Bitcoin Mining - 60% RENDITE mit Bitcoin Mining noch ...
Bitcoin Mining - 60% RENDITE mit Bitcoin Mining noch ...
Bitcoin Mining: Geld verdienen am PC - GIGA
Earn Free Ethereum Bitcoins43
Getting Code 43 with (6) 1070s on new mining rig : EtherMining
Bitcoins43 free bitcoin miner
Transcript of how Philip the tyrant admin of the Bitcoin Cash Telegram group called Spoice stupid, an idiot, a parrot among other insults then banned her instead of discussing Bitcoin Cash. That Telegram group is hostile, ABC/IFP shills run and follows the rBitcoin toxic censorship modus operandi.
David B., [18.10.20 01:46] https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/jdagi3/whats_up_with_the_bchn_hypocrisy/ David B., [18.10.20 01:47] Wut x2 J Stodd, [18.10.20 01:49] [In reply to David B.] Their words are meaningless. They have no principles. Wish i could comment but bitcoinxio banned me from rbtc and never told me why David B., [18.10.20 01:59] These comments are so toxic Spoice, [18.10.20 01:59] In reality, the real continuation of Bitcoin as we all know it is what is carried on by BCHN, BU, BCHD and others Spoice, [18.10.20 02:00] ABC is changing the rules to something that is not Bitcoin Spoice, [18.10.20 02:00] anyone denying those facts is selling you snake oil Spoice, [18.10.20 02:00] If Blockstream tried to take some % to their own benefit, we would have never needed BCH in the first place Spoice, [18.10.20 02:00] everyone would have rejected them in a second J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:01] [In reply to Spoice] Bitcoin Cash is not Bitcoin to start with, so who cares? David B., [18.10.20 02:01] [ Album ] Spoice, [18.10.20 02:01] yet we have ABC trying to pull this theft and all those puppets think it's ok Spoice, [18.10.20 02:01] JSTodd that's bullshit David B., [18.10.20 02:01] Like trying to talk to a core maxi about altcoins Spoice, [18.10.20 02:01] Bitcoin Cash is the most Bitcoin out of all Bitcoins Spoice, [18.10.20 02:01] it is the continuation of what Satoshi started David B., [18.10.20 02:02] Tbh they aren't even toxic Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:02] [In reply to Spoice] If the hash follows then it is Bitcoin Cash. Only if it doesn't is your claim true J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:03] [In reply to Spoice] Bitcoin is Bitcoin. Bitcoin failed to be Peer to Peer Cash, so Bitcoin Cash attempted to fix this by forking Bitcoin and attacking the root of the problem. This does not mean Bitcoin Cash is literally Bitcoin. Adopt a different argument. Sorry if you bought into that bc of Rogers rantings J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:05] Bitcoin Cash can replace Bitcoin, and if Bitcoin dies and BCH wins then sure maybe it can take its name from its grave, but they are different products, trying to say Bitcoin stopped being "Bitcoin" and became BCH is a self contradiction. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:08] Jstodd's got some good points. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:08] He's learnt so much in the last year ☺️ Spoice, [18.10.20 02:08] "Bitcoin is Bitcoin" is a false statement. BTC is just an instance of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the set of rules defined in the whitepaper first and foremost, it is peer to peer electronic cash. BTC no longer fits that criteria. Bitcoin Cash meets them. The fork proposed by ABC also fails to meet that criteria. Therefore the continuation of Bitcoin is in whatever BU, BCHN, Flowee and others will continue. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:09] What rules were defined in the WP? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:10] Let's see which rules aren't: 1) No coinbase tax going to any centralized entity such as ABC 2) No throttling of TX throughput such as BTC Spoice, [18.10.20 02:10] therefore they both fail the simple "Is this Bitcoin?" test Spoice, [18.10.20 02:11] Finally, Michael, if you think Hash rate defines what Bitcoin is, you should stick to BTC Jingles, [18.10.20 02:11] 21 million coins isn't in the WP Jingles, [18.10.20 02:11] I asked what rules did the WP define. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12] Because BCH failed that criteria since it forked, therefore your point is wrong Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12] https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2009-January/014994.html Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12] The announcement of the white paper included the 21 million limit, close enough Jingles, [18.10.20 02:12] HIs announcement isn't the WP Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12] show me where Satoshi said that Amaury shoudl tax the chain? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12] Doesn't matter- close enough Jingles, [18.10.20 02:12] Bitcoin is the set of rules defined in the whitepaper first and foremost - You Jingles, [18.10.20 02:13] My ears pricked up on that comment, so I'm asking you what you meant. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:13] Correct. Changing the 21 million hard limit is still more Bitcoin than taxing the Coinbase, yet both will never ever happen. Not to Bitcoin anyway Jingles, [18.10.20 02:13] If you meant Satoj's writings pre and post WP then you should be clear about it Spoice, [18.10.20 02:13] some bastardized chain might, just not Bitcoin Jingles, [18.10.20 02:14] The closest we have to anything to indicate what is "Bitcoiness" is general things like "the longest chain" Spoice, [18.10.20 02:14] No, it is never a single thing David B., [18.10.20 02:15] REEEE Jingles, [18.10.20 02:15] trustless, no single trusted third parties, and rules can change due to incentives via consensus Spoice, [18.10.20 02:15] it is a set of common sense and experiment driven and historical relevance and initial parameters and "peer to peer electronic cash" definition indicators Spoice, [18.10.20 02:15] never a single thing Jingles, [18.10.20 02:16] [In reply to Spoice] This is like the exact opposite of what you said earlier Jingles, [18.10.20 02:16] Bitcoin is defined by the rules in the WP, I mean common sense. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:16] 🤷♂️ Spoice, [18.10.20 02:16] Nope, the rule set is defined in the white paper should never change, but I never said all rules are defined in the white paper Jingles, [18.10.20 02:16] What rules? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:16] It is a union Jingles, [18.10.20 02:17] What rules are there? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:17] Rules in the white paper + what continued to define Bitcoin thereafter J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:17] [In reply to Spoice] > "Bitcoin is Bitcoin is a false statement." Alas, if we cannot agree on the law of identity, aka A=A, then i dont understand how to hold a conversation with you using logic. > BTC is an instance of Bitcoin No, BTC is a ticker used optionally by exchanges. Other common tickers for bitcoin include XBC, XBT, BC (correct me if im wrong on any of these) > "Bitcoin is a set of rules in the whitepaper" Super hard to defend this. Theres no mention of a 21M supply cap, no blocksize limit *at all*, and it also says additional rules and incentives can be enforced (implying maybe they should). Jingles, [18.10.20 02:17] I go through this with BSVers all the time. We have no spec sheet of rules defining what Bitcoin is from Satoshi. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:18] Rules such as what defines a correct block, miners receiving the full incentive of mining it, etc Jingles, [18.10.20 02:18] The WP is a highlevel document Spoice, [18.10.20 02:18] The WP is a description of a scientific experiment Spoice, [18.10.20 02:18] if you want to start your own experiment, be my guest Jingles, [18.10.20 02:18] [In reply to Spoice] Valid tx rules aren't defined in the WP Spoice, [18.10.20 02:18] just don't try to call it Bitcoin Jingles, [18.10.20 02:19] The word majority is in the WP an awful lot wouldn't you say? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:19] Not valid TX rules, but what a proof of work block is and how it diverts the reward to the miner, etc Jingles, [18.10.20 02:20] [In reply to Spoice] and? what about BTC doesn't apply? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:20] I'm not arguing for any fork of BCH here. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:20] It no longer meets the very title of the white paper experiment, "Peer to peer electronic cash" Spoice, [18.10.20 02:20] The BTC instance of the experiment is destined to move away from the very title of the white paper Jingles, [18.10.20 02:20] It's electronic, and I use it like cash. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:20] that the maintainers even wanted to edit the white paper (Cobra and co) because of this fact J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:20] u/Spoice When did BTC stop being Bitcoin in your view? The day Amaury decided to launch the fork, before Segwit happened? If someone else launched a fork first, they would have been "the real bitcoin"? This is a game of whoever forks first becomes the real Bitcoin? What if two people launched a fork at the exact same time, maybe even with identical specs? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:21] Where did I go wrong? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:21] [In reply to Spoice] Did they? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:21] Doesn't matter if you use it today, its very technical fabric will have to move your transactions to 2nd layers and it will no longer be peer to peer electronic cash on chain Jingles, [18.10.20 02:21] peer to peer electronic cash on chain - Not in the wp Jingles, [18.10.20 02:22] We have satoj talking about HFT with sidechannels. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:22] So what? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:23] I think this is a good discussion Phil, nothing disrespectful is being said. I hope this is ok? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:23] Doesn't matter, the rule of common sense, which is closer to that title? Increasing a simple variable (Blocksize) to stay on track of the title and experiment, or introduce IOUs and Watchtowers and channels and locked BTC and that whole LN Bastardization? Which is close to the title? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:23] No one said that can't happen Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:24] [In reply to Spoice] Congratulations you've made an argument which isn't an argument. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:25] The whole thing that was said was the system is based on majority rules, and incentives can be changed. Majority breaks any deadlock. David B., [18.10.20 02:25] How to kill a coin 101 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:25] Logic fails anyone who tries to claim BTC, ABC, BSV or any similar standalone experiments as Bitcoin, because of simple sanity checks and logic checks, often stemming out of common sense - If what you have moves you a single step away from what is otherwise the same old experiment which Satoshi wrote about and unleashed, you're not Bitcoin. If what you have moves you a step closer, it is Bitcoin. and so on and so forth. Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:25] Wow, really fanatical almost religious statements. I guess its Sunday morning. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:27] [In reply to Spoice] There's nothing common about common sense. You point to the WP to make a point, and your point isn't in there. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:27] Throttled and you need off-chain IOUs and always-on services to function (BTC) ? Not Bitcoin. Requires permission to be used and could be centrally confiscated on the whim of the organization behind it (BSV)? Not Bitcoin. Premined (Bitcoin Gold, Diamond)? Not Bitcoin. Taxing the miners through Coinbase and changing the incentives which were at play since day 0 (ABC)? Not Bitcoin Spoice, [18.10.20 02:27] simple checks really, yet those who are set to benefit will of course be oblivious to these Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:28] This whole “Bitcoin Cash is the true Bitcoin - see whitepaper” is really stupid. It also ignores the history of how Bitcoin Cash came into existence Jingles, [18.10.20 02:28] Phillip, remove anyone here that has said Bitcoin Gold was the original Bitcoin immediately Jingles, [18.10.20 02:28] ^^^^ Jingles, [18.10.20 02:29] [In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins] It falls to pieces the moment it's questioned. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:29] It is not about "True" Bitcoin Spoice, [18.10.20 02:30] It is about the Bitcoin closest to the experiment which always was Spoice, [18.10.20 02:30] I don't care about "True" or not, they all are true Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:30] [In reply to Jingles] Sorry, I hve stopped reading all the sillyness above. Will reread later Jingles, [18.10.20 02:30] [In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins] I'm joking around 😂 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:30] but the rule of entropy says I shouldn't place my money nor effort in experiments which are set to fade eventually, because they have skewed incentives Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:31] [In reply to Spoice] You get to chose that for yourself but you do not get to dictate it for others David B., [18.10.20 02:31] [In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins] Don't read it. You will have no braincells left Spoice, [18.10.20 02:31] Bitcoin as we know it has a long track record of incentives which work Spoice, [18.10.20 02:31] I won't ever dictate it for others Spoice, [18.10.20 02:31] I only would dictate it for myself, just like how I never use BTC or BSV today, I won't use ABC tomorrow Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32] only because they're new experiments Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32] interesting, and I wish them luck Jingles, [18.10.20 02:32] "Bitcoin is Bitcoin" is a false statement - Spoice 2020 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32] but I would rather stick to the Bitcoin I know Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32] that's all Jingles, [18.10.20 02:32] I won't ever dictate it for others - Also Spoice Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:32] Bitcoin Cash came with a plan snd goals. They were clearly presented in two presentations that happened before viabtc announced they would mine with ABC software and create a coin and chain named Bitcoin Cash Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32] Yes, because he means BTC is Bitcoin, and that's a false statement Jingles, [18.10.20 02:32] How is it false? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32] It is an instance of Bitcoin Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:33] [In reply to Michael Nunzio] you're looking intimidatingly handsome in your new profile picture Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:33] [In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]] Lol Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:33] [In reply to J Stodd] actually a good question Spoice, [18.10.20 02:34] Anyway, those are my two cents Spoice, [18.10.20 02:34] Everyone is free to choose which experiments to pour their effort on and their money in Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:34] [In reply to Spoice] You are entitled to your opinion. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:34] Andreas is publishing Lightning Network books, I mean Spoice, [18.10.20 02:34] So to each his own Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:35] [In reply to Spoice] Lets leave it at that Spoice, [18.10.20 02:35] but Bitcoin as I know it continues with no Tax, and that in my opinion is BCH with no tax Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:35] Ah you had to continue Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:36] Good thing no tax is proposed by anyone Spoice, [18.10.20 02:35] Isn't this the Bitcoin Cash telegram? Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:35] 😅 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:36] If I don't discuss Bitcoin Cash here, where should I? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:36] Tax, IFP, call it what you will Spoice, [18.10.20 02:36] from my perspective as a user, it's one the same J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:36] [In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]] I bet nobody will answer it, either Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:37] [In reply to Spoice] Apparently btc /s David B., [18.10.20 02:37] [In reply to Spoice] As a user what do you care? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:37] Ooh, can I shill the Bitcoin room in here? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:37] Nah, I prefer quick responses and chats Spoice, [18.10.20 02:37] Reddit is broken Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:37] [In reply to Jingles] Lol J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:37] [In reply to Spoice] Nobody even pays it, it just comes out of the block reward. The block reward is not sentient, it cannot be stolen from or wronged Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:37] Dont push your luck 😉 Jingles, [18.10.20 02:37] [ 😀 Sticker ] Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:38] [In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]] You too brother. 🙏 Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:38] [In reply to Michael Nunzio] but mine is the same....i need new ones everyone always calls me fat because of this one Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:38] literally if i say 1 thing to any troll anywhere first thing they say is "ok fatass" Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:38] i blame this dumb photographer Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:38] [In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]] Don't listen. Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:39] u/spoice maybe write a read.cash article if you really feel you need to educate people Spoice, [18.10.20 02:39] David, as a user I believe that each new experiment carries risk with it, why should I take part in a new fork of Bitcoin which has a new set of game-theory rules which doesn't even benefit me, rather it benefits some other entity which will take 5% of any effort or economic activity I produce on this chain? They're also off-loading the risk to me as a usebuildebusiness who choose to join their experiment. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:40] Why should I take that risk while the Bitcoin I know and have known for over 10 years worked perfectly for me thus far? (BCH, that is) Jingles, [18.10.20 02:40] small fees and empty blocks? Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:41] It will insure that a centralized group has control over development and they are by decree in the code, it's a literal take over. Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:41] [In reply to Spoice] “BSV-freeze the protocol - true Bitcoin” sounds like more your thing David B., [18.10.20 02:41] [In reply to Spoice] Better run bitcoin core 0.1 Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:41] Imagine if satoshi keyd his address in the code to be paid out of every block, but instead of paying himself started a company "Bitcoin Dev Co" Spoice, [18.10.20 02:42] Not really, BSV kills the incentives I am discussing too Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:42] [In reply to Jingles] Please stay nice now Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:42] No one would ever be able to say Bitcoin was Decentralized, Bitcoin Dev Co would get paid directly from the reward. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:42] [In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins] "BSV: We have all the Bad Idea. On chain" Spoice, [18.10.20 02:42] The Nash equilibrium we have tested for the past 10 years will be changed with ABC, it changed with BTC and BSV too Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:42] "Bad Solutions Verified" Spoice, [18.10.20 02:42] that game-theory set of incentives Spoice, [18.10.20 02:43] why would I want to take a risk with any of those experiments when I gain 0? David B., [18.10.20 02:43] Better run bitcoin core 0.1 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:43] Nope, you're talking technical freezing of development, that's not what I am addressing Jingles, [18.10.20 02:43] [In reply to David B.] Thats the BTC chain though Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:43] [In reply to Spoice] O please share with us your background in the subject. Or are you now just parroting others Spoice, [18.10.20 02:44] BSV wants to freeze the technical development and they want a stable protocol from an API/development perspective Spoice, [18.10.20 02:44] but from an incentive ruleset perspective, they already butchered the equilibrium Bitcoin had Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:44] [In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins] That's one of those phrases, when you hear it you know they are just a parrot of someones propaganda. "MUH NASH EQUILIBRIUM!" David B., [18.10.20 02:44] Stable = bad? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:45] [In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]] I love you Spoice, [18.10.20 02:45] Philip, for an admin you are ought to be nicer, if you think I am parroting others you're free to think that, but to state it so bluntly in your position is just... wrong Spoice, [18.10.20 02:46] If you think the point I made is wrong, discuss it Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:46] [In reply to Jingles] Maybe talk to him in DM about that?😉 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:46] not me Jingles, [18.10.20 02:46] [In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins] working on it. Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:46] [In reply to Spoice] I ought to be nicer...😂😂😂 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:47] Also, anyone who studied Bitcoin at length and its set of incentives and game-theory ruleset should know what a Nash Equilibrium is and who the players are in the Bitcoin game Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:47] [In reply to Spoice] You state as fact. You get to dhow why your statements or opinions are even relevant. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48] If it's not a fact, highlight how Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48] don't attack me Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48] prove me wrong Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48] if you fail that simple debate test David B., [18.10.20 02:48] How's that breakfast helping? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48] you should rename from Janitor to Tyrant Jingles, [18.10.20 02:48] I'm still waiting to see the defined rules as per the wp Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:49] [In reply to Spoice] Didn't know this was stand up comedy night in here. Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:49] I missed the memo Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:49] If I have to prove all idiots on the internet wrong I would have a hard time. You are starting to really waste everybody’s time. You state, you prove. Or you are just generating noise Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:50] [In reply to Spoice] Be careful now. Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:50] Noisy bugger. Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:52] Getting close to just do some cleaning up. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:52] If you can't debate technical points I am making about Bitcoin Cash on a Bitcoin Cash Telegram, and within the span of 10 minutes you called me stupid, idiot, noisy and a parrot, you absolutely are a tyrant and I stand by my point: You should not be an admin here, nor anywhere actually. If you think I should be careful for the fear of you banning me, go ahead. You still fail to debate the simplest technical point and yet claim you can "but can't be bothered to". You remind me of that Thermos guy. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:53] How do people with 0 technical know how end up in these admin positions is beyond me Jingles, [18.10.20 02:53] I challenged your comments and you just changed the goal posts. Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:53] [In reply to Spoice] Ok. You are not paying me and you are free to create noise elsewhere
2/6 Disclaimer: This is my editing, so there could be some misunderstandings. Anyone who wants to read everything should go to the 'spec' of Paracosm discord. IMHO, Hans's philosophy and motivation is worth sharing widely. Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전7:57 People are more motivated then ever Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전8:02 the point is that the IF is not going to be there forever - its not meant to having a self sustainable ecosystem is very important for the maturity of the protocol Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전8:03 No it's not if IF would cease to exist tomorrow - it would be finished by the people working for the IF anyway I am 100% sure and if i would have to do it alone ... Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전8:05 we can all do it together - and we are actually doing it already hornet and goshimmer have VERY close ties they are really good friends and very capable coders its an honor to work with them Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전8:06 [when do you reckon the shift to binary will take place?] its being merged in goshimmer tomorrow :smile: Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전8:14 [about Multiverse] the last statements of popov was that it "might work" he still has some concerns i guess he still tends to think the chances of it not working as bigger than the chances of it working I am 100% sure it works - but maybe its on me to prove that with a fully functional prototype. Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전8:17 My goal is to show a prototype being able to process 10 million tps by the mid of this year - we will see if I can pull this off maybe time will be rare, considering the parallel work on coordicide maybe I should aim for end of 2020 instead Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전8:19 of course it includes sharding that whole point of IOTA is sharding and a completely new form of sharding Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전8:19 [why 10m TPS?] its just a random number some kind of goal post so you can process the entirety of bitcoins history in 1minute and 30 seconds? would be a nice thing Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전8:21 coordicide and multiverse would essentially use the same sharding principles I hope that we can share more on that soon Oh its quite concrete we are starting to write math papers about it already Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전8:23 FPC is perfectly fine for sharding you have to forget the discrete sharding world of blockchains where you just make n copies of the same thing its very different Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전8:30 I would LOVE to share that with you but maybe just wait a but longer - we will be more open about this pretty soon let's just say that we still have some aces in our sleeves Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전8:49 nope I am completely new in crypto but I am pretty sure that some people might "know me from before" if they would know what I did before Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전8:57 dude the IF has reached a stage where it would survive without anbybody I could drop dead tomorrow and the IF would continue, same goes for David or anybody else Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전9:00 all the corporates and everything ... it might not be fully reflected in the price yet but IOTA has a really really bright future Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전9:01 I think we are starting to see a pretty bullish sentiment around IOTA lately I only hope that its due to our increased transparency with a clear roadmap and everyhting, and not just some random fluke in the prices It would just feel much more "rewarding" to be a consequence of our efforts :joy: Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전9:05 i am buying more IOTA every month : was very happy about the low prices but I can understand that if you just "have to believe" and have no insight about the actual progress, then these prices can feel more concerning than a "bargain" Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전9:13 Do you really expect a guy working on IOTA to not be bullish about the tech and everything? I am not in IOTA for the moneyzzz Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전9:18 if you are asking for investment advice, then I am most probably the worst person to ask as my trades in crypto have always been horrible Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전9:20 I didn't have the chance to be around in the ICO days so I need to take what's left Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전9:27 I don't know man - everybody that I know is not willing to sell Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전9:35 Yassin is the proof that "reputation" is worth something A man of honor - my deepest respect to you man People who stick to their word and can be trusted are sadly a rare thing in today's world Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전9:39 I anyway think that we have way too much tribalism in crypto people should really stop praising "people and projects" and instead start to praise ideas and concepts Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전9:43 I mean I get the whole concept of having a single currency and shit, but if the tech is bad? I mean this is the first time in the history of humans that we can "design" the very foundation of our social and economical layer why would we not go for the best available tech? bitcoin was "a breakthrough" when it was released and it helped to kickstart a whole field of research but its clearly not the best possible solution Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전9:47 ultimately the best tech will win just look at bitcoins dominance its fading long term sure it was time for a correction from the 2017 run of alts Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전9:47 but the overall trend is pretty clear bitcoins days are numbered Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전9:54 maybe I can leak one thing about IOTA's sharding solution without giving away too much: Every single node can individually decide how much data it wants to process - so you can have very very resource-constrained nodes like sensors and stuff in the same network as nodes with hundreds of cores and they will be able to work together seamlessly there will essentially be no "minimum hardware requirements" for a node (of course you have "some" requirements to even be able to run some kind of logic) Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전9:56 We are on the forefront of research when it comes to VDF's but its not really related VDFs would maybe be a way to replace PoW in the future as a rate control mechanism Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전9:58 you don't need big nodes you can be as big as you want to be but naturally some nodes will have more power than others Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:01 possible - the whole mana system is based on "reputation", if you run a reliable cluster of nodes that people are willing to use, then you can earn mana and since mana decides how many transactions you can issue, you can of course "allow others to use your resources" for money so operating a reliable node cluster could be sth that people might do "for a living" in the future maybe it would be best to build up a reputation already today Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:03 if you have funds in the network, then you will generate more than enough mana to have enough "shares" in the network to use it for free but if anybody wants to just piggyback on the network without holding tokens, then he might have to pay a "fee" Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:05 if you want to send a lot of data transactions, then you better have some tokens I mean its just fair, right? you don't have any stake in the network but you wanna use it? then pay for it but people who have funds in the network can use it for free Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:07 i think ultimately the community will provide a plugin for the nodes, where you can "automatically" rent your excess reputation for some income Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:08 [what would the income be ?] tokens IOTA Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:09 by the people who want to use the network more than what their token holding would allow them to so they rent "mana" from the people who have it Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:10 the internet took off when flat-rate emerged and prices became predictable the same is true for crypto Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:11 thats why companies like IOTA so much ... it creates a platform that has "predictable" prices any mining based crypto will never be able to offer the same Beeing feeless is not just a "funny feature", its the key to mass adoption Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:14 If I run a node and have funds in the network, then why would I pay anybody anything? I am supporting the network already by using it Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:16 Yeah we are using "mana 2" now which is also the one that is implemented in the goshimmer mana package the formulas are going to change a bit tho we had like 16 different versions of mana with all very different implications on game theory and code Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:18 but serguei is the expert when it comes to game theory and we are pretty confident that we have chosen the correct survivor Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:19 [The mana implementation does seem like the slipperiest slope] it uses a few economic theories from the early 20th century (from silvio gesell) by having smth like a "demurrage function" so the rich dont get richer its software - if any design decision turns out to be problematic, you patch it Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:20 [So it’s hard to maintain a high mana] its not like you have to live with it for thousands of years like in our current FIAT system if you make it right from the start, the rich will never become that powerful that they could even dare to fork Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:22 you are "RENTING" out your excess resources that doesn't mean that you will broadcast everything unseen If somebody tries to use your node to perform an attack you will just ignore it of course you might "lose the fees" that they would be willing to pay you to perform this attack, but ultimately you will have to decide what is more valuable to you the few cents of IOTA you earn or your "reputation / mana" Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:25 the nodes will perform all of the sanity checks, so they don't "accidently" take part in an attack of course the point is that its a voting system based on mana if I use your node to "issue a transaction", then I maybe pay you for issuing this tx but your "opinion on that tx" is independent of that Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:29 actually I even think that the whole coordicide principles especially in connection with the sharding are very much in line with cfb's initial vision - and I am actually a bit sad that he never really dared to honestly look into them Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:29 I was even thinking about "naming" the multiverse "cfbs vision" once maybe its more (pauls's vision) than cfbs vision paul handy was one of the other early developers of IOTA btw. and a very very smart person I have to say a lot of the ideas that we are currently pursuing go back to his line of thinking Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:32 the infamous "ontology principles" the ultimate goal is to be able to run "anything" on the tangle - not just value transfers but literally anything, event remotely related to DLT's I envision IOTA being a general purpose DLT platform pretty much like TCP/IP was for the internet Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:36 I introduced "broadcasts" a few days ago as a new concept that is the equivalent of UDP messages Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:49 I think that one of the things where cfb and me disagree regarding the "vision of IOTA" is that he think thats we should "finalize" the protocol as soon as possible (or "set it in stone" as he likes to call it), so hardware manufacturer can start to build hardware, whereas I think that it