"Do you need a Blockchain?" - this paper is fantastic, everyone should read this before evaluating a coin and if requires a block chain to solve a solution the coin is promising to solve. (136 points, 41 comments)
Do any of you foresee a crypto being widely adopted as a general purpose payment coin? nano, btc, btccash etc (take your pick). I think it won't happen for reasons in this post. What do you think? (59 points, 54 comments)
Noticed the huge rise of EOS lately what does it have over NEO and ethereum and to a lesser extent Cardano? I tried researching it, but wasn't sold. (54 points, 55 comments)
Hard Problems in Cryptocurrency: Five Years Later ~Vitalik (46 points, 1 comment)
I had a Q&A with Bruno head architect / CEO of oyster, thought you guys might like it. (45 points, 2 comments)
A good article that explains in simple terms how Eth2 works, how it will be rolled out and migrated from eth1 (42 points, 4 comments)
DAI the stablecoin can now be transferred GAS free (article explaining how it works via new MCD DAI contract). This holds alot of promise for the so called "Web3" (40 points, 8 comments)
Veriblock is consuming 27% of bitcoins block space - what does this mean for bitcoins future? (39 points, 16 comments)
Vitalik: Alternative proposal for early eth1 <-> eth2 merge (38 points, 3 comments)
Is launching a PoW permissionless blockchain still possible today? or would it be too susceptible to a 51% attack? (37 points, 37 comments)
Technical comparison of LIGHTNING vs TANGLE vs HASHGRAPH vs NANO (133 points, 37 comments)
Addressing Nano's weaknesses (bandwidth usage and disk IO). Nano voting traffic to be reduced by 99.9% by implementing vote by hash, lazy bootstrapping, and reduced vote rebroadcasting (x-post CryptoCurrency) (78 points, 8 comments)
Emergent centralization due to economies of scale (PoW vs DPoS) – Colin LeMahieu (52 points, 37 comments)
Nano community member developing a distributed "mining" service to pay people to do PoW for third-parties (e.g. exchanges, light wallet services, etc) (32 points, 20 comments)
What do you think about OpenCAP, the cryptocurrency alias protocol that mirrors traditional email addresses? (15 points, 12 comments)
Bitcoin would be a calamity, not an economy (11 points, 52 comments)
Part 5. I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the fifth part of the series talking about an advanced vulnerability of BTC. (43 points, 43 comments)
I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the third part of the series introducing Quantum resistant blockchains. (36 points, 4 comments)
Part 4B. I’m writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the fourth part of the series explaining the special quality of going quantum resistant from genesis block. (25 points, 21 comments)
Part 6. (Last part) I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. Failing shortcuts in an attempt to accomplish Quantum Resistance (24 points, 38 comments)
I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the first part of the series introducing the basic concept of blockchain and what makes it reliable. (23 points, 10 comments)
I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the fourth part of the series explaining the special quality of going quantum resistant from genesis block. (7 points, 1 comment)
Part 2. I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the second part of the series: An accessible description of hashing and signature schemes. (5 points, 0 comments)
Everytime I try to investigate the technology behind Cardano(Ada), I come across the words "scientific" and "peer-reviewed" over and over but almost no actual details. Can someone fill how this coin actually works and where they are in development? (126 points, 49 comments)
"Do you need a Blockchain?" - this paper is fantastic, everyone should read this before evaluating a coin and if requires a block chain to solve a solution the coin is promising to solve. by Neophyte- (136 points, 41 comments)
Technical comparison of LIGHTNING vs TANGLE vs HASHGRAPH vs NANO by Qwahzi (133 points, 37 comments)
Everytime I try to investigate the technology behind Cardano(Ada), I come across the words "scientific" and "peer-reviewed" over and over but almost no actual details. Can someone fill how this coin actually works and where they are in development? by RufusTheFirefly (126 points, 49 comments)
160 points: holomntn's comment in ELI5: Why did it take so long for blockchain technology to be created?
121 points: KnifeOfPi2's comment in How do we change the culture around cryptocurrency?
105 points: theglitteringone's comment in Outside of currency and voting, blockchain is awful and shouldnt be used. Can anyone explain where blockchain is worth the cost?
102 points: benthecarman's comment in If crypto now is like 'the Internet' of the past, where are we?
96 points: pegasuspect93's comment in If crypto now is like 'the Internet' of the past, where are we?
95 points: bannercoin's comment in Realistically, why would anybody expect the startup crypto platforms to beat out the corporate giants who are developing their own Blockchain as a Service (BaaS) solutions? Ex. IBM, SAP, JP Morgan...
83 points: AlexCoventry's comment in Ethereum private key with all zeroes leads to an account with 5000$ on it
82 points: deleted's comment in Is blockchain really useful ?
