How is difficulty calculated? - Bitcoin Stack Exchange

hashflare

Discussion based on cloud mining specifically using HashFlare.
[link]

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]

The Best Cryptocurrency Mining Pools in 2020

This review is not sponsored! Neither it is an ad.
How to choose a mining pool? How to avoid stale shares? The pros and cons of different services.

What is a cryptocurrency mining pool?

A “mining pool" is a server that distributes the task of calculating the block signature between all connected participants. The contribution of each of them is evaluated using the so-called “shares”, which are potential candidates for receiving a signature. As soon as one of the “shares” hits the target, the pool announces the readiness of the block and distributes the reward.
However, if you participate in the pool, then you will have to share the profit with all the participants in the pool, but for the majority, this usually is the most profitable option.

Which pool is better for mining?

The best mining pools should meet the following criteria:

Key selection criteria

To select a good pool for each specific cryptocurrency, you need to carefully study all the information available about it on its website and on the forums.
To reduce the number of stale shares, it is better to mine on the pool closest to the miner. You can choose the fastest mining pool by studying the information about the processing speed of the share in the mining program or by pinging the time it takes for the signal to pass from the miner's computer to the servers of the pool.

10 most popular and powerful pools: Description

ViaBTC

Coins: BTC, BCH, BSV, LTC, ETH, ETC, ZEC, DASH, XMR, CKB
Commission: 3%, lifetime discount: 1%

EMCD

Coins: BTC, BSV, BCH, LTC, ETC, ETH, DASH
Commission: 0%. There is a donation option: 0.5% of the income

Ethermine

Coins: ETH, ETC, ZEC
Commission: 1%

F2pool

Coins: BTC, LTC, and many other coins
Commission: 3-5%

NanoPool

Coins: XMR, ETH, ETC, SiaCoin, ZEC, PASC, ETN
Commission:1%

Mining Pool Hub

Coins: BTC, BSV, BCH, LTC
Commission: 0.9%

NiceHash

Coins: BTC, ETH, XRP, BCH, LTC, ZEC, DASH, XLM, EOS, USDT, LINK, BAT, ZRX, HOT, OMG, REP, BTG, NEXO, MATIC, ENJ, SNT, ELF, BNT, KNC, POLY, MTL + 20 more.
Commission: 2-5%

Coinotron

Coins: ETH, ETC, PASC, LTC, Zcash, BTG, DASH, FTC, VTC
Commission: 1-1.5%

Monero Mining Pool

Coins: XMR
Commission: 2%

Baikalmine

Coins: ETH, ETC, MOAC, CLO
Commission: 0.5-1%

Independent Pool Statistics

To make sure that the pools work and really exist, check independent sources. These are:
Keep up with the news of the crypto world at CoinJoy.io Follow us on Twitter and Medium. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. Join our Telegram channel. For any inquiries mail us at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
submitted by CoinjoyAssistant to dogemining [link] [comments]

CelesOS Research Institute丨DPoW consensus mechanism-combustible mining and voting

CelesOS Research Institute丨DPoW consensus mechanism-combustible mining and voting
The token economy and the blockchain complement each other, while at the same time, the consensus mechanism forms the basis of the blockchain, whom constitutes the basic technical framework of the token economy.
The mainstream blockchain, like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and EOS have all compromised on certain aspects of the "impossible triangle" features.
https://preview.redd.it/8ocq98swpt551.png?width=554&format=png&auto=webp&s=37ab0235c07b450217e22531ad5291d5b4bcbbee
Bitcoin, as a decentralized digital currency, has sacrificed performance to meet the design requirements of decentralization and security, rendering it the target of highest attacking cost among all PoW public chains. The ASIC mining machines updates continually and new versions launch, both can continuously improve the computing power of the entire network.
Ethereum 2.0 will use a proof of stake (PoS) consensus mechanism. On the Ethereum network, money can be transfered and smart contracts can be operated, presenting a more complicated application scenario. However, due to its low performance, Ethereum is more prone to get congested.
EOS, as a blockchain application platform, is often suspected of being centralized. EOS uses a delegated proof of stake (DPoS) consensus mechanism. Having 21 super nodes responsible for bookkeeping and block generation, the EOS main network can handle more than 4,000 TPS now. However, due to its small number of nodes, it’s one of the three major public chains that are most easily questioned by the outside world on the "decentralization" feature.
An inefficient blockchain will only be a game in the laboratory, and an efficient blockchain without decentralization will only be taken advantage of by big players.
New generation consensus algorithm DPoW
Is there any consensus mechanism that can achieve a better balance between decentralization and efficiency, and can give miners incentives to invest in hardware resources? If we separate the two acts of "acquiring accounting rights" and "receiving block rewards", the above dilemma can be solved. By separating the above two, DPoW has finally achieved the effect of balancing efficiency and centralization.

https://preview.redd.it/www3h8swpt551.png?width=731&format=png&auto=webp&s=c0bf49a42751a9501828d0294bc9280f856c441e
Drawing on the design concept and operating experience of the preceding consensus mechanisms, DPoW is a new-generation consensus mechanism formed based on PoB and DPoS.
Before explaining DPoW, it’s necessary to introduce PoB.
PoB (Proof of Burn) is called the burning proof mechanism. (Source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn))

https://preview.redd.it/payq2duzpt551.png?width=554&format=png&auto=webp&s=4b8e9181d95d31a8d5b75a7acab27c851a4a3a4d
PoB is a way to vote who has a commitment to the leadership of the network by burning tokens possessed. The greater the number of tokens burned, the higher the probability of gaining network leadership.
PoB is a method of distributed consensus and an alternative method of proof-of-work mechanism. It can also be used to guide a cryptocurrency.

https://preview.redd.it/4lmhs1i1qt551.png?width=554&format=png&auto=webp&s=e8c50b1638d8ec8d8a2dac2e842b50a2979984fb
In the DPoW-based blockchain, the miner's mining reward is no longer a token, but a "wood" that can be burned-burning wood. Through the hash algorithm, miners use their own computing power to get the corresponding non-tradable wood after proving their workload eventually. When the wood has accumulated to a certain amount, it can be burnt in the burning site.
DPoW technical solutions
Voting with computing power is the biggest innovation of the present invention. It uses the proof of work of the PoW algorithm to replace the stakes as votes, yet retains the BFT-DPoS block generation mechanism.
Specific steps are as follow:
  1. POW question acquisition
Obtain the question of proof of work. The proof of work of the present invention is to perform a Hash operation on a PoW problem; the questions is:
target = hash(block_id + account) ^ difficulty 
  1. POW question answering
A mathematical hash operation of a random number (nonce) is performed on the question, and if the hash value obtained is less than a certain value, the question is answered;
Question answering process:
nonce = random ()ret = max() while(ret > target) { if(hash(nonce+account + block_id)< target) { wood = nonce; break; } nonce++; } 
  1. Voting
Voting is to cast the specific answers to the question to the candidate BP. By such, it’s submitted to the blockchain and counted to the blockchain's status database; within an election period, the maximum value of the answer that each voter can calculate is N, and each answer can only be voted to one candidate BP, and the number of votes that can be cast is N.
The information and process that voting requires:
  • Answer to the question
  • Miner account
  • Block id
  • Block
  • Voting objects (candidate BP)
  • Verify that the vote is valid
  • After verification, it will be credited to BP
4. Count the votes
At the end of an election period, votes are counted and sorted top-down according to the number of votes under the name of the candidate BP. The top X candidate BPs are selected and inserted into the BP list, and the block generating order of the selected BP is written to the blockchain status database.
If X is the number of BPs generated by the system, namely a multiple of 3, it will be set in the genesis block and cannot be changed.
  1. Block generation
The DPoW block generation mechanism is the same as BFT-DPoS. The elected BP negotiates a block generation ownership order based on its own network resource status. When each BP node has block generation rights, the block reward is a fixed reward for each effective irreversible block. At the same time, the blocks that have been generated use the BFT signature mechanism. After getting 2/3 BP's signature, the block will become an irreversible block.
DPoW’s advantage in balance
Compared with existing technical solutions, the DPoW consensus protocol has the following feature.
  1. When the stock of burning wood is large, the nodes in the system tend to burn burning wood to vote instead of logging through computing power, which is similar to the DPoS under this situation.
  2. When the stock of burning wood is few, the nodes in this system tend to log to obtain burning wood for voting, which is similar to PoW under this situation, presenting the feature of decentralization. In order to ensure the high-speed operation of the system and attract ticket sources, BP will maintain a stable investment in computer resources to keep the system highly efficient.
Choosing to vote by logging or burning wood depends on the nodes’ own optimal choice, resulting in constant choosing between the two consensus mechanisms of PoW and DPoS. This will make nodes tend to choose PoW when decentralization is needed, and to choose DPoS when efficiency is needed.
For a system, whether it is decentralized does not depend on whether each block needs to be decentralized. The key is whether the system can provide a channel to decentralization and fair competition when needed. As long as the channel is reasonable, the system will be considered decentralized.
By decoupling vote by logging and block generation, they can be done asynchronously to achieve the effects of decentralization and high efficiency.
Learning and updating the preceding practices in blockchain technology, DPoW manages to achieve both decentralization and efficiency, as “having the cake and eating it”.

📷Website
https://www.celesos.com/
📷 Telegram
https://t.me/celeschain
📷 Twitter
https://twitter.com/CelesChain
📷 Reddit
https://www.reddit.com/useCelesOS
📷 Medium
https://medium.com/@celesos
📷 Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/CelesOS1
📷 Youtube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1Xsd8wU957D-R8RQVZPfGA
submitted by CelesOS to u/CelesOS [link] [comments]

The Best Cryptocurrency Mining Pools in 2020

This review is not sponsored! Neither it is an ad.
How to choose a mining pool? How to avoid stale shares? The pros and cons of different services.

What is a cryptocurrency mining pool?

A “mining pool" is a server that distributes the task of calculating the block signature between all connected participants. The contribution of each of them is evaluated using the so-called “shares”, which are potential candidates for receiving a signature. As soon as one of the “shares” hits the target, the pool announces the readiness of the block and distributes the reward.
However, if you participate in the pool, then you will have to share the profit with all the participants in the pool, but for the majority, this usually is the most profitable option.

Which pool is better for mining?

The best mining pools should meet the following criteria:

Key selection criteria

To select a good pool for each specific cryptocurrency, you need to carefully study all the information available about it on its website and on the forums.
To reduce the number of stale shares, it is better to mine on the pool closest to the miner. You can choose the fastest mining pool by studying the information about the processing speed of the share in the mining program or by pinging the time it takes for the signal to pass from the miner's computer to the servers of the pool.