makes much more sense for it to be something like an "open evolving standard" that is so flexible that you can literally build whatever the fuck you want based on this protocol. The internet wouldn't have been the internet, if it would have "just" been for sending scientific messages between researchers. I can not anticipate and know what humans might do with DLT in the future, so limiting myself to "only value transfers" is IMHO the wrong decision. for something to be successful, it needs to be able to "model" everything that could possibly exist Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:51 IOTA will be able to run "anything" on top of it - even "virtual instances of other cryptocurrencies" and its not going to be some quirky slow emulation - it would most probably even be faster and more reliable than when being implemented without it Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:52 similar to "INTEL inside" you will most probably see sth like "Tangle inside" soon Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:54 "any application" running on top of the tangle (MAM, DID, Qubic, Matrix ... you name them) would ALWAYS have to be able to process IOTA value transfers THAT's what will give the token a value Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:55 if everybody can already "speak the same language" anyway, then people will also use that language to communicate which means that people will use the IOTA token to transfer value so we don't need to "force ourselves" on others - they will come by themselves because its the only thing that makes sense Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전10:57 [so Hans, $10 EOY still ?] if btc stays where it is? hard to achieve i'd say most probably not it always takes some time for people to "wake up" dunno maybe it goes fast most weak hands are gone in IOTA Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전11:00 But seriously guys ... the price of course is interesting but if we are able to pull this off, then this will be the start of a new form of society it will affect everything the way we interact .... even the way we behave towards each other I am not even sure if you need to be "rich" in that kind of society Star trek sounds like a nice vision Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전11:20 [once IOTA is completely implemented, its gonna be a matter of energy consumption optimization race I guess?] ultimately, yes whatever crypto is going to be the "cheapest" one to "operate" will win Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전11:22 BUT that is at the same time "expressive" enough to not have "niches" for weird competitors, that claim to be even a "little bit better" in one of the aspects it needs to be the best possible solution that humans are most probably able to come up with Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전11:23 if even the smallest something can be improved, then it should become part of the core rather than a competing project not having miners and being able to "upgrade" whenever it is necessary, is what will give IOTA power not setting stuff in stone today Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전11:29 I guess what fascinates me the most about IOTA is that people have a different kind of philosophy - in crypto people are usually sharing the mindset of "let's destroy the banks ... or .... the FED ... or whoever they consider to be their enemy IOTA for me is not so much about "destroying somebody else" rather than "creating something new" Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전11:30 But the "mindset and motivation" makes all the difference And I feel like large parts of the community "understand and share" that vision Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전11:34 there are plenty of "problems" where DLT is not the right answer but there are most probably also quite a few that we haven't even thought about, yet that go way beyond just "finance" Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전11:38 [Has IF any plans for anonymous transactions Hans?] it's current not our main point of research but I would say ultimately yes the fact thats its feeless make "mixing" funds a very feasible solution But even on top of that (like zero knowledge proofs and stuff) If there is a use case, then you should be able to do it with IOTA. that's what I mean with "general purpose DLT" platform whatever is possible should be doable with the protocol - not "just" IoT value transfers Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전11:42 everything you could most probably think of the same way as TCP/IP allows you to play computer games, send emails, or watch streams Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전11:48 tomorrow I start merging the first ledger-related stuff into the development branch from the outside it will most probably look like any other day : but starting to work on the "final version" which is supposed to be ready end of Q1 is a big milestone for us 2 months left Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후12:04 100% agree - let's finish this shit! we have "talked" for quite a while - the coming months, we will have to show what we "have"
DEDIQATED 2020 | 20 Years of Q-dance Livestream The full liveset can be downloaded via a torrent client. Here is a link to the spreadsheet with the magnet / torrent link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13q7B9Fqfg1ZN8EiPSX1yrv7Wa21W_vtdN65V0eR4oQU/ I am not gonna explain how to download with torrents, since I expect this is common knowledge. If you use BitTorrent or μTorrent, shame on you. Get a good torrent client like qBittorrent or Deluge, they dont include advertisements and work as well, if not better. Note: If you have issues with the download not strarting, you can add my seedbox as a peer manually: 22.214.171.124:20117 Timestamps of the full stream: 00:08:25 | Early Rave Rebels (Buzz Fuzz, Franky Jones, Gizmo & The Dark Raver) 00:32:26 | The Qlubtempo Parade (Luna, Pavo, Dana, Pila & A*S*Y*S) 01:02:10 | Fusion Records (Zany, Donkey Rollers, The Pitcher & MC DV8) 01:19:23 | Bella Hardstyle Italia (T'N'T, Zatox & Tatanka) 01:48:24 | Qlimax 01:52:35 | Masters of Melody Pt.1 (Frontliner, Bass Modulators & Max Enforcer) 02:14:49 | In Qontrol 02:17:27 | Praise the Reverse Bass (DJ Isaac, Technoboy & Tuneboy) 02:40:59 | Happy Birthday Q-dance 02:42:30 | Viva Hollandia (Ruthless, Outsiders, Deepack, Dr. Rude & The Viper) (03:05:39 - 03:10:49 | Rest in peace audio) 03:17:32 | Defqon.1 /w World of Madness (Headhunterz, Wildstylez & Noisecontrollers) 04:04:13 | Millenium Hardcore Mayhem (Endymion, Evil Activities, Promo & Art of Fighters) 04:35:22 | Scantraxx Recordz (The Prophet, D-Block & S-te-Fan & Devin Wild) 04:56:52 | The Land Down Under (Code Black, Audiofreq & Outbreak) 05:12:38 | The Best of Power Hour (05:32:19 - 05:36:30 | Villain takes off in a giant hamster ball on a journey to explore the crowd, which refuses to bring him back to stage) 06:13:26 | Dirty Workz (Coone, Da Tweekaz, Hard Driver & Psyko Punkz (incl. Sven (KELTEK)) 06:40:27 | Q-BASE: The Legacy 06:43:56 | Birth of Raw (Ran-D, Adaro, B-Front & Crypsis) 07:23:40 | Masters of Melody Pt.2 (Atmozfears, Audiotricz, KELTEK & Sound Rush) 07:55:27 | Future Heroes (Frequencerz, Sub Zero Project, Phuture Noize, Warface, D-Sturb, Sefa) 08:41:50 | Hardcore 2.0 (Korsakoff, Mad Dag, Partyraiser & Dr. Peacock) 09:16:16 | Hardstyle Top 25 10:13:40 | Closing + Endshow
[Researh] In 2017 bitcoin network consumed 5 TWh of energy, in 2018 – 29 TWh, in 2019 – 43 TWh. Banking industry consumes 74 TWh per year.
Electricity consumed by bitcoin network has been constantly and noticeably increasing. During the past years the consumption reached such big a scale, that it can be compared to electricity consumption of some countries, according to BlockchainAnalytics.pro research. The world’s first cryptocurrency is steadily becoming more popular and expensive every year. This motivates more individuals and companies to enter the mining business to earn a bitcoin share.
More miners, more efficient equipment
To validate a block of transactions and receive a reward, miners compete with each other by solving a deliberately complicated mathematical task, or puzzle. Those miners who own more computing power (hashrate) have more chances to win the competition. This incentivizes miners to buy more powerful equipment that consumes more electricity. At the same time, mining equipment efficiency is constantly improving, and with time less electricity is required to produce the same hashrate. This factor allows to slow down the increasing demand for electricity. For example, in 2016 Bitmain, world’s largest manufacturer of mining equipment, launched the legendary Antminer S9, which consumed 100 watts to produce one terahash per second, or 100 W/TH/s. The best modification of Antminer S15, released in 2018, consumed 57 W/TH/s. Currently, the most efficient Antminer S17 consumes only 40 W/TH/s. https://preview.redd.it/gh343l3p09j41.png?width=930&format=png&auto=webp&s=e350c1e7832e37c1e3c3aeac974428cca7f0f874 It is assumed that the market competition compels manufacturers to keep up with each other in developing more efficient hardware. If some manufacturer brings next-generation chips to market, other manufacturers start to produce chips with the same characteristics at about the same time. On the other hand, new miners are joining the network, thus increasing the hashrate. So the demand for electricity continues to grow. Also, it can be noticed later that the electricity consumption chart is similar to that of hashrate chart. https://preview.redd.it/3k32ci6q09j41.png?width=930&format=png&auto=webp&s=e70f600419bcbc9e7e82506b5f12bf4da6f00584
The incremental volume of electricity consumption is calculated by multiplying newly added hashrate by the best mining efficiency available at that moment. The sum of incremental volumes represents cumulative amount of electricity consumed by bitcoin network. The metric is expressed in terawatt-hours (TWh). To get annualized volume in terawatt-hours we multiply the consumption by 24 hours and 365 days. A 100-day moving average was applied to hashrate to make the final result less dependent on the short-term hashrate fluctuations. Assumptions, used in this study, are very conservative. It means that the results are in the lower limit of the range of possible volumes, and the actual electricity consumption can be higher. A detailed explanation and interactive charts are provided here: https://www.blockchainanalytics.pro/btc/electricity-consumption/ https://preview.redd.it/jol3703r09j41.png?width=929&format=png&auto=webp&s=252d4d67ff6882bb32ad63238537a41305719f05
Currently, annualized electricity consumption in bitcoin network is 57 TWh. To help readers get an idea of how much electricity the bitcoin network consumes, a comparison with some countries is provided alongside. Portugal consumes 49 TWh per year, Romania – 50 TWh, Czech Republic – 59 TWh. Some more numbers for comparison:
Just a Wink and Smile - the Avaddon Pathway to Doom
Written by the CoinEx Institution, this series of jocular and easy to understand articles will show you everything you need to know about major cryptocurrencies, making you fully prepared before jumping into crypto! https://preview.redd.it/ryvcznqspe451.jpg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5fa91e26288d7b0a624113ed21172cc9fd5624a3 Monero, or XMR for short, is an open-source cryptocurrency that is safe, reliable, private, and untraceable. It can run on Windows, Mac, Linux, and FreeBSD, and is known as one of the most private cryptocurrencies. In 2018, Monero already ranked 10th in terms of trading volume, with its market value beyond 1 billion US dollars, an evidence for its great fame in this field. By a special method in cryptography, Monero ensures that all transactions remain 100% irrelevant and untraceable. Perhaps after reading this article, you will understand why it is so special and popular in the increasingly transparent and traceable cryptocurrency circle (After all privacy comes first!). In fact, many large cryptocurrencies in the world are not anonymous. All transactions on Bitcoin and Ethereum are made public and traceable, which means that anyone can eavesdrop on transactions flowing into and out of the wallet. That has given rise to a new type of cryptocurrency called “privacy currency”! These “privacy currencies” hide encrypted transactions by adopting specific types of passwords. One typical example is Monero, one of the largest privacy cryptocurrencies in the world. Monero was created on April 18, 2014 under the name BitMonero, literally the combination of Bit (Bitcoin) and Monero (the “coin” in Esperanto). In five days, the community decided to change its name to Monero. Interestingly, Monero’s creators valued personal privacy and tried to behave in a low-key manner with pseudonyms instead of the real names. It is said that the Monero major contributor’s nickname is “thankful for today”, yet this guy has gradually disappeared from public view as Monero developed day by day. Unlike many cryptocurrencies derived from BTC, Monero is based on the CryptoNote protocol. It is also the first branch based on the Bytecoin of CryptoNote currency. Here is some information about Bytecoin: BCN, for short, is a decentralized cryptocurrency with a high degree of privacy; it has open-source codes that allow everyone to contribute to the development of the Bytecoin network; and the Bytecoin network provides global users with instant private transactions that are not traceable and at no additional cost. Yet, as a branch of BCN, Monero outshines its parent in reputation by being different in two ways. First, Monero’s target block time was reduced from 120 seconds to 60 seconds; second, the issuance speed was cut by 50% (which reverted to 120-second residence later, with the issuance time maintained and the reward for each new block doubled). By the way, during the fork, the Monero developers also found a lot of low-quality codes and then refactored them. (That is exactly what geeks will do) Monero’s modular code structure was also highly appreciated by Wladimir J. van der Laan, one of the core maintainers of Bitcoin. Monero values privacy, decentralization and scalability, and there are significant algorithm differences in blockchain fuzzification, which sets it apart from its peers. How private is it? Here are more details. 1. Safe and reliable For a decentralized cryptocurrency, decentralization means that its network is operated by users; transactions are confirmed by decentralized consensus and then recorded on the blockchain irrevocably. Monero needs no third party to guarantee the safety of funds; 2. Privacy protection Monero confuses all transaction sources, amounts, and recipients through ring signatures, ring confidential transactions, and invisible addresses. Apart from all the advantages of a decentralized cryptocurrency, it is by no means inferior in safeguarding privacy; 3. Unable to track The sender, the receiver and the transaction amount of all Monero transactions must be anonymous by default. The information on the Monero Blockchain cannot be matched with physical individuals or specific users, so there is no trace to track; 4. Scalable Everyone knows that Bitcoin’sability to process transactions has always been limited by the scalability issue; as we have mentioned before in the introduction of Bitcoin, the block size of 1MB makes things difficult. But Monero’s developers have created a system that allows the network to process more transactions when needed; what’s more, Monero does not have any “pre-set” restrictions on block size. Of course, this also means that some malicious miners may block the system with large blocks. To prevent this from happening, Monero has worked out countermeasures: the block reward penalty of the system. On October 18, 2018, Monero’s latest hard fork changed the consensus mechanism algorithm to CrypotoNight V8. In this hard fork, it introduced the BulletProff bulletproof protocol, which can also effectively reduce the transaction fee of miners without disclosing transactions It is said that Monero will issue about 18.4 million XMR in around 8 years. Moreover, it eclipses its counterparts in distribution — with no pre-mining or pre-sale, all block rewards will be left to miners by means of the POW mechanism. Here is the reward scheme of Monero in two stages:
Acceleration: mine 18132000 XMR before May 2022;
Deceleration: Deceleration starts right after 18132000 XMR are mined, and there will be a reward of 0.6XMR for each block mined afterwards. In this way, the overall supply will be kept on a small scale and decelerated.
Monero is also excellent in its development concept that is designed to be anti-ASIC from the very beginning. Here is a brief introduction to ASIC (Special Application Integrated Circuit). Due to the specificity of ASICs, specially designed ASICs can usually have much higher hashrate than general CPUs, GPUs, and even FPGAs — that makes hashrate excessively centralized and makes it vulnerable to the monopoly of single centralized institutions. Yet the cryptonight algorithm used by Monero allows most CPUs and even FPGAs to get involved and get mining rewards, instead of making GPU the only one that can efficiently mine. In other words, Monero’s core development team will modify the consensus mechanism algorithm and have a hard fork after some time to ensure its strength against ASIC and the monopoly of hashrate. However, although Monero has been designed against ASICs to avoid centralization, nearly 43% of its hashrate is still owned by 3 mining pools; in addition, it is not a BTC-based currency, making it even harder to introduce some elements. Of course, Monero is not that newbie-friendly, and thus has not been widely accepted. Yet each cryptocurrency has its own features. As long as Monero keeps improving its privacy, it will definitely attract increasing followers. If you are interested in Monero, welcome to CoinEx for exchange or trade.
As a global and professional cryptocurrency exchange service provider, CoinEx was founded in December 2017 with Bitmain-led investment and has obtained a legal license in Estonia. It is a subsidiary brand of the ViaBTC Group, which owns the fifth largest BTC mining pool, which is also the largest of BCH mining, in the world. CoinEx supports perpetual contract, spot, margin trading and other derivatives trading, and its service reaches global users in nearly 100 countries/regions with various languages available, such as Chinese, English, Korean and Russian. Website:https://www.coinex.com/ Twitter:https://twitter.com/coinexcom Telegram:https://t.me/CoinExOfficialENG Click hereto register on CoinEx!