(Upvote to the top) > SOLUTION FOR ZCLASSIC Eleos Wallet: "Wallet daemon can not be run. Check if daemon does not already run"
So I noticed a lot of people recently (including myself) are experiencing the error "Wallet daemon can not be run. Check if daemon does not already run" when trying to open up their ZCL Eleos wallet, and people are unable to access their funds or cannot export their private keys as well. A solution to this is now official (thanks to JBrutWhat from the BTCP team for helping me out on this.) Note: Post is being edited as more info becomes available to me. This solution also works for users who are on the ZClassic Swing wallet experiencing the error "A general unexpected critical error has occurred: error: Couldn't connect to server, see the console output for more detailed error information!." Eleos Wallet Troubleshooting section
The Wallet.dat file from the Eleos wallet or Swing wallet DOES NOT work with Zclassic electrum, so we are going to import the private key of the wallet into electrum instead.
Navigate to the c:\users\username\appdata\roaming\zclassic folder and copy the wallet.dat file from there, back it up somewhere.
Paste the wallet.dat you backed up earlier into the same folder as the walletaid tool folder
Right click the config.ini file and edit the file using notepad or notepad++ or your own text editor
remove the "#" symbol from the zclassic sections under "#Pubkeyprefix list" and "#privkeyprefix list"
copy the text "1cb8" and replace the "00" under the pubkeyprefix section under "[settings]" at the top
Doubleclick the walletaid.py file and press enter. Let it create the entire file with ALL the wallet addresses from your wallet.dat file. Or you could paste in the exact address you want and it should export a foundkeys.txt file into the walletaid directory. (The extract keys.bat file doesn't always work. It didn't work for me.) NOTE: If the walletaid.py script opens and instantly closes, this is because your wallet.dat file has a different name. Please rename your wallet file back to "wallet.dat" for compatibility.
Open up the foundkeys.txt file and it should list out every detected address and it's corresponding private key from your wallet.dat file you pasted in earlier
Do a ctrl + F and paste in the wallet address that contains your funds.
Locate the wallet address you are looking for and it's corresponding private key. We'll come back to this later.
IMPORTANT: MAKE SURE YOU DELETE THE PRIVATE KEYS FILE FROM YOUR COMPUTER AFTER FINISHING WITH IT. BACK IT UP TO AN OFFLINE USB STICK. DO NOT KEEP IT ON YOUR DESKTOP/HARD DRIVES OR ONLINE. Your private keys can potentially compromise ALL of your funds. Keep this safe and NEVER share it with anybody.
For users that are experiencing problems syncing their Electrum ZCL wallets, or their transactions are showing "not verified" after importing a wallet, this is because the blockchain_headers have not been successfully downloaded. We'll have to delete them let it re-sync. For Windows users, first close the electrum wallet. Then navigate to C:\Users\UsernameXXX\Appdata\Roaming\Electrum-ZCL\ and from there delete ONLY the "blockchain_headers" file. Then re-open the wallet and allow it to sync. For Mac OS users, close the wallet and navigate to ~/.electrum-zcl/ and delete ONLY the blockchain_headers file once again. Then reopen the wallet. Please see github issue #77 thread here for more help.
Create a new standard wallet and restore the 2FA wallet using your "seed" codes. DO NOT password protect this wallet.
Disable the 2FA feature when presented with the option.
Navigate to C:/Users/YOUR-NAME/AppData/Roaming/Electrum-zcl/wallets. Open the new standard wallet file with Notepad.
You will need to gather the 2 private keys and one public key. To find this easily, press “CTRL+F” and search for “xprv”. Copy the 2 “xprv” values as well as the last “xpub” value. You will need these in a later step.
Create a new “Multi-signature wallet”. Select “From 3 co-signers” on the first slider. Select “Require 2 signatures” on the second slider.
To add the first co-signer, click “Use public or private keys”. Enter the first xprv key in this box.
Add the second co-signer via a private key also.
Add the third co-signer with the public key. Complete the set-up.
Your wallet funds now have the ability to be sent from the multi-signature wallet.
It's recommended by the BTCP team to switch over to the ZCLASSIC Electrum wallet ASAP as the Eleos wallet has become unstable now. The original ZClassic swing wallet is reported to still be working. Up to you whether or not to use the electrum wallet, but I'd personally recommend it.
Open up the wallet and create a new wallet, then when it gives you the option to import private keys, paste in your appropriate private key from the foundkeys.txt file we generated earlier.
Afterwards, your wallet should have successfully migrated your wallet into the ZCL electrum wallet. There's currently a synchronization issue upon first boot of the wallet, so close and re-open it again and you should be fine. If not, try closing the electrum wallet, navigate to "c:\users\username\appdata\roaming\Electrum-zcl folder and delete the "blockchain_headers file, as initial download of the blockchain headers sometimes initially fails. Then restart the wallet and you should be fine, according to the dev team.
Users of older ZCL electrum wallets before version 1.0.3 should download the latest version. I was on the older version (1.0.0 and noticed my wallet wouldn't sync.) So I upgraded to the latest version and wallet has successfully synced.