10 most popular and powerful pools: Description

ViaBTC

Coins: BTC, BCH, BSV, LTC, ETH, ETC, ZEC, DASH, XMR, CKB
Commission: 3%, lifetime discount: 1%

EMCD

Coins: BTC, BSV, BCH, LTC, ETC, ETH, DASH
Commission: 0%. There is a donation option: 0.5% of the income

Ethermine

Coins: ETH, ETC, ZEC
Commission: 1%

F2pool

Coins: BTC, LTC, and many other coins
Commission: 3-5%

NanoPool

Coins: XMR, ETH, ETC, SiaCoin, ZEC, PASC, ETN
Commission:1%

Mining Pool Hub

Coins: BTC, BSV, BCH, LTC
Commission: 0.9%

NiceHash

Coins: BTC, ETH, XRP, BCH, LTC, ZEC, DASH, XLM, EOS, USDT, LINK, BAT, ZRX, HOT, OMG, REP, BTG, NEXO, MATIC, ENJ, SNT, ELF, BNT, KNC, POLY, MTL + 20 more.
Commission: 2-5%

Coinotron

Coins: ETH, ETC, PASC, LTC, Zcash, BTG, DASH, FTC, VTC
Commission: 1-1.5%

Monero Mining Pool

Coins: XMR
Commission: 2%

Baikalmine

Coins: ETH, ETC, MOAC, CLO
Commission: 0.5-1%

Independent Pool Statistics

To make sure that the pools work and really exist, check independent sources. These are:
Keep up with the news of the crypto world at CoinJoy.io Follow us on Twitter and Medium. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. Join our Telegram channel. For any inquiries mail us at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
submitted by CoinjoyAssistant to MiningPoolHub [link] [comments]

Proof Of Work Explained

Proof Of Work Explained
https://preview.redd.it/hl80wdx61j451.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=c80b21c53ae45c6f7d618f097bc705a1d8aaa88f
A proof-of-work (PoW) system (or protocol, or function) is a consensus mechanism that was first invented by Cynthia Dwork and Moni Naor as presented in a 1993 journal article. In 1999, it was officially adopted in a paper by Markus Jakobsson and Ari Juels and they named it as "proof of work".
It was developed as a way to prevent denial of service attacks and other service abuse (such as spam on a network). This is the most widely used consensus algorithm being used by many cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum.
How does it work?
In this method, a group of users competes against each other to find the solution to a complex mathematical puzzle. Any user who successfully finds the solution would then broadcast the block to the network for verifications. Once the users verified the solution, the block then moves to confirm the state.
The blockchain network consists of numerous sets of decentralized nodes. These nodes act as admin or miners which are responsible for adding new blocks into the blockchain. The miner instantly and randomly selects a number which is combined with the data present in the block. To find a correct solution, the miners need to select a valid random number so that the newly generated block can be added to the main chain. It pays a reward to the miner node for finding the solution.
The block then passed through a hash function to generate output which matches all input/output criteria. Once the result is found, other nodes in the network verify and validate the outcome. Every new block holds the hash of the preceding block. This forms a chain of blocks. Together, they store information within the network. Changing a block requires a new block containing the same predecessor. It is almost impossible to regenerate all successors and change their data. This protects the blockchain from tampering.
What is Hash Function?
A hash function is a function that is used to map data of any length to some fixed-size values. The result or outcome of a hash function is known as hash values, hash codes, digests, or simply hashes.
https://preview.redd.it/011tfl8c1j451.png?width=851&format=png&auto=webp&s=ca9c2adecbc0b14129a9b2eea3c2f0fd596edd29
The hash method is quite secure, any slight change in input will result in a different output, which further results in discarded by network participants. The hash function generates the same length of output data to that of input data. It is a one-way function i.e the function cannot be reversed to get the original data back. One can only perform checks to validate the output data with the original data.
Implementations
Nowadays, Proof-of-Work is been used in a lot of cryptocurrencies. But it was first implemented in Bitcoin after which it becomes so popular that it was adopted by several other cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin uses the puzzle Hashcash, the complexity of a puzzle is based upon the total power of the network. On average, it took approximately 10 min to block formation. Litecoin, a Bitcoin-based cryptocurrency is having a similar system. Ethereum also implemented this same protocol.
Types of PoW
Proof-of-work protocols can be categorized into two parts:-
· Challenge-response
This protocol creates a direct link between the requester (client) and the provider (server).
In this method, the requester needs to find the solution to a challenge that the server has given. The solution is then validated by the provider for authentication.
The provider chooses the challenge on the spot. Hence, its difficulty can be adapted to its current load. If the challenge-response protocol has a known solution or is known to exist within a bounded search space, then the work on the requester side may be bounded.
https://preview.redd.it/ij967dof1j451.png?width=737&format=png&auto=webp&s=12670c2124fc27b0f988bb4a1daa66baf99b4e27
Source-wiki
· Solution–verification
These protocols do not have any such prior link between the sender and the receiver. The client, self-imposed a problem and solve it. It then sends the solution to the server to check both the problem choice and the outcome. Like Hashcash these schemes are also based on unbounded probabilistic iterative procedures.
https://preview.redd.it/gfobj9xg1j451.png?width=740&format=png&auto=webp&s=2291fd6b87e84395f8a4364267f16f577b5f1832
Source-wiki
These two methods generally based on the following three techniques:-
CPU-bound
This technique depends upon the speed of the processor. The higher the processor power greater will be the computation.
Memory-bound
This technique utilizes the main memory accesses (either latency or bandwidth) in computation speed.
Network-bound
In this technique, the client must perform a few computations and wait to receive some tokens from remote servers.
List of proof-of-work functions
Here is a list of known proof-of-work functions:-
o Integer square root modulo a large prime
o Weaken Fiat–Shamir signatures`2
o Ong–Schnorr–Shamir signature is broken by Pollard
o Partial hash inversion
o Hash sequences
o Puzzles
o Diffie–Hellman–based puzzle
o Moderate
o Mbound
o Hokkaido
o Cuckoo Cycle
o Merkle tree-based
o Guided tour puzzle protocol
A successful attack on a blockchain network requires a lot of computational power and a lot of time to do the calculations. Proof of Work makes hacks inefficient since the cost incurred would be greater than the potential rewards for attacking the network. Miners are also incentivized not to cheat.
It is still considered as one of the most popular methods of reaching consensus in blockchains. Though it may not be the most efficient solution due to high energy extensive usage. But this is why it guarantees the security of the network.
Due to Proof of work, it is quite impossible to alter any aspect of the blockchain, since any such changes would require re-mining all those subsequent blocks. It is also difficult for a user to take control over the network computing power since the process requires high energy thus making these hash functions expensive.
submitted by RumaDas to u/RumaDas [link] [comments]

Reddit is now privately scoring communities based on how heavily they remove content. Here is a sample of these ratings

See: https://www.reddit.com/ModSupport/comments/cwmqnj/this_community_has_a_medium_post_removal_rate/ for more background.
The "Difficulty Score" appears to operate on a scale from 0-1 with some (smalleless active) subreddits returning null
1 appears to be nearly complete lack of removals while scores closer to 0 appear to be heavier moderation.
Here is a sampling of values I found:
Reddit's also calculating similarity scores to present the suggestions I'll probably post more about this later. Whatever metric they are using is smart enough to realize that politics is heavily left leaning and suggest only other left leaning subreddits as similar.
If anyone would like me to check the value of a subreddit let me know.
Edits 1-7: Added some more results
Edit 8: I was banned from ModHelp for bringing attention to this data:
https://www.reddit.com/banned/comments/cx3bvl/i_was_just_banned_and_muted_from_rmodhelp_just/
Edits 9-26: More data
Edit 27: top 1000 subreddits here:
https://www.reddit.com/WatchRedditDie/wiki/removalrates
Edit 28: I was banned from ModSupport after expressing support for this feature:
https://www.reddit.com/ModSupport/comments/d3amz1/what_the_fuck_is_this_not_cool/f00zrd2/
And the admins have clarified that improved transparency is a goal of the experiment:
https://www.reddit.com/ModSupport/comments/d724l2/how_is_this_this_still_live/f0xd87c/
The hardest part of working at Reddit is trying to find the balance between users and moderators. We try not to pick sides and build things that work for both parties. One of the most consistent and hardest feedback we get from ours users is the lack of transparency around removals. This is not an indication or an inditement against mods. Rather users literally have no insights into this. So, while this may not be something requested from moderators, this is one of the key pain points for our users. This experiment is meant to help increase the level of transparency while trying to bring attention to users the importance of following rules.
u/HideHideHidden [emphasis added]
submitted by FreeSpeechWarrior to WatchRedditDie [link] [comments]

How to Create Your Own Cryptocurrency Using Python 2020

A blockchain is a public database that irreversibly documents and authenticates the possession and transmission of digital assets. Digital currencies, like Bitcoin and Ethereum, are based on this concept. Blockchain is an exciting technology that you can use to transform the capabilities of your applications.
Of late, we’ve been seeing governments, organizations, and individuals using the blockchain technology to create their own cryptocurrencies—and avoid being left behind. Notably, when Facebook proposed its own cryptocurrency, called Libra, the announcement stirred many waters across the world.

What if you could also follow suit and create your own version of a cryptocurrency?