Hello! I'm trying to get a (remarkably unorthodox) multi-GPU setup working with my system. In short, I'm trying to pair an Nvidia GTX 1050ti and a Quadra FX580 on the same Windows 10 system. My motherboard is a Gigabyte GA-A320M-S2H. The 1050ti is installed in the PCiE x16 slot, and the Quadro FX580 is installed in one of the PCiE 1x slots via a 1x -> 16x riser card(typically used by bitcoin miners). Windows 10 recognizes both devices in the device manager. Yes, I understand the bottlenecks, warnings, and otherwise ridiculous nature of this setup, but I just needs it for additional monitor outputs. Buying a completely new 10-series GPU or new motherboard is out of the budget(already had the Quadro FX580 on hand), and USB-based video cards are too unreliable and underperforming for what we're after. This is what we've tried so far and the results we've gotten:
With no modifications (1050ti in x16, FX580 on riser), the system defaults to the 1050ti and shows no output on the FX580.
With the 1050ti in the riser and the FX580 in the x16 slot, the FX580 shows no output and the 1050ti works without a hitch.
With ONLY the FX580 in the riser OR the x16 slot, the system works without a hitch again; the FX580 works fine.
Booting into an Ubuntu installer shows BOTH GPUs working simultaneously regardless of their slot. This highlights that it isn't a hardware problem, but likely a driver one with Windows.
Here's where things get interesting. Booting into Linux, both GPUs work with no issues, right off the bat. Booting into Windows 10 safe mode and running DDU (followed by a reboot back into safe mode) enables both GPUs, and they both work. Which suggests that Windows 10 is definitely capable of operating in this configuration. However, attempting to install either driver for either card (or even just letting Windows do so on its own) breaks the FX580 and enables only the 1050 ti, giving a "Code 43" for the FX580 in device manager. I'm completely perplexed. Drivers for the FX580 aren't important, as it's just for additional screen real estate, though being able to run the latest drivers for the 1050ti would be nice for best game performance. Is there a way to "lock" the working Microsoft Basics Display Driver to the FX580, keeping it in a working state and allowing the 1050ti to be updated? My friend did this successfully with his personal system with a 1080ti and an old ATI card and it was plug-and-play; both cards worked great and there were no driver issues, so I'm completely stumped as to why this configuration is giving me so much trouble(He is stumped on this problem as well) Any insight or help would be greatly appreciated!
Questions and Answers from OKEx AMA with Tron Black - 2/18/2020
https://twitter.com/OKEx/status/1228212766126661633 The AMA was a huge success! THANK YOU TRON! If you want to see all the questions that poured in when they opened the AMA up for questions from the audience, here they are: https://pastebin.com/KVpyXmgu The Telegram admins had to temporarily mute the group because there were so many questions flooding in from so many people. A *good problem* to have. :) Below are all the ANSWERED questions. ------------------------------------------------------------------- [email protected], [18.02.20 05:09] Here’s question#1:What is your background and how did you come to the idea to create RVN [email protected] Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:12] Sorry, I was locked out for minute. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:12] I'm just a tiny part of Ravencoin, and there are some amazing developers (Jeremy, Mark, Cade, and Corbin) that have been brought the new capabilities to mainnet. The core idea of bringing assets to a bitcoin-derived blockchain platform came from Bruce Fenton, a former Executive Director of the Bitcoin Foundation with life-long experience in the traditional finance and stockbroker world. Medici Ventures is allowing some of its developers to contribute to the project. I was fortunate enough to have the right background to help with this project. I have a CS degree, C++ coding skills, economics background, early entrepreneurial success, teaching experience, an MBA, and a burning passion for the crypto-space and how it can change the world for the better. [email protected], [18.02.20 05:12] Thanks. Here's question#2: Why did you name the project Raven? What was Raven created to solve? What is the business model of the project? Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:12] The name came from Bruce Fenton. Ravens are clever birds with a rich history. Ravencoin makes it easy to create and transfer your own asset. There isn’t a business model for the project. It is a gift to the world in the spirit of Bitcoin. Medici Ventures has allowed some of its top developers to contribute time and effort to the project. Medici Ventures does hold some mined RVN, so it may be a win-win. [email protected], [18.02.20 05:14] Thank you for answering. Let's move on to the next question# 3. What are the $RVN tokens used for? What gives it value? Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:15] Thank you for asking. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:15] The RVN tokens are used to purchase your own token on the Ravencoin platform. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:16] Those RVN are burned. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:16] RVN is also used to incentivize the miners to secure the chain. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:16] RVN is also used for transaction fees for tranferring RVN or user-created (your) assets. [email protected], [18.02.20 05:17] Cool. Here's question# 4:In your opinion what is the unique "selling" point, or best feature, of Ravencoin? Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:17] This is like being asked "who is your favorite child." Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:18] Except answering it doesn't cost children thousands in therapy so I'll give it a shot. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:18] The best feature of Ravencoin, with the most unexpected results, has been its linkage to IPFS. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:19] This was originally done to ensure that meta-dat about a token doesn't get lost like it has on other platforms like Counterparty. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:19] The linkage to IPFS has RECENTLY been extended to include messaging, and memos. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:20] You can now include information, even a PDF, or a video clip with every transaction. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:20] This is powerful, and I can't wait to see how it gets used. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:20] -------------------- [email protected], [18.02.20 05:20] Quesiton#5 What are the advantages of using Ravencoin for assets tokenization compared to other blockchain protocols? Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:21] Wow. Where do I start? Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:21] First, the meta-data about the token can be recorded via IPFS, so everyone knows what the token represents. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:22] Second, the token has a unique name which can help with preventing fake tokens, and allows humang readable "root-of-trust" for the token that isn't just 40 characters of hex (ERC-20). Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:22] There explorers for assets, like: https://ravencoin.asset-explorer.com Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:23] and https://www.mangofarmassets.com/assetviewer Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:23] Wallets like RVN Wallet, MangoFarms Wallet, and Zelcore wallet support Ravencoin assets. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:23] -------------- [email protected], [18.02.20 05:23] Here's our next question from Twitter# 6: Does being fully community-driven blockchain have its own drawbacks for rvn? You know, voluntarism means no marketing or legal team. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:24] Yes, oh yes. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:24] But the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. [email protected], [18.02.20 05:24] [ Photo ] 📣Group is Off Commenting for a while due to AMA. Will allow back when Q&A session later. Kindly be Patience with us. Thank You🥰 Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:24] It is just technology that people choose to use. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:24] Ravencoin has attracted the right kinds of people, including donated legal help when it was needed. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:25] The lack of a marketing budget does slow the awareness. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:25] In some ways this is good, and the demand for RVN isn't reliant on promotion. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:25] As other projects stop promotion, or run out of marketing funds, they are at risk. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:26] Ravencoin is just growing slowly and steadily as more people learn about it. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:26] Consider yourself fortunate to have learned about Ravencoin early.😁 Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:26] --------------- [email protected], [18.02.20 05:27] Great!!! Here's the next question from Twitter# 7:is it apple to apple if I say that ravencoin is going to disrupt wall street just like bitcoin is disrupting to central banking? Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:28] At the very least, Ravencoin will help show the way that tokenization can improve capital formation. It is up to others to take advantage of these new tools, technologies, and features. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:28] It might happen first in countries other than the U.S. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:29] Look at the story of Blockbuster Video (former leader in video rental), and Netflix (current video streaming leader) to see what might happen in the future. Is Wall Street the new Blockbuster Video? Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:30] I see similar patterns of arrogance, but only time will tell. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:30] --------------- [email protected], [18.02.20 05:30] Here's the next question# 8: How will Ravencoin defend hashrate distribution (algo question) if there are important securities issued on this platform (double spend attack)? Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:31] Ravencoin doesn't re-org after 60 blocks which helps prevent double-spend attacks -- a feature called NLR. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:31] Also, something to be aware of is that in most cases tokens are redeemed by an issuer which removes the incentive to double-spend. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:32] Example: Let's say the token is a share of real-estate. The laws of the jurisdiction for the real-estate would apply when redeeming for dividends, etc. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:33] Also If the issuer is using the Restricted Assets feature of Ravencoin which have tokens that start with $, then the stolen tokens can be frozen. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:33] Note: Regular assets (not starting with $) can't be frozen. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:33] The issuer of the token should specify how redemption is handled. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:33] -------------- [email protected], [18.02.20 05:34] Thank you for your detailed answer. and Quesiton#9 How does RVN works? What problem did RVN solve? How do the Tokenomics work? Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:34] RVN works like BTC, because it is a code fork of BTC. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:34] RVN lets you create your own tokens in under a minute. It is easy!!! Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:34] RVN is required to create your own token. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:35] Heres' the breakdown: Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:35] 500 RVN burned to create a root asset with a unique name. 100 RVN is burned to create a sub-asset (under a root asset). 5 RVN is burned to create a unique asset (NFT). 1000 RVN burned to be a qualifier. 1500 RVN burned to create a Restricted Asset with special superpowers. 0.1 RVN burned to attach a tag to a Ravencoin address. A small amount of RVN is used, but not burned to transfer assets. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:35] ------------ [email protected], [18.02.20 05:35] Let's move on to the next question#10 Safety and security are always the most important things. So what is the security mechanism of RavenCoin to ensure user assets do not become the target of hackers? Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:36] Ravencoin has a strong network of miners. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:36] Most of the original code is from Bitcoin which is probably the most vetted code in the world. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:36] We have run a bug bounty to hopefully find any flaws before release to mainnet. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:36] With all that said, there are no guarantees as this is just source code provided for free that folks choose to run. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:37] If you need absolute assurance, then you should commission an audit of the code. There is no Ravencoin company, just a GitHub repository and a lot of passionate supporters. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:37] ------------- [email protected], [18.02.20 05:37] Quesiton#11 Nowaday most investors $RVN simply focus on the price of the token in the short term, and not on the real value of the project. Can you tell us about the motivation and advantages of an investor $RVN in the long term? Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:38] I can't speak to the motivations of individual investors. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:38] RVN is a great token with good liquidity (world-wide). Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:38] RVN is used to incentivize the miners and help protect the Ravencoin asset platform, so it has a use case. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:39] RVN can be a store-of-value, and a medium-of-exchange. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:39] One of my favorite things about Ravencoin is that it is tricky to classify, as it has so many uses. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:39] I love seeing how people build using this technology platform. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:39] Ravencoin makes new things possible. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:39] -------------- [email protected], [18.02.20 05:40] Here's the next question #12 Who are your competitors and how do you intend to thrive amongst them? Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:40] This may sound strange, but I don't see crypto technologies as competitors. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:41] The crypto space is tiny compared to the legacy systems we've had for fifty years, so I look at every project as a way to bring new people into crypto-ecosystem. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:41] If we add value, features, and capabilities, then more people will learn about the Ravencoin platform and what it can do for them. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:41] The ERC-20 smart contract is an alternative asset issuance option, but Ravencoin is much better for most uses, so more education is needed. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:41] https://medium.com/@tronblack/ravencoin-better-than-erc-20-88a276d3e434 Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:41] -------------- [email protected], [18.02.20 05:42] Quesiton#13 What is the uniqueness of the Raven token? Why should investors (including me) invest in Raven? Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:42] Ravencoin is a platform. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:42] You should evaluate the capabilities of the Ravencoin platform and ask yourself whether it will be used, and whether it adds value over other platforms like ETH, EOS, or TEZOS. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:42] Hint: It does. I try not to provide investment advice, so do your own research. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:43] https://ravencoin.org Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:43] https://medium.com/@tronblack Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:43] --------------- [email protected], [18.02.20 05:43] Quesiton#14 What your plans in place for global expansion, are you focusing on only market at this time? Or focus on building and developing or getting customers and users, or partnerships? Can you explain this? Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:43] Ravencoin is already a global phenomenon. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:44] South Korea has been onto Ravencoin for some time now, and I had the opportunity to speak at a South Korean Ravencoin meetup that filled an Art Hall with a waiting list. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:44] Because of OKEx, that awareness will expand to China. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:44] Our focus is building and education about Ravencoin. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:44] There is no marketing budget, and we raised no funds. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:45] The success so far has been completely organic, and Ravencoin has the best community of any coin, anywhere. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:45] ------------ [email protected], [18.02.20 05:45] Here is THE LAST question#10 from Twitter before we accept questions from the Telegram chat. what are your hopes with the $RVN listing on u/OKEx Okex going forward? Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:45] I hope the OKEx $RVN listing brings awareness of Ravencoin to new parts of the world. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:46] The project is more capable than most people know, and because it was launched without raising any funds, there isn't a marketing budget. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:46] It is up to smart individuals, like yourselves, to figure out what Ravencoin can do, and use the technology to make new companies and new projects. Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:46] ------------------ +++++++++++++++++++++ Tron Black, [18.02.20 05:57] >>> When is mainnet launch? January 3, 2018 Tron Black, [18.02.20 06:01] >>> A project's Technical development may not always be reflected on the price of it's token. What is raven doing specifically to increase price of its token? I agree. And I think it is especially true in the case of Ravencoin. The true value may not be reflected in the short-term. The Ravencoin project isn't a company. It will take time. There isn't a marketing dept or budget, but through events like these, and podcasts, and blogs, and new projects building on top of Ravencoin, I think the value will eventually be reflected. Tron Black, [18.02.20 06:06] >>>> Give me some important reasons why we need to buy RVN token where in fact hundreds of project failed and it went to bankruptcy or even developers run when they collect millions/billions of funds…? Can you explain it to us Many got burned during the crazy ICO phase of 2017. Ravencoin did not participate. Ravencoin is technology and a passionate community. If I get hit by a bus tomorrow (heaven forbid), the project will continue because it is free, open-source and anyone can carry it on, or contribute, or use it, or copy it. Ravencoin can't go to bankruptcy. It is code, and it doesn't borrow, or or have debt. Some of the core develoepers, myself included, are allowed to work on the project while working for Medici Ventures. This is a great arrangement. Tron Black, [18.02.20 06:06] ----------------- Tron Black, [18.02.20 06:10] >>>> How does RAVENCOIN evaluate the importance of the user community? In the near future, does RAVEN have any special plans to attract and expand the community ? The Ravencoin community is the most important and valuable part of the project. There are already clones of the code, but not of the passionate, helpful, and dedicated community. We invite you to become a part of it, and help expand it in Asia. Tron Black, [18.02.20 06:10] -------------------- Tron Black, [18.02.20 06:13] >>>>. RVN is regulatory compliant project for assets tokenization in U.S. Meaning that the assets issued in RVN protocol is fine with the U.S authorities. Ravencoin provides features that help U.S. issuers stay legal under the existing U.S. rules. I've written about how this can be done, but I would always recommend having your plans reviewed by a competent attorney. The U.S. rules are complex, and from a different era. Tron Black, [18.02.20 06:13] --------------- Tron Black, [18.02.20 06:18] >>>> Ravencoin is constantly finding new big partners.Audience is constantly growing.What’s the secret to this growth rate? A vibrant, and welcoming community. Technology that solves real tokenization problems. Easy-to-use, so anyone can participate. Not launching as an ICO, so it is fair for everyone. Tron Black, [18.02.20 06:18] -------------- Tron Black, [18.02.20 06:20] Thank you everyone for the fantastic questions. I would like to answer every one of them, but it is after 4am and I should get some sleep. I really appreciate all the participation, and I hope your trading on OKEx goes very well for all of you!!!