Also make sure to encrypt your electrum wallet by clicking the little settings icon at the bottom right.
For Users who were already using the Electrum wallet beforehand, you can go to file > new/restore wallet > next > import zclassic private keys and input the private key you obtained from the walletaid tool, and it should import the wallet into the electrum wallet. Then from there, go to file > backup wallet and export a copy of the wallet.dat file onto an offline USB.
Side notes: ZCL-Electrum wallet Does support mining directly to it. More ZCL Electrum servers will be added along with newer releases soon. Another note: Every time you want to migrate funds from one address to another, test it with a small amount first before proceeding with the full amount. BTCP Team has also partnered with Coinomi to release a wallet supporting ZCL and BTCP after the hard fork occurs.
Reminder: Backup and delete the private keys file from your desktop pc/hard drive, move it into an offline USB for safekeeping. Do not leave it on an online device. Donate to me if you found the guide useful! Your donations 100% voluntary but they are greatly appreciated and keep us going! ZCL: t1fkxCWJs3f2oXznGwZuEgftJ2SCjYZ8VjZ BTC: 14Xmfm9jf4h1h4RXZBQCFK6i4LWibqWVPu LTC: LhAERgWcjbbXQbGqjhy4owALGhwfpj1aw2 ETH: 0xe723305337926e1fcb5dd0495e6648569a252c13 BCH: 1JXqLHqjYH8bew38AXwEt9dmKvsdYwLtvr LINKS (You can join the discord rooms where there are channels for users looking for help)
Of Wolves And Weasels - Day 54 - Weekend Wrapup #1
Hey all, GoodShibe here! It's been quite a week, lots of hard work being done by the Dogecoin community, lots of great ideas coming online. So, let's take a moment to look back at what we, as a community, have accomplished in the last 7 days! (With a great note of thanks to hail_pentabarf for helping me put this list together!) Top Memes/Laughs
Our new mail icon is live - very cute! Created by voolp and shared the Original concept in this thread.
Welcome back TheBoffin - who had received a 'Reddit-wide Ban' for 'too much tipping'! But was returned to active duty after a very active Shibe-email campaign to Reddit Admins [you can stop emailing them now ;D)]. Great work all!! Shared by TheBoffin in this thread
ALTCY has put up a weekly review also, a well-thought-out technical analysis of the state of the Satoshi/Dogecoin :D)
Hilarity for Charity - Started by Seth Rogen, the Dogecoin community is hoping to raise 10 Million for Alzheimer's research
DogeBot - A Highschool Robotics team out of Cincinnatti, Ohio is looking to raise Dogecoin to sponsor them to go to the Indiana State tournament on March 15th. Dogecoin logo will be painted on the bot - and if they make it to 1 Million DOGE, they'll name it DogeBot!
Love Your Melon - Shared by gendale, this is a charity raising money to give hats to cancer patients - looking to accept Dogecoin! Get involved, this looks good!
Did I forget anything? I'm sure I did. If so, please let me know in the comments! It's 9:59AM EST and we're at 55.77% of DOGEs found. Our Global Hashrate is on the rise from ~68 to ~72 Gigahashes per second and our Difficulty is dropping from ~1205 to ~1097. Sorry for the lateness of today's post, I got up at 6am and started this, and I could still be going! As always, I appreciate your support! GoodShibe TL;DR: We've had a busy week! EDIT: Also! Now's a really good time to subshibe to /GoodShibe - some good things going to be coming out of there starting this Monday!