I thought about this and decided to develop an algorithm that creates a crypto.
I decided to call the cryptocurrency fccCoin.
In this tutorial, I’m going to illustrate the step-by-step process I used to build the digital currency (I used the object-oriented concepts of the Python programming language).
Here is the basic blueprint of the blockchain algorithm for creating the fccCoin:
class Block: def __init__(): #first block class pass def calculate_hash(): #calculates the cryptographic hash of every block class BlockChain: def __init__(self): # constructor method pass def construct_genesis(self): # constructs the initial block pass def construct_block(self, proof_no, prev_hash): # constructs a new block and adds it to the chain pass u/staticmethod def check_validity(): # checks whether the blockchain is valid pass def new_data(self, sender, recipient, quantity): # adds a new transaction to the data of the transactions pass u/staticmethod def construct_proof_of_work(prev_proof): # protects the blockchain from attack pass u/property def last_block(self): # returns the last block in the chain return self.chain[-1]
Now, let me explain what is taking place…
1. Building the first Block class A blockchain comprises of several blocks that are joined to each other (that sounds familiar, right?).
The chaining of blocks takes place such that if one block is tampered with, the rest of the chain becomes invalid.
In applying the above concept, I created the following initial block class
import hashlib import time class Block: def __init__(self, index, proof_no, prev_hash, data, timestamp=None): self.index = index self.proof_no = proof_no self.prev_hash = prev_hash self.data = data self.timestamp = timestamp or time.time() u/property def calculate_hash(self): block_of_string = “{}{}{}{}{}”.format(self.index, self.proof_no, self.prev_hash, self.data, self.timestamp) return hashlib.sha256(block_of_string.encode()).hexdigest() def __repr__(self): return “{} – {} – {} – {} – {}”.format(self.index, self.proof_no, self.prev_hash, self.data, self.timestamp)
As you can see from the code above, I defined the __init__() function, which will be executed when the Block class is being initiated, just like in any other Python class.
I provided the following parameters to the initiation function:
self—this refers to the instance of the Block class, making it possible to access the methods and attributes associated with the class; index—this keeps track of the position of the block within the blockchain; proof_no—this is the number produced during the creation of a new block (called mining); prev_hash—this refers to the hash of the previous block within the chain; data—this gives a record of all transactions completed, such as the quantity bought; timestamp—this places a timestamp for the transactions. The second method in the class, calculate_hash, will generate the hash of the blocks using the above values. The SHA-256 module is imported into the project to assist in obtaining the hashes of the blocks.
After the values have been inputted into the cryptographic hash algorithm, the function will return a 256-bit string representing the contents of the block.
This is how security is achieved in blockchains—every block will have a hash and that hash will rely on the hash of the previous block.
As such, if someone tries to compromise any block in the chain, the other blocks will have invalid hashes, leading to disruption of the entire blockchain network.
Ultimately, a block will look like this:
{ “index”: 2, “proof”: 21, “prev_hash”: “6e27587e8a27d6fe376d4fd9b4edc96c8890346579e5cbf558252b24a8257823”, “transactions”: [ {‘sender’: ‘0’, ‘recipient’: ‘Quincy Larson’, ‘quantity’: 1} ], “timestamp”: 1521646442.4096143 }
2. Building the Blockchain class The main idea of a blockchain, just as the name implies, involves “chaining” several blocks to one another.
Therefore, I’m going to construct a Blockchain class that will be useful in managing the workings of the whole chain. This is where most of the action is going to take place.
The Blockchain class will have various helper methods for completing various tasks in the blockchain.
Let me explain the role of each of the methods in the class.
a. Constructor method This method ensures the blockchain is instantiated.
class BlockChain: def __init__(self): self.chain = [] self.current_data = [] self.nodes = set() self.construct_genesis()
Here are the roles of its attributes:
b. Constructing the genesis block The blockchain requires a construct_genesis method to build the initial block in the chain. In the blockchain convention, this block is special because it symbolizes the start of the blockchain.
In this case, let’s construct it by simply passing some default values to the construct_block method.
I gave both proof_no and prev_hash a value of zero, although you can provide any value you want.
def construct_genesis(self): self.construct_block(proof_no=0, prev_hash=0) def construct_block(self, proof_no, prev_hash): block = Block( index=len(self.chain), proof_no=proof_no, prev_hash=prev_hash, data=self.current_data) self.current_data = [] self.chain.append(block) return block
c. Constructing new blocks
The construct_block method is used for creating new blocks in the blockchain.
Here is what is taking place with the various attributes of this method:
d. Checking validity
The check_validity method is important in assessing the integrity of the blockchain and ensuring anomalies are absent.
As mentioned earlier, hashes are essential for the security of the blockchain as even the slightest change in the object will lead to the generation of a completely new hash.
Therefore, this check_validity method uses if statements to check whether the hash of every block is correct.
It also verifies if every block points to the right previous block, through comparing the value of their hashes. If everything is correct, it returns true; otherwise, it returns false.
u/staticmethod def check_validity(block, prev_block): if prev_block.index + 1 != block.index: return False elif prev_block.calculate_hash != block.prev_hash: return False elif not BlockChain.verifying_proof(block.proof_no, prev_block.proof_no): return False elif block.timestamp <= prev_block.timestamp: return False return True
e. Adding data of transactions
The new_data method is used for adding the data of transactions to a block. It’s a very simple method: it accepts three parameters (sender’s details, receiver’s details, and quantity) and append the transaction data to self.current_data list.
Anytime a new block is created, this list is allocated to that block and reset once more as explained in the construct_block method.
Once the transaction data has been added to the list, the index of the next block to be created is returned.
This index is calculated by adding 1 to the index of the current block (which is the last in the blockchain). The data will assist a user in submitting the transaction in future.
def new_data(self, sender, recipient, quantity): self.current_data.append({ ‘sender’: sender, ‘recipient’: recipient, ‘quantity’: quantity }) return True
f. Adding proof of work
Proof of work is a concept that prevents the blockchain from abuse. Simply, its objective is to identify a number that solves a problem after a certain amount of computing work is done.
If the difficulty level of identifying the number is high, it discourages spamming and tampering with the blockchain.
In this case, we’ll use a simple algorithm that discourages people from mining blocks or creating blocks easily.
u/staticmethod def proof_of_work(last_proof): ”’this simple algorithm identifies a number f’ such that hash(ff’) contain 4 leading zeroes f is the previous f’ f’ is the new proof ”’ proof_no = 0 while BlockChain.verifying_proof(proof_no, last_proof) is False: proof_no += 1 return proof_no u/staticmethod def verifying_proof(last_proof, proof): #verifying the proof: does hash(last_proof, proof) contain 4 leading zeroes? guess = f'{last_proof}{proof}’.encode() guess_hash = hashlib.sha256(guess).hexdigest() return guess_hash[:4] == “0000”
g. Getting the last block
Lastly, the latest_block method is a helper method that assists in obtaining the last block in the blockchain. Remember that the last block is actually the current block in the chain.
u/property def latest_block(self): return self.chain[-1]
Let’s sum everything together
Here is the entire code for creating the fccCoin cryptocurrency.
You can also get the code on this GitHub repository.
import hashlib import time class Block: def __init__(self, index, proof_no, prev_hash, data, timestamp=None): self.index = index self.proof_no = proof_no self.prev_hash = prev_hash self.data = data self.timestamp = timestamp or time.time() u/property def calculate_hash(self): block_of_string = “{}{}{}{}{}”.format(self.index, self.proof_no, self.prev_hash, self.data, self.timestamp) return hashlib.sha256(block_of_string.encode()).hexdigest() def __repr__(self): return “{} – {} – {} – {} – {}”.format(self.index, self.proof_no, self.prev_hash, self.data, self.timestamp) class BlockChain: def __init__(self): self.chain = [] self.current_data = [] self.nodes = set() self.construct_genesis() def construct_genesis(self): self.construct_block(proof_no=0, prev_hash=0) def construct_block(self, proof_no, prev_hash): block = Block( index=len(self.chain), proof_no=proof_no, prev_hash=prev_hash, data=self.current_data) self.current_data = [] self.chain.append(block) return block u/staticmethod def check_validity(block, prev_block): if prev_block.index + 1 != block.index: return False elif prev_block.calculate_hash != block.prev_hash: return False elif not BlockChain.verifying_proof(block.proof_no, prev_block.proof_no): return False elif block.timestamp <= prev_block.timestamp: return False return True def new_data(self, sender, recipient, quantity): self.current_data.append({ ‘sender’: sender, ‘recipient’: recipient, ‘quantity’: quantity }) return True u/staticmethod def proof_of_work(last_proof): ”’this simple algorithm identifies a number f’ such that hash(ff’) contain 4 leading zeroes f is the previous f’ f’ is the new proof ”’ proof_no = 0 while BlockChain.verifying_proof(proof_no, last_proof) is False: proof_no += 1 return proof_no u/staticmethod def verifying_proof(last_proof, proof): #verifying the proof: does hash(last_proof, proof) contain 4 leading zeroes? guess = f'{last_proof}{proof}’.encode() guess_hash = hashlib.sha256(guess).hexdigest() return guess_hash[:4] == “0000” u/property def latest_block(self): return self.chain[-1] def block_mining(self, details_miner): self.new_data( sender=”0″, #it implies that this node has created a new block receiver=details_miner, quantity= 1, #creating a new block (or identifying the proof number) is awarded with 1 ) last_block = self.latest_block last_proof_no = last_block.proof_no proof_no = self.proof_of_work(last_proof_no) last_hash = last_block.calculate_hash block = self.construct_block(proof_no, last_hash) return vars(block) def create_node(self, address): self.nodes.add(address) return True u/staticmethod def obtain_block_object(block_data): #obtains block object from the block data return Block( block_data[‘index’], block_data[‘proof_no’], block_data[‘prev_hash’], block_data[‘data’], timestamp=block_data[‘timestamp’])
Now, let’s test our code to see if it works.
blockchain = BlockChain() print(“***Mining fccCoin about to start***”) print(blockchain.chain) last_block = blockchain.latest_block last_proof_no = last_block.proof_no proof_no = blockchain.proof_of_work(last_proof_no) blockchain.new_data( sender=”0″, #it implies that this node has created a new block recipient=”Quincy Larson”, #let’s send Quincy some coins! quantity= 1, #creating a new block (or identifying the proof number) is awarded with 1 ) last_hash = last_block.calculate_hash block = blockchain.construct_block(proof_no, last_hash) print(“***Mining fccCoin has been successful***”) print(blockchain.chain)
It worked!
Here is the output of the mining process:
***Mining fccCoin about to start*** [0 – 0 – 0 – [] – 1566930640.2707076] ***Mining fccCoin has been successful*** [0 – 0 – 0 – [] – 1566930640.2707076, 1 – 88914 – a8d45cb77cddeac750a9439d629f394da442672e56edfe05827b5e41f4ba0138 – [{‘sender’: ‘0’, ‘recipient’: ‘Quincy Larson’, ‘quantity’: 1}] – 1566930640.5363243]
Conclusion
There you have it!
That’s how you could create your own blockchain using Python.
Let me say that this tutorial just demonstrates the basic concepts for getting your feet wet in the innovative blockchain technology.
If this coin were deployed as-is, it could not meet the present market demands for a stable, secure, and easy-to-use cryptocurrency.
Therefore, it can still be improved by adding additional features to enhance its capabilities for mining and sending financial transactions.
Nonetheless, it’s a good starting point if you decide to make your name known in the amazing world of cryptos.
If you have any comments or questions, please post them below.
Happy (crypto) coding!
Source: Cryptoors
submitted by djkloud to CryptoTechnology [link] [comments]

Waltonchain adds GNU General Public License details to code - BUT does the code contain this?

Waltonchain adds GNU General Public License details to code - BUT does the code contain this?
Dear Crypto community,
Yesterday we saw Waltonchain release their Open Source code which resulted in huge criticism regarding the oversight of removing the original copyright to the original codebase, Ethereum Go, on which it is based.
Following this, the team have now updated the code to show the original copyright:
Image from Github
Source: https://github.com/WaltonChain/WaltonChain_Gwtc_Src/blob/mastep2p/rlpx.go?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
Github: https://github.com/WaltonChain?tab=repositories

I'd like to say thank you to the community for having such strong opinion on this matter, and for all the subreddit admins that assisted in creating clarity toward this. As a global community we should hold every blockchain up to the same standards, and I am grateful that this was shown in regard to the GNU General Public License.

Now that the issue is resolved, and since Waltonchain is currently a hot topic, I implore all the coders and devs out there to delve deep into the code to see exactly what Waltonchain have released. Not just the modification to the eth codebase, but the additional code. What does the code allow?

What we've been told as a community is that the Waltonchain source code has changes that allows for:
  • Security - DASH X11 - Most cryptographic algorithms used in cryptocurrencies use only one hash function for calculation. There are 11 of them in X11, which provides a higher degree of protection against hackers and scams. Waltonchain has customised the DASH X11 hashing algorithm to fit their purpose.
  • More secure than Bitcoin. The Bitcoin algorithm is SHA-256 is based on a previous secure hash algorithm family of standards, namely SHA-2, the hash functions within the X11 algorithm all successfully made it into the second-round in search for a new, more secure standard — SHA-3. Keccak, the function which won the competition and is therefore the new standard on which SHA-3 is based on, can at the very least be considered more secure that SHA-256.
  • Efficiency — Waltonchain have produced ASICs with the equivalent hashing power of 200GPUs (32–40kW) whilst using only 135W, thus helping the parent chain become decentralised
  • PoS aspect works in tandem with PoW, in that it adds a reduced difficulty based on number of coins held and time between blocks. Effectively the longer coins are held and the longer the time between blocks, the lower the difficulty for mining blocks. This again enhances the power efficiency of the network in its entirety.
  • Fast cross-chain searching via Proof of Labour —PoL enables hash values or indices from sub-chains (child chains) to be synced with the parent chain in a ‘cross chain index mechanism’ to enable fast searches for data via the parent chain.
  • Scalibility — Unlimited scalibility due to child chains; each CC is an independent blockchain (or DAG) using its own consensus mechanism (PoS, PoA, PoW, PoeT, etc) and can store data within itself. The parent chain by nature therefore cannot become bloated.
  • Atomic Swaps — PoL by nature ensures a record of every inter-chain transaction is held, and allows the function of atomic swaps between currencies.

Also to note is that the code has been audited by Knownsec, the same company that audited projects like HPB and NANO.

Lets have an open dialogue and talk about these features of the code - but firstly, do they exist? Hopefully people will approach this with the same enthusiasm as they did yesterday.

EDIT 1st June: A user on the Waltonchain sub has done an analysis which by the looks of it, disproves the initial assessment by many of the 'blockchain experts' in cc that have said the open source code is simply a copy and paste . https://www.reddit.com/waltonchain/comments/bveqea/changeset_goethereum_v171_to_gwtc_v110/
It is interesting to see just how much people love to hate Waltonchain that they spread misinformation either intentionally, or unintentionally, and that it gets the most attention out of any announcement.

For reference:
Block explorer: www.Waltonchain.pro (all wallets, mining wallet, documentation etc is available via that link)
submitted by Yayowam to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Crypto-Currency: A Guide to Common Tax Situations