The total computing power now dedicated to securing the bitcoin blockchain has set yet another record.
According to data from mining services operator BTC.com, the average bitcoin mining hash rate over the last two weeks has reached 71.43 quintillion hashes per second (EH/s), up from 64.49EH/s on July 23. The threshold was breached as bitcoin adjusted its mining difficulty at block height 586,672 on Monday 2:52 UTC – that is a 6.94EH/s, or 10.78 percent jump since mid July. Bitcoin mining difficulty is a measure of how hard it is to compete for mining rewards on bitcoin. Just how difficult the bitcoin software makes it to generate new blocks adjusts every 2,016 blocks – approximately every 14 days – to ensure the block production time remains about 10 minutes at the next cycle. Assume this additional 6.9EH/s (or 6.9 million tera hashes per second, TH/s) computing power has all come from powerful ASIC miners, such as Bitmain’s AntMiner S17 or MicroBT’s WhatsMiner M20S, both of which boast a mining rate of around 55TH/s and recently hit the market. That means more than 100,000 top-of-line ASIC miners could have been switched on within the past two weeks. Further, given these products have been sold for at least $2,000 each, this equates to some $200 million in revenue pocketed for major miner makers. The continued interest in bitcoin mining comes at a time when the cryptocurrency’s price appears to be en route to challenging all-time highs, however distantly, and amid the arrival of the rainy season in China, which leads to cheaper hydropower electricity costs in the country’s southwest provinces – a region that is reported to account for 50 percent of the global mining activity, Miners in China estimated earlier this year that bitcoin’s hash rate in the summer would break the level of 70EH/s. To be clear, at several single points of time, bitcoin’s hash rate had already crossed that level in June and even reached 80EH/s around Aug. 1. However, today marks the first time that the two-week average computing power has been able to remain above the 70EH/s threshold. As such, bitcoin’s mining difficulty has also set a new record of nearly 10 trillion.
Amidst this uptick in mining interest, there have been notable changes in the mining market, where top manufacturers are racing to produce more powerful equipment. For instance, in Bitmain’s 2018 initial public offering prospectus, the Beijing-based mining giant claimed it had a 70 percent market dominance. Now, it may be facing serious competition from rival players that some believe are capable of shipping more top-of-line products with better profitability. Michael Zhong, a former mining analyst who now operates mining farms at a startup called Force Mine, told CoinDesk that based on his experience, the production capacity ranking among major Chinese miner makers for their flagship products have changed over the years. Zhong explained that from 2017 to 2018, Bitmain had topped the list with its AntMiner S9 series miners, followed by Canaan’s Avalon 8 series machines. InnoSilicon, Ebang and former Bitmain design director’s MicroBT were all in the third position at the time. But from January to June this year, the delivery capacity ranking has reshuffled, with now MicroBT’s WhatsMiner M20 series at the top, followed by Bitmain’s S17 series miners and then InnoSilicon, Canaan, and Ebang, Zhong added. According to F2pool’s miner profit tracker, Bitmain’s flagship AntMiner S17 Pro ranks third in terms of mining profitability, following BitFury’s Tardis and MicroBT’s WhatsMiner M20S. The cost for WhatsMiner M20S is around $3,000, while that of AntMiner S17 Pro is around $4,000 each, based on the information advertised on the two firms’ websites. Although orders for these flagship machines have queued up until November and December this year, MicroBT’s founder Zuoxing Yang told CoinDesk previously that the bottleneck of production capacity is the availability of chips from suppliers. For example, MicroBT uses 10-nm chips for its M20 series, which are relatively more affordable with a higher level of availability compared to more advanced 7-nm chips used by Bitmain for its AntMiner S17 series equipment. While Bitmain has always been relying on chips supplied by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), MicroBT has switched from TSMC to Samsung earlier this year for its flagship products. Both TSMC and Samsung have estimated in their most recent Q2 earnings calls that the demand for cryptocurrency mining chips will come back in the third and the fourth quarter this year. Operating miners image courtesy to Hashage https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-computing-power-sets-new-record-as-over-100k-miners-go-online?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=coindesk&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=Organic%20
I interlaced everything between Vitalik and Tuur to make it easier to read.
1/ People often ask me why I’m so “against” Ethereum. Why do I go out of my way to point out flaws or make analogies that put it in a bad light?
2/ First, ETH’s architecture & culture is opposite that of Bitcoin, and yet claims to offer same solutions: decentralization, immutability, SoV, asset issuance, smart contracts, … Second, ETH is considered a crypto ‘blue chip’, thus colors perception of uninformed newcomers.
Agree! I personally find Ethereum culture far saner, though I am a bit biased :)
3/ I've followed Ethereum since 2014 & feel a responsibility to share my concerns. IMO contrary to its marketing, ETH is at best a science experiment. It’s now valued at $13B, which I think is still too high.
Not an argument
4/ I agree with Ethereum developer Vlad Zamfir that it’s not money, not safe, and not scalable. https://twitter.com/VladZamfistatus/838006311598030848 … @VladZamfir Eth isn't money, so there is no monetary policy. There is currently fixed block issuance with an exponential difficulty increase (the bomb).
I'm pretty sure Vlad would say the exact same thing about Bitcoin
5/ To me the first red flag came up when in our weekly hangout we asked the ETH founders about to how they were going to scale the network. (We’re now 4.5 years later, and sharding is still a pipe dream.)
The core principles have been known for years, the core design for nearly a year, and details for months, with implementations on the way. So sharding is definitely not at the pipe dream stage at this point.
6/ Despite strong optimism that on-chain scaling of Ethereum was around the corner (just another engineering job), this promise hasn’t been delivered on to date.
Sure, sharding is not yet finished. Though more incremental stuff has been going well, eg. uncle rates are at near record lows despite very high chain usage.
7/ Recently, a team of reputable developers decided to peer review a widely anticipated Casper / sharding white paper, concluding that it does not live up to its own claims.
Unmerciful peer review of Vlad Zamfir & co's white paper to scale Ethereum: "the authors do NOT prove that the CBC Casper family of protocols is Byzantine fault tolerant in either practice or theory".
8/ On the 2nd layer front, devs are now trying to scale Ethereum via scale via state channels (ETH’s version of Lightning), but it is unclear whether main-chain issued ERC20 type tokens will be portable to this environment.
Umm... you can definitely use Raiden with arbitrary ERC20s. That's why the interface currently uses WETH (the ERC20-fied version of ether) and not ETH
9/ Compare this to how the Bitcoin Lightning Network project evolved:
elizabeth stark @starkness: For lnd: First public code released: January 2016 Alpha: January 2017 Beta: March 2018…
10/ Bitcoin’s Lightning Network is now live, and is growing at rapid clip.
Jameson Lopp @lopp: Lightning Network: January 2018 vs December 2018
Sure, though as far as I understand there's still a low probability of finding routes for nontrivial amounts, and there's capital lockup griefing vectors, and privacy issues.... FWIW I personally never thought lightning is unworkable, it's just a design that inherently runs into ten thousand small issues that will likely take a very long time to get past.
11/ In 2017, more Ethereum scaling buzz was created, this time the panacea was “Plasma”.
12/ However, upon closer examination it was the recycling of some stale ideas, and the project went nowhere:
Peter Todd @peterktodd These ideas were all considered in the Treechains design process, and ultimately rejected as insecure.
Just because Peter Todd rejected something as "insecure" doesn't mean that it is. In general, the ethereum research community is quite convinced that the fundamental Plasma design is fine, and as far as I understand there are formal proofs on the way. The only insecurity that can't be avoided is mass exit vulns, and channel-based systems have those too.
13/ The elephant in the room is the transition to proof-of-stake, an “environmentally friendly” way to secure the chain. (If this was the plan all along, why create a proof-of-work chain first?)
@TuurDemeester "Changing from proof of work to proof of stake changes the economics of the system, all the rules change and it will impact everything."
Umm... we created a proof of work chain first because we did not have a satisfactory proof of stake algo initially?
14/ For the uninitiated, here’s a good write-up that highlights some of the fundamental design problems of proof-of-stake. Like I said, this is science experiment territory.
Yes, we know about weak subjectivity, see https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity/. It's really not that bad, especially given that users need to update their clients once in a while anyway, oh and by the way even if the weak subjectivity assumption is broken an attacker still needs to gather up that pile of old keys making up 51% of the stake. And also to defend against that there's Universal Hash Time.
16/ Keep in mind that Proof of Stake (PoS) is not a new concept at all. Proof-of-Work actually was one of the big innovations that made Bitcoin possible, after PoS was deemed impractical because of censorship vulnerability.
Oh I definitely agree that proof of work was superior for bootstrap, and I liked it back then especially because it actually managed to be reasonably egalitarian around 2009-2012 before ASICs fully took over. But at the present time it doesn't really have that nice attribute.
17/ Over the years, this has become a pattern in Ethereum’s culture: recycling old ideas while not properly referring to past research and having poor peer review standards. This is not how science progresses.Tuur Demeester added,
I try to credit people whenever I can; half my blog and ethresear.ch posts have a "special thanks" section right at the top. Sometimes we end up re-inventing stuff, and sometimes we end up hearing about stuff, forgetting it, and later re-inventing it; that's life as an autodidact. And if you feel you've been unfairly not credited for something, always feel free to comment, people have done this and I've edited.
18/ One of my big concerns is that sophistry and marketing hype is a serious part of Ethereum’s success so far, and that overly inflated expectations have lead to an inflated market cap.
Ok, go on.
19/ Let’s illustrate with an example.
20/ A few days ago, I shared a critical tweet that made the argument that Ethereum’s value proposition is in essence utopian.
@TuurDemeester Ethereum-ism sounds a bit like Marxism to me:
What works today (PoW) is 'just a phase', the ideal & unproven future is to come: Proof-of-Stake.…
22/ My first point, about Ethereum developers rejecting Proof-of-Work, has been illustrated many times over By Vitalik and others. (See earlier in this tweetstorm for more about how PoS is unproven.)
Vitalik Non-giver of Ether @VitalikButerin: I don't believe in proof of work!
See above for links as to why I think proof of stake is great.
23/ My second point addresses Ethereum’s romance with the vague and dangerous notion of ‘social consensus’, where disruptive hard-forks are used to ‘upgrade’ or ‘optimize’ the system, which inevitably leads to increased centralization. More here:
See my rebuttal to Tuur's rebuttal :)
24/ My third point addresses PoS’ promise of perpetual income to ETHizens. Vitalik is no stranger to embracing free lunch ideas, e.g. during his 2014 ETH announcement speech, where he described a coin with a 20% inflation tax as having “no cost” to users.
Yeah, I haven't really emphasized perpetual income to stakers as a selling point in years. I actually favor rewards being as low as possible while still being high enough for security.
25/ In his response to my tweet, Vitalik adopted my format to “play the same game” in criticizing Bitcoin. My criticisms weren't addressed, and his response was riddled with errors. Yet his followers gave it +1,000 upvotes!
Vitalik Non-giver of Ether @VitalikButerin: - What works today (L1) is just a phase, ideal and unproven future (usable L2) is to come - Utopian concept of progress: we're already so confident we're finished we ain't needin no hard forks…
Ok, let's hear about what the errors are...
26/ Rebuttal: - BTC layer 1 is not “just a phase”, it always will be its definitive bedrock for transaction settlement. - Soft forking digital protocols has been the norm for over 3 decades—hard-forks are the deviation! - Satoshi never suggested hyperbitcoinization as a goal.
Sure, but (i) the use of layer 1 for consumer payments is definitely, in bitcoin ideology, "just a phase", (ii) I don't think you can make analogies between consensus protocols and other kinds of protocols, and between soft forking consensus protocols and protocol changes in other protocols, that easily, (iii) plenty of people do believe that hyperbitcoinization as a goal. Oh by the way: https://twitter.com/tuurdemeestestatus/545993119599460353
27/ This kind of sophistry is exhausting and completely counter-productive, but it can be very convincing for an uninformed retail public.
Ok, go on.
28/ Let me share a few more inconvenient truths.
29/ In order to “guarantee” the transition to PoS’ utopia of perpetual income (staking coins earns interest), a “difficulty bomb” was embedded in the protocol, which supposedly would force miners to accept the transition.
The intended goal of the difficulty bomb was to prevent the protocol from ossifying, by ensuring that it has to hard fork eventually to reset the difficulty bomb, at which point the status quo bias in favor of not changing other protocol rules at the same time would be weaker. Though forcing a switch to PoS was definitely a key goal.
30/ Of course, nothing came of this, because anything in the ETH protocol can be hard-forked away. Another broken promise.
33/ The modular approach to Bitcoin seems to be much better at compartmentalizing risk, and thus reducing attack surfaces. I’ve written about modular scaling here...
To be fair, risk is reduced because Bitcoin does less.
34/ Another huge issue that Ethereum has is with scaling. By putting “everything on the blockchain” (which stores everything forever) and dubbing it “the world computer”, you are going to end up with a very slow and clogged up system.
We never advocated "putting everything on the blockchain". The phrase "world computer" was never meant to be interpreted as "everyone's personal desktop", but rather as a common platform specifically for the parts of applications that require consensus on shared state. As evidence of this, notice how Whisper and Swarm were part of the vision as complements to Ethereum right from the start.
