Bitcoin regains safe-haves status, moves in sync with gold ...
Bitcoin regains safe-haves status, moves in sync with gold ...
Video: Sync Bitcoin Faster! Assume UTXO - ForexTV
Blackcoin Pos Calculator - If you are looking for ...
Four Lies About The Bitcoin Circular Economy – Bitcoin ...
# Bitcoin Directory - Bitcoin Wallet Out Of Sync Bitcoin ...
Day 1180 - Barter is still useless
What is a "good offer" on the market?
It's cheaper than fair price
Why would anyone make a good offer on the market?
To sell fast and free up slots to sell other stuff
What happens when you make a cheap barter offer?
Nobody notices so it doesn't sell fast
Therefore, there's no reason to make a cheap barter offer
Actually, there's no reason to put a barter at all. You gain nothing from doing it as a barter when you can simply buy it from the flea market after selling yours in rubles. You can only buy barter offers with FiR items, and the items you get is the same as when selling as rubles. Even if the "asking value" displayed for barter is properly synced with the market, it won't matter because it will always be noticed slower by players and you gain nothing as a seller, and buyers usually gain nothing as a buyer.
As a result, only bad(expensive) offers are made.
Nikita himself knows barter is usually a scam & nobody uses it, so he actually made "remove barter offers" filter as a default option.
We need to incentivize players to use the barter function, otherwise it'll just be another feature that 99.9% of players don't use. Don't worry - even with incentives, your normal ruble based market won't see any visible impact. Don't worry - RMT issues aren't related to barter. RMT sellers buy the expensive ruble based offers/drop bitcoins in raid/do a labs raid together while using cheats/give gearsets inraid. Barter trades don't have any possibilities of being used nefariously, ESPECIALLY since item being sold as barter and item being asked in exchange BOTH have to be FIR.
Remove/drastically lower fees for barter trades - barter is already painful for sellers and buyers. Fee removal will lead to potentially cheaper barter offers, which makes the market experience more dynamic.
Make barter offers take up a separate sales slot - barter will always take longer to sell due to less visibility, less convenience for buyers, and not many will have the exact items you require ready to pay as FiR. So, having a barter offer take up a different slot so that you can still sell other items for rubles would be a nice QoL change.
Make the estimated total value of the asking item shown for barters accurate to the current flea average prices, to make actual cheaper offers obvious.
Fix the regression bug that removed item name previews on the flea list. Since couple months ago, we can no longer see what items are required for the barter unless we mouse over the "?" icon. We used to see the item names without having to mouseover it.
I feel that barter is much more "personal" and interactive than a plain ruble based transaction 24/7. I'd like to see it get expanded more as a game feature rather than some annoyance that we have to block out using "remove barter offers" from the filter every time.
A common sentiment is brewing online; a shared desire for the internet that might have been. After decades of corporate encroachment, you don't need to be a power user to realize that something has gone very wrong. In the early days of the internet, the future was bright. In that future, when you sent an instant message, it traveled directly to the recipient. When you needed to pay a friend, you announced a transfer of value to their public key. When an app was missing a feature you wanted, you opened up the source code and implemented it. When you took a picture on your phone, it was immediately encrypted and backed up to storage that you controlled. In that future, people would laugh at the idea of having to authenticate themselves to some corporation before doing these things. What did we get instead? Rather than a network of human-sized communities, we have a handful of enormous commons, each controlled by a faceless corporate entity. Hey user, want to send a message? You can, but we'll store a copy of it indefinitely, unencrypted, for our preference-learning algorithms to pore over; how else could we slap targeted ads on every piece of content you see? Want to pay a friend? You can—in our Monopoly money. Want a new feature? Submit a request to our Support Center and we'll totally maybe think about it. Want to backup a photo? You can—inside our walled garden, which only we (and the NSA, of course) can access. Just be careful what you share, because merely locking you out of your account and deleting all your data is far from the worst thing we could do. You rationalize this: "MEGACORP would never do such a thing; it would be bad for business." But we all know, at some level, that this state of affairs, this inversion of power, is not merely "unfortunate" or "suboptimal" – No. It is degrading. Even if MEGACORP were purely benevolent, it is degrading that we must ask its permission to talk to our friends; that we must rely on it to safeguard our treasured memories; that our digital lives are completely beholden to those who seek only to extract value from us. At the root of this issue is the centralization of data. MEGACORP can surveil you—because your emails and video chats flow through their servers. And MEGACORP can control you—because they hold your data hostage. But centralization is a solution to a technical problem: How can we make the user's data accessible from anywhere in the world, on any device? For a long time, no alternative solution to this problem was forthcoming. Today, thanks to a confluence of established techniques and recent innovations, we have solved the accessibility problem without resorting to centralization. Hashing, encryption, and erasure encoding got us most of the way, but one barrier remained: incentives. How do you incentivize an anonymous stranger to store your data? Earlier protocols like BitTorrent worked around this limitation by relying on altruism, tit-for-tat requirements, or "points" – in other words, nothing you could pay your electric bill with. Finally, in 2009, a solution appeared: Bitcoin. Not long after, Sia was born. Cryptography has unleashed the latent power of the internet by enabling interactions between mutually-distrustful parties. Sia harnesses this power to turn the cloud storage market into a proper marketplace, where buyers and sellers can transact directly, with no intermediaries, anywhere in the world. No more silos or walled gardens: your data is encrypted, so it can't be spied on, and it's stored on many servers, so no single entity can hold it hostage. Thanks to projects like Sia, the internet is being re-decentralized. Sia began its life as a startup, which means it has always been subjected to two competing forces: the ideals of its founders, and the profit motive inherent to all businesses. Its founders have taken great pains to never compromise on the former, but this often threatened the company's financial viability. With the establishment of the Sia Foundation, this tension is resolved. The Foundation, freed of the obligation to generate profit, is a pure embodiment of the ideals from which Sia originally sprung. The goals and responsibilities of the Foundation are numerous: to maintain core Sia protocols and consensus code; to support developers building on top of Sia and its protocols; to promote Sia and facilitate partnerships in other spheres and communities; to ensure that users can easily acquire and safely store siacoins; to develop network scalability solutions; to implement hardforks and lead the community through them; and much more. In a broader sense, its mission is to commoditize data storage, making it cheap, ubiquitous, and accessible to all, without compromising privacy or performance. Sia is a perfect example of how we can achieve better living through cryptography. We now begin a new chapter in Sia's history. May our stewardship lead it into a bright future.
Today, we are proposing the creation of the Sia Foundation: a new non-profit entity that builds and supports distributed cloud storage infrastructure, with a specific focus on the Sia storage platform. What follows is an informal overview of the Sia Foundation, covering two major topics: how the Foundation will be funded, and what its funds will be used for.
The Sia Foundation will be structured as a non-profit entity incorporated in the United States, likely a 501(c)(3) organization or similar. The actions of the Foundation will be constrained by its charter, which formalizes the specific obligations and overall mission outlined in this document. The charter will be updated on an annual basis to reflect the current goals of the Sia community. The organization will be operated by a board of directors, initially comprising Luke Champine as President and Eddie Wang as Chairman. Luke Champine will be leaving his position at Nebulous to work at the Foundation full-time, and will seek to divest his shares of Nebulous stock along with other potential conflicts of interest. Neither Luke nor Eddie personally own any siafunds or significant quantities of siacoin.
The primary source of funding for the Foundation will come from a new block subsidy. Following a hardfork, 30 KS per block will be allocated to the "Foundation Fund," continuing in perpetuity. The existing 30 KS per block miner reward is not affected. Additionally, one year's worth of block subsidies (approximately 1.57 GS) will be allocated to the Fund immediately upon activation of the hardfork. As detailed below, the Foundation will provably burn any coins that it cannot meaningfully spend. As such, the 30 KS subsidy should be viewed as a maximum. This allows the Foundation to grow alongside Sia without requiring additional hardforks. The Foundation will not be funded to any degree by the possession or sale of siafunds. Siafunds were originally introduced as a means of incentivizing growth, and we still believe in their effectiveness: a siafund holder wants to increase the amount of storage on Sia as much as possible. While the Foundation obviously wants Sia to succeed, its driving force should be its charter. Deriving significant revenue from siafunds would jeopardize the Foundation's impartiality and focus. Ultimately, we want the Foundation to act in the best interests of Sia, not in growing its own budget.
The Foundation inherits a great number of responsibilities from Nebulous. Each quarter, the Foundation will publish the progress it has made over the past quarter, and list the responsibilities it intends to prioritize over the coming quarter. This will be accompanied by a financial report, detailing each area of expenditure over the past quarter, and forecasting expenditures for the coming quarter. Below, we summarize some of the myriad responsibilities towards which the Foundation is expected to allocate its resources.
Maintain and enhance core Sia software
Arguably, this is the most important responsibility of the Foundation. At the heart of Sia is its consensus algorithm: regardless of other differences, all Sia software must agree upon the content and rules of the blockchain. It is therefore crucial that the algorithm be stewarded by an entity that is accountable to the community, transparent in its decision-making, and has no profit motive or other conflicts of interest. Accordingly, Sia’s consensus functionality will no longer be directly maintained by Nebulous. Instead, the Foundation will release and maintain an implementation of a "minimal Sia full node," comprising the Sia consensus algorithm and P2P networking code. The source code will be available in a public repository, and signed binaries will be published for each release. Other parties may use this code to provide alternative full node software. For example, Nebulous may extend the minimal full node with wallet, renter, and host functionality. The source code of any such implementation may be submitted to the Foundation for review. If the code passes review, the Foundation will provide "endorsement signatures" for the commit hash used and for binaries compiled internally by the Foundation. Specifically, these signatures assert that the Foundation believes the software contains no consensus-breaking changes or other modifications to imported Foundation code. Endorsement signatures and Foundation-compiled binaries may be displayed and distributed by the receiving party, along with an appropriate disclaimer. A minimal full node is not terribly useful on its own; the wallet, renter, host, and other extensions are what make Sia a proper developer platform. Currently, the only implementations of these extensions are maintained by Nebulous. The Foundation will contract Nebulous to ensure that these extensions continue to receive updates and enhancements. Later on, the Foundation intends to develop its own implementations of these extensions and others. As with the minimal node software, these extensions will be open source and available in public repositories for use by any Sia node software. With the consensus code now managed by the Foundation, the task of implementing and orchestrating hardforks becomes its responsibility as well. When the Foundation determines that a hardfork is necessary (whether through internal discussion or via community petition), a formal proposal will be drafted and submitted for public review, during which arguments for and against the proposal may be submitted to a public repository. During this time, the hardfork code will be implemented, either by Foundation employees or by external contributors working closely with the Foundation. Once the implementation is finished, final arguments will be heard. The Foundation board will then vote whether to accept or reject the proposal, and announce their decision along with appropriate justification. Assuming the proposal was accepted, the Foundation will announce the block height at which the hardfork will activate, and will subsequently release source code and signed binaries that incorporate the hardfork code. Regardless of the Foundation's decision, it is the community that ultimately determines whether a fork is accepted or rejected – nothing can change that. Foundation node software will never automatically update, so all forks must be explicitly adopted by users. Furthermore, the Foundation will provide replay and wipeout protection for its hard forks, protecting other chains from unintended or malicious reorgs. Similarly, the Foundation will ensure that any file contracts formed prior to a fork activation will continue to be honored on both chains until they expire. Finally, the Foundation also intends to pursue scalability solutions for the Sia blockchain. In particular, work has already begun on an implementation of Utreexo, which will greatly reduce the space requirements of fully-validating nodes (allowing a full node to be run on a smartphone) while increasing throughput and decreasing initial sync time. A hardfork implementing Utreexo will be submitted to the community as per the process detailed above. As this is the most important responsibility of the Foundation, it will receive a significant portion of the Foundation’s budget, primarily in the form of developer salaries and contracting agreements.