The Strange Birth & History of Monero, Part III: Decentralized team
You can read here part I (by americanpegaus). This is the post that motivated me to make the part II. Now i'm doing a third part, and there'll be a final 4th part. This is probably too much but i wasn't able to make it shorter. Some will be interested in going through all them, and maybe someone is even willing to make a summary of the whole serie :D. Monero - an anonymous coin based on CryptoNote technology https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.0 Comentarios de interés: -4: "No change, this is just a renaming. In the future, the binaries will have to be changed, as well as some URL, but that's all. By the way, this very account (monero) is shared by several user and is meant to make it easier to change the OP in case of vacancy of the OP. This idea of a shared OP comes from Karmacoin. Some more things to come:
A website (URL will be monero.cc)
A GUI wallet
" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6362672#msg6362672) -5: “Before this thread is too big, I would like to state that a bug has been identified in the emission curve and we are currently in the process of fixing it (me, TFT, and smooth). Currently coins are emitted at double the rate that was intended. We will correct this in the future, likely by bitshifting values of outputs before a certain height, and then correcting 1 min blocks to 2 min blocks. The changes proposed will be published to a Monero Improvement Protocol on github.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6363016#msg6363016) [tacotime make public the bug in the emission curve: token creation is currently 2 times what was intended to be, see this chart BTC vs the actual XMR curve, as it was and it is now, vs the curve that was initially planned in yellow see chart] -14: “Moving discussion to more relevant thread, previous found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=578192.msg6364026#msg6364026 I have to say that I am surprised that such an idea [halving current balances and then changing block target to 2 min with same block reward to solve the emission curve issue] is even being countenanced - there are several obvious arguments against it. Perception - what kind of uproar would happen if this was tried on a more established coin? How can users be expected to trust a coin where it is perceived that the devs are able and willing to "dip" into people's wallets to solve problems? Technically - people are trying to suggest that this will make no difference since it applies to reward and supply, which might be fair enough if the cap was halved also, but it isn't. People's holdings in the coin are being halved, however it is dressed up. Market price - How can introducing uncertainty in the contents of people's wallets possibly help market price? I may well be making a fool of myself here, but I have never heard of such a fix before, unless you had savings in a Cypriot bank - has this ever been done for another coin?” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364174#msg6364174) -15: “You make good points but unfortunately conflicting statements were made and it isn't possible to stick to them all. It was said that this coin had a mining reward schedule similar to bitcoin. In fact it is twice as fast as intended, even even a bit more than twice as fast as bitcoin. If you acquired your coins on the basis of the advertised reward schedule, you would be disappointed, and rightfully so, as more coins come to into existence more quickly than you were led to believe. To simply ignore that aspect of the bug is highly problematic. Every solution may be highly problematic, but the one being proposed was agreed as being the least bad by most of the major stakeholders. Maybe it will still not work, this coin will collapse, and there will need to be a relaunch, in which case all your coins will likely be worthless. I hope that doesn't happen.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364242#msg6364242) [smooth tries to justify his proposal to solve the emission curve issue: halve every current balance and change block target to 2 min with same block reward] -16: “This coin wasn't working as advertised. It was supposed to be mined slowly like BTC but under the current emission schedule, 39% would be mined by the first year and 86% by the fourth year. Those targets have been moved out by a factor of 2, i.e. 86% mined by year 8, which is more like BTC's 75% by year 8. So the cap has been moved out much further into the future, constraining present and near-term supply, which is what determines the price.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364257#msg6364257) [eizh supports smooth’s plan] -20: “So long as the process is fair and transparent it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone. Correcting this now will avoid people accusing the coin of a favourable premine for people who mined in the first week.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364338#msg6364338) [random user supporting smooth’s idea] -21: “Why not a reduction in block reward of slightly more than half to bring it into line with the proposed graph? That would avoid all sorts of perceptual problems, would not upset present coin holders and be barely noticeable to future miners since less than one percent of coins have been mined so far, the alteration would be very small?” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364348#msg6364348) -22: “Because that still turns into a pre-mine or instamine where a few people got twice as many coins as everyone else in the first week. This was always a bug, and should be treated as such.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364370#msg6364370) [smooth wants to be sure they can’t be stigmatized as “premine”] -23: “No, not true [answering to "it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone"]. Your share of the 18,000,000 coins is being halved - rightly or wrongly.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364382#msg6364382) [good point made by a user that is battling “hard” with smooth and his proposal] -28: “+1 for halving all coins in circulation. Would they completely disappear? What would the process be?” -31: “I will wait for the next coin based on CryptoNote. Many people, including myself, avoided BMR because TFT released without accepting input from anyone (afaik). I pm'ed TFT 8 days before launch to help and didn't get response until after launch. Based on posting within the thread, I bet there were other people. Now the broken code gets "fixed" by taking away coins.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364531#msg6364531) -32: “What you say is true, and I can't blame anyone from simply dropping this coin and wanting a complete fresh start instead. On the other hand, this coin is still gaining in popularity and is already getting close to bytecoin in hash rate, while avoiding its ninja premine. There is a lot done right here, and definitely a few mistakes.