
[15:12] These dev chats should be more target than broad general discussions — changing the entire nature of the coin and it’s economics is best discussed in the RIPs or other means
[15:13] <@wolfsokta> Yup, let's move on.
[15:13] just becuase existing implementation are garbage doesnt mean that all possible future governance options are garbage
[15:13] <@wolfsokta> To discussing the website scenario mentioned by under.
[15:13] the website needs work. would be best if it could be migrated to github as well.
[15:13] What about this: Anyone can issue a vote once the voting feature has been added, for a cost. The vote would be what the coins could be used for.
[15:14] features for the site that need work are more user friendly links to binaries
[15:14] <@wolfsokta> We investigated how bitcoin has their website in Github to make it easy for contributors to jump in.
[15:14] that means active maintenance of the site instead of its current static nature
[15:15] <@wolfsokta> I really like how it's static html, which makes it super simple to host/make changes.
[15:15] the static nature isn’t due to interface it’s due to no contributors
[15:15] no contribution mechanism has been offered
[15:15] github hosted would allow that
[15:16] We used to run the Bitcoin website from the foundation & the GitHub integration seemed to cause some issues
[15:16] its doesnt necessarily have to be hosted by github but the page source should be on github and contributions could easily be managed and tracked
[15:17] for example when a new release is dropped, the ability for the downlaods section to have platform specific easy links to the general installers is far better for general adoption than pointing users to github releases
[15:18] <@wolfsokta> How do people currently contribute to the existing website?
[15:18] they dont?
[15:18] We did that and it was a complete pain to host and keep working — if someone wants to volunteer to do that work hey can surely make the website better and continually updated — but they could do that in Wordpress also
[15:19] I’d say keep an eye out for volunteers and maybe we can get a group together who can improve the site
[15:19] == digitalvap0r-xmr [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.67.255.25.134] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[15:19] And they can decide best method
[15:20] I host the source for the explorer on github and anyone can spin it up instantly on a basic aws node. changes can be made to interface etc, and allow for multilingual translations which have been offered by some community members
[15:20] there are models that work. just saying it should be looked at
[15:20] i gotta run thank you all for your contributions
[15:20] <@wolfsokta> I feel we should explore the source for the website being hosted in GitHub and discuss in our next dev meeting.
[15:21] <@Chatturga> Thanks Under!
[15:21] == under [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.72.200.168.56] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[15:21] <@wolfsokta> Thanks, we also need to drop soon.
[15:21] There is no official site so why care. Someone will do better than the next if RVN is worth it anyway. That's already the case.
[15:21] <@wolfsokta> Let's do 10 mins of open Q&A
[15:22] <@wolfsokta> Go...
[15:23] <@Chatturga> Beuller?
[15:24] No questions ... just a comment that the devs and community are great and I'm happy to be a part of it
[15:24] I think everyone moved to discord. I'll throw this out there. How confident is the dev team that things will be ready for oct 31st?
[15:24] <@wolfsokta> Alright! Thanks everybody for joining us today. Let's plan to get back together as a dev group in a couple of weeks.
[15:25] thanks block!
[15:25] <@wolfsokta> Urgo, very confident
[15:25] Please exclude trolls from discord who havent read the whitepaper
[15:25] great :)
[15:25] "things" will be ready..
[15:25] Next time on discord right?
[15:25] woah why discord?
[15:25] some of the suggestions here are horrid
[15:25] this is better less point
[15:25] == blondfrogs [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.185.245.87.219] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[15:25] Assets are working well on testnet. Plan is to get as much as we can safely test by Sept 30 -- this includes dev contributions. Oct will be heavy testing and making sure it is safe.
[15:26] people
[15:26] <@wolfsokta> Planning on same time, same IRC channel.
[15:26] == BW_ [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.138.68.243.202] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[15:26] @xmr any in particular?
[15:27] (or is "here" discord?)
[15:27] Cheers - Tron
[15:27] "Cheers - Tron" - Tron
submitted by Chatturga to Ravencoin [link] [comments]

Market Sentiment #7 (+ BCH v. BTC battle, summarized)

Ok. What a week! So much happened!
Bitcoin v. Bitcoin Cash
I had predicted something big happening with Bitcoin Cash on multiple occasions. But I would have never been able to guess the sheer scale of what happened. Let's summarize what happened (I'll update this later with links so that you don't have to take my word on any of this):
So, my thoughts? I don't think BTC is going anywhere. It's the poster child, and there's no way it can be traded into oblivion overnight. But I also think that BCH addresses a key need of the hour - scalability. Irrespective of the approach, scaling is something we badly need right now. So BCH will grow. It will end up becoming a major force in the crypto sphere because of how easy it is to transact. There's more than enough space at the top for all the cryptos to co-exist!
Market Sentiment
For the coming week, I daresay we can expect atleast 1-2 BTC bull-runs, but there is the small chance of the aforementioned BCH pump over the weekend.
Overall, a good time for trading alts:
Something else that I noticed was how resilient (and profitable, even!) coins like ETH, XMR and OMG have been through everything that has been going on. Conditions seem ideal for ETH to finally get out of the cursed #300Zone, and go back to previous all-time highs.
These markets are ideal for short-term trades and swing trades. Keep compounding your investments by 1-2%. Do it enough times and you'll be a millionaire!
This post was delayed due to a frantic week both at work and in the crypto-sphere!
Table of Contents
submitted by VikNoob to u/VikNoob [link] [comments]

What Does Hashrate Mean?  Hashrate Mining Explained Experts Say Bitcoin Difficulty Adjustment Might Prompt Miners to Switch Cryptocurrency Market News Hashrate rally to all time high precedes Bitcoin surge eyeing $10,000 Mining Hash Rate & Difficulty Explained Bitcoin Price Volatility Expected as 10% Mining Difficulty Adjustment

We can hardly call such a situation conducive to healthy market development, as 60% of the “sleeping” bitcoins do not participate in circulation. We are witnessing the centralization of both hash rate and trading volume due to the relatively small size of this market. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you like cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you like cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics. The difficulty of the puzzle (Network Difficulty) adjusts every 2016 blocks (~14 days) to ensure that on average one machine will solve the puzzle in a 10 minute period. Network difficulty is calculated by the amount of hashrate contributing to the Bitcoin network. What is Hashrate? Hashrate is a measure of a miner’s computational power. Next Bitcoin Difficulty Adjustment Coming On November 21st. When it comes to Bitcoin’s mining difficulty, its value is updated on a biweekly manner. This is carried out to guarantee that the average time that it takes to add a new block to the network is kept at 10 minutes.

[index] [6037] [12866] [4737] [23387] [6365] [21382] [19203] [2801] [28625] [6208]

What Does Hashrate Mean? Hashrate Mining Explained

#Hash_Rate, also #Hash_Power, is the measuring unit that measures how much power the Bitcoin network is consuming to be continuously functional.By continuously functional I mean how much hash ... Cointelegraph regularly reports on hash rate changes, along with Bitcoin mining difficulty, which is also on the rise after around a month of stagnation.“I expect it to keep going up from here ... Source: BTC.comThe mining difficulty adjustment that occurred around 40 days ago caused the hash rate of the Bitcoin blockchain network to surge as it made mining BTC cheaper than before. As the hash rate surged, Bitcoin price continued with the lull consolidating in the range between $9,000 and $9,400.According to CoinCorner s Matt Ward, the hash rate rose to 147.88 exahashes a ... 📚 Download our FREE eBooks! 📚 The Ultimate Guide to Blockchain: https://miningstore.com.au/the-ultima... 3 Simple Steps To Successfully Trading Cryptocurrenc...

Flag Counter