35/ By now the Ethereum bloat is so bad that cheaply running an individual node is practically impossible for a lay person. ETH developers are also imploring people to not deploy more smart contract apps on its blockchain.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: But... deploying d-apps on the "Ethereum Virtual Machine" is exactly what everyone was encouraged to do for the past 4 years. Looks like on-chain scaling wasn't such a great idea after all.
Umm.... I just spun up a node from scratch last week. On a consumer laptop.
36/ As a result, and despite the claims that running a node in “warp” mode is easy and as good as a full node, Ethereum is becoming increasingly centralized.
37/ Another hollow claim: in 2016, Ethereum was promoted as being censorship resistant…
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Pre TheDAO #Ethereum presentation: "uncensorable, code is law, bottom up". http://ow.ly/qW49302Pp92
Yes, the DAO fork did violate the notion of absolute immutability. However, the "forking the DAO will lead to doom and gloom" crowd was very wrong in one key way: it did NOT work as a precedent justifying all sorts of further state interventions. The community clearly drew a line in the sand by firmly rejecting EIP 867, and EIP 999 seems to now also be going nowhere. So it seems like there's some evidence that the social contract of "moderately but not infinitely strong immutability" actually can be stable.
38/ Yet later that year, after only 6% of ETH holders had cast a vote, ETH core devs decided to endorse a hard-fork that clawed back the funds from a smart contract that held 4.5% of all ETH in circulation. More here: ...
Hudson Jameson @hudsonjameson: The "semi-closed" Ethereum 1.x meeting from last Friday was an experiment. The All Core Dev meeting this Friday will be recorded as usual.
Suppose I were to tomorrow sign up to work directly for Kim Jong Un. What concretely would happen to the Ethereum protocol? I suspect very little; I am mostly involved in the Serenity work, and the other researchers have proven very capable of both pushing the spec forward even without me and catching any mistakes with my work. So I don't think any argument involving me applies. And we ended up deciding not to do more semi-closed meetings.
40/ Another red flag to me is the apparent lack of relevant expertise in the ETH development community. (Check the responses…)
I personally am confident in the talents of our core researchers, and our community of academic partners. Most recently the latter group includes people from Starkware, Stanford CBR, IC3, and other groups.
I have no idea who described Lucius Meredith's work as being important for the Serenity roadmap.... oh and by the way, RChain is NOT an "Ethereum scaling company"
42/ Perhaps the recently added Gandalf of Ethereum, with his “Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians” [sic] can save the day, but imo that seems unlikely...
Honestly, I don't see why Ethereum Gandalf needs to save the day, because I don't see what is in danger and needs to be saved...
43/ This is becoming a long tweetstorm, so let’s wrap up with a few closing comments.
44/ Do I have a conflict of interest? ETH is a publicly available asset with no real barriers to entry, so I could easily get a stake. Also, having met Vitalik & other ETH founders several times in 2013-’14, it would have been doable for me to become part of the in-crowd.
Agree there. And BTW I generally think financial conflicts of interest are somewhat overrated; social conflicts/tribal biases are the bigger problem much of the time. Though those two kinds of misalignments do frequently overlap and reinforce each other so they're difficult to fully disentangle.
45/ Actually, I was initially excited about Ethereum’s smart contract work - this was before one of its many pivots.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Ethereum is probably the first programming language I will teach myself - who wouldn't want the ability to program smart BTC contracts?
Ethereum was never about "smart BTC contracts"..... even "Ethereum as a Mastercoin-style meta-protocol" was intended to be built on top of Primecoin.
46/ Also, I have done my share of soul searching about whether I could be suffering from survivor’s bias.
47/ Here’s why Ethereum is dubious to me: rather than creating an open source project & testnet to work on these interesting computer science problems, its founders instead did a securities offering, involving many thousands of clueless retail investors.
48/ Investing in the Ethereum ICO was akin to buying shares in a startup that had “invent time travel” as part of its business plan. Imo it was a reckless security offering, and it set the tone for the terrible capital misallocation of the 2017 ICO boom.
Nothing in the ethereum roadmap requires time-travel-like technical advancements or anything remotely close to that. Proof: we basically have all the fundamental technical advancements we need at this point.
49/ In my view, Ethereum is the Yahoo of our day - an unscalable “blue chip” cryptocurrency:
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: 1/ The DotCom bubble shows that the market isn't very good at valuing early stage technology. I'll use Google vs. Yahoo to illustrate.
Blockstream investor emails leaked - shows Blockstream motivation to steal transaction fees from miners and pay to Liquid sidechain customers
A little birdie leaked multiple Blockstream investor emails to me. I will not be revealing my source so do not ask. As we are all well aware many Blockstream investors are upset with the way Blockstream has been squandering away their venture capital. I am taking snippets from the leaked emails and publishing them here. Any Blockstreamer that wants to confirm or deny the leaked email snippets is more than welcome to but I highly doubt they will and will more than likely deny these exist. It's easy to tell who wrote the emails from their obvious writing style. Also just think who is the main public facing exec at Blockstream and you know will know who. It's very easy to tell :D
Here is the first leaked email to investors which covers Q1 2017. Some interesting snippets with bolded areas by me to show important statements and claims being made by Blockstream.
Dear Blockstream Investor! A lot of exciting things have happened since our last update and we are preparing several public announcements over the coming weeks. Below is an update on our progress: Community Update As background on the Bitcoin ecosystem, although none of Blockstream’s business plans are conditional on activation of Segregated Witness (“SegWit”), the “SegWit versus Bitcoin Unlimited” story remains a major conversation topic in the Bitcoin community. We agree with the overwhelming majority of technical leaders in the ecosystem who state that SegWit is not only the safer way to increase transaction capacity in the short-term, but it also includes other protocol improvements that will enable a significant amount of future innovation. There are some suggestions that the miners’ delays in activation of SegWit are economically motivated rather than technical in nature -- delays allow miners to collect artificially high fees from the strong demand for Bitcoin transactions in the short-term, and the assumption is that fees would decrease with the activation of SegWit and layer2 retail and micropayment applications, such as Lightning, which compete for fees. (Lightning fees are paid to peer-to-peer liquidity providers, and not miners). Market Update On March 10th, the bitcoin-based ETF proposed by Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss was rejected by the SEC. The decision was based on several factors, including concerns about the fact that bitcoin exchanges are largely unregulated, affecting the quality of the price data used to support the ETF. Reaction to the decision was mixed; however our view is that this is only a temporary blip in bitcoin’s progress. (More in this article, which includes Adam’s thoughts on the ruling.) There are other bitcoin ETF’s awaiting an SEC decision, and it is likely that new applications will be filed in the future. Many of the SEC concerns are addressed by Blockstream products and technologies, so future approval of a bitcoin ETF may be more realistic than the specific reasoning provided in the SEC decision would suggest. In late February, the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance was announced, with large partners including Microsoft, Accenture, JP Morgan Chase, as well as other large companies and Blockchain startups. The alliance, which resembles organizations like R3 and Hyperledger, will attempt to address some of the problems encountered by businesses that want to use Ethereum for a number of different use cases. We do not view these groups as major threats to our platform because the technology they are developing is very early-stage compared to the Elements platform; however, we are focusing on making our tools easier for developers and engineers to use so that it is easier for members of these industry working groups to use our platform in some of their Proof of Concept projects. Recent Accomplishments Liquid: Next week, we will be inviting participants to join a live Liquid beta network. We will work with customers to integrate the Liquid service with their interface and perform live testing (real transactions but de minimis amounts initially). Once all of our customers are ready, we will launch the production version and begin planning Liquid 2.0. Elements - Code Update: Based on our experience with using our Elements tools to create Liquid, we made significant improvements to our Elements Alpha code and published an update to our open source codebase. Elements - New Release: We are preparing to launch a new version of Elements to add a very valuable feature. Using this new technology, we have been collaborating with a partner who is developing a new product on the Elements platform. Stay tuned for more information about this exciting release. Lightning: We continue to make progress on our Lightning Network implementation. In our last update, we told you about our first end-to-end test of a lightning micropayment network. We also recently participated in a Lightning Network summit with representatives of all major Lightning implementations. At the meeting, significant progress was made on standardizing efforts so that all of the groups are able to collaborate together in order to accelerate development. Company Metrics Current Headcount: 41 Team Members Offices: San Francisco and Mountain View Runway: 5+ years
My comments about the snippets above -
Shows censorship is working by stomping out dissenting points of view to highlight their own
Lying to investors that SegWit is a scaling solution
Lying to investors that miners are holding back SegWit to inflate tx fees when Blockstream is the one artificially creating a fee market with a capped block size of 1MB
Most damning is the admission that with Lightning Network enabled tx fees are paid to liquidity providers (Exchanges!) and fees will be taken away from miners. This shows a clear motivation for Exchanges to use Liquid sidechains in partnership with Blockstream as part of the overall solution to reap in profits using LN.
Runway simply means thats how much investor capital they have left work with. So another 5 yrs!
Here is the second leaked email to investors which covers Q2 2017. Some interesting snippets with bolded areas by me to show important statements and claims being made by Blockstream.
Dear Blockstream Investor, We have had a very busy Q2 and would like to give you an update on everything we have been up to over the past few months. Community Update: Some of our investors may be tracking the Bitcoin ecosystem scaling discussion. To recap, “SegWit” (short for Segregated Witness) upgrades a number of bitcoin features, provides at least a 2x capacity increase, and enables the high-scale Bitcoin Lightning protocol. It appears that SegWit may finally be activated during the next few weeks, after what appears to be mostly political delays. That means that we should shortly see transaction throughput increases and an acceleration of Lightning deployment. Obviously uncertainty over this was of some concern to investors. We remain optimistic that Bitcoin can continue scaling via the adoption of a range of approaches tailored to the usage type -- we will keep you posted. Recent Accomplishments: Consensus 2017: In May, Blockstream sent a number of key team members to the CoinDesk Consensus conference in New York. The event proved to be a very valuable experience for us. We had multiple speaking and panel appearances, and our presentations were very well received by conference attendees. We also invited existing and potential Liquid customers to a live demo of Liquid Beta. The feedback from this demo was very positive and led to follow up press coverage. Several exchanges told us that they had been following our progress with interest, but seeing the value of the product firsthand was very important in their decision to help test the network and potentially become a customer. Liquid: In early April we took Liquid Beta live, and have been working with multiple participants on both test transactions and moving real bitcoins between Liquid and the main Bitcoin blockchain. The feedback we received has been exceptionally helpful, allowing us to reduce the number of steps necessary for network participants to complete a two-way peg in and out of the Liquid sidechain and making it easier for our customers to send bitcoin across the Liquid network. We are pleased with our recent progress on Liquid and looking forward to adding new customers soon. Lightning: With SegWit recently activated on Litecoin, our developer Christian Decker made the first lightning payment in a non-test environment. Confidential Assets: In late April, we announced a new Elements feature – Confidential Assets (CA). CA builds on Confidential Transactions and allows users to put multiple assets on the same blockchain, hiding both the transaction amount and the type of asset. The first group using Confidential Assets in production is our investor and partner Digital Garage, who is including it in a loyalty point marketplace. Company Metrics Current Headcount: 43 Team Members Offices: San Francisco and Mountain View Runway: 5+ years
My comments about the snippets above -
Shows a continual focus on Liquid sidechain for Exchanges to work with Blockstream for fast transactions happening off chain in combination with Lightning Network which will be used to scale off chain taking fees away from miners and putting them in the pockets of Exchanges.
Exchanges are Blockstream's customers who pay for their services. Exchanges win with fees and being a premium service provider. Blockstream wins with paying clients, development work and so on.
Transcript of the community Q&A with Steve Shadders and Daniel Connolly of the Bitcoin SV development team. We talk about the path to big blocks, new opcodes, selfish mining, malleability, and why November will lead to a divergence in consensus rules. (Cont in comments)
We've gone through the painstaking process of transcribing the linked interview with Steve Shadders and Daniell Connolly of the Bitcoin SV team. There is an amazing amount of information in this interview that we feel is important for businesses and miners to hear, so we believe it was important to get this is a written form. To avoid any bias, the transcript is taken almost word for word from the video, with just a few changes made for easier reading. If you see any corrections that need to be made, please let us know. Each question is in bold, and each question and response is timestamped accordingly. You can follow along with the video here: https://youtu.be/tPImTXFb_U8
Connor: 02:19.68,0:02:45.10 Alright so thank You Daniel and Steve for joining us. We're joined by Steve Shadders and Daniel Connolly from nChain and also the lead developers of the Satoshi’s Vision client. So Daniel and Steve do you guys just want to introduce yourselves before we kind of get started here - who are you guys and how did you get started? Steve: 0,0:02:38.83,0:03:30.61
So I'm Steve Shadders and at nChain I am the director of solutions in engineering and specifically for Bitcoin SV I am the technical director of the project which means that I'm a bit less hands-on than Daniel but I handle a lot of the liaison with the miners - that's the conditional project.
Hi I’m Daniel I’m the lead developer for Bitcoin SV. As the team's grown that means that I do less actual coding myself but more organizing the team and organizing what we’re working on.
Connor 03:23.07,0:04:15.98 Great so we took some questions - we asked on Reddit to have people come and post their questions. We tried to take as many of those as we could and eliminate some of the duplicates, so we're gonna kind of go through each question one by one. We added some questions of our own in and we'll try and get through most of these if we can. So I think we just wanted to start out and ask, you know, Bitcoin Cash is a little bit over a year old now. Bitcoin itself is ten years old but in the past a little over a year now what has the process been like for you guys working with the multiple development teams and, you know, why is it important that the Satoshi’s vision client exists today? Steve: 0:04:17.66,0:06:03.46
I mean yes well we’ve been in touch with the developer teams for quite some time - I think a bi-weekly meeting of Bitcoin Cash developers across all implementations started around November last year. I myself joined those in January or February of this year and Daniel a few months later. So we communicate with all of those teams and I think, you know, it's not been without its challenges. It's well known that there's a lot of disagreements around it, but some what I do look forward to in the near future is a day when the consensus issues themselves are all rather settled, and if we get to that point then there's not going to be much reason for the different developer teams to disagree on stuff. They might disagree on non-consensus related stuff but that's not the end of the world because, you know, Bitcoin Unlimited is free to go and implement whatever they want in the back end of a Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin SV is free to do whatever they want in the backend, and if they interoperate on a non-consensus level great. If they don't not such a big problem there will obviously be bridges between the two, so, yeah I think going forward the complications of having so many personalities with wildly different ideas are going to get less and less.