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364574#msg6364574) [smooth stands for the project legitimacy despite the bugs] -37: “Since everything is scaled and retroactive, the only person to be affected is... me. Tongue Because I bought BMR with BTC, priced it with incorrect information, and my share relative to the eventual maximum has been halved. Oh well. The rest merely mined coins that never should have been mined. The "taking away coins" isn't a symptom of the fix: it's the fundamental thing that needed fixing. The result is more egalitarian and follows the original intention. Software is always a work-in-progress. Waiting for something ideal at launch is pretty hopeless. edit: Let me point out that most top cryptocurrencies today were released before KGW and other new difficulty retargeting algorithms became widespread. Consequently they had massive instamines on the first day, even favorites in good standing like LTC. Here the early miners are voluntarily reducing their eventual stake for the sake of fairness. How cool is that?” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364886#msg6364886) [this is eizh supporting the project too] -43: “I'm baffled that people are arguing about us making the emission schedule more fair. I'm an early adopter. This halves my money, and it's what I want to do. There's another change that needs to be talked about too: we don't believe that microscopic levels of inflation achieved at 9 or 10 years will secure a proof-of-work network. In fact, there's a vast amount of evidence from DogeCoin and InfiniteCoin that it will not. So, we'd like to fix reward when it goes between 0.25 - 1.00 coins. To do so, we need to further bitshift values to decrease the supply under 264-1 atomic units to accommodate this. Again, this hurts early adopters (like me), but is designed to ensure the correct operation of the chain in the long run. It's less than a week old, and if we're going to hardfork in economic changes that make sense we should do it now. We're real devs turning monero into the coin it should have been, and our active commitment should be nothing but good news. Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6366134#msg6366134) [tacotime brings to the public for first time the tail emission proposal and writes what is my favourite sentence of the whole monero history: “Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use”] -51: “I think this is the right attitude. Like you I stand to "lose" from this decision in having my early mining halved, but I welcome it. Given how scammy the average coin launch is, I think maximizing fairness for everyone is the right move. Combining a fair distribution with the innovation of Cryptonote tech could be what differentiates Monero from other coins.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6366346#msg6366346) -59: “Hello! It is very good that you've created this thread. I'm ok about renaming. But I can't agree with any protocol changes based only on decisions made by bitcointalk.org people. This is because not all miners are continiously reading forum. Any decision about protocol changes are to be made by hashpower-based voting. From my side I will agree on such a decision only if more than 50% of miners will agree. Without even such a simple majority from miners such changes are meaningless. In case of hardfork that isn't supported by majority of miners the network will split into two nets with low-power fork and high-power not-forking branches. I don't think that this will be good for anybody. Such a voting is easy to be implemented by setting minor_version of blocks to a specific value and counting decisions made after 1000 of blocks. Do you agree with such a procedure?” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368478#msg6368478) [TFT appears after a couple days of inactivity] -63: “In few days I will publish a code with merged mining support. This code will be turned ON only by voting process from miners. What does it mean:
miners supporting merged mining are to update their nodes and miners. New miners will issue blocks with modified minor_version field indicating they are ready to accept AuxPoW blocks. But no AuxPoW blocks will be issued before 75% of last 1000 blocks will have a positive vote (a changed minor_version).
miners not supporting will not update but will still be able to mine and accept blocks. In case of successful voting they will have to switch to new code. In case of voting failed they can stay on old version.
The same procedure is suitable for all other protocol changes.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368720#msg6368720) [And now he is back, TFT is all about merged mining] -67: “We don't agree that a reverse split amounts to "taking" coins. I also wouldn't agree that a regular forward split would be "giving" coins. It's an exchange of old coins with new coins, with very nearly the exact same value. There is a very slight difference in value due to the way the reward schedule is capped, but that won't be relevant for years or decades. Such a change is entirely reasonable to fix an error in a in coin that has only existed for a week.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368861#msg6368861) -68: “There were no error made in this coin but now there is an initiative to make some changes. Changes are always bad and changes destroy participant confidence even in case these changes are looking as useful. We have to be very careful before making any changes in coins” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368939#msg6368939) [TFT does not accept the unexpected emission curve as a bug] -72: “You are wrong TFT. The original announcement described the coin as having a reward curve "close to Bitcoin's original curve" (those are your exact words). The code as implemented has a reward curve that is nothing like bitcoin. It will be 86% mined in 4 years. It will be 98% mined in 8 years. Bitcoin is 50% mined in 4 years, and 75% in 8 years. With respect TFT, you did the original fork, and you deserve credit for that. But this coin has now gone beyond your initial vision. It isn't just a question of whether miners are on bitcointalk or not. There is a great team of people who are working hard to make this coin a success, and this team is collaborating regularly through forum posts, IRC, PM and email. And beyond that a community of users who by and large have been very supportive of the efforts we've taken to move this forward. Also, miners aren't the only stakeholders, and while a miner voting process is great, it isn't the answer to every question. Though I do agree that miners need to be on board with any hard fork to avoid a harmful split.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369137#msg6369137) [smooth breaks out publicily for first time against TFT] -75: “I suppose that merged mining as a possible option is a good idea as soon as nobody is forced to use it. MM is a possibility to accept PoW calculated for some other network. It helps to increase a security of both networks and makes it possible for miners not to choose between two networks if they want both:
BCN only miners will continue to mine BCN
BMMRO only miners will continue to mine BMMRO
merge miners will mine both at the same time (now some of them mine BCN only and other - BMR only)
Important things to know about MM:
MM doesn't imply that BMR is smaller or has a less hashpower. In case BMR will has more mining power than BCN it will simply accept less BCN blocks.
MM doesn't force BMR users to have BCN chain on their HDD - BCN chain isn't neede to verify blocks
MM doesn't require any specific parent chain. Miner decides himself which parent chain to use: BCN or any other chain supporting the same PoW method.