Support community services
We intend to allocate 25% of the Foundation Fund towards the community. This allocation will be held and disbursed in the form of siacoins, and will pay for grants, bounties, hackathons, and other community-driven endeavours. Any community-run service, such as a Skynet portal, explorer or web wallet, may apply to have its costs covered by the Foundation. Upon approval, the Foundation will reimburse expenses incurred by the service, subject to the exact terms agreed to. The intent of these grants is not to provide a source of income, but rather to make such services "break even" for their operators, so that members of the community can enrich the Sia ecosystem without worrying about the impact on their own finances.
Ensure easy acquisition and storage of siacoins
Most users will acquire their siacoins via an exchange. The Foundation will provide support to Sia-compatible exchanges, and pursue relevant integrations at its discretion, such as Coinbase's new Rosetta standard. The Foundation may also release DEX software that enables trading cryptocurrencies without the need for a third party. (The Foundation itself will never operate as a money transmitter.) Increasingly, users are storing their cryptocurrency on hardware wallets. The Foundation will maintain the existing Ledger Nano S integration, and pursue further integrations at its discretion. Of course, all hardware wallets must be paired with software running on a computer or smartphone, so the Foundation will also develop and/or maintain client-side wallet software, including both full-node wallets and "lite" wallets. Community-operated wallet services, i.e. web wallets, may be funded via grants. Like core software maintenance, this responsibility will be funded in the form of developer salaries and contracting agreements.
Protect the ecosystem
When it comes to cryptocurrency security, patching software vulnerabilities is table stakes; there are significant legal and social threats that we must be mindful of as well. As such, the Foundation will earmark a portion of its fund to defend the community from legal action. The Foundation will also safeguard the network from 51% attacks and other threats to network security by implementing softforks and/or hardforks where necessary. The Foundation also intends to assist in the development of a new FOSS software license, and to solicit legal memos on various Sia-related matters, such as hosting in the United States and the EU. In a broader sense, the establishment of the Foundation makes the ecosystem more robust by transferring core development to a more neutral entity. Thanks to its funding structure, the Foundation will be immune to various forms of pressure that for-profit companies are susceptible to.
Drive adoption of Sia
Although the overriding goal of the Foundation is to make Sia the best platform it can be, all that work will be in vain if no one uses the platform. There are a number of ways the Foundation can promote Sia and get it into the hands of potential users and developers. In-person conferences are understandably far less popular now, but the Foundation can sponsor and/or participate in virtual conferences. (In-person conferences may be held in the future, permitting circumstances.) Similarly, the Foundation will provide prizes for hackathons, which may be organized by community members, Nebulous, or the Foundation itself. Lastly, partnerships with other companies in the cryptocurrency space—or the cloud storage space—are a great way to increase awareness of Sia. To handle these responsibilities, one of the early priorities of the Foundation will be to hire a marketing director.
The Foundation Fund will be controlled by a multisig address. Each member of the Foundation's board will control one of the signing keys, with the signature threshold to be determined once the final composition of the board is known. (This threshold may also be increased or decreased if the number of board members changes.) Additionally, one timelocked signing key will be controlled by David Vorick. This key will act as a “dead man’s switch,” to be used in the event of an emergency that prevents Foundation board members from reaching the signature threshold. The timelock ensures that this key cannot be used unless the Foundation fails to sign a transaction for several months. On the 1st of each month, the Foundation will use its keys to transfer all siacoins in the Fund to two new addresses. The first address will be controlled by a high-security hot wallet, and will receive approximately one month's worth of Foundation expenditures. The second address, receiving the remaining siacoins, will be a modified version of the source address: specifically, it will increase the timelock on David Vorick's signing key by one month. Any other changes to the set of signing keys, such as the arrival or departure of board members, will be incorporated into this address as well. The Foundation Fund is allocated in SC, but many of the Foundation's expenditures must be paid in USD or other fiat currency. Accordingly, the Foundation will convert, at its discretion, a portion of its monthly withdrawals to fiat currency. We expect this conversion to be primarily facilitated by private "OTC" sales to accredited investors. The Foundation currently has no plans to speculate in cryptocurrency or other assets. Finally, it is important that the Foundation adds value to the Sia platform well in excess of the inflation introduced by the block subsidy. For this reason, the Foundation intends to provably burn, on a quarterly basis, any coins that it cannot allocate towards any justifiable expense. In other words, coins will be burned whenever doing so provides greater value to the platform than any other use. Furthermore, the Foundation will cap its SC treasury at 5% of the total supply, and will cap its USD treasury at 4 years’ worth of predicted expenses. Addendum: Hardfork Timeline We would like to see this proposal finalized and accepted by the community no later than September 30th. A new version of siad, implementing the hardfork, will be released no later than October 15th. The hardfork will activate at block 293220, which is expected to occur around 12pm EST on January 1st, 2021.
Addendum: Inflation specifics The total supply of siacoins as of January 1st, 2021 will be approximately 45.243 GS. The initial subsidy of 1.57 GS thus increases the supply by 3.47%, and the total annual inflation in 2021 will be at most 10.4% (if zero coins are burned). In 2022, total annual inflation will be at most 6.28%, and will steadily decrease in subsequent years.
We see the establishment of the Foundation as an important step in the maturation of the Sia project. It provides the ecosystem with a sustainable source of funding that can be exclusively directed towards achieving Sia's ambitious goals. Compared to other projects with far deeper pockets, Sia has always punched above its weight; once we're on equal footing, there's no telling what we'll be able to achieve. Nevertheless, we do not propose this change lightly, and have taken pains to ensure that the Foundation will act in accordance with the ideals that this community shares. It will operate transparently, keep inflation to a minimum, and respect the user's fundamental role in decentralized systems. We hope that everyone in the community will consider this proposal carefully, and look forward to a productive discussion.
https://github.com/gridcoin-community/Gridcoin-Research/releases/tag/126.96.36.199 Finally! After over ten months of development and testing, "Fern" has arrived! This is a whopper. 240 pull requests merged. Essentially a complete rewrite that was started with the scraper (the "neural net" rewrite) in "Denise" has now been completed. Practically the ENTIRE Gridcoin specific codebase resting on top of the vanilla Bitcoin/Peercoin/Blackcoin vanilla PoS code has been rewritten. This removes the team requirement at last (see below), although there are many other important improvements besides that. Fern was a monumental undertaking. We had to encode all of the old rules active for the v10 block protocol in new code and ensure that the new code was 100% compatible. This had to be done in such a way as to clear out all of the old spaghetti and ring-fence it with tightly controlled class implementations. We then wrote an entirely new, simplified ruleset for research rewards and reengineered contracts (which includes beacon management, polls, and voting) using properly classed code. The fundamentals of Gridcoin with this release are now on a very sound and maintainable footing, and the developers believe the codebase as updated here will serve as the fundamental basis for Gridcoin's future roadmap. We have been testing this for MONTHS on testnet in various stages. The v10 (legacy) compatibility code has been running on testnet continuously as it was developed to ensure compatibility with existing nodes. During the last few months, we have done two private testnet forks and then the full public testnet testing for v11 code (the new protocol which is what Fern implements). The developers have also been running non-staking "sentinel" nodes on mainnet with this code to verify that the consensus rules are problem-free for the legacy compatibility code on the broader mainnet. We believe this amount of testing is going to result in a smooth rollout. Given the amount of changes in Fern, I am presenting TWO changelogs below. One is high level, which summarizes the most significant changes in the protocol. The second changelog is the detailed one in the usual format, and gives you an inkling of the size of this release.
Note that the protocol changes will not become active until we cross the hard-fork transition height to v11, which has been set at 2053000. Given current average block spacing, this should happen around October 4, about one month from now. Note that to get all of the beacons in the network on the new protocol, we are requiring ALL beacons to be validated. A two week (14 day) grace period is provided by the code, starting at the time of the transition height, for people currently holding a beacon to validate the beacon and prevent it from expiring. That means that EVERY CRUNCHER must advertise and validate their beacon AFTER the v11 transition (around Oct 4th) and BEFORE October 18th (or more precisely, 14 days from the actual date of the v11 transition). If you do not advertise and validate your beacon by this time, your beacon will expire and you will stop earning research rewards until you advertise and validate a new beacon. This process has been made much easier by a brand new beacon "wizard" that helps manage beacon advertisements and renewals. Once a beacon has been validated and is a v11 protocol beacon, the normal 180 day expiration rules apply. Note, however, that the 180 day expiration on research rewards has been removed with the Fern update. This means that while your beacon might expire after 180 days, your earned research rewards will be retained and can be claimed by advertising a beacon with the same CPID and going through the validation process again. In other words, you do not lose any earned research rewards if you do not stake a block within 180 days and keep your beacon up-to-date. The transition height is also when the team requirement will be relaxed for the network.
Besides the beacon wizard, there are a number of improvements to the GUI, including new UI transaction types (and icons) for staking the superblock, sidestake sends, beacon advertisement, voting, poll creation, and transactions with a message. The main screen has been revamped with a better summary section, and better status icons. Several changes under the hood have improved GUI performance. And finally, the diagnostics have been revamped.
The wallet sync speed has been DRASTICALLY improved. A decent machine with a good network connection should be able to sync the entire mainnet blockchain in less than 4 hours. A fast machine with a really fast network connection and a good SSD can do it in about 2.5 hours. One of our goals was to reduce or eliminate the reliance on snapshots for mainnet, and I think we have accomplished that goal with the new sync speed. We have also streamlined the in-memory structures for the blockchain which shaves some memory use. There are so many goodies here it is hard to summarize them all. I would like to thank all of the contributors to this release, but especially thank @cyrossignol, whose incredible contributions formed the backbone of this release. I would also like to pay special thanks to @barton2526, @caraka, and @Quezacoatl1, who tirelessly helped during the testing and polishing phase on testnet with testing and repeated builds for all architectures. The developers are proud to present this release to the community and we believe this represents the starting point for a true renaissance for Gridcoin!
Most significantly, nodes calculate research rewards directly from the magnitudes in EACH superblock between stakes instead of using a two- or three- point average based on a CPID's current magnitude and the magnitude for the CPID when it last staked. For those long-timers in the community, this has been referred to as "Superblock Windows," and was first done in proof-of-concept form by @denravonska.
Network magnitude unit pinned to a static value of 0.25
Max research reward allowed per block raised to 16384 GRC (from 12750 GRC)
New CPIDs begin accruing research rewards from the first superblock that contains the CPID instead of from the time of the beacon advertisement
500 GRC research reward limit for a CPID's first stake
6-month expiration for unclaimed rewards
10-block spacing requirement between research reward claims
Rolling 5-day payment-per-day limit
Legacy tolerances for floating-point error and time drift
The need to include a valid copy of a CPID's magnitude in a claim
10-block emission adjustment interval for the magnitude unit
One-time beacon activation requires that participants temporarily change their usernames to a verification code at one whitelisted BOINC project
Verification codes of pending beacons expire after 3 days
Self-service beacon removal
Burn fee for beacon advertisement increased from 0.00001 GRC to 0.5 GRC
Rain addresses derived from beacon keys instead of a default wallet address
Beacon expiration determined as of the current block instead of the previous block
The ability for developers to remove beacons
The ability to sign research reward claims with non-current but unexpired beacons
As a reminder:
Beacons expire after 6 months pass (180 days)
Beacons can be renewed after 5 months pass (150 days)
Renewed beacons must be signed with the same key as the original beacon
Magnitudes less than 1 include two fractional places
Magnitudes greater than or equal to 1 but less than 10 include one fractional place
A valid superblock must match a scraper convergence
Superblock popularity election mechanics
Yes/no/abstain and single-choice response types (no user-facing support yet)
To create a poll, a maximum of 250 UTXOs for a single address must add up to 100000 GRC. These are selected from the largest downwards.