Cory: 0:06:00.59,0:06:19.59 I guess moving forward now another question about the testnet - a lot of people on Reddit have been asking what the testing process for Bitcoin SV has been like, and if you guys plan on releasing any of those results from the testing? Daniel: 0:06:19.59,0:07:55.55
Sure yeah so our release will be concentrated on the stability, right, with the first release of Bitcoin SV and that involved doing a large amount of additional testing particularly not so much at the unit test level but at the more system test so setting up test networks, performing tests, and making sure that the software behaved as we expected, right. Confirming the changes we made, making sure that there aren’t any other side effects. Because of, you know, it was quite a rush to release the first version so we've got our test results documented, but not in a way that we can really release them. We're thinking about doing that but we’re not there yet.
Just to tidy that up - we've spent a lot of our time developing really robust test processes and the reporting is something that we can read on our internal systems easily, but we need to tidy that up to give it out for public release. The priority for us was making sure that the software was safe to use. We've established a test framework that involves a progression of code changes through multiple test environments - I think it's five different test environments before it gets the QA stamp of approval - and as for the question about the testnet, yeah, we've got four of them. We've got Testnet One and Testnet Two. A slightly different numbering scheme to the testnet three that everyone's probably used to – that’s just how we reference them internally. They're [1 and 2] both forks of Testnet Three. [Testnet] One we used for activation testing, so we would test things before and after activation - that one’s set to reset every couple of days. The other one [Testnet Two] was set to post activation so that we can test all of the consensus changes. The third one was a performance test network which I think most people have probably have heard us refer to before as Gigablock Testnet. I get my tongue tied every time I try to say that word so I've started calling it the Performance test network and I think we're planning on having two of those: one that we can just do our own stuff with and experiment without having to worry about external unknown factors going on and having other people joining it and doing stuff that we don't know about that affects our ability to baseline performance tests, but the other one (which I think might still be a work in progress so Daniel might be able to answer that one) is one of them where basically everyone will be able to join and they can try and mess stuff up as bad as they want.
Yeah, so we so we recently shared the details of Testnet One and Two with the with the other BCH developer groups. The Gigablock test network we've shared up with one group so far but yeah we're building it as Steve pointed out to be publicly accessible.
Connor: 0:10:18.88,0:10:44.00 I think that was my next question I saw that you posted on Twitter about the revived Gigablock testnet initiative and so it looked like blocks bigger than 32 megabytes were being mined and propagated there, but maybe the block explorers themselves were coming down - what does that revived Gigablock test initiative look like? Daniel: 0:10:41.62,0:11:58.34
That's what did the Gigablock test network is. So the Gigablock test network was first set up by Bitcoin Unlimited with nChain’s help and they did some great work on that, and we wanted to revive it. So we wanted to bring it back and do some large-scale testing on it. It's a flexible network - at one point we had we had eight different large nodes spread across the globe, sort of mirroring the old one. Right now we scaled back because we're not using it at the moment so they'll notice I think three. We have produced some large blocks there and it's helped us a lot in our research and into the scaling capabilities of Bitcoin SV, so it's guided the work that the team’s been doing for the last month or two on the improvements that we need for scalability.
I think that's actually a good point to kind of frame where our priorities have been in kind of two separate stages. I think, as Daniel mentioned before, because of the time constraints we kept the change set for the October 15 release as minimal as possible - it was just the consensus changes. We didn't do any work on performance at all and we put all our focus and energy into establishing the QA process and making sure that that change was safe and that was a good process for us to go through. It highlighted what we were missing in our team – we got our recruiters very busy recruiting of a Test Manager and more QA people. The second stage after that is performance related work which, as Daniel mentioned, the results of our performance testing fed into what tasks we were gonna start working on for the performance related stuff. Now that work is still in progress - some of the items that we identified the code is done and that's going through the QA process but it’s not quite there yet. That's basically the two-stage process that we've been through so far. We have a roadmap that goes further into the future that outlines more stuff, but primarily it’s been QA first, performance second. The performance enhancements are close and on the horizon but some of that work should be ongoing for quite some time.
Some of the changes we need for the performance are really quite large and really get down into the base level view of the software. There's kind of two groups of them mainly. One that are internal to the software – to Bitcoin SV itself - improving the way it works inside. And then there's other ones that interface it with the outside world. One of those in particular we're working closely with another group to make a compatible change - it's not consensus changing or anything like that - but having the same interface on multiple different implementations will be very helpful right, so we're working closely with them to make improvements for scalability.
Connor: 0:14:32.60,0:15:26.45 Obviously for Bitcoin SV one of the main things that you guys wanted to do that that some of the other developer groups weren't willing to do right now is to increase the maximum default block size to 128 megabytes. I kind of wanted to pick your brains a little bit about - a lot of the objection to either removing the box size entirely or increasing it on a larger scale is this idea of like the infinite block attack right and that kind of came through in a lot of the questions. What are your thoughts on the “infinite block attack” and is it is it something that that really exists, is it something that miners themselves should be more proactive on preventing, or I guess what are your thoughts on that attack that everyone says will happen if you uncap the block size? Steve: 0:15:23.45,0:18:28.56
I'm often quoted on Twitter and Reddit - I've said before the infinite block attack is bullshit. Now, that's a statement that I suppose is easy to take out of context, but I think the 128 MB limit is something where there’s probably two schools of thought about. There are some people who think that you shouldn't increase the limit to 128 MB until the software can handle it, and there are others who think that it's fine to do it now so that the limit is increased when the software can handle it and you don’t run into the limit when this when the software improves and can handle it. Obviously we’re from the latter school of thought. As I said before we've got a bunch of performance increases, performance enhancements, in the pipeline. If we wait till May to increase the block size limit to 128 MB then those performance enhancements will go in, but we won't be able to actually demonstrate it on mainnet. As for the infinitive block attack itself, I mean there are a number of mitigations that you can put in place. I mean firstly, you know, going down to a bit of the tech detail - when you send a block message or send any peer to peer message there's a header which has the size of the message. If someone says they're sending you a 30MB message and you're receiving it and it gets to 33MB then obviously you know something's wrong so you can drop the connection. If someone sends you a message that's 129 MB and you know the block size limit is 128 you know it’s kind of pointless to download that message. So I mean these are just some of the mitigations that you can put in place. When I say the attack is bullshit, I mean I mean it is bullshit from the sense that it's really quite trivial to prevent it from happening. I think there is a bit of a school of thought in the Bitcoin world that if it's not in the software right now then it kind of doesn't exist. I disagree with that, because there are small changes that can be made to work around problems like this. One other aspect of the infinite block attack, and let’s not call it the infinite block attack, let's just call it the large block attack - it takes a lot of time to validate that we gotten around by having parallel pipelines for blocks to come in, so you've got a block that's coming in it's got a unknown stuck on it for two hours or whatever downloading and validating it. At some point another block is going to get mined b someone else and as long as those two blocks aren't stuck in a serial pipeline then you know the problem kind of goes away.
Cory: 0:18:26.55,0:18:48.27 Are there any concerns with the propagation of those larger blocks? Because there's a lot of questions around you know what the practical size of scaling right now Bitcoin SV could do and the concerns around propagating those blocks across the whole network. Steve 0:18:45.84,0:21:37.73
Yes, there have been concerns raised about it. I think what people forget is that compact blocks and xThin exist, so if a 32MB block is not send 32MB of data in most cases, almost all cases. The concern here that I think I do find legitimate is the Great Firewall of China. Very early on in Bitcoin SV we started talking with miners on the other side of the firewall and that was one of their primary concerns. We had anecdotal reports of people who were having trouble getting a stable connection any faster than 200 kilobits per second and even with compact blocks you still need to get the transactions across the firewall. So we've done a lot of research into that - we tested our own links across the firewall, rather CoinGeeks links across the firewall as they’ve given us access to some of their servers so that we can play around, and we were able to get sustained rates of 50 to 90 megabits per second which pushes that problem quite a long way down the road into the future. I don't know the maths off the top of my head, but the size of the blocks that can sustain is pretty large. So we're looking at a couple of options - it may well be the chattiness of the peer-to-peer protocol causes some of these issues with the Great Firewall, so we have someone building a bridge concept/tool where you basically just have one kind of TX vacuum on either side of the firewall that collects them all up and sends them off every one or two seconds as a single big chunk to eliminate some of that chattiness. The other is we're looking at building a multiplexer that will sit and send stuff up to the peer-to-peer network on one side and send it over splitters, to send it over multiple links, reassemble it on the other side so we can sort of transition the great Firewall without too much trouble, but I mean getting back to the core of your question - yes there is a theoretical limit to block size propagation time and that's kind of where Moore's Law comes in. Putting faster links and you kick that can further down the road and you just keep on putting in faster links. I don't think 128 main blocks are going to be an issue though with the speed of the internet that we have nowadays.
Connor: 0:21:34.99,0:22:17.84 One of the other changes that you guys are introducing is increasing the max script size so I think right now it’s going from 201 to 500 [opcodes]. So I guess a few of the questions we got was I guess #1 like why not uncap it entirely - I think you guys said you ran into some concerns while testing that - and then #2 also specifically we had a question about how certain are you that there are no remaining n squared bugs or vulnerabilities left in script execution? Steve: 0:22:15.50,0:25:36.79
It's interesting the decision - we were initially planning on removing that cap altogether and the next cap that comes into play after that (next effective cap is a 10,000 byte limit on the size of the script). We took a more conservative route and decided to wind that back to 500 - it's interesting that we got some criticism for that when the primary criticism I think that was leveled against us was it’s dangerous to increase that limit to unlimited. We did that because we’re being conservative. We did some research into these log n squared bugs, sorry – attacks, that people have referred to. We identified a few of them and we had a hard think about it and thought - look if we can find this many in a short time we can fix them all (the whack-a-mole approach) but it does suggest that there may well be more unknown ones. So we thought about putting, you know, taking the whack-a-mole approach, but that doesn't really give us any certainty. We will fix all of those individually but a more global approach is to make sure that if anyone does discover one of these scripts it doesn't bring the node to a screaming halt, so the problem here is because the Bitcoin node is essentially single-threaded, if you get one of these scripts that locks up the script engine for a long time everything that's behind it in the queue has to stop and wait. So what we wanted to do, and this is something we've got an engineer actively working on right now, is once that script validation goad path is properly paralyzed (parts of it already are), then we’ll basically assign a few threads for well-known transaction templates, and a few threads for any any type of script. So if you get a few scripts that are nasty and lock up a thread for a while that's not going to stop the node from working because you've got these other kind of lanes of the highway that are exclusively reserved for well-known script templates and they'll just keep on passing through. Once you've got that in place, and I think we're in a much better position to get rid of that limit entirely because the worst that's going to happen is your non-standard script pipelines get clogged up but everything else will keep keep ticking along - there are other mitigations for this as well I mean I know you could always put a time limit on script execution if they wanted to, and that would be something that would be up to individual miners. Bitcoin SV's job I think is to provide the tools for the miners and the miners can then choose, you know, how to make use of them - if they want to set time limits on script execution then that's a choice for them.
Yeah, I'd like to point out that a node here, when it receives a transaction through the peer to peer network, it doesn't have to accept that transaction, you can reject it. If it looks suspicious to the node it can just say you know we're not going to deal with that, or if it takes more than five minutes to execute, or more than a minute even, it can just abort and discard that transaction, right. The only time we can’t do that is when it's in a block already, but then it could decide to reject the block as well. It's all possibilities there could be in the software.
Yeah, and if it's in a block already it means someone else was able to validate it so…
Cory: 0,0:26:21.21,0:26:43.60 There’s a lot of discussions about the re-enabled opcodes coming – OP_MUL, OP_INVERT, OP_LSHIFT, and OP_RSHIFT up invert op l shift and op r shift you maybe explain the significance of those op codes being re-enabled? Steve: 0:26:42.01,0:28:17.01
Well I mean one of one of the most significant things is other than two, which are minor variants of DUP and MUL, they represent almost the complete set of original op codes. I think that's not necessarily a technical issue, but it's an important milestone. MUL is one that's that I've heard some interesting comments about. People ask me why are you putting OP_MUL back in if you're planning on changing them to big number operations instead of the 32-bit limit that they're currently imposed upon. The simple answer to that question is that we currently have all of the other arithmetic operations except for OP_MUL. We’ve got add divide, subtract, modulo – it’s odd to have a script system that's got all the mathematical primitives except for multiplication. The other answer to that question is that they're useful - we've talked about a Rabin signature solution that basically replicates the function of DATASIGVERIFY. That's just one example of a use case for this - most cryptographic primitive operations require mathematical operations and bit shifts are useful for a whole ton of things. So it's really just about completing that work and completing the script engine, or rather not completing it, but putting it back the way that it was it was meant to be.
Connor 0:28:20.42,0:29:22.62 Big Num vs 32 Bit. I've seen Daniel - I think I saw you answer this on Reddit a little while ago, but the new op codes using logical shifts and Satoshi’s version use arithmetic shifts - the general question that I think a lot of people keep bringing up is, maybe in a rhetorical way but they say why not restore it back to the way Satoshi had it exactly - what are the benefits of changing it now to operate a little bit differently? Daniel: 0:29:18.75,0:31:12.15
Yeah there's two parts there - the big number one and the L shift being a logical shift instead of arithmetic. so when we re-enabled these opcodes we've looked at them carefully and have adjusted them slightly as we did in the past with OP_SPLIT. So the new LSHIFT and RSHIFT are bitwise operators. They can be used to implement arithmetic based shifts - I think I've posted a short script that did that, but we can't do it the other way around, right. You couldn't use an arithmetic shift operator to implement a bitwise one. It's because of the ordering of the bytes in the arithmetic values, so the values that represent numbers. The little endian which means they're swapped around to what many other systems - what I've considered normal - or big-endian. And if you start shifting that properly as a number then then shifting sequence in the bytes is a bit strange, so it couldn't go the other way around - you couldn't implement bitwise shift with arithmetic, so we chose to make them bitwise operators - that's what we proposed.