Actually the only change that goes with MM is that we are able to accept PoW from some other net with same hash-function. Each miner can decide his own other net he will merge mine BMR with. And this is still very secure. This way I don't see any disadvantage in merged mining. What disadvantages do you see in MM?” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369255#msg6369255) [TFT stands for merged mining] -77: “Merged mining essentially forces people to merge both coins because that is the only economically rational decision. I do not want to support the ninja-premined coin with our hash rate. Merged mining makes perfect sense for a coin with a very low hash rate, otherwise unable to secure itself effectively. That is the case with coins that merge mine with bitcoin. This coin already has 60% of the hash rate of bytecoin, and has no need to attach itself to another coin and encourage sharing of hash rate between the two. It stands well on its own and will likely eclipse bytecoin very soon. I want people to make a clear choice between the fair launched coin and the ninja-premine that was already 80% mined before it was made public. Given such a choice I believe most will just choose this coin. Letting them choose both allows bytecoin to free ride on what we are doing here. Let the ninja-preminers go their own way.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369386#msg6369386) [smooth again] -85: “One of you is saying that there was no mistake in the emission formula, while the other is. I'm not asking which I should believe . . I'm asking for a way to verify this” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369874#msg6369874) [those that have not been paying attention to the soap opera since the beginning do not understand anything at all] -86: “The quote I posted "close to Bitcoin's original curve" is from the original announcement here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563821.0 I think there was also some discussion on the thread about it being desirable to do that. At one point in that discussion, I suggested increasing the denominator by a factor of 4, which is what ended up being done, but I also suggested retaining the block target at 2 minutes, which was not done. The effect of making one change without the other is to double the emission rate from something close to bitcoin to something much faster (see chart a few pages back on this thread).” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369935#msg6369935) [smooth answers just a few minutes later] -92: “I'm happy the Bitmonero attracts so much interest. I'm not happy that some people want to destroy it. Here is a simple a clear statement about plans: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582670 We have two kind of stakeholders we have respect: miders and coin owners. Before any protocol changes we will ask miners for agreement. No changes without explicit agreement of miners is possible. We will never take away or discount any coins that are already emitted. This is the way we respect coin owners. All other issues can be discussed, proposed and voted for. I understand that there are other opinions. All decisions that aren't supported in this coin can be introduced in any new coin. It's ok to start a new fork. It's not ok to try to destroy an existsing network.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6370324#msg6370324) [TFT is kinda upset – he can see how the community is “somehow” taking over] -94: “Sounds like there's probably going to be another fork then. Sigh. I guess it will take a few tries to get this coin right. The problem with not adjusting existing coins is that it make this a premine/instamine. If the emission schedule is changed but not as a bug fix, then earlier miners got an unfair advantage over everyone else. Certainly there are coins with premines and instamines, but there's a huge stigma and such a coin will never achieve the level of success we see for this coin. This was carefully discussed during the team meeting, which was announced a day ahead of time, and everyone with any visible involvement with the coin, you included, was invited. It is unfortunate you couldn't make it to that meeting TFT.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6370411#msg6370411) [smooth is desperate due to TFT lack of interest in collaboration, and he publicly speaks about an scission for first time] -115: “Very rough website online, monero.cc (in case you asked, the domain name was voted on IRC, like the crypto name and its code). Webdesigner, webmaster, writers... wanted.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6374702#msg6374702) [Even though the lack of consensus and the obvious chaos, the community keeps going on: Monero already has his own site] -152: “Here's one idea on fixing the emissions without adjusting coin balances. We temporarily reduce the emission rate to half of the new target for as long as it takes for the total emission from 0 to match the new curve. Thus there will be a temporary period when mining is very slow, and during that period there was a premine. But once that period is compete, from the perspective of new adopters, there was no premine -- the total amount of coins emitted is exactly what the slow curve says it should be (and the average rate since genesis is almost the same as the rate at which they are mining, for the first year or so at least). This means the mining rewards will be very low for a while (if done now then roughly two weeks), and may not attract many new miners. However, I think there enough of us early adopters (and even some new adopters who are willing to make a temporary sacrifice) who want to see this coin succeed to carry it through this period. The sooner this is done the shorter the catch up period needs to be.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6378032#msg6378032) [smooth makes a proposal to solve the “emission curve bug” without changing users balances and without favoring the early miners] -182: “We have added a poll in the freenode IRC room "Poll #2: "Emission future of Monero, please vote!!" started by stickh3ad. Options: #1: "Keep emission like now"; #2: "Keep emission but change blocktime and final reward"; #3: "Keep emission but change blocktime"; #4: "Keep emission but change final reward"; #5: "Change emission"; #6: "Change emission and block time"; #7: "Change emission and block time and final reward" Right now everyone is voting for #4, including me.