STATUS: Majority of questions have been answered. If yours got missed, please feel free to post it again.
Introduction
All,
Based on the rapid increase in popularity and price of bitcoin and other crypto currencies (particularly over the past year), I expect that lots of people have questions about how crypto currency will impact their taxes. This thread attempts to address several common issues. I'm posting similar versions of it here, in several major crypto subs, and eventually in the weekly "tax help" threads personalfinance runs.
I'd like to thank the /personalfinance mod team and the /tax community for their help with this thread and especially for reading earlier versions and offering several valuable suggestions/corrections.
This thread is NOT an endorsement of crypto currency as an investing strategy. There is a time and a place to debate the appropriateness of crypto as part of a diversified portfolio - but that time is not now and that place is not here. If you are interested in the general consensus of this sub on investing, I would urge you to consult the wiki while keeping in mind the general flowchart outlining basic steps to get your finances in order.
Finally, please note that this thread attempts to provide information about your tax obligations as defined by United States law (and interpreted by the IRS under the direction of the Treasury Department). I understand that a certain portion of the crypto community tends to view crypto as "tax free" due to the (actual and perceived) difficulty for the IRS to "know" about the transactions involved. I will not discuss unlawfully concealing crypto gains here nor will I suggest illegal tax avoidance activities.
The Basics
This section is best for people that don't understand much about taxes. It covers some very basic tax principles. It also assumes that all you did during the year was buy/sell a single crypto currency.
Fundamentally, the IRS treats crypto not as money, but as an asset (investment). While there are a few specific "twists" when it comes to crypto, when in doubt replace the word "crypto" with the word "stock" and you will get a pretty good idea how you should report and pay tax on crypto.
The first thing you should know is that the majority of this discussion applies to the taxes you are currently working on (2017 taxes). The tax bill that just passed applies to 2018 taxes (with a few very tiny exceptions), which most people will file in early 2019.
In general, you don't have to report or pay taxes on crypto currency holdings until you "cash out" all or part of your holdings. For now, I'm going to assume that you cash out by selling them for USD; however, other forms of cashing out will be covered later.
When you sell crypto, you report the difference between your basis (purchase price) and proceeds (sale price) on Schedule D. Your purchase price is commonly referred to as your basis; while the two terms don't mean exactly the same thing, they are pretty close to one another (in particular, there are three two ways to calculate your basis - your average cost, a first-in, first-out method, and a "specific identification" method. See more about these here and here). EDIT - you may not use average cost method with crypto - see here. If you sell at a gain, this gain increases your tax liability; if you sell at a loss, this loss decreases your tax liability (in most cases). If you sell multiple times during the year, you report each transaction separately (bad news if you trade often) but get to lump all your gains/losses together when determining how the trades impact your income.
One important thing to remember is that there are two different types of gains/losses from investments - short term gains (if you held an asset for one year or less) and long term gains (over one year; i.e. one year and one day). Short term gains are taxed at your marginal income rate (basically, just like if you had earned that money at a job) while long term gains are taxed at lower rates.
For most people, long term capital gains are taxed at 15%. However, if you are in the 10% or 15% tax bracket, congrats - your gains (up to the maximum amount of "unused space" in your bracket) are tax free! If you are in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% bracket, long term gains are taxed at 15%. If you are in the 39.6% bracket, long term gains are taxed at 20%. Additionally, there is an "extra" 3.8% tax that applies to gains for those above $200,000/$250,000 (single/married). The exact computation of this tax is a little complicated, but if you are close to the $200,000 level, just know that it exists.
Finally, you should know that I'm assuming that you should treat your crypto gains/losses as investment gains/losses. I'm sure some people will try and argue that they are really "day traders" of crypto and trade as a full time job. While this is possible, the vast majority of people don't qualify for this status and you should really think several times before deciding you want to try that approach on the IRS.
"Cashing Out" - Trading Crypto for Goods/Services
I realize that not everyone that "cashes out" of crypto does so by selling it for USD. In fact, I understand that some in the crypto community view the necessity of cashing out itself as a type of myth. In this section, I discuss what happens if you trade your crypto for basically anything that isn't cash (minor sidenote - see next section for a special discussion on trading crypto for crypto; i.e. buying altcoins with crypto).
The IRS views trading crypto for something of value as a type of bartering that must be included in income. From the IRS's perspective, it doesn't matter if you sold crypto for cash and bought a car with that cash or if you just traded crypto directly for the car - in both cases, the IRS views you as having sold your crypto. This approach isn't unique to crypto - it works the same way if you trade stock for something.
This means that if you do trade your crypto for "stuff", you have to report every exchange as a sale of your crypto and calculate the gain/loss on that sale, just as if you had sold the crypto for cash.
Finally, there is one important exception to this rule. If you give your crypto away to charity (one recognized by the IRS; like a 501(c)(3) organization), the IRS doesn't make you report/pay any capital gains on the transaction. Additionally, you still get to deduct the value of your donation on the date it was made. Now, from a "selfish" point of view, you will always end up with more money if you sell the crypto, pay the tax, and keep the rest. But, if you are going to make a donation anyway, especially a large one, giving crypto where you have a big unrealized/untaxed gain is a very efficient way of doing so.
"Alt Coins" - Buying Crypto with Crypto
The previous section discusses what happens when you trade crypto for stuff. However, one thing that surprises many people is that trading crypto for crypto is also a taxable event, just like trading crypto for a car. Whether you agree with this position or not, it makes a lot of sense once you realize that the IRS doesn't view crypto as money, but instead as an asset. So to the IRS, trading bitcoin for ripple isn't like trading dollars for euros, but it is instead like trading shares of Apple stock for shares of Tesla stock.
Practically, what this means is that if you trade one crypto for another crypto (say BTC for XRP just to illustrate the point), the IRS views you as doing the following:
  • Selling for cash the amount of BTC you actually traded for XRP.
  • Owing capital gains/losses on the BTC based on its selling price (the fair market value at the moment of the exchange) and your purchase price (basis).
  • Buying a new investment (XRP) with a cost basis equal to the amount the BTC was worth when you exchanged them.
This means that if you "time" your trade wrong and the value of XRP goes down after you make the exchange, you still owe tax on your BTC gain even though you subsequently lost money. The one good piece of news in this is that when/if you sell your XRP (or change it back to BTC), you will get a capital loss for the value that XRP dropped.
There is one final point worth discussing in this section - the so called "like kind exchange" rules (aka section 1031 exchange). At a high level, these rules say that you can "swap" property with someone else without having to pay taxes on the exchange as long as you get property in return that is "like kind". Typically, these rules are used in real estate transactions. However, they can also apply to other types of transactions as well.
While the idea is simple (and makes it sound like crypto for crypto should qualify), the exact rules/details of this exception are very fact specific. Most experts (including myself, but certainly not calling myself an expert) believe that a crypto for crypto swap is not a like kind exchange. The recently passed tax bill also explicitly clarifies this issue - starting in 2018, only real estate qualifies for like kind exchange treatment. So, basically, the vast majority of evidence suggests that you can't use this "loophole" for 2017; however, there is a small minority view/some small amount of belief that this treatment would work for 2017 taxes and it is worth noting that I'm unaware of any court cases directly testing this approach.
Dealing with "Forks"
Perhaps another unpleasant surprise for crypto holders is that "forks" to create a new crypto also very likely generate a taxable event. The IRS has long (since at least the 1960s) held that "found" money is a taxable event. This approach has been litigated in court and courts have consistently upheld this position; it even has its own cool nerdy tax name - the "treasure trove" doctrine.
Practically, what this means is that if you owned BTC and it "forked" to create BCH, then the fair market value of the BCH you received is considered a "treasure trove" that must be reported as income (ordinary income - no capital gain rates). This is true whether or not you sold your BCH; if you got BCH from a fork, that is a taxable event (note - I'll continue using BTC forking to BCH in this section as an example, but the logic applies to all forks).
While everything I've discussed up to this point is pretty clearly established tax law, forks are really where things get messy with taxes. Thus, the remainder of this section contains more speculation than elsewhere in this post - the truth is that while the idea is simple (fork = free money = taxable), the details are messy and other kinds of tax treatment might apply to forks.
One basic practical problem with forks is that the new currency doesn't necessarily start trading immediately. Thus, you may have received BCH before there was a clear price or market for it. Basically, you owe tax on the value of BCH when you received it, but it isn't completely clear what that value was. There are several ways you can handle this; I'll list them in order from most accurate to least accurate (but note that this is just my personal view and there is ongoing disagreement on this issue with little/no authoritative guidance).
  • Use a futures market to determine the value of the BCH - if reliable sources published realistic estimates of what BCH will trade for in the future once trading begins, use this estimate as the value of your BCH. Pros/cons - futures markets are, in theory, pretty accurate. However, if they are volatile/subject to manipulation, they may provide an incorrect estimate of the true value of BCH. It would suck to use the first futures value published only to have that value plummet shortly thereafter, leaving you to pay ordinary income tax but only have an unrealized capital loss.
  • Wait until an exchange starts trading BCH; use the actual ("spot" price) as the value. Pros/cons - spot prices certainly reflect what you could have sold BCH for; however, it is possible that the true value of the coin was highelower when you received it as compared to when it started trading on the exchange. Thus this method seems less accurate to me than a futures based approach, but it is still certainly fairly reasonable.
  • Assume that the value is $0. This is my least preferred option, but there is still a case to be made for it. If you receive something that you didn't want, can't access, can't sell, and might fail, does it have any value? I believe the answer is yes (maybe not value it perfectly, but value it somewhat accurately), but if you honestly think the answer is no, then the correct tax answer would be to report $0 in income from the fork. The IRS would be most likely to disagree with this approach, especially since it results in the least amount of income reported for the current year (and the most favorable rates going forward). Accordingly, if you go this route, make extra sure you understand what it entails.
Note, once you've decided what to report as taxable income, this amount also becomes your cost basis in the new crypto (BCH). Thus, when you ultimately sell your BCH (or trade it for something else as described above), you calculate your gain/loss based on what you included in taxable income from the fork.
Finally, there is one more approach to dealing with forks worth mentioning. A fork "feels" a lot like a dividend - because you held BTC, you get BCH. In a stock world, if I get a cash dividend because I own the stock, that money is not treated as a "treasure trove" and subject to ordinary income rates - in most cases, it is a qualified dividend and subject to capital gain rates; in some cases, some types of stock dividends are completely non taxable. This article discusses this idea in slightly more detail and generally concludes that forks should not be treated as a dividend. Still, I would note that I'm unaware of any court cases directly testing this theory.
Ultimately, this post is supposed to be practical, so let me make sure to leave you with two key thoughts about the taxation of forks. First, I believe that the majority of evidence suggests that forks should be treated as a "treasure trove" and reported as ordinary income based on their value at creation and that this is certainly the "safest" option. Second, out of everything discussed in this post, I also believe that the correct taxation of forks is the murkiest and most "up for debate" area. If you are interested in a more detailed discussion of forks, see this thread for a previous version of this post discussing it at even more length and the comments for a discussion of this with the tax community.
Mining Crypto
Successfully mining crypto coins is a taxable event. Depending on the amount of effort you put into mining, it is either considered a hobby or a self-employment (business) activity. The IRS provides the following list of questions to help decide the correct classification:
  • The manner in which the taxpayer carries on the activity.
  • The expertise of the taxpayer or his advisors.
  • The time and effort expended by the taxpayer in carrying on the activity.
  • Expectation that assets used in activity may appreciate in value.
  • The success of the taxpayer in carrying on other similar or dissimilar activities.
  • The taxpayer’s history of income or losses with respect to the activity.
  • The amount of occasional profits, if any, which are earned.
If this still sounds complicated, that's because the distinction is subject to some amount of interpretation. As a rule of thumb, randomly mining crypto on an old computer is probably a hobby; mining full time on a custom rig is probably a business.
In either event, you must include in income the fair market value of any coins you successfully mine. These are ordinary income and your basis in these coins is their fair market value on the date they were mined. If your mining is a hobby, they go on line 21 (other income) and any expenses directly associated with mining go on schedule A (miscellaneous subject to 2% of AGI limitation). If your mining is a business, income and expenses go on schedule C.
Both approaches have pros and cons - hobby income isn't subject to the 15.3% self-employment tax, only normal income tax, but you get fewer deductions against your income and the deductions you get are less valuable. Business income has more deductions available, but you have to pay payroll (self-employment) tax of about 15.3% in addition to normal income tax.
What if I didn't keep good records? Do I really have to report every transaction?
One nice thing about the IRS treating crypto as an asset is that we can look at how the IRS treats people that "day trade" stock and often don't keep great records/have lots of transactions. While you need to be as accurate as possible, it is ok to estimate a little bit if you don't have exact records (especially concerning your cost basis). You need to put in some effort (research historical prices, etc...) and be reasonable, but the IRS would much rather you do a little bit of reasonable estimation as opposed to just not reporting anything. Sure, they might decide to audit you/disagree with some specifics, but you earn yourself a lot of credit if you can show that you honestly did the best you reasonably could and are making efforts to improve going forward.
However, concerning reporting every transaction - yes, sorry, it is clear that you have to do this, even if you made hundreds or thousands of them. Stock traders have had to go through this for many decades, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that the IRS would accept anything less from the crypto community. If you have the records or have any reasonable way of obtaining records/estimating them, you must report every transaction.
What if I don't trust you?
Well, first let me say that I can't believe you made it all the way down here to this section. Thanks for giving me an honest hearing. I would strongly encourage you to go read other well-written, honest guides. I'll link to some I like (both more technical IRS type guides and more crypto community driven guides). While a certain portion of the crypto community seems to view one of the benefits of crypto as avoiding all government regulation (including taxes), I've been pleasantly surprised to find that many crypto forums contain well reasoned, accurate tax guides. While I may not agree with 100% of their conclusions, that likely reflects true uncertainty around tax law that is fundamentally complex rather than an attempt on either end to help individuals unlawfully avoid taxes.
IRS guides
Non-IRS guides
submitted by Mrme487 to personalfinance [link] [comments]

CODE FUD: Resolved.

Dear Waltonchain community,
Yesterday we saw Waltonchain release their Open Source code which resulted in huge criticism regarding the oversight of removing the original copyright to the original codebase, Ethereum Go, on which it is based.
Following this, the team have now updated the code to show the original copyright:
Source: https://github.com/WaltonChain/WaltonChain_Gwtc_Src/blob/mastep2p/rlpx.go?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
Github: https://github.com/WaltonChain?tab=repositories

I'd like to say thank you to the community for having such strong opinion on this matter, and for all the subreddit admins that assisted in creating clarity toward this. As a global community we should hold every blockchain up to the same standards, and I am grateful that this was shown in regard to the GNU General Public License.

Now that the issue is resolved, and since Waltonchain is currently a hot topic, I implore all the coders and devs out there to delve deep into the code to see exactly what Waltonchain have released. Not just the modification to the eth codebase, but the additional code. What does the code allow?

What we've been told as a community is that the Waltonchain source code has changes that allows for:

Also to note is that the code has been audited by Knownsec, the same company that audited projects like HPB and NANO.

Lets have an open dialogue and talk about these features of the code - but firstly, do they exist? Hopefully people will approach this with the same enthusiasm as they did yesterday.

For reference:
Block explorer: www.Waltonchain.pro (all wallets, mining wallet, documentation etc is available via that link)
submitted by Yayowam to waltonchain [link] [comments]

Constructing an Opt-In alternative reward for securing the blockchain

Since a keyboard with a monero logo got upvoted to the top I realized I should post various thoughts I have and generate some discussion. I hope others do the same.
Monero is currently secured by a dwindling block reward. There is a chance that the tail emission reward + transaction fees to secure the blockchain could become insufficient and allow for a scenario where it is profitable for someone to execute a 51% attack.
To understand this issue better, read this:
In Game Theory, Tragedy of the Commons is a market failure scenario where a common good is produced in lower quantities than the public desires, or consumed in greater quantities than desired. One example is pollution - it is in the public's best interest not to pollute, but every individual has incentive to pollute (e.g. because burning fossil fuel is cheap, and individually each consumer doesn't affect the environment much). The relevance to Bitcoin is a hypothetical market failure that might happen in the far future when the block reward from mining drops near zero. In the current Bitcoin design, the only fees miners earn at this time are Transaction fees. Miners will accept transactions with any fees (because the marginal cost of including them is minimal) and users will pay lower and lower fees (in the order of satoshis). It is possible that the honest miners will be under-incentivized, and that too few miners will mine, resulting in lower difficulty than what the public desires. This might mean various 51% attacks will happen frequently, and the Bitcoin will not function correctly. The Bitcoin protocol can be altered to combat this problem - one proposed solution is Dominant Assurance Contracts. Another more radical proposal (in the sense that the required change won't be accepted by most bitcoiners) is to have a perpetual reward that is constant in proportion to the monetary base. That can be achieved in two ways. An ever increasing reward (inflatacoin/expocoin) or a constant reward plus a demurrage fee in all funds that caps the monetary base (freicoin). This scenario was discussed on several threads: - Tragedy of the Commons - Disturbingly low future difficulty equilibrium https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6284.0 - Stack Exchange http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3111/will-bitcoin-suffer-from-a-mining-tragedy-of-the-commons-when-mining-fees-drop-t Currently there is no consensus whether this problem is real, and if so, what is the best solution. 
Source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons

I suspect that least contentious solution to it is not to change code, emission or artificially increase fees (which would actually undermine the tail emission and lead to other problems, I believe: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2016/10/21/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-reward/) but rather use a Dominant Assurance Contract that makes it rational for those who benefit from Monero to contribute to the block reward.

Dominant assurance contracts
Dominant assurance contracts, created by Alex Tabarrok, involve an extra component, an entrepreneur who profits when the quorum is reached and pays the signors extra if it is not. If the quorum is not formed, the signors do not pay their share and indeed actively profit from having participated since they keep the money the entrepreneur paid them. Conversely, if the quorum succeeds, the entrepreneur is compensated for taking the risk of the quorum failing. Thus, a player will benefit whether or not the quorum succeeds; if it fails he reaps a monetary return, and if it succeeds, he pays only a small amount more than under an assurance contract, and the public good will be provided.
Tabarrok asserts that this creates a dominant strategy) of participation for all players. Because all players will calculate that it is in their best interests to participate, the contract will succeed, and the entrepreneur will be rewarded. In a meta-game, this reward is an incentive for other entrepreneurs to enter the DAC market, driving down the cost disadvantage of dominant assurance contract versus regular assurance contracts.
Monero doesn't have a lot of scripting options to work with currently so it is very hard for me to understand how one might go about creating a Dominant Assurance Contract using Monero, especially in regards to paying out to a miner address.
This is how it could work in Bitcoin:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Dominant_Assurance_Contracts
This scheme is an attempt at Mike Hearn's exercise for the reader: an implementation of dominant assurance contracts. The scheme requires the use of multisignature transactions, nLockTime and transaction replacement which means it won't work until these features are available on the Bitcoin network.
A vendor agrees to produce a good if X BTC are raised by date D and to pay Y BTC to each of n contributors if X BTC are not raised by date D, or to pay nY BTC if X BTC are raised and the vendor fails to produce the good to the satisfaction of 2 of 3 independent arbitrators picked through a fair process
The arbitrators specify a 2-of-3 multisignature script to use as an output for the fundraiser with a public key from each arbitrator, which will allow them to judge the performance on actually producing the good
For each contributor:
The vendor and the contributor exchange public keys
They create a 2-of-2 multisignature output from those public keys
With no change, they create but do not sign a transaction with an input of X/n BTC from the contributor and an input of Y BTC from the vendor, with X/n+Y going to the output created in 3.2
The contributor creates a transaction where the output is X+nY to the address created in step 2 and the input is the output of the transaction in 3.3, signs it using SIGHASH_ALL | SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY, with version = UINT_MAX and gives it to the vendor
The vendor creates a transaction of the entire balance of the transaction in 3.3 to the contributor with nLockTime of D and version < UINT_MAX, signs it and gives it to the contributor
The vendor and contributor then both sign the transaction in 3.3 and broadcast it to the network, making the transaction in 3.4 valid when enough contributors participate and the transaction in 3.5 valid when nLockTime expires
As date D nears, nLockTime comes close to expiration.
If enough (n) people contribute, all of the inputs from 3.4 can combine to make the output valid when signed by the vendor, creating a valid transaction sending that money to the arbitrators, which only agree to release the funds when the vendor produces a satisfactory output
If not enough people ( Note that there is a limit at which it can be more profitable for the vendor to make the remaining contributions when D approaches
Now the arbitrators have control of X (the payment from the contributors) + nY (the performance bond from the vendor) BTC and pay the vendor only when the vendor performs satisfactorily
Such contracts can be used for crowdfunding. Notable examples from Mike Hearn include:
Funding Internet radio stations which don't want to play ads: donations are the only viable revenue source as pay-for-streaming models allow undercutting by subscribers who relay the stream to their own subscribers
Automatically contributing to the human translation of web pages


Monero has these features:
  1. Multisig
  2. LockTime (but it is much different then BTCs)
  3. A possibility to do MoJoin (CoinJoin) like transactions, even if less then optimally private. There is hope that the MoJoin Schemes will allow for better privacy in the future:
I have a draft writeup for a merged-input system called MoJoin that allows multiple parties to generate a single transaction. The goal is to complete the transaction merging with no trust in any party, but this introduces significant complexity and may not be possible with the known Bulletproofs multiparty computation scheme. My current version of MoJoin assumes partial trust in a dealer, who learns the mappings between input rings and outputs (but not true spends or Pedersen commitment data).

Additionally, Non-Interactive Refund Transactions could also be possible in Monero's future.
https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/595
I can't fully workout how all of these could work together to make a DAC that allows miners to put up and payout a reward if it doesn't succeed, or how we could make it so *any* miner who participated (by putting up a reward) could claim the reward if it succeeded. I think this should really be explored as it could make for a much more secure blockchain, potentially saving us if a "crypto winter" hits where the value of monero and number of transactions are low, making for a blockchain that is hard to trust because it would be so cheap to perform a 51% attack.


I am still skeptical of Dominant Assurance Contracts, despite success in an initial test https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/08/a-test-of-dominant-assurance-contracts.html
it still remains questionable or at least confusing: https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/747/im-not-understanding-why-dominant-assurance-contracts-are-so-special
submitted by Vespco to Monero [link] [comments]

[dev]

The last fortnight has been relatively quiet in Dogecoin-land, although as you'll likely have seen it's been a lot more eventful for Bitcoin. Today I want to want to quickly cover progress on Dogecoin, but also talk longer term plans.
Dogecoin Core 1.10 is making good progress, and now fully syncs the Dogecoin main chain. Given it's a total rebuild against Bitcoin Core 0.11 (rather than the original plan of individually applying changes), this is very good news. Immediate priority is to complete updating the automated test suites to apply to Dogecoin. Right now it's still branded as Bitcoin Core, however that will likely be the last task, as we want to clearly identify the code changes required, as a reference for later updates.
Bitcoin Core 0.11 has just been released. All of those improvements it introduces are expected for Dogecoin Core 1.10, pending compatibility checks, and I'm particularly excited by block file pruning which should significantly reduce disk space requirements. Those of you running Dogecoin Core on Raspberry Pi hardware may also want to note the reduced memory usage.
bitcoinj 0.13 has been branched, and the adaptations to make it more readily altcoin compatible have been revised based on feedback from their devs. Hopefully we'll see those merged shortly. Meanwhile I've updated altcoinj to match the API changes. Still need a new project name if anyone has any suggestions.
Moving on from the technical updates, you may be aware Bitcoin's network is effectively under attack at the moment. What started as a "stress test" has snowballed into a spam attack on their network. This is relevant to the need to address Dogecoin fees; Charlie Lee has pointed out such an attack is infeasible on Litecoin due to increased fees for dust outputs, a function which Dogecoin does have. However the incredibly low fees (~$0.0002 per kb, rounded up, plus $0.0002 per dust output) mean it just slows things down. A similar issue was seen a while ago where someone decided to "rain" Dogecoins onto a number of wallets and inadvertently caused network problems as a result. I'll have more specific numbers when we're closer to a Dogecoin Core 1.10 release, but still definitely looking at well below 1 cent for most transactions.
You may have noticed these updates are getting a little thinner - that's because I'm now trying to move more material into standalone documents. The article I was working on with TheRealMage from the Litecoin Association has been published: An objective look into the impacts of forking blockchains due to malicious actors, and two further documents are being worked on at the moment: Dogecoin development guide and a guide to common datatypes I'd appreciate feedback on the process from the former, and whether the latter is useful for understanding how cryptocurrencies work. Both are very much work in progress right now, of course, but I'm trying to have clear reference documents for much of what we do, to help people understand.
Lastly, continuing the theme of documentation, I'm starting to draft notes on a strategy document. I think we're at a point where we need to make longer term plans for Dogecoin clearer, and I hope at a point where generally we can deal with the longer term in a constructive manner. I'm hoping to have a draft out in Q4 (i.e. October-December) for discussion.
I'm unfortunately booked solid the next two weekends (18th/19th and 25th/26th), so I'll try to get a very quick summary out around the 26th, but next full update will probably be in August. Meanwhile, have a great summer, and as always, stay wow!
Ross
submitted by rnicoll to dogecoin [link] [comments]

A (hopefully mathematically neutral) comparison of Lightning network fees to Bitcoin Cash on-chain fees.

A side note before I begin
For context, earlier today, sherlocoin made a post on this sub asking if Lightning Network transactions are cheaper than on-chain BCH transactions. This user also went on to complain on /bitcoin that his "real" numbers were getting downvoted
I was initially going to respond to his post, but after I typed some of my response, I realized it is relevant to a wider Bitcoin audience and the level of analysis done warranted a new post. This wound up being the longest post I've ever written, so I hope you agree.
I've placed the TL;DR at the top and bottom for the simple reason that you need to prepare your face... because it's about to get hit with a formidable wall of text.
TL;DR: While Lightning node payments themselves cost less than on-chain BCH payments, the associated overhead currently requires a LN channel to produce 16 transactions just to break-even under ideal 1sat/byte circumstances and substantially more as the fee rate goes up.
Further, the Lightning network can provide no guarantee in its current state to maintain/reduce fees to 1sat/byte.

Let's Begin With An Ideal World
Lightning network fees themselves are indeed cheaper than Bitcoin Cash fees, but in order to get to a state where a Lightning network fee can be made, you are required to open a channel, and to get to a state where those funds are spendable, you must close that channel.
On the Bitcoin network, the minimum accepted fee is 1sat/byte so for now, we'll assume that ideal scenario of 1sat/byte. We'll also assume the open and close is sent as a simple native Segwit transaction with a weighted size of 141 bytes. Because we have to both open and close, this 141 byte fee will be incurred twice. The total fee for an ideal open/close transaction is 1.8¢
For comparison, a simple transaction on the BCH network requires 226 bytes one time. The minimum fee accepted next-block is 1sat/byte. At the time of writing an ideal BCH transaction fee costs ~ 0.11¢
This means that under idealized circumstances, you must currently make at least 16 transactions on a LN channel to break-even with fees
Compounding Factors
Our world is not ideal, so below I've listed compounding factors, common arguments, an assessment, and whether the problem is solvable.
Problem 1: Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash prices are asymmetrical.
Common arguments:
BTC: If Bitcoin Cash had the same price, the fees would be far higher
Yes, this is true. If Bitcoin Cash had the same market price as Bitcoin, our ideal scenario changes substantially. An open and close on Bitcoin still costs 1.8¢ while a simple Bitcoin Cash transaction now costs 1.4¢. The break-even point for a Lightning Channel is now only 2 transactions.
Is this problem solvable?
Absolutely.
Bitcoin Cash has already proposed a reduction in fees to 1sat for every 10 bytes, and that amount can be made lower by later proposals. While there is no substantial pressure to implement this now, if Bitcoin Cash had the same usage as Bitcoin currently does, it is far more likely to be implemented. If implemented at the first proposed reduction rate, under ideal circumstances, a Lightning Channel would need to produce around 13 transactions for the new break even.
But couldn't Bitcoin reduce fees similarly
The answer there is really tricky. If you reduce on-chain fees, you reduce the incentive to use the Lightning Network as the network becomes more hospitable to micropaments. This would likely increase the typical mempool state and decrease the Lightning Channel count some. The upside is that when the mempool saturates with low transaction fees, users are then re-incentivized to use the lightning network after the lowes fees are saturated with transactions. This should, in theory, produce some level of a transaction fee floor which is probably higher on average than 0.1 sat/byte on the BTC network.
Problem 2: This isn't an ideal world, we can't assume 1sat/byte fees
Common arguments:
BCH: If you tried to open a channel at peak fees, you could pay $50 each way
BTC: LN wasn't implemented which is why the fees are low now
Both sides have points here. It's true that if the mempool was in the same state as it was in December of 2017, that a user could have potentially been incentivized to pay an open and close channel fee of up to 1000 sat/byte to be accepted in a reasonable time-frame.
With that being said, two factors have resulted in a reduced mempool size of Bitcoin: Increased Segwit and Lightning Network Usage, and an overall cooling of the market.
I'm not going to speculate as to what percentage of which is due to each factor. Instead, I'm going to simply analyze mempool statistics for the last few months where both factors are present.
Let's get an idea of current typical Bitcoin network usage fees by asking Johoe quick what the mempool looks like.
For the last few months, the bitcoin mempool has followed almost the exact same pattern. Highest usage happens between 10AM and 3PM EST with a peak around noon. Weekly, usage usually peaks on Tuesday or Wednesday with enough activity to fill blocks with at least minimum fee transactions M-F during the noted hours and usually just shy of block-filling capacity on Sat and Sun.
These observations can be additionally evidenced by transaction counts on bitinfocharts. It's also easier to visualize on bitinfocharts over a longer time-frame.
Opening a channel
Under pre-planned circumstances, you can offload channel creation to off-peak hours and maintain a 1sat/byte rate. The primary issue arises in situations where either 1) LN payments are accepted and you had little prior knowledge, or 2) You had a previous LN pathway to a known payment processor and one or more previously known intermediaries are offline or otherwise unresponsive causing the payment to fail.
Your options are:
A) Create a new LN channel on-the-spot where you're likely to incur current peak fee rates of 5-20sat/byte.
B) Create an on-chain payment this time and open a LN channel when fees are more reasonable.
C) Use an alternate currency for the transaction.
There is a fundamental divide among the status of C. Some people view Bitcoin as (primarily) a storage of value, and thus as long as there are some available onramps and offramps, the currency will hold value. There are other people who believe that fungibility is what gives cryptocurrency it's value and that option C would fundamentally undermine the value of the currency.
I don't mean to dismiss either argument, but option C opens a can of worms that alone can fill economic textbooks. For the sake of simplicity, we will throw out option C as a possibility and save that debate for another day. We will simply require that payment is made in crypto.
With option B, you would absolutely need to pay the peak rate (likely higher) for a single transaction as a Point-of-Sale scenario with a full mempool would likely require at least one confirm and both parties would want that as soon as possible after payment. It would not be unlikely to pay 20-40 sat/byte on a single transaction and then pay 1sat/byte for an open and close to enable LN payments later. Even in the low end, the total cost is 20¢ for on-chain + open + close.
With present-day-statistics, your LN would have to do 182 transactions to make up for the one peak on-chain transaction you were forced to do.
With option A, you still require one confirm. Let's also give the additional leeway that in this scenario you have time to sit and wait a couple of blocks for your confirm before you order / pay. You can thus pay peak rates alone and not peak + ensure next block rates. This will most likely be in the 5-20 sat/byte range. With 5sat/byte open and 1sat/byte close, your LN would have to do 50 transactions to break even
In closing, fees are incurred by the funding channel, so there could be scenarios where the receiving party is incentivized to close in order to spend outputs and the software automatically calculates fees based on current rates. If this is the case, the receiving party could incur a higher-than-planned fee to the funding party.
With that being said, any software that allows the funding party to set the fee beforehand would avoid unplanned fees, so we'll assume low fees for closing.
Is this problem solvable?
It depends.
In order to avoid the peak-fee open/close ratio problem, the Bitcoin network either needs to have much higher LN / Segwit utilization, or increase on-chain capacity. If it gets to a point where transactions stack up, users will be required to pay more than 1sat/byte per transaction and should expect as much.
Current Bitcoin network utilization is close enough to 100% to fill blocks during peak times. I also did an export of the data available at Blockchair.com for the last 3000 blocks which is approximately the last 3 weeks of data. According to their block-weight statistics, The average Bitcoin block is 65.95% full. This means that on-chain, Bitcoin can only increase in transaction volume by around 50% and all other scaling must happen via increased Segwit and LN use.
Problem 3: You don't fully control your LN channel states.
Common arguments:
BCH: You can get into a scenario where you don't have output capacity and need to open a new channel.
BCH: A hostile actor can cause you to lose funds during a high-fee situation where a close is forced.
BTC: You can easily re-load your channel by pushing outbound to inbound.
BCH: You can't control whether nodes you connect to are online or offline.
There's a lot to digest here, but LN is essentially a 2-way contract between 2 parties. Not only does the drafting party pay the fees as of right now, but connected 3rd-parties can affect the state of this contract. There are some interesting scenarios that develop because of it and you aren't always in full control of what side.
Lack of outbound capacity
First, it's true that if you run out of outbound capacity, you either need to reload or create a new channel. This could potentially require 0, 1, or 2 additional on-chain transactions.
If a network loop exists between a low-outbound-capacity channel and yourself, you could push transactional capacity through the loop back to the output you wish to spend to. This would require 0 on-chain transactions and would only cost 1 (relatively negligible) LN fee charge. For all intents and purposes... this is actually kind of a cool scenario.
If no network loop exists from you-to-you, things get more complex. I've seen proposals like using Bitrefill to push capacity back to your node. In order to do this, you would have an account with them and they would lend custodial support based on your account. While people opting for trustless money would take issue in 3rd party custodians, I don't think this alone is a horrible solution to the LN outbound capacity problem... Although it depends on the fee that bitrefill charges to maintain an account and account charges could negate the effectiveness of using the LN. Still, we will assume this is a 0 on-chain scenario and would only cost 1 LN fee which remains relatively negligible.
If no network loop exists from you and you don't have a refill service set up, you'll need at least one on-chain payment to another LN entity in exchange for them to push LN capacity to you. Let's assume ideal fee rates. If this is the case, your refill would require an additional 7 transactions for that channel's new break-even. Multiply that by number of sat/byte if you have to pay more.
Opening a new channel is the last possibility and we go back to the dynamics of 13 transactions per LN channel in the ideal scenario.
Hostile actors
There are some potential attack vectors previously proposed. Most of these are theoretical and/or require high fee scenarios to come about. I think that everyone should be wary of them, however I'm going to ignore most of them again for the sake of succinctness.
This is not to be dismissive... it's just because my post length has already bored most casual readers half to death and I don't want to be responsible for finishing the job.
Pushing outbound to inbound
While I've discussed scenarios for this push above, there are some strange scenarios that arise where pushing outbound to inbound is not possible and even some scenarios where a 3rd party drains your outbound capacity before you can spend it.
A while back I did a testnet simulation to prove that this scenario can and will happen it was a post response that happened 2 weeks after the initial post so it flew heavily under the radar, but the proof is there.
The moral of this story is in some scenarios, you can't count on loaded network capacity to be there by the time you want to spend it.
Online vs Offline Nodes
We can't even be sure that a given computer is online to sign a channel open or push capacity until we try. Offline nodes provide a brick-wall in the pathfinding algorithm so an alternate route must be found. If we have enough channel connectivity to be statistically sure we can route around this issue, we're in good shape. If not, we're going to have issues.
Is this problem solvable?
Only if the Lightning network can provide an (effectively) infinite amount of capacity... but...
Problem 4: Lightning Network is not infinite.
Common arguments:
BTC: Lightning network can scale infinitely so there's no problem.
Unfortunately, LN is not infinitely scalable. In fact, finding a pathway from one node to another is roughly the same problem as the traveling salesman problem. Dijkstra's algorithm which is a problem that diverges polynomially. The most efficient proposals have a difficulty bound by O(n^2).
Note - in the above I confused the complexity of the traveling salesman problem with Dijkstra when they do not have the same bound. With that being said, the complexity of the LN will still diverge with size
In lay terms, what that means is every time you double the size of the Lightning Network, finding an indirect LN pathway becomes 4 times as difficult and data intensive. This means that for every doubling, the amount of traffic resulting from a single request also quadruples.
You can potentially temporarily mitigate traffic by bounding the number of hops taken, but that would encourage a greater channel-per-user ratio.
For a famous example... the game "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" postulates that Kevin Bacon can be connected by co-stars to any movie by 6 degrees of separation. If the game is reduced to "4 degrees of Kevin Bacon," users of this network would still want as many connections to be made, so they'd be incentivized to hire Kevin Bacon to star in everything. You'd start to see ridiculous mash-ups and reboots just to get more connectivity... Just imagine hearing Coming soon - Kevin Bacon and Adam Sandlar star in "Billy Madison 2: Replace the face."
Is this problem solvable?
Signs point to no.
So technically, if the average computational power and network connectivity can handle the problem (the number of Lightning network channels needed to connect the world)2 in a trivial amount of time, Lightning Network is effectively infinite as the upper bound of a non-infinite earth would limit time-frames to those that are computationally feasible.
With that being said, BTC has discussed Lightning dev comments before that estimated a cap of 10,000 - 1,000,000 channels before problems are encountered which is far less than the required "number of channels needed to connect the world" level.
In fact SHA256 is a newer NP-hard problem than the traveling saleseman problem. That means that statistically, and based on the amount of review that has been given to each problem, it is more likely that SHA256 - the algorithm that lends security to all of bitcoin - is cracked before the traveling salesman problem is. Notions that "a dedicated dev team can suddenly solve this problem, while not technically impossible, border on statistically absurd.
Edit - While the case isn't quite as bad as the traveling salesman problem, the problem will still diverge with size and finding a more efficient algorithm is nearly as unlikely.
This upper bound shows that we cannot count on infinite scalability or connectivity for the lightning network. Thus, there will always be on-chain fee pressure and it will rise as the LN reaches it's computational upper-bound.
Because you can't count on channel states, the on-chain fee pressure will cause typical sat/byte fees to raise. The higher this rate, the more transactions you have to make for a Lightning payment open/close operation to pay for itself.
This is, of course unless it is substantially reworked or substituted for a O(log(n))-or-better solution.
Finally, I'd like to add, creating an on-chain transaction is a set non-recursive, non looping function - effectively O(1), sending this transaction over a peer-to-peer network is bounded by O(log(n)) and accepting payment is, again, O(1). This means that (as far as I can tell) on-chain transactions (very likely) scale more effectively than Lightning Network in its current state.
Additional notes:
My computational difficulty assumptions were based on a generalized, but similar problem set for both LN and on-chain instances. I may have overlooked additional steps needed for the specific implementation, and I may have overlooked reasons a problem is a simplified version requiring reduced computational difficulty.
I would appreciate review and comment on my assumptions for computational difficulty and will happily correct said assumptions if reasonable evidence is given that a problem doesn't adhere to listed computational difficulty.
TL;DR: While Lightning node payments themselves cost less than on-chain BCH payments, the associated overhead currently requires a LN channel to produce 16 transactions just to break-even under ideal 1sat/byte circumstances and substantially more as the fee rate goes up.
Further, the Lightning network can provide no guarantee in its current state to maintain/reduce fees to 1sat/byte.
submitted by CaptainPatent to btc [link] [comments]

Research on ChainLink / The future might be bright

Research on ChainLink / The future might be bright
I'm a bit skeptical about this project merely because I can't find the real usage of ChainLink and its tech in real life(At the moment) after I've read the white paper. I would be grateful if you my dear reader would like to discuss it. Before I start to review the project I want to clarify why I think the future might be bright and the present time, however, has a numerous problems that must be addressed.
The main problem is The Technology Adoption.
The technology adoption life cycle is a sociological model that describes the adoption or acceptance of a new product or innovation, in our case we can define the Cryptocurrency as the New Product, I hope that I am correct - that at the moment we are on the stage between Innovators and Early Adopters. My point is, so far a lot of people never heard about cryptocurrencies or even about Bitcoin and they haven't any clue why they need tokens or digital currencies, then that lack of education still leads to slow growth of popularization of cryptocurrencies and that requires the time. I don't talk about Venezuela it's a different story, people are terrified of the government and inflation, I talk about stable countries.
In additional, on the stage of early adoption, strategy is a critical part of the business model of any startup, and when customers must pay for a new product via new money aka cryptocurrencies, a number of issues arise for which it will be necessary to have a clear understanding.

https://preview.redd.it/rh978mvaecn21.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a94569b3355258b59e37cd1803b8eae7df91c169
The second problem is high volatile and low liquidity of cryptocurrencies.
This problem affects almost on the whole sector. Of course, there are a lot of big and small online exchanges but all of them request KYC verification procedure which a potential barrier to the use cryptocurrencies. How many potential clients, StartUp can lose if it accepts only cryptocurrencies as payment method? If crypto payments would as one of variants with solid discount to cover exchanges fees of customers only then StartUp will greatly benefit from the increasing its clients' base.
For business. In the context of the high volatile of cryptocurrencies, the using of tokens can bring some problems for companies. For instance, I want to offer data feed to customers, first of all I think about the pricing structure for users, so if the token price will rise on 10% then I must force down the price in USD/EUFiat immediately, after then I need to exchange received tokens for USD or EUR or my national currency, because I pay taxes and my government doesn't accept cryptocurrencies. If even this process will be automatically, I will still pay fees on every stage and every fee is my potential profit.
White Paper.
White Paper were well written and required minimal tech skills to understand what to expect of such a new vision of the smart-contracts. So, this time, we're being offered to assess the future where the ChainLink provides algorithms on-chain and off-chain for B2B, B2C, C2C based on decentralized blockchain.
The on-chain algorithm.
"The ChainLink system proposes the use of a simple protocol involving threshold signatures. Such signatures can be realized using any of a number of signature schemes, but are especially simple to implement using Schnorr signature."
This algorithm is secure enough and include a rational steps for that. That means a confidentiality of a request to trustworthy data source will be protected and can't be used or revealed by compromised node.
"in order to decrypt an encrypted message or to sign a message, several parties (more than some threshold number) must cooperate in the decryption or signature protocol. The message is encrypted using a public key and the corresponding private key is shared among the participating parties." Wikipedia.
And furthermore, if you worry that single data source can be compromise by unauthorized persons than you can obtain data from several sources, also it effectively prevents the possibility of incorrect answer. But the off-chain algorithm is more interesting.
The off-chain algorithm.
Very interesting technology which can be used by government(as I think) for secure data transmission over the internet, so I recommend you to read how the Intel SGX works, the official site of Town Crier and then re-read the white paper. As written on the main page of Town Crier: "The Town Crier system leverages trusted hardware (Intel SGX) to provide a strong guarantee that data comes from an existing, trustworthy source. It also provides confidentiality, enabling smart contracts to support confidential queries and even manage user credentials." All three sources will get you more helpful information than I can write here. Here is nothing more I can think of to say, because this is the long-term technical strategy for ChainLink and it's still on development.
I almost agree to pay for a request. or Where is my profit?
So let's take some examples.
Shipping. My business model offers cheap shipping of parcels also you can track its geographical coordinates, the similar as you would track your Uber ride. No one on the market can't offer the analogous option, so I have the market where I can dictate the rules, then I notice that with the ChainLink platform, my business model can reduce significant cost on the prices of shipping if my customers will pay for each request of coordinates. Wow! My company will receive (If I correctly understand from the white paper, when user pay fees for the request, this fees divided on several parts, where my service receive one part and another one sends to the node or pool) extra fees from my customers. But let's back to customers, if my App will use the ChainLink platform then my users must pay via $Link token to know where are their parcels.
And here we must back to the major problem "The Technology Adoption", I know that my potential customer prefers to make an online payment via VISA or Master card instead of cryptocurrencies, in the result my potential customers will encounter difficulties like where to buy Bitcoin or Ethereum, how to exchange BTC or ETH for $Link token (The problem number two) and others small problems, don't forget about exchanges fees. And what do you think whose services they will choose? DHL, FedEx, UPS or maybe my company? Okay, you can say, at the moment you can use Bitcoin ATM, and then transfer cryptocurrency to the Enjin Wallet, where is easily exchange Bitcoin or Ethereum for any ERC20 token include $Link token. BUT a lot of people don't know about that and this is a problem. As well, my method incurs some sort of fees too.
Market data. For example, my company have exclusive rights on real-time stocks market data, that I sell in my App, and I can offer a price that's lower than the competition's. Well that's good for my business, BUT my clients want to obtain data instantaneously and here I can't offer them high speed of answers because API of my App works on the ChainLink platform. You can create and test your own smart-contract here to calculate the time from request to answer.
With all these issues will face every StartUp which want to work on the ChainLink platform, even if StartUp can offer something new to us, but we as users must pay for service through $Link token then this StartUp will lose a significant proportion of customers. Or StartAp must offer super exclusive data to create significant value for its client base.
In conclusion.
I don't want to blame the ChainLink platform, I want to say this project offers us interesting possibilities, but it depends on the circumstances of nowadays. In my view, when I can buy cryptocurrencies just as easily as ice-cream, then all things will depend on what can I offer you, to exchange my exclusive data for your $Link token.
And Finally, I would like to clarify that all these problems above are universal, but the recent projects which I reviewed have one major bonus, they have a working platform/site with loyal customers. On the other side the ChainLink platform, it has a good idea too, but the area of its usage hasn't the mainstream user, that leads to slow adoption of technology and higher levels of frustration for investors.
PS.
It's not a financial advice.
I haven't any investments in $LINK.
I continue to follow /ChainLink.
I want to apologize for possible errors bc english is not my native language.
submitted by Fanfan_la_Tulip to SAFU [link] [comments]

What's the difficulty algorithm for Beam?

I'm looking to add a mining calculator for BEAM to an app of mine. I presume there a difficulty run through an equation with miner hashrate like Bitcoin, but is it calculated in the same exact manner, or is it a different equation than Bitcoin?
Here is my bitcoin mining calculator, as an example of what I mean:
https://github.com/taoteh1221/DFD_Cryptocoin_Values/blob/masteapp-lib/php/othecalculators/bitcoin-mining-calculator.php#L32
which is derived from here:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty
Also, if anybody knows of a good API for getting BEAM block height / difficulty that would be awesome.
submitted by dragonfrugal to beamprivacy [link] [comments]