That was essentially a decision that was actually made in May, or rather a consequence of decisions that were made in May. So in May we reintroduced OP_AND, OP_OR, and OP_XOR, and that was also another decision to replace three different string operators with OP_SPLIT was also made. So that was not a decision that we've made unilaterally, it was a decision that was made collectively with all of the BCH developers - well not all of them were actually in all of the meetings, but they were all invited.
Another example of that is that we originally proposed OP_2DIV and OP_2MUL was it, I think, and this is a single operator that multiplies the value by two, right, but it was pointed out that that can very easily be achieved by just doing multiply by two instead of having a separate operator for it, so we scrapped those, we took them back out, because we wanted to keep the number of operators minimum yeah.
There was an appetite around for keeping the operators minimal. I mean the decision about the idea to replace OP_SUBSTR, OP_LEFT, OP_RIGHT with OP_SPLIT operator actually came from Gavin Andresen. He made a brief appearance in the Telegram workgroups while we were working out what to do with May opcodes and obviously Gavin's word kind of carries a lot of weight and we listen to him. But because we had chosen to implement the May opcodes (the bitwise opcodes) and treat the data as big-endian data streams (well, sorry big-endian not really applicable just plain data strings) it would have been completely inconsistent to implement LSHIFT and RSHIFT as integer operators because then you would have had a set of bitwise operators that operated on two different kinds of data, which would have just been nonsensical and very difficult for anyone to work with, so yeah. I mean it's a bit like P2SH - it wasn't a part of the original Satoshi protocol that once some things are done they're done and you know if you want to want to make forward progress you've got to work within that that framework that exists.
When we get to the big number ones then it gets really complicated, you know, number implementations because then you can't change the behavior of the existing opcodes, and I don't mean OP_MUL, I mean the other ones that have been there for a while. You can't suddenly make them big number ones without seriously looking at what scripts there might be out there and the impact of that change on those existing scripts, right. The other the other point is you don't know what scripts are out there because of P2SH - there could be scripts that you don't know the content of and you don't know what effect changing the behavior of these operators would mean. The big number thing is tricky, so another option might be, yeah, I don't know what the options for though it needs some serious thought.
That’s something we've reached out to the other implementation teams about - actually really would like their input on the best ways to go about restoring big number operations. It has to be done extremely carefully and I don't know if we'll get there by May next year, or when, but we’re certainly willing to put a lot of resources into it and we're more than happy to work with BU or XT or whoever wants to work with us on getting that done and getting it done safely.
Connor: 0:35:19.30,0:35:57.49 Kind of along this similar vein, you know, Bitcoin Core introduced this concept of standard scripts, right - standard and non-standard scripts. I had pretty interesting conversation with Clemens Ley about use cases for “non-standard scripts” as they're called. I know at least one developer on Bitcoin ABC is very hesitant, or kind of pushed back on him about doing that and so what are your thoughts about non-standard scripts and the entirety of like an IsStandard check? Steve: 0:35:58.31,0:37:35.73
I’d actually like to repurpose the concept. I think I mentioned before multi-threaded script validation and having some dedicated well-known script templates - when you say the word well-known script template there’s already a check in Bitcoin that kind of tells you if it's well-known or not and that's IsStandard. I'm generally in favor of getting rid of the notion of standard transactions, but it's actually a decision for miners, and it's really more of a behavioral change than it is a technical change. There's a whole bunch of configuration options that miners can set that affect what they do what they consider to be standard and not standard, but the reality is not too many miners are using those configuration options. So I mean standard transactions as a concept is meaningful to an arbitrary degree I suppose, but yeah I would like to make it easier for people to get non-standard scripts into Bitcoin so that they can experiment, and from discussions of I’ve had with CoinGeek they’re quite keen on making their miners accept, you know, at least initially a wider variety of transactions eventually.
So I think IsStandard will remain important within the implementation itself for efficiency purposes, right - you want to streamline base use case of cash payments through them and prioritizing. That's where it will remain important but on the interfaces from the node to the rest of the network, yeah I could easily see it being removed.
Cory: 0,0:38:06.24,0:38:35.46 *Connor mentioned that there's some people that disagree with Bitcoin SV and what they're doing - a lot of questions around, you know, why November? Why implement these changes in November - they think that maybe the six-month delay might not cause a split. Well, first off what do you think about the ideas of a potential split and I guess what is the urgency for November? Steve: 0:38:33.30,0:40:42.42
Well in November there's going to be a divergence of consensus rules regardless of whether we implement these new op codes or not. Bitcoin ABC released their spec for the November Hard fork change I think on August 16th or 17th something like that and their client as well and it included CTOR and it included DSV. Now for the miners that commissioned the SV project, CTOR and DSV are controversial changes and once they're in they're in. They can't be reversed - I mean CTOR maybe you could reverse it at a later date, but DSV once someone's put a P2SH transaction into the project or even a non P2SH transaction in the blockchain using that opcode it's irreversible. So it's interesting that some people refer to the Bitcoin SV project as causing a split - we're not proposing to do anything that anyone disagrees with - there might be some contention about changing the opcode limit but what we're doing, I mean Bitcoin ABC already published their spec for May and it is our spec for the new opcodes, so in terms of urgency - should we wait? Well the fact is that we can't - come November you know it's bit like Segwit - once Segwit was in, yes you arguably could get it out by spending everyone's anyone can spend transactions but in reality it's never going to be that easy and it's going to cause a lot of economic disruption, so yeah that's it. We're putting out changes in because it's not gonna make a difference either way in terms of whether there's going to be a divergence of consensus rules - there's going to be a divergence whether whatever our changes are. Our changes are not controversial at all.
If we didn't include these changes in the November upgrade we'd be pushing ahead with a no-change, right, but the November upgrade is there so we should use it while we can. Adding these non-controversial changes to it.
Connor: 0:41:01.55,0:41:35.61 Can you talk about DATASIGVERIFY? What are your concerns with it? The general concept that's been kind of floated around because of Ryan Charles is the idea that it's a subsidy, right - that it takes a whole megabyte and kind of crunches that down and the computation time stays the same but maybe the cost is lesser - do you kind of share his view on that or what are your concerns with it? Daniel: 0:41:34.01,0:43:38.41
Can I say one or two things about this – there’s different ways to look at that, right. I'm an engineer - my specialization is software, so the economics of it I hear different opinions. I trust some more than others but I am NOT an economist. I kind of agree with the ones with my limited expertise on that it's a subsidy it looks very much like it to me, but yeah that's not my area. What I can talk about is the software - so adding DSV adds really quite a lot of complexity to the code right, and it's a big change to add that. And what are we going to do - every time someone comes up with an idea we’re going to add a new opcode? How many opcodes are we going to add? I saw reports that Jihan was talking about hundreds of opcodes or something like that and it's like how big is this client going to become - how big is this node - is it going to have to handle every kind of weird opcode that that's out there? The software is just going to get unmanageable and DSV - that was my main consideration at the beginning was the, you know, if you can implement it in script you should do it, because that way it keeps the node software simple, it keeps it stable, and you know it's easier to test that it works properly and correctly. It's almost like adding (?) code from a microprocessor you know why would you do that if you can if you can implement it already in the script that is there.
It’s actually an interesting inconsistency because when we were talking about adding the opcodes in May, the philosophy that seemed to drive the decisions that we were able to form a consensus around was to simplify and keep the opcodes as minimal as possible (ie where you could replicate a function by using a couple of primitive opcodes in combination, that was preferable to adding a new opcode that replaced) OP_SUBSTR is an interesting example - it's a combination of SPLIT, and SWAP and DROP opcodes to achieve it. So at really primitive script level we've got this philosophy of let's keep it minimal and at this sort of (?) philosophy it’s all let's just add a new opcode for every primitive function and Daniel's right - it's a question of opening the floodgates. Where does it end? If we're just going to go down this road, it almost opens up the argument why have a scripting language at all? Why not just add a hard code all of these functions in one at a time? You know, pay to public key hash is a well-known construct (?) and not bother executing a script at all but once we've done that we take away with all of the flexibility for people to innovate, so it's a philosophical difference, I think, but I think it's one where the position of keeping it simple does make sense. All of the primitives are there to do what people need to do. The things that people don't feel like they can't do are because of the limits that exist. If we had no opcode limit at all, if you could make a gigabyte transaction so a gigabyte script, then you can do any kind of crypto that you wanted even with 32-bit integer operations, Once you get rid of the 32-bit limit of course, a lot of those a lot of those scripts come up a lot smaller, so a Rabin signature script shrinks from 100MB to a couple hundred bytes.
I lost a good six months of my life diving into script, right. Once you start getting into the language and what it can do, it is really pretty impressive how much you can achieve within script. Bitcoin was designed, was released originally, with script. I mean it didn't have to be – it could just be instead of having a transaction with script you could have accounts and you could say trust, you know, so many BTC from this public key to this one - but that's not the way it was done. It was done using script, and script provides so many capabilities if you start exploring it properly. If you start really digging into what it can do, yeah, it's really amazing what you can do with script. I'm really looking forward to seeing some some very interesting applications from that. I mean it was Awemany his zero-conf script was really interesting, right. I mean it relies on DSV which is a problem (and some other things that I don't like about it), but him diving in and using script to solve this problem was really cool, it was really good to see that.
I asked a question to a couple of people in our research team that have been working on the Rabin signature stuff this morning actually and I wasn't sure where they are up to with this, but they're actually working on a proof of concept (which I believe is pretty close to done) which is a Rabin signature script - it will use smaller signatures so that it can fit within the current limits, but it will be, you know, effectively the same algorithm (as DSV) so I can't give you an exact date on when that will happen, but it looks like we'll have a Rabin signature in the blockchain soon (a mini-Rabin signature).
Cory: 0:48:13.61,0:48:57.63 Based on your responses I think I kinda already know the answer to this question, but there's a lot of questions about ending experimentation on Bitcoin. I was gonna kind of turn that into – with the plan that Bitcoin SV is on do you guys see like a potential one final release, you know that there's gonna be no new opcodes ever released (like maybe five years down the road we just solidify the base protocol and move forward with that) or are you guys more on the idea of being open-ended with appropriate testing that we can introduce new opcodes under appropriate testing. Steve: 0:48:55.80,0:49:47.43
I think you've got a factor in what I said before about the philosophical differences. I think new functionality can be introduced just fine. Having said that - yes there is a place for new opcodes but it's probably a limited place and in my opinion the cryptographic primitive functions for example CHECKSIG uses ECDSA with a specific elliptic curve, hash 256 uses SHA256 - at some point in the future those are going to no longer be as secure as we would like them to be and we'll replace them with different hash functions, verification functions, at some point, but I think that's a long way down the track.
I'd like to see more data too. I'd like to see evidence that these things are needed, and the way I could imagine that happening is that, you know, that with the full scripting language some solution is implemented and we discover that this is really useful, and over a period of, like, you know measured in years not days, we find a lot of transactions are using this feature, then maybe, you know, maybe we should look at introducing an opcode to optimize it, but optimizing before we even know if it's going to be useful, yeah, that's the wrong approach.
I think that optimization is actually going to become an economic decision for the miners. From the miner’s point of view is if it'll make more sense for them to be able to optimize a particular process - does it reduce costs for them such that they can offer a better service to everyone else? Yeah, so ultimately these decisions are going to be miner’s main decisions, not developer decisions. Developers of course can offer their input - I wouldn't expect every miner to be an expert on script, but as we're already seeing miners are actually starting to employ their own developers. I’m not just talking about us - there are other miners in China that I know have got some really bright people on their staff that question and challenge all of the changes - study them and produce their own reports. We've been lucky with actually being able to talk to some of those people and have some really fascinating technical discussions with them.
Bitcoin Technical Support Questions regarding issues with Bitcoin Core, nodes, the Bitcoin network, transactions, and addresses Moderator: Admin. 11 Posts Last post Free FIFA 21 Coins No Verific… by rardErers Wed Aug 26, 2020 4:10 pm Wallet Bitcoin Hardware and Software Wallets Moderator: Admin. 7 Posts Last post Re: Things are Changing for t… by williamsp23 Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:53 am 159 ... This miner is not connected to the bitcoin network and is a very simplified version of what would be a real bitcoin miner. The purpose of this implementation is to provide a basic comprehension of the mining logic. What are bitcoin miners really solving? Step 1 Mine Bitcoin, the most popular criptocurrency online in your web browser. Just sit back and watch your wallet getting bigger and bigger! Bitcoin Mining ist das neue Goldschürfen: Als Miner, also Schürfer, verdienen Sie virtuelles Geld dafür, dass Sie Ihre Rechnerleistung zur Verfügung stellen. Allerdings ist hierfür so einiges ... Getting Code 43 with (6) 1070s on new mining rig. Build a brand new rig using an Asus Z270 AR, intel i3 and installed windows 10. I updated bios to latest version, configured all the appropriate settings in bios (enable 4g decoding). After installing multiple versions of the NVIDIA drivers, I keep getting the code 43 under device manager. I uninstalled all drivers and did clean install every ...
FREE BEST BITCOIN MINER - %100 REAL PAİD Thanks for watching, don't forget to share and subscribe to our channel! CLICK SITE: https://bit.ly/2EorHNA APK Download : https://bit.ly/2r0uCcc bitcoin ... bitcoin code software, bitcoin miner software crack, free bitcoin software download, bitcoin mining software free download, bitcoin doubler software, bitcoin adder software free download, desk ... I wanted to share with others a common error one might see when setting up their mining system. Common errors "Code 12" and "Code 43", that can cause a minin... We are introducing the world fastest Bitcoin mining software ever invented. You can get it from official website : https://www.microcryptosoft.com This is 2019 and it's more easy and more possible ... !LESEN! Heute zeige ich euch, wie ihr Bitcore Minen könnt. Im Endeffekt könnt ihr damit fast direkt Bitcoin minen. Der Hauptvorteil sind die sehr niedrigen A...