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6379518#msg6379518) [tacotime announces an ongoing votation on IRC] -184: “ change emission: need to bitshift old values on the network or double values after a certain block. controversial. not sure if necessary. can be difficult to implement. keep emission: straightforward, we don't keep change emission or block time. change final reward is simple. if (blockSubsidy < finalSubsidy) return finalSubsidy; else return blockSubsidy;” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6379562#msg6379562) -188: “Yeah, well. We need to change the front page to reflect this if we can all agree on it. We should post the emissions curve and the height and value that subsidy will be locked in to. In my opinion this is the least disruptive thing we can do at the moment, and should ensure that the fork continues to be mineable and secure in about 8 years time without relying on fees to secure it (which I think you agree is a bad idea).” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6379871#msg6379871) [tacotime] -190: “I don't think the proposed reward curve is bad by any means. I do think it is bad to change the overall intent of a coin's structure and being close to bitcoins reward curve was a bit part of the intent of this coin. It was launched in response to the observation that bytecoin was 80% mined in less than two years (too fast) and also that it was ninja premined, with a stated goal that the new coin have a reward curve close to bitcoin. At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:
No web site
Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
No effective team behind it at launch
No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)
I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure. I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.). We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6380065#msg6380065) [smooth is disappointed] -191: “The website does exist now, it's just not particularly informative yet. :) But, I agree that thankful_for_today has severely mislead everyone by stating the emission was "close to Bitcoin's" (if he's denying that /2 rather than /4 emission schedule was unintentional, as he seems to be). I'm also against BCN merge mining. It works against the goal of overtaking BCN and if that's not a goal, I don't know what we're even doing here. I'll dedicate my meagre mining to voting against that. That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6380235#msg6380235) [eizh tries to keep smooth on board] -196: “BCN is still growing as well. It is up to 1.2 million now. If merged mining happens, (almost) everyone will just mine both. The difficulty on this coin will jump up to match BCN (in fact both will likely go higher since the hash rate will be combined) and again it is an instamine situation. (Those here the first week get the benefit of easy non-merged mining, everyone else does not.) Comments were made on this thread about this not being yet another pump-and-dump alt. I think that could have been the case, but sadly, I don't really believe that it is.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6380778#msg6380778) -198: “There's no point in fragmenting talent. If you don't think merge mining is a good idea, I'd prefer we just not add it to the code. Bitcoin had no web site or GUI either initially. Bitcoin-QT was the third Bitcoin client. If people want a pool, they can make one. There's no point in centralizing the network when it's just began, though. Surely you must feel this way.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6381866#msg6381866) [tacotime also wants smooth on board] -201: “My personal opinion is that I will abandon the fork if merge mining is added. And then we can discuss a new fork. Until then I don't think Monero will be taken over by another fork.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6381970#msg6381970) [tacotime opens the season: if merged mining is implemented, he will leave the ship] -203: “Ditto on this. If the intention wasn't to provide a clearweb launched alternative to BCN, then I don't see a reason for this fork to exist. BCN is competition and miners should make a choice.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6382097#msg6382097) [eizh supports tacotime] -204: “+1 Even at the expense of how much I already "invested" in this coin.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6382177#msg6382177) [NoodleDoodle is also against merged mining] This is basically everything worth reading in this thread. This thread was created in the wrong category, and its short life of about 2 days was pretty interesting. Merged mining was rejected and it ended up with the inactivity of TFT for +7 days and the creation of a new github repo the 30th of April. It is only 12 days since launch and a decentralized team is being built. Basically the community had forked (but not the chain) and it was evolving and moving forward to its still unclear future. These are the main takeaways of this thread:
The legitimacy of the "leaders" of the community is proven when they proposed and supported the idea of halving the balances for the greater good to solve the emission curve issue without any possible instamine accusation. Also their long-term goals and values rejecting merged-mining with a "primined scam"
It is decided that, as for now, it is “too late” to change the emission curve, and finally monero will mint 50% of its coin in ~1.3 years (bitcoin did it after 3.66 years) and 86% of its coins in 4 years (bitcoin does it in ~11 years) (was also voted here) (see also this chart)
It is decided that a “minimum subsidy” or “tail emission” to incentivize miners “forever” and avoid scaling fees will be added (it will be finally added to the code march 2015)
Merged mining is plainly rejected by the future “core team” and soon rejected by "everyone". This will trigger TFT inactivity.
The future “core team” is somehow being formed in a decentralized way: tacotime, eizh, NoodleDoodle, smooth and many others
And the most important. All this (and what is coming soon) is a proof of the decentralization of Monero. Probably comparable to Bitcoin first days. This is not a company building a for-profit project (even if on the paper it is not for-profit), this a group of disconnected individuals sharing a goal and working together to reach it. Soon will be following a final part where i'll collect the bitcointalk logs in the current official announcement threads. There you'll be able to follow the decentralized first steps of develoment (open source pool, miner optimizations and exchanges, all surrounded by fud trolls, lots of excitmen and a rapidly growing collaborative community.