AN INTRODUCTION TO DIGIBYTE

DigiByte

What are cryptocurrencies?
Cryptocurrencies are peer to peer technology protocols which rely on the block-chain; a system of decentralized record keeping which allows people to exchange unmodifiable and indestructible information “coins,” globally in little to no time with little to no fees – this translates into the exchange of value as these coins cannot be counterfeit nor stolen. This concept was started by Satoshi Nakamoto (allegedly a pseudonym for a single man or organization) whom described and coded Bitcoin in 2009.
What is DigiByte?
DigiByte (DGB) is a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin. It is also a decentralized applications protocol in a similar fashion to Neo or Ethereum.
DigiByte was founded and created by Jared Tate in 2014. DigiByte allows for fast (virtually instant) and low cost (virtually free) transactions. DigiByte is hard capped at 21 billion coins which will ever be mined, over a period of 21 years. DigiByte was never an ICO and was mined/created in the same way that Bitcoin or Litecoin initially were.
DigiByte is the fastest UTXO PoW scalable block-chain in the world. We’ll cover what this really means down below.
DigiByte has put forth and applied solutions to many of the problems that have plagued Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general – those being:
We will address these point by point in the subsequent sections.
The DigiByte Protocol
DigiByte maintains these properties through use of various technological innovations which we will briefly address below.
Why so many coins? 21 Billion
When initially conceived Bitcoin was the first of a kind! And came into the hands of a few! The beginnings of a coin such as Bitcoin were difficult, it had to go through a lot of initial growth pains which following coins did not have to face. It is for this reason among others why I believe Bitcoin was capped at 21 million; and why today it has thus secured a place as digital gold.
When Bitcoin was first invented no one knew anything about cryptocurrencies, for the inventor to get them out to the public he would have to give them away. This is how the first Bitcoins were probably passed on, for free! But then as interest grew so did the community. For them to be able to build something and create something which could go on to have actual value, it would have to go through a steady growth phase. Therefore, the control of inflation through mining was extremely important. Also, why the cap for Bitcoin was probably set so low - to allow these coins to amass value without being destroyed by inflation (from mining) in the same way fiat is today! In my mind Satoshi Nakamoto knew what he was doing when setting it at 21 million BTC and must have known and even anticipated others would take his design and build on top of it.
At DigiByte, we are that better design and capped at 21 billion. That's 1000 times larger than the supply of Bitcoin. Why though? Why is the cap on DigiByte so much higher than that of Bitcoin? Because DigiByte was conceived to be used not as a digital gold, nor as any sort of commodity, but as a real currency!
Today on planet Earth, we are approximately 7.6 billion people. If each person should want or need to use and live off Bitcoin; then equally split at best each person could only own 0.00276315789 BTC. The market cap for all the money on the whole planet today is estimated to have recently passed 80 trillion dollars. That means that each whole unit of Bitcoin would be worth approximately $3,809,523.81!
$3,809,523.81
This is of course in an extreme case where everyone used Bitcoin for everything. But even in a more conservative scenario the fact remains that with such a low supply each unit of a Bitcoin would become absurdly expensive if not inaccessible to most. Imagine trying to buy anything under a dollar!
Not only would using Bitcoin as an everyday currency be a logistical nightmare but it would be nigh impossible. For each Satoshi of a Bitcoin would be worth much, much, more than what is realistically manageable.
This is where DigiByte comes in and where it shines. DigiByte aims to be used world-wide as an international currency! Not to be hoarded in the same way Bitcoin is. If we were to do some of the same calculations with DigiByte we'd find that the numbers are a lot more reasonable.
At 7.6 billion people, each person could own 2.76315789474 DGB. Each whole unit of DGB would be worth approximately $3,809.52.
$3,809.52
This is much more manageable and remember in an extreme case where everyone used DigiByte for everything! I don't expect this to happen anytime soon, but with the supply of DigiByte it would allow us to live and transact in a much more realistic and fluid fashion. Without having to divide large numbers on our phone's calculator to understand how much we owe for that cup of coffee! With DigiByte it's simple, coffee cost 1.5 DGB, the cinema 2.8 DGB, a plane ticket 500 DGB!
There is a reason for DigiByte's large supply, and it is a good one!
Decentralisation
Decentralisation is an important concept for the block-chain and cryptocurrencies in general. This allows for a system which cannot be controlled nor manipulated no matter how large the organization in play or their intentions. DigiByte’s chain remains out of the reach of even the most powerful government. This allows for people to transact freely and openly without fear of censorship.
Decentralisation on the DigiByte block-chain is assured by having an accessible and fair mining protocol in place – this is the multi-algorithm (MultiAlgo) approach. We believe that all should have access to DigiByte whether through purchase or by mining. Therefore, DigiByte is minable not only on dedicated mining hardware such as Antminers, but also through use of conventional graphics cards. The multi-algorithm approach allows for users to mine on a variety of hardware types through use of one of the 5 mining algorithms supported by DigiByte. Those being:
Please note that these mining algorithms are modified and updated from time to time to assure complete decentralisation and thus ultimate security.
The problem with using only one mining algorithm such as Bitcoin or Litecoin do is that this allows for people to continually amass mining hardware and hash power. The more hash power one has, the more one can collect more. This leads to a cycle of centralisation and the creation of mining centres. It is known that a massive portion of all hash power in Bitcoin comes from China. This kind of centralisation is a natural tendency as it is cheaper for large organisations to set up in countries with inexpensive electricity and other such advantages which may be unavailable to the average miner.
DigiByte mitigates this problem with the use of multiple algorithms. It allows for miners with many different kinds of hardware to mine the same coin on an even playing field. Mining difficulty is set relative to the mining algorithm used. This allows for those with dedicated mining rigs to mine alongside those with more modest machines – and all secure the DigiByte chain while maintaining decentralisation.
Low Fees
Low fees are maintained in DigiByte thanks to the MultiAlgo approach working in conjunction with MultiShield (originally known as DigiShield). MultiShield calls for block difficulty readjustment between every single block on the chain; currently blocks last 15 seconds. This continuous difficulty readjustment allows us to combat any bad actors which may wish to manipulate the DigiByte chain.
Manipulation may be done by a large pool or a single entity with a great amount of hash power mining blocks on the chain; thus, increasing the difficulty of the chain. In some coins such as Bitcoin or Litecoin difficulty is readjusted every 2016 blocks at approximately 10mins each and 2mins respectively. Meaning that Bitcoin’s difficulty is readjusted about every two weeks. This system can allow for large bad actors to mine a coin and then abandon it, leaving it with a difficulty level far too high for the present hash rate – and so transactions can be frozen, and the chain stopped until there is a difficulty readjustment and or enough hash power to mine the chain. In such a case users may be faced with a choice - pay exorbitant fees or have their transactions frozen. In an extreme case the whole chain could be frozen completely for extended periods of time.
DigiByte does not face this problem as its difficulty is readjusted per block every 15 seconds. This innovation was a technological breakthrough and was adopted by several other coins in the cryptocurrency environment such as Dogecoin, Z-Cash, Ubiq, Monacoin, and Bitcoin Gold.
This difficulty readjustment along with the MultiAlgo approach allows DigiByte to maintain the lowest fees of any UTXO – PoW – chain in the world. Currently fees on the DigiByte block-chain are at about 0.0001 DGB per transaction of 100 000 DGB sent. This depends on the amount sent and currently 100 000 DGB are worth around $2000.00 with the fee being less than 0.000002 cents. It would take 500 000 transactions of 100 000 DGB to equal 1 penny’s worth. This was tested on a Ledger Nano S set to the low fees setting.
Fast transaction times
Fast transactions are ensured by the conjunctive use of the two aforementioned technology protocols. The use of MultiShield and MultiAlgo allows the mining of the DigiByte chain to always be profitable and thus there is always someone mining your transactions. MultiAlgo allows there to a greater amount of hash power spread world-wide, this along with 15 second block times allows for transactions to be near instantaneous. This speed is also ensured by the use DigiSpeed. DigiSpeed is the protocol by which the DigiByte chain will decrease block timing gradually. Initially DigiByte started with 30 second block times in 2014; which today are set at 15 seconds. This decrease will allow for ever faster and ever more transactions per block.
Robust security + The Immutable Ledger
At the core of cryptocurrency security is decentralisation. As stated before decentralisation is ensured on the DigiByte block chain by use of the MultiAlgo approach. Each algorithm in the MultiAlgo approach of DigiByte is only allowed about 20% of all new blocks. This in conjunction with MultiShield allows for DigiByte to be the most secure, most reliable, and fastest UTXO block chain on the planet. This means that DigiByte is a proof of work (PoW) block-chain where all transactional activities are stored on the immutable public ledger world-wide. In DigiByte there is no need for the Lightning protocol (although we have it) nor sidechains to scale, and thus we get to keep PoW’s security.
There are many great debates as to the robustness or cleanliness of PoW. The fact remains that PoW block-chains remain the only systems in human history which have never been hacked and thus their security is maximal.
For an attacker to divert the DigiByte chain they would need to control over 93% of all the hashrate on one algorithm and 51% of the other four. And so DigiByte is immune to the infamous 51% attack to which Bitcoin and Litecoin are vulnerable.
Moreover, the DigiByte block-chain is currently spread over 200 000 plus servers, computers, phones, and other machines world-wide. The fact is that DigiByte is one of the easiest to mine coins there is – this is greatly aided by the recent release of the one click miner. This allows for ever greater decentralisation which in turn assures that there is no single point of failure and the chain is thus virtually un-attackable.
On Chain Scalability
The biggest barrier for block-chains today is scalability. Visa the credit card company can handle around 2000 transactions per second (TPS) today. This allows them to ensure customer security and transactional rates nation-wide. Bitcoin currently sits at around 7 TPS and Litecoin at 28 TPS (56 TPS with SegWit). All the technological innovations I’ve mentioned above come together to allow for DigiByte to be the fastest PoW block-chain in the world and the most scalable.
DigiByte is scalable because of DigiSpeed, the protocol through which block times are decreased and block sizes are increased. It is known that a simple increase in block size can increase the TPS of any block-chain, such is the case with Bitcoin Cash. This is however not scalable. The reason a simple increase in block size is not scalable is because it would eventually lead to some if not a great amount of centralization. This centralization occurs because larger block sizes mean that storage costs and thus hardware cost for miners increases. This increase along with full blocks – meaning many transactions occurring on the chain – will inevitably bar out the average miner after difficulty increases and mining centres consolidate.
Hardware cost, and storage costs decrease over time following Moore’s law and DigiByte adheres to it perfectly. DigiSpeed calls for the increase in block sizes and decrease in block timing every two years by a factor of two. This means that originally DigiByte’s block sizes were 1 MB at 30 seconds each at inception in 2014. In 2016 DigiByte increased block size by two and decreased block timing by the same factor. Perfectly following Moore’s law. Moore’s law dictates that in general hardware increases in power by a factor of two while halving in cost every year.
This would allow for DigiByte to scale at a steady rate and for people to adopt new hardware at an equally steady rate and reasonable expense. Thus so, the average miner can continue to mine DigiByte on his algorithm of choice with entry level hardware.
DigiByte was one of the first block chains to adopt segregated witness (SegWit in 2017) a protocol whereby a part of transactional data is removed and stored elsewhere to decrease transaction data weight and thus increase scalability and speed. This allows us to fit more transactions per block which does not increase in size!
DigiByte currently sits at 560 TPS and could scale to over 280 000 TPS by 2035. This dwarfs any of the TPS capacities; even projected/possible capacities of some coins and even private companies. In essence DigiByte could scale worldwide today and still be reliable and robust. DigiByte could even handle the cumulative transactions of all the top 50 coins in coinmarketcap.com and still run smoothly and below capacity. In fact, to max out DigiByte’s actual maximum capacity (today at 560 TPS) you would have to take all these transactions and multiply them by a factor of 10!
Oher Uses for DigiByte
Note that DigiByte is not only to be used as a currency. Its immense robustness, security and scalability make it ideal for building decentralised applications (DAPPS) which it can host. DigiByte can in fact host DAPPS and even centralised versions which rely on the chain which are known as Digi-Apps. This application layer is also accompanied by a smart contract layer.
Thus, DigiByte could host several Crypto Kitties games and more without freezing out or increasing transaction costs for the end user.
Currently there are various DAPPS being built on the DigiByte block-chain, these are done independently of the DigiByte core team. These companies are simply using the DigiByte block-chain as a utility much in the same way one uses a road to get to work. One such example is Loly – a Tinderesque consensual dating application.
DigiByte also hosts a variety of other platform projects such as the following:
The DigiByte Foundation
As previously mentioned DigiByte was not an ICO. The DigiByte foundation was established in 2017 by founder Jared Tate. Its purpose is as a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting and developing the DigiByte block-chain.
DigiByte is a community effort and a community coin, to be treated as a public resource as water or air. Know that anyone can work on DigiByte, anyone can create, and do as they wish. It is a permissionless system which encourages innovation and creation. If you have an idea and or would like to get help on your project do not hesitate to contact the DigiByte foundation either through the official website and or the telegram developer’s channel.
For this reason, it is ever more important to note that the DigiByte foundation cannot exist without public support. And so, this is the reason I encourage all to donate to the foundation. All funds are used for the maintenance of DigiByte servers, marketing, and DigiByte development.
DigiByte Resources and Websites
DigiByte
Wallets
Explorers
Please refer to the sidebar of this sub-reddit for more resources and information.
Edit - Removed Jaxx wallet.
Edit - A new section was added to the article: Why so many coins? 21 Billion
Edit - Adjusted max capacity of DGB's TPS - Note it's actually larger than I initially calculated.
Edit – Grammar and format readjustment
Hello,
I hope you’ve enjoyed my article, I originally wrote this for the reddit sub-wiki where it generally will most likely, probably not, get a lot of attention. So instead I've decided to make this sort of an introductory post, an open letter, to any newcomers to DGB or for those whom are just curious.
I tried to cover every aspect of DGB, but of course I may have forgotten something! Please leave a comment down below and tell me why you're in DGB? What convinced you? Me it's the decentralised PoW that really convinced me. Plus, just that transaction speed and virtually no fees! Made my mouth water!
-Dereck de Mézquita
I'm a student typing this stuff on my free time, help me pay my debts? Thank you!
D64fAFQvJMhrBUNYpqUKQjqKrMLu76j24g
https://digiexplorer.info/address/D64fAFQvJMhrBUNYpqUKQjqKrMLu76j24g
submitted by xeno_biologist to Digibyte [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Miner 2020 no fee ✨Antminer S17+ Plus - The most powerful bitcoin mining monster  Bitcoin Miner Store Bitcoin Difficulty Ribbon - New - How To Use The Difficulty Ribbon To Trade Bitcoin BitcoinWiki Channel - YouTube Bitcoin mining profit calculator

The Bitcoin network has a global block difficulty. Valid blocks must have a hash below this target. Mining pools also have a pool-specific share difficulty setting a lower limit for shares. How often does the network difficulty change? Every 2016 blocks. What is the formula for difficulty? difficulty = difficulty_1_target / current_target The Wikicoin difficulty chart provides the current Wikicoin difficulty (WIKI diff) target as well as a historical data graph visualizing Wikicoin mining difficulty chart values with WIKI difficulty adjustments (both increases and decreases) defaulted to today with timeline options of 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, and all time TP's Bitcoin Calculator is a website created by ThePiachu, allowing anyone to calculate various aspects of their mining operations.It's an all-in-one solution, offering a quick run-down of how many bitcoins one can expect to generate with a given hardware, how much will their investment cost, whether it's profitable and how soon can they expect their investment to return its costs. WIKI (WIKI) price stats and information. Share: WIKI Price (WIKI price history charts) 1 WIKI = $ 0.389 USD (2020-07-10 09:06:35) 1 USD = 2.57 WIKI Bitcoinx.com provides a world of information including how to acquire, exchange and spend bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Additionally there is a list of the top ICOs and crowdsales happening in the blockchain universe. It also provides a variety of tools and charts, including financial and technical data, related to the bitcoin and other markets to allow users to become fully submerged

[index] [1490] [23425] [2772] [19467] [28074] [22383] [20757] [29151] [7923] [20102]

Bitcoin Miner 2020 no fee

#bitcoin mining calculator 2020 #bitcoin mining difficulty 2020. Category Film & Animation; Song Don't (Don Diablo Remix) Artist Ed Sheeran; Album The difficulty of mining goes up by a factor of about 14 %every thirty days. So more and more powerful and costly equipment is required for it. That's why the value of bitcoins has actually ... Sep 11, - Genesis Mining launched its new sha256 mining contracts in the offers lifetime contracts for both altcoin and Bitcoin cloud mining services. Have you purchased a USB Bitcoin miner and ... Bitcoin difficulty ribbon - willy woo’s bitcoin difficulty ribbon suggests drop below $6,000/btc “very unlikely”. Click below and become rich today https://bit.ly/bitcoins0 Credit to Willy ... bitcoin , btc , bitcoin mining , btc mining , how to mine bitcoin , how to mine btc , best btc miner , best bitcoin miner , bitcoin mining 2019 , bitcoin mining profit calculator , bitmain ...

Flag Counter