Burn fee for creating polls scaled by the number of UTXOs claimed
50 GRC for a poll contract
0.001 GRC per claimed UTXO
Burn fee for casting votes scaled by the number of UTXOs claimed
0.01 GRC for a vote contract
0.01 GRC to claim magnitude
0.01 GRC per claimed address
0.001 GRC per claimed UTXO
Maximum length of a poll title: 80 characters
Maximum length of a poll question: 100 characters
Maximum length of a poll discussion website URL: 100 characters
Maximum number of poll choices: 20
Maximum length of a poll choice label: 100 characters
Magnitude, CPID count, and participant count poll weight types
The ability for developers to remove polls and votes
[188.8.131.52] 2020-09-03, mandatory, "Fern"
Backport newer uint256 types from Bitcoin #1570 (@cyrossignol)
Implement project level rain for rainbymagnitude #1580 (@jamescowens)
Upgrade utilities (Update checker and snapshot downloadeapplication) #1576 (@iFoggz)
Provide fees collected in the block by the miner #1601 (@iFoggz)
Add support for generating legacy superblocks from scraper stats #1603 (@cyrossignol)
Port of the Bitcoin Logger to Gridcoin #1600 (@jamescowens)
Implement zapwallettxes #1605 (@jamescowens)
Implements a global event filter to suppress help question mark #1609 (@jamescowens)
Add next target difficulty to RPC output #1615 (@cyrossignol)
Add caching for block hashes to CBlock #1624 (@cyrossignol)
Make toolbars and tray icon red for testnet #1637 (@jamescowens)
Add an rpc call convergencereport #1643 (@jamescowens)
Implement newline filter on config file read in #1645 (@jamescowens)
Implement beacon status icon/button #1646 (@jamescowens)
Add gridcointestnet.png #1649 (@caraka)
Add precision to support magnitudes less than 1 #1651 (@cyrossignol)
Replace research accrual calculations with superblock snapshots #1657 (@cyrossignol)
Publish example gridcoinresearch.conf as a md document to the doc directory #1662 (@jamescowens)
Add options checkbox to disable transaction notifications #1666 (@jamescowens)
Add support for self-service beacon deletion #1695 (@cyrossignol)
Add support for type-specific contract fee amounts #1698 (@cyrossignol)
Add verifiedbeaconreport and pendingbeaconreport #1696 (@jamescowens)
Add preliminary testing option for block v11 height on testnet #1706 (@cyrossignol)
Add verified beacons manifest part to superblock validator #1711 (@cyrossignol)
Implement beacon, vote, and superblock display categories/icons in UI transaction model #1717 (@jamescowens)
Disclaimer: This is sort of my own arbitrary editing, so there could be some misunderstandings. I root for the spread of good spirits and transparency of IF. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 2:45 So why don't we just copy Avalanche? Well that's pretty simple ... 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 2:47 1. It doesn't scale very well with the amount of nodes in the network that have no say in the consensus process but are merely consensus consuming nodes(i.e. sensors, edge devices and so on). If you assume that the network will never have more than a few thousand nodes then thats fine butif you want to build a DLT that can cope with millions of devices then it wont work because of the message complexity. 2. If somebody starts spamming conflicts, then the whole network will stop to confirm any transactions and will grind to a halt until the conflict spamming stops.Avalanche thinks that this is not a huge problem because an attacker would have to spend fees for spamming conflicts which means that he couldn't do this forever and would at some point run out of funds. IOTA tries to build a feeless protocol and a consensus that stops to function if somebody spams conflicts is really not an option for us. 3. If a medium sized validator goes offline due to whatever reason, then the whole network will again stop to confirm any transactionsbecause whenever a query for a nodes opinion can not be answered they reset the counter for consecutive successful voting rounds which will prevent confirmations. Since nodes need to open some ports to be available for queries it is super easy to DDOS validators and again bring the network confirmations to 0. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:05 4. Avalanche still processes transactions in "chunks/blocks"by only applying them after they have gone through some consensus process (gathered enough successfull voting rounds),which means that the nodes will waste a significant amount of time where they "wait" for the next chunk to be finished before the transactions are applied to the ledger state. IOTA tries to streamline this process by decoupling consensus and the booking of transactions by using the "parallel reality based ledger state" which means that nodes in IOTA will never waste any time "waiting" for decisions to be made. This will give us much higher throughput numbers. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:11 5. Avalanche has some really severe game theoretic problems where nodes are incentivized to attach their transactions to the already decided parts of the DAG because then things like conflict spam won't affect these transactions as badly as the transactions issued by honest nodes.If however every node would follow this "better and selfish" tip selection mechanism then the network will stop to work at all. Overall the "being able to stop consensus" might not be too bad since you can't really do anything really bad (i.e. double spend) which is why we might not see these kind of attacks in the immediate future but just wait until a few DeFi apps are running on their platform where smart contracts are actually relying on more or less real time execution of the contracts. Then there might be some actual financial gains to be made if the contract halts and we might see alot of these things appear (including selfish tip selection). Avalanche is barely a top 100 project and nobody attacks these kind of low value networks unless there is something to be gained from such an attack. Saying that the fact that its live on mainnet and hasn't been attacked in 3 weeks is a proof for its security is completely wrong. Especially considering that 95% of all stake are controlled by avalanche itself If you control > 50% of the voting power then you essentially control the whole network and attacks can mostly be ignored I guess there is a reason for avalanche only selling 10% of the token supply to the public because then some of the named problems are less likely to appear 📷 Navin Ramachandran [IF]어제 오후 3:21 I have to say that wtf's suggestion is pretty condescending to all our researchers. It seems heavy on the troll aspect to suggest that we should ditch all our work because iota is only good at industrial adoption. Does wtf actually expect a response to this? Or is this grand standing? 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:22 The whole argument of "why don't you just use X instead of trying to build a better version" is also a completely idiotic argument. Why did ETH write their own protocol if Bitcoin was already around? Well because they saw problems in Bitcoins approach and tried to improve it. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:27 u/NavinRamachandran [IF] Its like most of his arguments ... remember when he said we should implement colored coins in 2nd layer smart contracts instead of the base layer because they would be more expressive (i.e. turing complete) completely discarding that 2nd layer smart contracts only really work if you have a consensus on data and therefore state for which you need the "traceability" of funds to create these kind of mini blockchains in the tangle? Colored coins "enable" smart contracts and it wouldnt work the other way round - unless you have a platform that works exactly like ETH where all the nodes validate a single shared execution platform of the smart contracts which is not really scalable and is exactly what we are trying to solve with our approach. 📷 Navin Ramachandran [IF]어제 오후 3:28 Always easier to criticise than build something yourself. But yet he keeps posting these inflammatory posts. At this point is there any doubt if he is making these comments constructively? 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:43 If he at least would try to understand IOTAs vision ... then maybe he wouldn't have to ask things like "Why don't you just copy a tech that only works with fees" 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 4:35 u/Shaar
I thought this would only be used to 'override' finality, eg if there were network splits. But not in normal consensus
That is not correct. Every single transaction gets booked on arrival using the parallel reality based ledger state. If there are conflicts then we create a "branch" (container in the ledger state) that represents the perception that this particular double spend would be accepted by consensus. After consensus is reached, the container is simply marked as "accepted" and all transactions that are associated with this branch are immediately confirmed as well. This allows us to make the node use all of its computing ressources 24/7 without having to wait for any kind of decision to be made and allows us to scale the throughput to its physical limits. That's the whole idea of the "parallel reality based ledger state" instead of designing a data structure that models the ledger state "after consensus" like everybody else is doing it is tailored to model the ledger state "before consensus" and then you just flip a flag to persist your decision. The "resync mechanism" also uses the branches to measure the amount of approval a certain perception of the ledger state receives. So if my own opinion is not in line with what the rest of the network has accepted (i.e. because I was eclipsed or because there was a network split), then I can use the weight of these branches to detect this "being out of sync" and can do another larger query to re-evaluate my decision.(수정됨)
Also what happens in IOTA if DRNG notes would fall out, does the network continue if no new RNGs appear for a while? Or will new nodes be added sufficiently fast to the DRNG committee that no one notices?
Its a comittee and not just a single DRNG provider. If a few nodes fail then it will still produce random numbers. And even if the whole comittee fails there are fallback RNG's that would be used instead 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 4:58 And multiverse doesn't use FPC but only the weight of these branches in the same way as blockchain uses the longest chain wins consensus to choose between conflicts. So nodes simply attach their transactions to the transactions that they have seen first and if there are conflicts then you simply monitor which version received more approval and adjust your opinion accordingly. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 5:07 We started integrating some of the non-controversial concepts (like the approval reset switch) into FPC and are currently refactoring goshimmer to support this We are also planning to make the big mana holders publish their opinion in the tangle as a public statement, which allows us to measure the rate of approval in a similar way as multiverse would do it So its starting to converge a bit but we are still using FPC as a metastability breaking mechanism Once the changes are implemented it should be pretty easy to simulate and test both approaches in parallel 📷 Serguei Popov [IF]어제 오후 5:53
So the ask is that we ditch all our work and fork Avalanche because it has not been attacked in the month or so it has been up?
u/NavinRamachandran [IF] yeah, that's hilarious. Avalanche consensus (at least their WP version) is clearly scientifically unsound. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 9:43 u/wtfmaybe you should research avalanche before proposing such a stupid idea and you will see that what I wrote is actually true 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 9:44 paying fees is what "protects" them atm and simply the fact that nobody uses the network for anything of value yet we cant rely on fees making attack vectors "inattractive" 📷 Serguei Popov [IF]어제 오후 10:17
well (1.) very obviously the metastability problems are not a problem in practice,
putting "very obviously" before questionable statements very obviously shows that you are seeking a constructive dialogue📷(to make metastability work, the adversary needs to more-or-less know the current opinion vectors of most of the honest participants; I don't see why a sufficiently well-connected adversary cannot query enough honest nodes frequently enough to achieve that)
(2.) .... you'd need an unpredictable number every few tens/hundreds milliseconds, but your DRNG can only produce one every O(seconds).
the above assumption (about "every few tens/hundreds milliseconds") is wrong
We've had this discussion before, where you argued that the assumptions in the FPC-BI paper (incl. "all nodes must be known") are not to be taken 100% strictly, and that the results are to be seen more of an indication of overall performance.
Aham, I see. So, unfortunately, all that time that I invested into explaining that stuff during our last conversation was for nothing. Again, very briefly. The contents of the FPC-BI paper is not "an indication of overall performance". It rather shows (to someone who actually read and understood the paper) why the approach is sound and robust, as it makes one understand what is the mechanism that causes the consensus phenomenon occur.
Yet you don't allow for that same argument to be valid for the "metastability" problem in avalanche,
Incorrect. It's not "that same argument". FPC-BI is a decent academic paper that has precisely formulated results and proofs. The Ava WP (the probabilistic part of it), on the other hand, doesnotcontain proofs of what they call results. More importantly, they don't even show a clear path to those proofs. That's why their system is scientifically unsound.
even when there's a live network that shows that it doesn't matter.
No, it doesn't show that it doesn't matter. It only shows that it works when not properly attacked. Their WP doesn't contain any insight on why those attacks would be difficult/impossible. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 10:56 That proposal was so stupid - Avalanche does several things completely different and we are putting quite a bit og effort into our solution to pretty much fix all of Avalanches shortcomings If we just wanted to have a working product and dont care about security or performance then we could have just forked a blockchaib I am pretty confident that once we are done - its going to be extremely close to the besttheoretical thresholds that DLTs will ever be able to achieve for an unsharded baselayer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 📷 Bas어제 오전 2:43 Yesterday I was asked how a reasonably big company no one has heard of could best move forward implementing Access for thousands of locations worldwide. (Sorry for the vagueness, it’s all confidential.) They read the article and want to implement it because it seems to fit a problem they’re currently trying to solve. Such moves will vastly increase the utility of protocols like IOTA, and is what the speculation is built on. I do not think you can overestimate what impact Access is going to have. It’s cutting out the middleman for simple things; no server or service needed. That’s huge. So yes, I think this space will continue to growu/Coinnave -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 📷 Angelo Capossele [IF]2020.10.02. In short: we are planning a new v0.3.0 release that should happen very soon. This version will bring fundamental changes to the structure of the entire codebase (but without additional features) so that progressing with the development will be easier and more consistent. We have also obtained outstanding results with the dRNG committee managed by the GoShimmer X-Team, so that will also be integral part of v0.3.0. After that, we will merge the Value Tangle with the Message Tangle, so to have only one Tangle and make the TSA and the orphanage easier to manage. And we are also progressing really well with Mana, that will be the focus after the merge. More or less this is what is going to happen this month. We will release further details with the upcoming Research Status Update📷
Taproot! Everybody wants to have it, somebody wants to make it, nobody knows how to get it! (If you are asking why everybody wants it, see: Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?) (Pedants: I mostly elide over lockin times) Briefly, Taproot is that neat new thing that gets us:
Multisignatures (n-of-n, k-of-n) that are just 1 signature (1-of-1) in length!! (MuSig/Schnorr)
Better privacy!! If all contract participants can agree, just use a multisignature. If there is a dispute, show the contract publicly and have the Bitcoin network resolve it (Taproot/MAST).
Activation lets devs work get back to work on the even newer stuff like!!!
Cross-input signature aggregation!! (transaction with multiple inputs can have a single signature for all inputs) --- needs Schnorr, but some more work needed to ensure that the interactions with SCRIPT are okay.
Block validation - Schnorr signatures for all taproot spends in a block can be validated in a single operation instead of for each transaction!! Speed up validation and maybe we can actually afford to increase block sizes (maybe)!!
SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT - you know, for Decker-Russell-Osuntokun ("eltoo") magic!!!
OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY - vaulty vaults without requiring storing signatures, just transaction details!!
So yes, let's activate taproot!
The SegWit Wars
The biggest problem with activating Taproot is PTSD from the previous softfork, SegWit. Pieter Wuille, one of the authors of the current Taproot proposal, has consistently held the position that he will not discuss activation, and will accept whatever activation process is imposed on Taproot. Other developers have expressed similar opinions. So what happened with SegWit activation that was so traumatic? SegWit used the BIP9 activation method. Let's dive into BIP9!
bit - A field in the block header, the nVersion, has a number of bits. By setting a particular bit, the miner making the block indicates that it has upgraded its software to support a particular soft fork. The bit parameter for a BIP9 activation is which bit in this nVersion is used to indicate that the miner has upgraded software for a particular soft fork.
timeout - a time limit, expressed as an end date. If this timeout is reached without sufficient number of miners signaling that they upgraded, then the activation fails and Bitcoin Core goes back to the drawing board.
Now there are other parameters (name, starttime) but they are not anywhere near as important as the above two. A number that is not a parameter, is 95%. Basically, activation of a BIP9 softfork is considered as actually succeeding if at least 95% of blocks in the last 2 weeks had the specified bit in the nVersion set. If less than 95% had this bit set before the timeout, then the upgrade fails and never goes into the network. This is not a parameter: it is a constant defined by BIP9, and developers using BIP9 activation cannot change this. So, first some simple questions and their answers:
Why not just set a day when everyone starts imposing the new rules of the softfork?
This was done classically (in the days when Satoshi was still among us). But this might argued to put too much power to developers, since there would be no way to reject an upgrade without possible bad consequences. For example, developers might package an upgrade that the users do not want, together with vital security bugfixes. Either you live without vital security bugfixes and hire some other developers to fix it for you (which can be difficult, presumably the best developers are already the ones working on the codebase) or you get the vital security bugfixes and implicitly support the upgrade you might not want.
Sure, you could fork the code yourself (the ultimate threat in the FOSS world) and hire another set of developers who aren't assholes to do the dreary maintenance work of fixing security bugs, but Bitcoin needs strong bug-for-bug compatibility so everyone should really congregate around a single codebase.
Basically: even the devs do not want this power, because they fear being coerced into putting "upgrades" that are detrimental to users. Satoshi got a pass because nobody knew who he was and how to coerce him.
Suppose the threshold were lower, like 51%. If so, after activation, somebody can disrupt the Bitcoin network by creating a transaction that is valid under the pre-softfork rules, but are invalid under the post-softfork rules. Upgraded nodes would reject it, but 49% of miners would accept it and include it in a block (which makes the block invalid) And then the same 49% would accept the invalid block and build on top of that, possibly creating a short chain of doomed invalid blocks that confirm an invalid spend. This can confuse SPV wallets, who might see multiple confirmations of a transaction and accept the funds, but later find that in fact it is invalid under the now-activated softfork rules.
Thus, a very high threshold was imposed. 95% is considered safe. 50% is definitely not safe. Due to variance in the mining process, 80% could also be potentially unsafe (i.e. 80% of blocks signaling might have a good chance of coming from only 60% of miners), so a threshold of 95% was considered "safe enough for Bitcoin work".
Why have a timeout that disables the upgrade?
Before BIP9, what was used was either flag day or BIP34. BIP34 had no flag day of activation or a bit, instead, it was just a 95% threshold to signal an nVersion value greater than a specific value. Actually, it was two thresholds: at 75%, blocks with the new nVersion would have the new softfork rules imposed, but at 95% blocks with the old nVersion would be rejected (and only the new blocks, with the new softfork rules, were accepted). For one, between 75% and 95%, there was a situation where the softfork was only "partially imposed", only blocks signaling the new rules would actually have those rules, but blocks with the old rules were still valid. This was fine for BIP34, which only added rules for miners with negligible use for non-miners.
The reasons miners signalled support was because they felt they were being pressured to signal support. So they signalled support, with plans to actually upgrade later, but because of the widespread signalling, the new BIP66 version locked in before upgrade plans were finished. Thus, the timeout that disables the upgrade was added in BIP9 to allow miners an escape hatch.
The Great Battles of the SegWit Wars
SegWit not only fixed transaction malleability, it also created a practical softforkable blocksize increase that also rebalanced weights so that the cost of spending a UTXO is about the same as the cost of creating UTXOs (and spending UTXOs is "better" since it limits the size of the UTXO set that every fullnode has to maintain). So SegWit was written, the activation was decided to be BIP9, and then.... miner signalling stalled at below 75%. Thus were the Great SegWit Wars started.
BIP9 Feature Hostage
If you are a miner with at least 5% global hashpower, you can hold a BIP9-activated softfork hostage. You might even secretly want the softfork to actually push through. But you might want to extract concession from the users and the developers. Like removing the halvening. Or raising or even removing the block size caps (which helps larger miners more than smaller miners, making it easier to become a bigger fish that eats all the smaller fishes). Or whatever. With BIP9, you can hold the softfork hostage. You just hold out and refuse to signal. You tell everyone you will signal, if and only if certain concessions are given to you. This ability by miners to hold a feature hostage was enabled because of the miner-exit allowed by the timeout on BIP9. Prior to that, miners were considered little more than expendable security guards, paid for the risk they take to secure the network, but not special in the grand scheme of Bitcoin.
ASICBoost was a novel way of optimizing SHA256 mining, by taking advantage of the structure of the 80-byte header that is hashed in order to perform proof-of-work. The details of ASICBoost are out-of-scope here but you can read about it elsewhere Here is a short summary of the two types of ASICBoost, relevant to the activation discussion.
Overt ASICBoost - Manipulates the unused bits in nVersion to reduce power consumption in mining.
Covert ASICBoost - Manipulates the order of transactions in the block to reduce power consumption in mining.
Now, "overt" means "obvious", while "covert" means hidden. Overt ASICBoost is obvious because nVersion bits that are not currently in use for BIP9 activations are usually 0 by default, so setting those bits to 1 makes it obvious that you are doing something weird (namely, Overt ASICBoost). Covert ASICBoost is non-obvious because the order of transactions in a block are up to the miner anyway, so the miner rearranging the transactions in order to get lower power consumption is not going to be detected. Unfortunately, while Overt ASICBoost was compatible with SegWit, Covert ASICBoost was not. This is because, pre-SegWit, only the block header Merkle tree committed to the transaction ordering. However, with SegWit, another Merkle tree exists, which commits to transaction ordering as well. Covert ASICBoost would require more computation to manipulate two Merkle trees, obviating the power benefits of Covert ASICBoost anyway. Now, miners want to use ASICBoost (indeed, about 60->70% of current miners probably use the Overt ASICBoost nowadays; if you have a Bitcoin fullnode running you will see the logs with lots of "60 of last 100 blocks had unexpected versions" which is exactly what you would see with the nVersion manipulation that Overt ASICBoost does). But remember: ASICBoost was, at around the time, a novel improvement. Not all miners had ASICBoost hardware. Those who did, did not want it known that they had ASICBoost hardware, and wanted to do Covert ASICBoost! But Covert ASICBoost is incompatible with SegWit, because SegWit actually has two Merkle trees of transaction data, and Covert ASICBoost works by fudging around with transaction ordering in a block, and recomputing two Merkle Trees is more expensive than recomputing just one (and loses the ASICBoost advantage). Of course, those miners that wanted Covert ASICBoost did not want to openly admit that they had ASICBoost hardware, they wanted to keep their advantage secret because miners are strongly competitive in a very tight market. And doing ASICBoost Covertly was just the ticket, but they could not work post-SegWit. Fortunately, due to the BIP9 activation process, they could hold SegWit hostage while covertly taking advantage of Covert ASICBoost!
UASF: BIP148 and BIP8
When the incompatibility between Covert ASICBoost and SegWit was realized, still, activation of SegWit stalled, and miners were still not openly claiming that ASICBoost was related to non-activation of SegWit. Eventually, a new proposal was created: BIP148. With this rule, 3 months before the end of the SegWit timeout, nodes would reject blocks that did not signal SegWit. Thus, 3 months before SegWit timeout, BIP148 would force activation of SegWit. This proposal was not accepted by Bitcoin Core, due to the shortening of the timeout (it effectively times out 3 months before the initial SegWit timeout). Instead, a fork of Bitcoin Core was created which added the patch to comply with BIP148. This was claimed as a User Activated Soft Fork, UASF, since users could freely download the alternate fork rather than sticking with the developers of Bitcoin Core. Now, BIP148 effectively is just a BIP9 activation, except at its (earlier) timeout, the new rules would be activated anyway (instead of the BIP9-mandated behavior that the upgrade is cancelled at the end of the timeout). BIP148 was actually inspired by the BIP8 proposal (the link here is a historical version; BIP8 has been updated recently, precisely in preparation for Taproot activation). BIP8 is basically BIP9, but at the end of timeout, the softfork is activated anyway rather than cancelled. This removed the ability of miners to hold the softfork hostage. At best, they can delay the activation, but not stop it entirely by holding out as in BIP9. Of course, this implies risk that not all miners have upgraded before activation, leading to possible losses for SPV users, as well as again re-pressuring miners to signal activation, possibly without the miners actually upgrading their software to properly impose the new softfork rules.
BIP91, SegWit2X, and The Aftermath
BIP148 inspired countermeasures, possibly from the Covert ASiCBoost miners, possibly from concerned users who wanted to offer concessions to miners. To this day, the common name for BIP148 - UASF - remains an emotionally-charged rallying cry for parts of the Bitcoin community. One of these was SegWit2X. This was brokered in a deal between some Bitcoin personalities at a conference in New York, and thus part of the so-called "New York Agreement" or NYA, another emotionally-charged acronym. The text of the NYA was basically:
Set up a new activation threshold at 80% signalled at bit 4 (vs bit 1 for SegWit).
When this 80% signalling was reached, miners would require that bit 1 for SegWit be signalled to achive the 95% activation needed for SegWit.
If the bit 4 signalling reached 80%, increase the block weight limit from the SegWit 4000000 to the SegWit2X 8000000, 6 months after bit 1 activation.
The first item above was coded in BIP91. Unfortunately, if you read the BIP91, independently of NYA, you might come to the conclusion that BIP91 was only about lowering the threshold to 80%. In particular, BIP91 never mentions anything about the second point above, it never mentions that bit 4 80% threshold would also signal for a later hardfork increase in weight limit. Because of this, even though there are claims that NYA (SegWit2X) reached 80% dominance, a close reading of BIP91 shows that the 80% dominance was only for SegWit activation, without necessarily a later 2x capacity hardfork (SegWit2X). This ambiguity of bit 4 (NYA says it includes a 2x capacity hardfork, BIP91 says it does not) has continued to be a thorn in blocksize debates later. Economically speaking, Bitcoin futures between SegWit and SegWit2X showed strong economic dominance in favor of SegWit (SegWit2X futures were traded at a fraction in value of SegWit futures: I personally made a tidy but small amount of money betting against SegWit2X in the futures market), so suggesting that NYA achieved 80% dominance even in mining is laughable, but the NYA text that ties bit 4 to SegWit2X still exists. Historically, BIP91 triggered which caused SegWit to activate before the BIP148 shorter timeout. BIP148 proponents continue to hold this day that it was the BIP148 shorter timeout and no-compromises-activate-on-August-1 that made miners flock to BIP91 as a face-saving tactic that actually removed the second clause of NYA. NYA supporters keep pointing to the bit 4 text in the NYA and the historical activation of BIP91 as a failed promise by Bitcoin developers.
We have discussed BIP8: roughly, it has bit and timeout, if 95% of miners signal bit it activates, at the end of timeout it activates. (EDIT: BIP8 has had recent updates: at the end of timeout it can now activate or fail. For the most part, in the below text "BIP8", means BIP8-and-activate-at-timeout, and "BIP9" means BIP8-and-fail-at-timeout) So let's take a look at Modern Softfork Activation!
Modern Softfork Activation
This is a more complex activation method, composed of BIP9 and BIP8 as supcomponents.
First have a 12-month BIP9 (fail at timeout).
If the above fails to activate, have a 6-month discussion period during which users and developers and miners discuss whether to continue to step 3.
Have a 24-month BIP8 (activate at timeout).
The total above is 42 months, if you are counting: 3.5 years worst-case activation. The logic here is that if there are no problems, BIP9 will work just fine anyway. And if there are problems, the 6-month period should weed it out. Finally, miners cannot hold the feature hostage since the 24-month BIP8 period will exist anyway.
PSA: Being Resilient to Upgrades
Software is very birttle. Anyone who has been using software for a long time has experienced something like this:
You hear a new version of your favorite software has a nice new feature.
Excited, you install the new version.
You find that the new version has subtle incompatibilities with your current workflow.
You are sad and downgrade to the older version.
You find out that the new version has changed your files in incompatible ways that the old version cannot work with anymore.
You tearfully reinstall the newer version and figure out how to get your lost productivity now that you have to adapt to a new workflow
If you are a technically-competent user, you might codify your workflow into a bunch of programs. And then you upgrade one of the external pieces of software you are using, and find that it has a subtle incompatibility with your current workflow which is based on a bunch of simple programs you wrote yourself. And if those simple programs are used as the basis of some important production system, you hve just screwed up because you upgraded software on an important production system. And well, one of the issues with new softfork activation is that if not enough people (users and miners) upgrade to the newest Bitcoin software, the security of the new softfork rules are at risk. Upgrading software of any kind is always a risk, and the more software you build on top of the software-being-upgraded, the greater you risk your tower of software collapsing while you change its foundations. So if you have some complex Bitcoin-manipulating system with Bitcoin somewhere at the foundations, consider running two Bitcoin nodes:
One is a "stable-version" Bitcoin node. Once it has synced, set it up to connect=x.x.x.x to the second node below (so that your ISP bandwidth is only spent on the second node). Use this node to run all your software: it's a stable version that you don't change for long periods of time. Enable txiindex, disable pruning, whatever your software needs.
The other is an "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin Node. Keep its stoarge down with pruning (initially sync it off the "stable-version" node). You can't use blocksonly if your "stable-version" node needs to send transactions, but otherwise this "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node can be kept as a low-resource node, so you can run both nodes in the same machine.
When a new Bitcoin version comes up, you just upgrade the "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node. This protects you if a future softfork activates, you will only receive valid Bitcoin blocks and transactions. Since this node has nothing running on top of it, it is just a special peer of the "stable-version" node, any software incompatibilities with your system software do not exist. Your "stable-version" Bitcoin node remains the same version until you are ready to actually upgrade this node and are prepared to rewrite most of the software you have running on top of it due to version compatibility problems. When upgrading the "always-up-to-date", you can bring it down safely and then start it later. Your "stable-version" wil keep running, disconnected from the network, but otherwise still available for whatever queries. You do need some system to stop the "always-up-to-date" node if for any reason the "stable-version" goes down (otherwisee if the "always-up-to-date" advances its pruning window past what your "stable-version" has, the "stable-version" cannot sync afterwards), but if you are technically competent enough that you need to do this, you are technically competent enough to write such a trivial monitor program (EDIT: gmax notes you can adjust the pruning window by RPC commands to help with this as well). This recommendation is from gmaxwell on IRC, by the way.
This is how I've been doing things in my Digital Perdition chronicle / narrative for Shadowrun for years. If this is useful, feel free to steal it. I assume this probably isn't a new idea, but in my world, Nuyen is a form of cryptocurrency, like bitcoin or ethereum. It's also a "smart" currency, in that it can autonomously do things, all by itself. Any "nuyen app" on any comlink can, with a very simple user-facing interface, create things like escrows, trusts, provisional holdings, task verified transactions, etc. As long as the system can autonomously verify the information some how in the outside world, it can interact with it. (This also means the system is somewhat fallible and can be hacked / spoofed / fooled, which can lead to interesting emergent narratives / plots all on its own). The fact that it's a cryptocurrency also informs the logic of what happens if Nuyen is copied. Ordinarily, this doesn't happen, and "naked nuyen" (nucoin outside of a wallet app or not encrypted on a credstick) is very suspicious, and if you're going to accept it, you need to be able to verrify it in real time, like right now, and transfer it to your account before you leave this dark alley / a abandoned warehouse transaction, or not accept it at all if you don't have signal. But if you do some how manage to clone some Nuyen, then just like crypto, and there's two of the exact same nucoin, then it's whoever syncs it to their account first. The other is considered the forgery. So that can create a "race against the clock" scenario if two opposing forces have the bag, the same bag, and need to get back to civilization before the other guy does. (This might not even come up in your games, but I play in a lot of areas like, in the middle of the ocean, pirates and atolls, as well as extremely rural northern Canada, South American jungles, and sub-Saharian Africa, exploring ancient blood mage / cultist desert ruins, etc, so often, "spotty signal" is an environmental hurdle / plot point.) We also have "credcoins" in addition to regular old credsticks. A "credcoin" is basically like an SD card, but with a poker-chip style plastic housing around it, to make it more handleable. The chip holds the actual encrypted nucoin (like a credstick) so they're not naked nuyen (see above), but they've also got an optical code, like a QR code, printed on them. They can be used in vending machines in 3rd world areas where signal might be spotty, or traded in physical transactions. The way they work, is that we've written into the narrative that a certain block of numbers in the "nuyen hash" of each nucoin, maybe like the last five digits or something, who knows, but that there's a world wide industry standard number to indicate that these nuyen are dedicated for physical use. Sort of like how some IP addresses are reserved for localhost or LAN. If any system, any wallet app, sees these digits, it wont let them be "deposited". Only a physical bank can do it. This prevents someone from just scanning a credcoin, depositing the nuyen, and now the coins still look valid, but are useless. If you wanted to "deposit" them, you'd take them to a bank, they would scan them and verify, add them to your account, and remove those coins from circulation immediately by physically destroying them (or feeding them into a hopper to be able to 3d print new ones). They'd also charge you a fee for the overhead of the cost of actually producing currency, sort of like those CoinStar machines at Walmart that charge you a fee for counting all your change. Speaking of counting change... That there's an optical code on credcoins makes that easy, too. Anyone with AR (augmented reality -- so basically, anyone, even if it's only through a hand held comlink screen, but usually AR contact lenses, glasses, goggles, or cybereyes) can just look at a credcoin and immediately know how much it is. You can also dump them out on the table, stand back so you get them all in frame, and just see a total for how much the value of all of them are. Each credcoin already has an ARO, but if there's a shit load of them together in close proximity, the AROs just merge together into a single one so as not to be "spammy". If you want to block the AROs, you can store your credcoins in signal blocking bags, containers, or metal coin rolls. Credcoins are also slightly different sizes and colors to tell the denomination at a glance, as well. Anyway, I hope some of those ideas are useful for your games. :)
The next XVG? Microcap 100x potential actually supported by fundamentals!
What’s up team? I have a hot one for you. XVG returned 12 million percent in 2017 and this one reminds me a lot of it. Here’s why: Mimblewimble is like Blu-Ray compared to CD-ROM in terms of its ability to compress data on a blockchain. The current BTC chain is 277gb and its capacity is limited because every time you spend a coin, each node needs to validate its history back to when it was mined (this is how double spending is prevented). Mimblewimble is different - all transactions in a block are aggregated and netted out in one giant CoinJoin, and only the current spending needs to be verified. This means that dramatically more transactions can fit into a smaller space, increasing throughput and lowering fees while still retaining the full proof of work game theory of Bitcoin. These blockchains are small enough to run a full node on a cheap smartphone, which enhances the decentralization and censorship resistance of the network. The biggest benefit, though, is that all transactions are private - the blockchain doesn’t reveal amounts or addresses except to the actual wallet owner. Unlike earlier decoy-based approaches that bloat the chain and can still be data mined (XMR), Mimblewimble leaves no trace in the blockchain, instead storing only the present state of coin ownership. The first two Mimblewimble coins, Grin and Beam, launched to great fanfare in 2019, quickly reaching over $100m in market cap (since settled down to $22m and $26m respectively). They are good projects but grin has infinite supply and huge never-decreasing emission, and Beam is a corporate moneygrab whose founding investors are counting on you buying for their ROI. ZEC is valued at $568m today, despite the facts that only 1% of transactions are actually shielded, it has a trusted setup, and generating a confidential transaction takes ~60 seconds on a powerful PC. XMR is a great project but it’s valued at $1.2b (so no 100x) and it uses CryptoNote, which is 2014 tech that relies on a decoy-based approach that could be vulnerable to more powerful computers in the future. Mimblewimble is just a better way to approach privacy because there is simply no data recorded in the blockchain for companies to surveil. Privacy is not just for darknet markets, porn, money launderers and terrorists. In many countries it’s dangerous to be wealthy, and there are all kinds of problems with having your spending data be out there publicly and permanently for all to see. Namely, companies like Amazon are patenting approaches to identify people with their crypto addresses, “for law enforcement” but also so that, just like credit cards, your spending data can be used to target ads. (A) Coinbase is selling user data to the DEA, IRS, FBI, Secret Service, and who knows who else? (B) What about insurance companies raising your premiums or canceling your policy because they see you buying (legal) cannabis? If your business operates using transparent cryptocurrency, competitors can data mine your customer and supply chain data, and employees can see how much everyone else gets paid. I could go on, but the idea of “I have nothing to hide, so what do I care about privacy?” will increasingly ring hollow as people realize that this money printing will have to be paid by massive tax increases AND that those taxes will be directly debited from their “Central Bank Digital Currency” wallets. 100% privacy for all transactions also eliminates one HUGE problem that people aren’t aware of yet, but they will be: fungibility. Fungibility means that each coin is indistinguishable from any other, just like paper cash. Why is this important? Because of the ever-expanding reach of AML/KYC/KYT (Anti-Money Laundering / Know Your Customer / Know Your Transaction) as regulators cramp down on crypto and banks take over, increasingly coins become “tainted” in various ways. For example, if you withdraw coins to a mixing service like Wasabi or Samourai, you may find your account blocked. (C) The next obvious step is that if you receive coins that these chainalysis services don’t like for whatever reason, you will be completely innocent yet forced to prove that you didn’t know that the coins you bought were up to no good in a past life. 3 days ago, $100k of USDC was frozen. (D) Even smaller coins like LTC now have this problem, because “Chinese Drug Kingpins” used them. (E) I believe that censorable money that can be blocked/frozen isn’t really “your money”. Epic Cash is a 100% volunteer community project (like XVG and XMR) that had a fair launch in September last year with no ICO and no premine. There are very few projects like this, and it’s a key ingredient in Verge’s success (still at $110m market cap today despite being down 97% since the bubble peak) and why it’s still around. It has a small but super passionate community of “Freemen” who are united by a belief in the sound money economics of Bitcoin Standard emission (21m supply limit and ever-decreasing inflation) and the importance of privacy. I am super bullish on this coin for the following reasons:
Only $400k market cap
Supply started at zero, so there are no VC’s and team to dump on you into the pumps - all coins are mined into existence, just like Bitcoin.
It just had its first halving, reducing emission from 16 to 8 per block. Between now and 2028 there are FOUR (!) more halvings, from 4 to 2 to 1 and then finally 0.15 (I guess that would be an 85%-ing :p) and at this point the supply is the same as BTC and stays in sync forever until the last coin is mined in 2140. This simple supply curve is already accepted by the market as a winner, so why mess with success? (I)
Meets Andreas Antonopolous’ 5 pillars of open blockchains test: Public, Open, Borderless, Neutral, and Censorship Resistant. (How many coins can say this?)
Unlike Bitcoin, Epic created a multi-algorithm approach that enables people to mine on ordinary computers - 60% for CPU on RandomX, 38% for GPU on ProgPow, and 2% for ASIC’s on Cuckoo31+. The algorithms don’t compete with one another. This is essential for leveling the playing field and preventing massive farms from dominating. These percentages can change over time and new algorithms can be easily dropped in. You can mine today using an old laptop and in 5 years you will still be able to. Incidentally, there is nothing standing in the way of adding mobile phone-based mining, which ETN showed there’s a huge demand for.
Based off the excellent Grin codebase, which means they continue to pull in ongoing core code enhancements and focus on ease of use and market penetration instead. (Smart!)
Litecoin’s Charlie Lee is out there daily talking about their move to Mimblewimble, which provides free publicity. What people don’t realize is that you can’t just bolt on Mimblewimble to a legacy blockchain, that’s like putting a Ferrari engine into a school bus - it’s still a school bus, not a race car! LTC is doing it as an optional soft fork via “extension blocks” which will not be supported by all wallets and exchanges. Also, anyone using “optional” privacy features is declaring themselves to be suspicious, which kind of defeats the point for people who care about privacy.
The community is friendly and welcoming to new people coming in, with lots of helpful (independently created) tutorials and guides. (F)
It’s already a global phenomenon, with the whitepaper in 20+ languages (G) and (not bot-infested) active local-language communities on not only Telegram but also Wechat, LINE, QQ and other messenger platforms.
It’s only on two random little exchanges currently, Citex and Vitex. Vitex is actually a pretty good DEX with no KYC and a great mobile wallet.
They are very creative - since centralized exchanges want huge money to list, they created a non-inflationary ERC20 tracker token that’s exchangeable 1:1 for coins so that Uniswap trading is possible (H)
Because it doesn’t have a huge marketing budget in a sea of VC-funded shitcoins, it is as-yet undiscovered, which is why it’s so cheap. There are only 4 Mimblewimble-based currencies on the market: MWC at $162m, BEAM at $26m, GRIN at $22m, and EPIC at $0.4m. This is not financial advice and as always, do your own research, but I’ve been buying this gem for months and will continue to. This one ticks all the boxes for me, the only real problem is that it’s hard to buy much without causing a huge green candle. Alt season is coming, and coins like this are how your neighbor Chad got his Lambo back in 2017. For 2021, McLaren is a better choice and be sure to pay cash so that it doesn’t get repossessed like Chad!
Are you OK with direct message offers from vendors? Not right away. What are your main reasons for getting a seedbox? Seeding torrents Do you have any specific requirements? Primarily I'm looking to be in the greatest position to seed torrents that rarely need to be seeded, I thought having a seedbox in different locations of the world would give me the best chance for this? For example, whatbox has Availability in the Netherlands, US and Singapore. The only downfall with this is that one of those locations would only need 200-500gb storage and 200gb upload traffic.I'm still fairly new to seedboxes, I've only used a few apps and haven't been able to utilize them in a beneficial way(primarily syncing, FTP seemed to be faster than those apps). Plex isn't something I use. Are you looking for a shared or dedicated solution? Shared is suitable. Are you looking for managed or unmanaged solution? Managed. Please describe your Seedbox experience: Three months, two-three seedboxes at a time. Currently with a provider or used one before? Just Dediseedbox What is your Linux experience? I used to work with Ubuntu six years ago, very rusty. What is your monthly budget? I wouldn't say I have a budget, but if something is cheaper and offers similar value, I'm inclined to go with the cheaper. Payment preferences or requirements? Usually Paypal or Mastercard, I can do bitcoin, just it's a pain in the ass sometimes. Do you need support for public trackers? I do not. Routing: Tell us your continent: Australia, but I've been using seedboxes in the Netherlands, so I'm not sure if this matters too much. What kind of connection speeds do you need? For the RED dedicated servers, the higher the better, so I can out seed other people. For the server which might use large torrents, not as much. How much monthly bandwidth is needed? RED ones, under 1TB, the other one unlimited. How much disk space do you need? RED ones, 200gb List some features you are looking for: If I can get a sync app which goes as fast as FTP, then that would be terrific. I'm used to seeing a torrent client in front of me, I'd prefer to continue being able to use that as opposed to just command lines.
Standard/best way to backup to second non-boot internal hard drive?
Hi all! After a little searching, I did see lots of posts about making backups but am not sure about my situation. Sorry if this is a duplicate, and please feel free to just link me to the reading material if this has been covered elsewhere. I have Ubuntu 18.04 on a 240GB SSD running Plex, and have gone through the process of getting the permissions set up so that Plex can see the media on my 3TB internal hard drive. I got a second 3TB hard drive to use as a backup. I realize having one off-site also would be ideal but, for now, being at least a little bit protected against hard drive failure is good enough for me. So my questions are:
What's the best way to go about backing up the original 3TB hard drive to the second one, either regularly, or automatically whenever changes are made? (I am generally aware of Raid 1, but don't imagine I can set that up since the one drive is already in use?)
What's the best way to backup the rest of the Plex related data (metadata and listens and stuff on the SSD) in my situation? Would it be to run a separate backup of that stuff to the original hard drive, and then just let it sync that with the second hard drive whenever that backup happens? Is that stupid? xD Maybe there's an obvious option I haven't come across?
Thanks very much for any help. At least to show I value people's time and effort, I'd be happy to tip a few dollars of Bitcoin Cash to anyone who can help me out here. Thanks again!
TL;DR: Wrote blockchain.com support on an issue, got a fraudulent email from blockchainexchange.vip asking for my 12 word seed. Today I was trying to send some bitcoin out of my blockchain app, and I got a notice saying I had too many unspent transactions, so the fee was going to be higher. I read that moving all funds to a new wallet will solve this, but when I attempted to do so, only half of my balance was available to be spent, which is very strange, since I have no pending transactions. So I went to blockchain.com support site, and wrote an email asking for a solution. I got an email a couple hours later from [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]), but when I looked closer, it was actually [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) . That raised some suspicions. When looking at the support ticket, it was a completely different number. What came after is even worse. David from support goes on to write that I the wallet out of sync with their database, causing balances not to show correctly. He goes on to instruct me to backup my wallet, and asks me to send the 12 word seed, and once I did that, my wallet would be synchronized again. What I don't understand is how this is possible? I was on their site, looked for answers on Wallet consolidation, and clicked on submit a request. And I still dont have an answer on why my spendable value is less than half of my wallet value
Attempt at an unbiased summary of the IOTA attack by a non-bag holder
On February 12th the IOTA Foundation (IF) posted a status update:
February 12th 2020 - 08:55 After receiving several reports of fund theft that looked out of the ordinary in a short timeframe we decided to warn about this in Discord and on Twitter. As a precaution we ask you to keep your Trinity wallet closed for now.
25 minutes later they decide to shut down the "coordinator", blocking all "value" transactions.
February 12th 2020 - 09:20 After initial investigation we decided to turn off the Coordinator to make sure no further theft can occur until we find out the root cause of these thefts. Further investigation taking place from here on.
They then spend 5 days investigating the theft. After about 24 hours, only about 10 people reported that they had been stolen from/were identified.
February 13th 2020 - 07:45 We've shifted the complete focus of all relevant resources of the IOTA Foundation to this investigation last night and we have been working in teams to investigate impact and cause together with the identified victims. The conclusions so far are: - Most evidence is pointing towards seed theft, cause still unknown and under investigation - Victims (around 10 that identified with the IOTA Foundation so far) all seem to have recently used Trinity
However, it seems by examining at the transactions that they knew were associated with the theft and were able to identify some new thefts.
February 14th 2020 - 05:45 ... The investigation has yielded absolutely no indication that there has been a core protocol breach of any kind. Rather, all evidence so far points to a problem with a dependency of the Trinity wallet. The attack pattern analysis showed that the halt of the coordinator interrupted the attacker's attempts to liquidate funds on exchanges. The stolen funds have been purposely and repeatedly merged and split to obfuscate the investigation, and with the current token exchange rate as well as exchanges' KYC limits in mind. We received additional feedback from more exchanges (not all yet), confirming that none of the identified transactions has been received or liquidated. Our current assumption is that the perpetrator targeted high value accounts first, before moving on to smaller accounts and then being interrupted early by the halt of the coordinator. (Again: Hardware wallet users are not affected.)
To me, the details sound like the perpetrator was experienced and knew how to convert the tokens to a less-centralized cryptocurency without KYC/AML. It wasn't simply a crime of opportunity, but rather there was some planning. There was a lot of speculation over whether or not the hacker was "sophisticated". Of course, he did manage to pwn IOTA's official wallet. However, the "Chairman of the Board" of IOTA wrote "Let's just say theres a lot of traces. The attacker does not seem to have been tоо sophisticated", on discord. Screenshot On February 16th, IF released a new version of their wallet.
Trinity Desktop 1.4.1 is out. ... - Update: Remove exchange support (#2565) - Update: Adjust update alerts and disable auto update (#2566) - Fix: Allow wallet entry when nodes are not in sync (#2563) - Update: New Crowdin translations (#2553) - Fix: Endless loading cycle (#2568)
Two interesting changes are they removed exchange support and they disabled auto updates. IF had recently integrated "Moonpay"in their wallet, which allows users to buy IOTA with their credit cards for a 4.5% fee. Moonpay appears to be affiliated with Roger Ver and Bitcoin.com but I didn't look into this too much. Purely speculation, but it seems that Moonpay may be involved in the key theft. Quite a few users in Discord were reporting that they had trouble with the new version. About 12 hours later they released a new desktop version (1.4.2) with
- Fix: Incorrect alert on password change for some users (#2570)
Fast forward to today, IF released their remediation plan. Basically, if you used their official wallet since December 17th, 2019 then your seed might be compromised. However, they say that the attack didn't really start until January 25th, so the Dec 17th date is out of an abundance of caution. (Note: I'm pretty sure December 17th is when Moonpay integration occurred.) Here's the IF remediation plan from status.iota.org:
February 17th 2020 - 05:47 Here is a short overview of the attack remediation plan and the next steps going forward. Essentially the remediation plan involves three steps: STEP 1: INSTALL UPDATED VERSION OF TRINITY As announced yesterday, we have released an updated version of Trinity which allows you to check your balance and transactions. Please download this newest version of Trinity here and install it over your old version: https://github.com/iotaledgetrinity-wallet/releases/tag/desktop-1.4.1 When you download the new version, MAKE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORD AND STORE IT IN A PASSWORD MANAGER. If you have used the same password also for other services or websites, we strongly recommend you change it there, too, as a precaution. By upgrading to this new version of Trinity, you will remove the vulnerability from your wallet and render the hacker incapable of accessing your wallet if s/he has not already done so. STEP 2: MIGRATE YOUR TOKENS TO SAFE SEEDS In the upcoming days, we will release a seed migration tool that will allow users to transfer their tokens to a safe seed. We strongly recommend that ALL users who have opened any version of Trinity (Desktop or Mobile) since the 17th of December 2019 utilize the tool and migrate their tokens to a new, safe seed during the soon-to-be-announced migration period BEFORE the coordinator is re-started. More information on the tool and how to use it will be provided when the tool is published. By migrating your tokens to new, safe seeds prior to the re-start of the coordinator, you will render the attacker incapable of making unauthorized transfers of your tokens if s/he has not already done so. *Note: our current information indicates that the hack started on or around 25 January 2020 and that only Trinity Desktop users’ seeds were potentially compromised. However, out of an abundance of caution, we are nevertheless recommending that ALL users (not only desktop users) who are concerned about possible token loss should migrate their tokens to a new seed. *Note: Ledger Nano users do not need to use the migration tool but a password change is still strongly recommended. STEP 3: RECLAIM YOUR STOLEN TOKENS IF NECESSARY Our current information indicates that only a limited number of bundles were successfully transferred by the attacker out of the true owners’ wallets. We have notified all exchanges of all compromised bundles we are aware of so as to prevent any further movement of any stolen tokens. We therefore anticipate that in the majority of cases, Steps 1 and 2 will be sufficient to protect most users’ tokens. To address the minority of cases in which unauthorized token transfers were made out of users’ wallets, a third step is needed. We will perform a global snapshot of the network that will, pending community validation, enable us to bring stolen tokens back to the affected users. More information on the process as well as the consequences for all affected users will be provided soon. Assuming the snapshot is successfully validated by the IOTA community (node operators), we will implement a KYC procedure involving a third party that will enable all users who had their tokens stolen to reclaim them. The same procedure will also be required for certain cases in which the migration tool is used fraudulently or incorrectly. More information on this process will follow shortly. After the migration process, we will restart the coordinator and resume normal operations on the network. An update on the timeline will be released in the upcoming days. We will publish detailed instructions on the steps users should take as soon as the remediation tools and processes are ready. For now, please make sure to download the new Trinity version to change your password and check your balance. We would also like to ask any affected users from the United States to come forward and DM our team, as your cooperation could assist us with ongoing law enforcement investigations. Thank you all for your patience. We will continue to update you on all important steps along the way and will do our best to make the transition as easy and smooth as possible.
So yea, if you got your tokens stolen, they will return them to you after you submit KYC/AML to the IOTA Foundation, assuming that "node operators" agree to roll back the theft. Hopefully users didn't reuse the same seed for another cryptocurrency because they won't be able to roll those back. It sounds like they're working with the FBI (or US law enforcement) on this which is a bit surprising. I'm skeptical that they have really identified the perpetrator -- a common attack is to steal developer Github credentials which could be what happened here. But again, that's purely speculation. Please don't repost this on your for-profit crypto news site without attributing to me ;) edit: formatting
Energi is a self-funding (no ICO and no premine) cryptocurrency that has a purpose to become the world’s leading cryptocurrency with the unification of Smart Contracts, Governance and Self-funding Treasury to ensure longevity and enable rapid growth. You can read more about why we decided to self-fund and chose not to conduct an ICO here. Energi provides a small allocation to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) rewards, takes a bulk of the coin issuance and gives it to its treasury and active Masternodes. Energi also allocates 10% on-going reward to the leadership of the Energi Backbone, which is significantly less compared to today’s ICOs’ rewarding their founders between 20–50% of the tokens distributed. Another trait that sets Energi apart from ICOs is they give an on-going 10% allocation through each block reward, rather than rewarding the founders up-front.
2. What are the Fundamentals of Energi?
1 minute block times and a 2 megabyte block size limit provide Energi with a vast transaction capacity for regular on-chain transactions. This allows for plenty of space on the blockchain for extremely fast transactions with very low fees. Energi features a powerful on-chain scaling solution with a system of incentivized full nodes called Energi Masternodes. A Masternode is a full node backed by 1,000 NRG collateral that provides level 2 scalability to the Energi Cryptocurrency. 40% of the emissions of Energi is allocated to Masternodes, providing an extremely strong incentive to grow the number of full nodes and scalability of the network.
A key feature of Energi is its powerful treasury system. Energi makes up to 40% of the emissions available to the treasury, to be utilized in a manner that provides maximum benefit. Treasury allocation is decentralized, allowing for submitted proposals from anyone, to be voted on by Masternodes and paid out from the emissions. Energi has a 14 day treasury cycle, allowing quick payments for proposal authors and contributors, as well as strategic responsiveness to effective proposals. Energi is guided by the principle that every dollar spent from its funding model should yield more than one dollar of value in return. Thanks to a 14 day treasury cycle, the Energi team is able to measure results and respond quickly to changes in strategy.
The Energi Treasury is a decentralized governance model designed with Masternodes as caretakers, with voting rights on how to best utilize treasury funding. This governance model reduces risk by allowing participation from everyone who holds 1,000 NRG as a Masternode. In this way, the Energi community can work together on how to best build the strategic direction of Energi.
Energi Cryptocurrency has a simple rate of inflation at 1 million coins per month with no maximum cap. This ensures consistency in funding allocation, Masternode rewards, and PoS rewards, making the economics of the cryptocurrency more understandable for everyone who chooses to participate in Energi. No coin supply limit ensures that Energi is prepared for the long term, avoiding “bubble” economics caused by dramatic early inflation that in most coins only serves to benefit founders ahead of increased adoption.
Energi conducted a fair launch on April 14, 2018 with no ICO and no premine. Prior to launch, the Energi team gave a specific time and date for the launch of its main net, which its vibrant community eagerly awaited, so that mining could begin fairly, again avoiding centralization among the coin founders (It's important to note that Energi has transitioned from Proof-of-Work consensus to a Proof-of-Stake consensus). Energi Masternode payments were designed to begin at block 216000, which occurred on September 18, 2018, almost 160 days after launch. This ensured time to list Energi on exchanges, and to grow the community, encouraging fair and equitable distribution before the extremely powerful Masternode rewards began. It is all too common for Masternode coins to feature a premine, which has the effect of centralizing distribution among the founders and early adopters. From 2018 to 2020, Energi distributed nearly 4 million coins to users who contributed to spreading awareness of the project with social media activities about Energi, such as tweets, follows, and subscriptions on all major social media platforms.
Decentralized governance with Masternodes helps to ensure everyone is able to participate in Energi and help guide the project to achieve the best results. The change to the requirement to run a Masternode, from 10 000 NRG to 1 000 NRG, has allowed more people to be involved and boosted decentralization for the whole project.
Long Term Vision
All of the above features seamlessly work together in concert, to ensure that Energi is prepared for the long term. Rather than try to closely find a niche in the market, Energi is prepared to adapt and overcome all challenges for many years to come. Energi’s use case is that of a traditional cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin. However, Energi’s strategy is to excel by avoiding the pitfalls of previous projects, while further utilizing and improving upon the most powerful ideas in the cryptocurrency space.
3. Coin Specs
Ticker: NRG Block time: 1 minute. Hashing Algorithm: Dagger-Hashimoto (similar to Ethereum). Masternode requirements: 1,000 Energi. Treasury cycle: Every 14 days. Approximately 1 million Energi will be released per month. The allocations can be observed easily as “10/10/40/40.” 10% will go to the Energi Backbone. 10% to the PoS participants 40% to Masternodes. 40% to the Treasury. Thus, for every block, allocations are: 2.28 Energi to the Backbone, 2.28 Energi to the PoS participants, 9.14 Energi to the Treasury, and 9.14 Energi to Masternodes. Since Treasury allocations are paid in two-week cycles, they are made in lump sums of approximately 184,000 Energi every 14 days. In order to allow for widespread distribution of Energi before Masternode payments began, Masternode rewards were delayed until day 150. This was to allow the airdrop campaign to be completed and ensure a large amount of NRG is spread out through the community. Until that point, Masternode rewards were redirected to the Treasury. Thus for the first 5 months, the Treasury gained approximately 368,000 Energi every two weeks (about 800k Energi per month). The airdrop campaign was designed to release ~4 million Energi to the community.
My 2-month experience with bitport.io (recommended provider)
(Edit- check comments. It seems there are far better options out there) Howdy all. I didn't find much in the way of reviews for bitport when I was looking at seedboxes. I wanted to share the experience I've had with them in the last 2 months. I started off on their free plan (1GB cloud storage) and slowly progressed up to the highest paid tier (250GB cloud storage). I do not work for bitport and am in no way affiliated with them, it's just an honest review on what I received for my money. Available Plans: Free - 1GB cloud storage, 1 download slot, 1 torrent/day, non-guaranteed speed, no AV, only HTTP downloads $5/mo - 5GB cloud storage, 5 download slots, unlimited torrents/day, unlimited download speed, https downloads, antivirus check, rss downloader $10/month - 100GB cloud storage, 10 download slots, unlimited torrents/day, unlimited download speed, https downloads, antivirus check, rss downloader, google drive sync (can download directly to your google drive storage) $15/month - same as above, except 20 download slots instead of 10 and 250GB cloud storage instead of 100GB They also support FTP/SFTP access, which I have found extremely handy for grabbing my files. I use filezilla to create an SFTP connection and sync what I need. Once I have it locally I can remove it from my cloud storage and add more torrents. I get email alerts when a download is finished. I've found the speeds to be great. The seeding is worded weirdly on the website, but it appears that seeding is set to stop once the ratio hits 1.0 by default, or after 24 hours, whichever comes first. If you are a premium user you can contact the technical support team and request the ratio to be increased. I asked for the days seeded to be increased to 2 weeks, but the most they could/would do is 5 days. Downloads can also be handled by a sync client they've developed. This is a windows only application which I haven't used, so I cannot comment on it. You can also use a variety of third party download clients to automatically download files when done. Adding torrents can be done by uploading a torrent file or by pasting a torrent or magnet file link in the homepage. This has been very handy. You can also queue more downloads than you have slots for, again, pretty handy. It will automatically check torrent health and persistently try to download the files. There is a time limit on how long it will try to download (72 hours I think) and if it hasn't downloaded by then the site assumes the torrent health is bad and will abort trying to download it. You can always try again, but it won't sit in the queue indefinitely. Payment can be via card, paypal, bitcoin, or other payment methods. I was pleased to be able to use bitcoin. All in all my experience was good. The one thing I would like to change is have seeding set to seed until my ratio hits 1.0, instead it will time out if 1.0 isn't hit within 24 hours, and I can only extend that to 5 days. Bitport's site was easy to use, synced directly to my google drive, SFTP worked great, and isn't real expensive. The customer service is pretty decent, you can submit tickets and get responses within a day or so. They have a lot of documentation in the help center if you into issues or aren't sure how to do something. I don't have much experience with other boxes, so I can't comment if they are a better value or preferrable to other providers, but I can vouch for them being a quality product and I feel like I have gotten pretty good bang for my buck. If you have any questions I can try to answer. Again - not affiliated with them in any way, just trying to give back some to the community especially since I couldn't find much info on them before using them.
How To Withdraw LBC Coin On Lbry.Tv & Exchange To Native Currency
We have already posted about the introduction of the LBRY blockchain and the concept of this decentralized content freedom platform. We have also discussed early joining earning opportunities for you and you can grab as an early user of this platform. If you don’t yet familiar with this evolving project in the blockchain world then it’s suggestive from us that read our previously posted articles on those topics which are the followup of this post to learn, In this quick instructing post. About How to withdraw or send, transfer your lbry coins if you have earned or receive through their reward program how you can convert them to your native currency and enjoy to spend them easily. Join LBRY.tv and Earn LBC Coins Nav Posted Content
📷 As you know that lbry.tv has provided you a blockchain synced wallet where you receive your earnings and you send as well as transfer your funds in terms of LBC coins using LBRY blockchain. You can backup your wallet and also can restore your wallet independently which help you to secure your funds you want to again access your wallet funds you can access the platform and log in there through your email if your wallet is already synced with lbry server then you can see and access your funds directly if syncing is off then you need to restore wallet shortly.
You can backup your wallet by just accessing your lbry.tv platform on either desktop application or through an android or IOS platform to turn to sync on or off based on your choices. The requirement of backup up your wallet on the desktop by just going to help section and scroll down then click on create backup option and then you will have saved your zip file of backup you can use it for your fund’s security and other restoration processes. 📷 If you want to use their same lbry account different platforms then you can sync option for your own convenience.
LBRY Wallets Other Than LBRY App
So it is just easy that you can store your earnings so far until you need to convert them into the local currency you can store and safe them into lbry simply app and access them simply from desktop to Android and other supportive platforms also perhaps if you want to store more separately or want an alternative to lbry apps simple wallet then the options are available you can use the following wallets other then lbry apps.
If you want further detailed information regarding these wallets that how to use them and how you can transact in them you can ask us or suggest us to post guide blog on a thing so that we can consider it on your request.
How to Withdraw Your LBC LBRY Credits Coins From lbry.tv?
The coins you earned on lbry.tv which are actually LBC lbry credits which is a coin and native currency value of lbry platform and blockchain to transfer value and for other use cases. The lbry.tv platform offer you complete freedom of choice and doesn’t hold your funds in their wallet or servers the coins credits you can transfer directly and instantly to the wallet and you can transfer it immediately to any address of supportive LBC exchange or any other LBC blockchain wallet address. So, therefore, there is no option of withdrawing because there is no minimum or selective day of withdrawing requirement compare to other centralized platforms. So furthermore now we need to consider how we can spend these earned coins because we cannot directly pay them to anyone and can exchange it with services and goods of value that’s why we need to exchange LBC to USD or your own region native fiat currency.
How to Exchange/Convert LBC to USD or Fiat Currency?
The standard process of exchanging any currency to your native currency in the cryptocurrency market is to exchange any crypto to USD through supportive legitimate reputable well-known volume holding Cryptocurrencies either they are centralized or decentralize DEXs.
Current LBC Reputable Markets
We recommend You consider Bittrex in first Priority and if you are in a region where Bittrex unsupported their services or ban by country jurisdiction then you can consider CoinEx Exchange to exchange into USDT and Then You can Convert them into a local currency where via crypto to local fiat channels. In this article, we are also looking forward to the way to exchange LBC to USD or any other crypto through CoinEX exchange so let’s read below continue. Current Value Of LBC Against USD LBRY Credits (LBC) 0.023857 USD (-6.49%)📷RANK 390MARKET CAP $10.40 M USD VOLUME $704.74 K USDPowered by CoinMarketCap You have two pairs of support on CoinEx exchange with LBC/BTC and LBC/USDT you can further convert it into Ethereum or any other crypto which you feel comfortable getting into fiat easily where local exchangers support is available.
Follow The Following Steps To Exchange Your LBC to USD or BTC at CoinEx
After Successfully Logging in to your CoinEx Account.
Goto Upper right NAV bar to Assets Option Click and Open it.
Find the LBC Under in the Spot Account Search Box LBC Asset wallet Will Appear Shortly.
Click on the Deposit Option and Copy the LBC Receiving Address.
Then Goto to Your LBRY.tv Account LBC Balance click on it and Click Send Option On the Page.
Past the Address thoroughly and enter the desired balance then click send.
After 20 Network Confirmations, you will receive your coins in the CoinEx Account.
You can Exchange it to USDT or BTC By just Clicking on Markets Option from Nav Bar.
You will be redirected to trading markets available instruments on the exchange.
You can Select now BTC Pairs or USD Markets Depending on Your Choices.
You can either search LBC or find it manually by scrolling your self.
Let’s say you want to exchange LBC/USDT By selecting the USD Markets.
The LBC/USDT trading panel will appear to select the amount you want to exchange or sell.
Enter Amount of balance you want to exchange and Hit Sell Option Currently Min 50 LBC/USD is Allowed.
Now you can withdraw Your USDT or Convert it accordingly to any other crypto to get converting convenience. You can Convert your BTC, ETH, and Other Top coins to PERFECT MONEY SKRILL NETELLER and other fiat channels in Asia and Other regions or get Fiat Withdraw To Your local wallets through following local trusted exchangers.
Many other sites are available but above three are recommended and also done used by personal experiences are much positive regarding (LOCAL BITCOINS, BESTCHANGE) So you can free to use these mediums fees are higher than usual and minimum criteria are also very much tightened because crypto to fiat and fiat to crypto is difficult so far due to Govt. Regulations and centralize control other than that the real-world problem-solving idea come and solve this fees consuming and time hurdle problem solve by some great developers and GOVT could flexible the control on MONEY which so far seems like Very difficult what you think to tell us BELOW. If you have Skrill or Neteller Verified Account or Want to Create Your account then you can convert BTC, BCH, and Ethereum Directly Through BitPay support inside Skrill and cash out to your native wallet. If you have any questions regarding LBRY.tv LBC coin or regarding any the blockchain of lbry or having any issue regarding the exchanging platform channel transfer issue or want the easy way of exchanging LBC to your native fiat currency easily then you can comment below we can assist you as much we can We highly appreciate your time to spend on curexmy.com hope this will valuable for you.
Digital money that’s instant, private, and free from bank fees. Download our official wallet app and start using Bitcoin today. Read news, start mining, and buy BTC or BCH. A Bitcoin circular economy is a closed-loop system that designs out all of the corruption and headache of dealing with central bank-issued money. As savings technology is still the largely dominant story for Bitcoin, it’s helpful to take a closer look at a few lies about a topic that’s growing in popularity: the Bitcoin circular economy. Video: Sync Bitcoin Faster! Assume UTXO - October 23, 2020 Bitcoin Businesses on the Mend: Report Shows 57% of Crypto Execs Expect the Industry to Accelerate, Companies Are Hiring - October 23, 2020 Do not Bitcoin Profit Calculator App Litecoin Value have other concerns as well… First, No ICO ; Diese Produkte versuchen, den jeweiligen Index 1:1 Etf Index Funds zu tracken. I messaged kewde asking if the guy wanted a refund of his deposit as slacks message history only goes back so far and I couldn't find him. Bitcoin Realm Vplay Forex Signal Mt5. BlackCoin latest price, charts, markets ... ★ Bitcoin Directory - Bitcoin Wallet Out Of Sync Bitcoins Purchase Bitcoin Directory Koers Bitcoin In Euro @ Bitcoin Directory - Bitcoin Core Not Syncing Bitcoins Purchase Bitcoin Directory Crypto Currency Guide Bitcoin Wallet Out Of Sync Free Bitcoin Cloud Mining Bitcoin Blockchain Gold Necklace Bitcoin Directory Bitcoin Price Chart India Bitcoin Core Not Syncing
Bitcoin fees are unbearable / Steam drops BTC payment method
What it really takes to mine a Bitcoin in 10 Minutes. Firstly I'll show you a special free method to mine Bitcoin and send funds directly to your wallet in 1... Bitcoin out of sync with fundamentals? / Bubble burst is approaching? CryptoPortfolio. Loading... Unsubscribe from CryptoPortfolio? Cancel Unsubscribe. Working... Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe ... Bitconnect Coin Community member teaches users how to set up and sync a new BCC wallet. Welcome back Crypto Friends, it’s been quite some time since I made a video. I want to talk about a couple ... Technical Analysis Bitcoin Price - Duration: 8:16. Real-Crypto 15,078 views. 8:16. Elite (1337) How to Fix "0 Active Connections/Out of Sync" - Duration: 4:15. CryptoDrip 408 views. 4:15 . CT ... Bitcoin out of sync with fundamentals? / Bubble burst is approaching? - Duration: 6:23. CryptoPortfolio 5,586 views. 6:23. On The Record w/ Ugly Old Goat - Bitcoin Futures - Duration: 46:42. Tone ...