In the world of DAG, I do think it's time for Byteball to get more attention. Yes, I know that for English-speaking people, the name is hilarious. I will pass on this topic. Like IOTA, Byteball is scalable. On the contrary, it doesn't use POW. It uses a Mainchain with a very small fee to include tx. So, there is an incentivization. Try it and you'll see : Byteball is very fast and never stops. Byteball also has an anonymous asset called : Blackbyte. You can buy them with GBYTE within the wallet. You won't find Blackbyte on traditional exchanges since it's totally private. I have just mentionned the wallet : it's the best I have ever seen (and I know that Ark and Neon are pretty cool too but this one is totally different). Use the light one (because the full node is very slow to sync). Within the wallet, you'll find an altcoin exchange performed by Changelly. It means you can switch very easily from byteball to other alts without going to any exchanges. There's also some oracles/bots which let you insure your flight or bet on sports game. They are very easy to use. There's also an asset manager that let you create byteball assets. Also, the first ICO on Byteball platform (Titan) used the wallet to receive and send funds : it was the easiest ICO I have ever seen (even with Request :) There's also a new functionnality to send Byteball via email. User-friendly as fuck. If you are on mobile, wallets are also available for Android and even though it's a bit more difficult for iOS it's possible to use it with XCode. Byteball has also a utility in the real world : there's a 20% cashback program with real merchants if the payment is done with bytes or blackbytes. There's already merchants and the list keeps growing.
Premiumize : premium downloads, cloud torrents, and VPN
Also, there's a bigger cashback program ongoing in Milan, Italy with 14 merchants. MINUS : Right now, Byteball is still to much centralized : 12 of 15 witnesses are from Tonych, the founder. But it's changing. The tech is still young and remember that in the beginning, Bitcoin was centralized, too. IOTA is still very much centralized. And some other platforms like Dash have a centralized point. Byteball lacks of marketing : it's very true and I hope it's going to change. The community on BTC Talk and Slack is very active and can help to promote byteball. I try to do it myself because I'm in love with this platform. PLUS : Actually, Byteball is still very cheap : a GBYTE is currently $265 or 0.0158 BTC / a GIOTA is $4820 or 0.25 BTC ! But in the end, they will only be 645 222 GBYTE while there is 2.77 millions GIOTA. Disclaimer : I own IOTA, XRB and GBYTE/BB.
Room 77, the German bar and restaurant that claims to be the first retail outfit in the world to accept bitcoin payments, has shut down. Cypherpunk Holdings chief economist Jon Matonis broke the news on Twitter. Bar owner Jorg Platzer later confirmed it on Reddit. … und die globale Bitcoin-Community hat ne dicke Träne im Knopfloch. Denn nachdem es sich schon länger abgezeichnet hat, ist es nun amtlich: Der Room 77 – die legendäre Kreuzberger Kneipe, die 2011 das erste Ladengeschäft weltweit war, in dem man mit Bitcoin bezahlen konnte, wo das erste Bier für Lightning über den Tresen ging, in der die erste mobile Bitcoin-Wallet geschrieben wurde ... Room 77, the German bar and restaurant that claims to be the first retail outfit in the world to accept bitcoin payments, has shut down. In Berlin, strict restrictions on the sale of alcohol remain in place. Located in Kreuzberg, Berlin, Room 77 began accepting bitcoin (BTC) as a means of payment in 2011, becoming the first bar, and most likely the first private retail outlet. Room 77 habe ihr Ziel nun erreicht, meint Platzer: Wir denken, unsere Mission ist erfüllt, und es ist Zeit, zu unserem Heimatplaneten zurückzukehren. Der aus der Perspektive Außerirdischer geschriebene futuristische Post hat tatsächlichen einen wahren Kern. Die Bitcoin-Bar hat deutschland- und weltweit Gäste angezogen. Auch Medien wurden ... Jörg Platzer, Besitzer der Berliner Bar Room77 hat bereits 2011 begonnen Bier und Burger gegen Bitcoin zu verkaufen. Es war das erste physische Geschäft der Welt, in dem man mit Bitcoin bezahlen konnte.Der ehemalige Konzepter und Informationsarchitekt ist ein ausgezeichneter Bitcoin-Kenner und leidenschaftlicher Barmann.
Bitcoin Wallet erstellen 2.0 - Exodus Eden Desktop Wallet Exodus Eden: https://www.exodus.io/eden/ Holt euch euer kostenloses Exodus Wallet: https://www.exo... @Roastbeef payed it. Luke Jr, Anton Yemelianov, Matt Corallo, Eric Lombroso, Giacomo Zucco, ThomasV and Andrea Schildbach were there too. 👇 Die wichtigsten Kryptoseiten in der Beschreibung 👇 Heute stelle ich euch die besten Bitcoin Miner vor. Die Miner aus dem Video kaufen: https://miners.eu/?r... Dieses Video entstand 2018 noch vor der DNX in Berlin und hier zeigt Dir Lukas in einem kleinen Tutorial wie Du ganz einfach im Alltag mit Bitcoin und anderen Kryptowährungen bezahlen kannst. This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue