Bitcoin Mining Pool Bitcoin.com

XMG - Coin of the Magi

Coin of the Magi is a peer-to-peer global currency that enables instant payments to anyone in the world. XMG utilizes proof-of-work and proof-of-stake systems and is CPU and eco focussed - rewards reduce as hash increases.
[link]

Bitcoin ABC has just released an update containing an unwanted and extremely controversial feature opening a backdoor for >2% SHA256 mining pools to attack Bitcoin Cash. Therefore the community can now officially claim that Bitcoin ABC software is sabotaging P2P Money and an attacking Bitcoin Cash.

submitted by ShadowOfHarbringer to btc [link] [comments]

@gpuhot: $BTCV is adjusted up to x16, 800 BTCV/block at https://t.co/gOYoiWZJ8l mining pool! Mining BitcoinV with variable block rewards! sha256 -o stratum+tcp://stratum.altcoincash.xyz:33331 -u -p c=BTCV #altcoins #mining #crypto #bitcoin #btcv #bitcoinv @bitcoin_v https://t.co/TdmidJCsHG

submitted by AltCash to altcash [link] [comments]

@gpuhot: @bitcoin_v Mine BTCV at x32 multiplier at https://t.co/tCOQNKurqT mining pool! -a sha256 -o stratum+tcp://stratum.altcoincash.xyz:33331 -u wallet.miner -p c=BTCV

submitted by AltCash to altcash [link] [comments]

@gpuhot: $BTCV is adjusted up to x32, 1600 BTCV/block at https://t.co/gOYoiWZJ8l mining pool! Mining BitcoinV with variable block rewards! sha256 -o stratum+tcp://stratum.altcoincash.xyz:33331 -u -p c=BTCV #altcoins #mining #crypto #bitcoin #btcv #bitcoinv @bitcoin_v https://t.co/LpncubVFY9

submitted by AltCash to altcash [link] [comments]

@gpuhot: A few hours without block makes patient impatient... Adjusted rewards down to 1024x, 51200 BTCV/block. Jump on and mine some @bitcoin_v now! -a sha256 -o stratum+tcp://stratum.altcoincash.xyz:33331 -u -p c=BTCV pool discord: https://t.co/PX83EMBgsf

submitted by AltCash to altcash [link] [comments]

Pool similar to Wafflepool for Bitcoin/SHA256 mining?

Hello. I'm new to mining. I just got a 5-chip Gridseed ASIC a week ago. After bouncing around pools, I have settled on Wafflepool as my Scrypt pool of choice. I love the stat reporting and weekly BTC payout. By Tuesday, I should have the power adapter needed to run my Gridseed ASIC in dual mode. This does Scrypt and SHA256 hashing at the same time. I considered using Tompool/Tomcoin to do all my mining and get BTC payout, but the lack of stat reporting was no fun for me. I've looked at Eligius. It sounded great until I saw the minimum payout of 167mBTC. That would take a lot of patience that I don't have.
Could anyone please recommend a SHA256 pool that shares some of the awesomeness of Wafflepool?
submitted by WhovianK9 to wafflepool [link] [comments]

Thoughts on contract mining with BCHN to prevent IFP takeover

I believe that some BTC mining capacity will shift to mining BCH during the coming November hard fork. Given the stakes (complete control of a $4 billion market cap top 10 cryptocurrency), I believe that there could be stiff competition to decide if Amaury will become a North Corea-style "supreme leader" of BCH. According to game theory, Blockstream and even Craig Wright/Coingeek are incentivized to mine for ABC/IFP and effectively break BCH for good. Those 2 entities do control a good bit of SHA256 hashpower, and they can shift to mining the ABC chain very quickly. Switching their SHA256 miners to ABC at the last possible minute without advance warning would have the maximum possible benefit.
I would like to throw money at a this problem. I would like to support the real BCH (the one without the IFP tax and centrally planned dictatorship) by mining with BCHN. Unfortunately, I sold my SHA256 mining gear years ago. So I'd like to rent some BCHN-friendly BTC hashpower. Bitcoin.com pool seems to be sold out, can anyone suggest another contract miner? Ideally I would prefer to hire BTC hashers.
submitted by wtfCraigwtf to btc [link] [comments]

How is the stability of the PYRK network achieved?

How is the stability of the PYRK network achieved?
⚖️ Stability in PYRK is ensured through the use of a triple PoW algorithm. The idea of ​​a multi-algorithm originated in Digibyte. Splitting the mining into three different algorithms effectively splits the amount of work performed by each algorithm to 33% of the total network hash rate.
🔹 The triple consensus algorithm in PYRK includes SHA256, Scrypt, and X11. Each of these algorithms has been selected for their reliability and security performance.
🔹 With this solution, any pool or miner mining can only achieve 33% of the total hash rate even if they are mining 100% of the hash rate of a single algorithm. It is an exceedingly unlikely case that a single miner attains 100% of the hash rate of a single algorithm.
🔹 The triple algorithm approach helps to further protect the network from bad actors while also providing the preferred Proof-of-Work mechanism.
🛡 Multishield is another factor for network stability. In order to maintain an "average" block timing, blockchains such as Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Pyrk all use different methods of "difficulty retargeting". The idea is that as there is more hash-power provided by the miners it needs to become harder and harder to find the blocks.
Read more about PYRK solutions here: https://www.pyrk.org
https://preview.redd.it/obwks3p80vu51.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=054d63d83fe07145934566387e502456a129ee89
submitted by VS_community to pyrk [link] [comments]

Syscoin Platform’s Great Reddit Scaling Bake-off Proposal

Syscoin Platform’s Great Reddit Scaling Bake-off Proposal

https://preview.redd.it/rqt2dldyg8e51.jpg?width=1044&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=777ae9d4fbbb54c3540682b72700fc4ba3de0a44
We are excited to participate and present Syscoin Platform's ideal characteristics and capabilities towards a well-rounded Reddit Community Points solution!
Our scaling solution for Reddit Community Points involves 2-way peg interoperability with Ethereum. This will provide a scalable token layer built specifically for speed and high volumes of simple value transfers at a very low cost, while providing sovereign ownership and onchain finality.
Token transfers scale by taking advantage of a globally sorting mempool that provides for probabilistically secure assumptions of “as good as settled”. The opportunity here for token receivers is to have an app-layer interactivity on the speed/security tradeoff (99.9999% assurance within 10 seconds). We call this Z-DAG, and it achieves high-throughput across a mesh network topology presently composed of about 2,000 geographically dispersed full-nodes. Similar to Bitcoin, however, these nodes are incentivized to run full-nodes for the benefit of network security, through a bonded validator scheme. These nodes do not participate in the consensus of transactions or block validation any differently than other nodes and therefore do not degrade the security model of Bitcoin’s validate first then trust, across every node. Each token transfer settles on-chain. The protocol follows Bitcoin core policies so it has adequate code coverage and protocol hardening to be qualified as production quality software. It shares a significant portion of Bitcoin’s own hashpower through merged-mining.
This platform as a whole can serve token microtransactions, larger settlements, and store-of-value in an ideal fashion, providing probabilistic scalability whilst remaining decentralized according to Bitcoin design. It is accessible to ERC-20 via a permissionless and trust-minimized bridge that works in both directions. The bridge and token platform are currently available on the Syscoin mainnet. This has been gaining recent attention for use by loyalty point programs and stablecoins such as Binance USD.

Solutions

Syscoin Foundation identified a few paths for Reddit to leverage this infrastructure, each with trade-offs. The first provides the most cost-savings and scaling benefits at some sacrifice of token autonomy. The second offers more preservation of autonomy with a more narrow scope of cost savings than the first option, but savings even so. The third introduces more complexity than the previous two yet provides the most overall benefits. We consider the third as most viable as it enables Reddit to benefit even while retaining existing smart contract functionality. We will focus on the third option, and include the first two for good measure.
  1. Distribution, burns and user-to-user transfers of Reddit Points are entirely carried out on the Syscoin network. This full-on approach to utilizing the Syscoin network provides the most scalability and transaction cost benefits of these scenarios. The tradeoff here is distribution and subscription handling likely migrating away from smart contracts into the application layer.
  2. The Reddit Community Points ecosystem can continue to use existing smart contracts as they are used today on the Ethereum mainchain. Users migrate a portion of their tokens to Syscoin, the scaling network, to gain much lower fees, scalability, and a proven base layer, without sacrificing sovereign ownership. They would use Syscoin for user-to-user transfers. Tips redeemable in ten seconds or less, a high-throughput relay network, and onchain settlement at a block target of 60 seconds.
  3. Integration between Matic Network and Syscoin Platform - similar to Syscoin’s current integration with Ethereum - will provide Reddit Community Points with EVM scalability (including the Memberships ERC777 operator) on the Matic side, and performant simple value transfers, robust decentralized security, and sovereign store-of-value on the Syscoin side. It’s “the best of both worlds”. The trade-off is more complex interoperability.

Syscoin + Matic Integration

Matic and Blockchain Foundry Inc, the public company formed by the founders of Syscoin, recently entered a partnership for joint research and business development initiatives. This is ideal for all parties as Matic Network and Syscoin Platform provide complementary utility. Syscoin offers characteristics for sovereign ownership and security based on Bitcoin’s time-tested model, and shares a significant portion of Bitcoin’s own hashpower. Syscoin’s focus is on secure and scalable simple value transfers, trust-minimized interoperability, and opt-in regulatory compliance for tokenized assets rather than scalability for smart contract execution. On the other hand, Matic Network can provide scalable EVM for smart contract execution. Reddit Community Points can benefit from both.
Syscoin + Matic integration is actively being explored by both teams, as it is helpful to Reddit, Ethereum, and the industry as a whole.

Proving Performance & Cost Savings

Our POC focuses on 100,000 on-chain settlements of token transfers on the Syscoin Core blockchain. Transfers and burns perform equally with Syscoin. For POCs related to smart contracts (subscriptions, etc), refer to the Matic Network proposal.
On-chain settlement of 100k transactions was accomplished within roughly twelve minutes, well-exceeding Reddit’s expectation of five days. This was performed using six full-nodes operating on compute-optimized AWS c4.2xlarge instances which were geographically distributed (Virginia, London, Sao Paulo Brazil, Oregon, Singapore, Germany). A higher quantity of settlements could be reached within the same time-frame with more broadcasting nodes involved, or using hosts with more resources for faster execution of the process.
Addresses used: 100,014
The demonstration was executed using this tool. The results can be seen in the following blocks:
612722: https://sys1.bcfn.ca/block/6d47796d043bb4c508d29123e6ae81b051f5e0aaef849f253c8f3a6942a022ce
612723: https://sys1.bcfn.ca/block/8e2077f743461b90f80b4bef502f564933a8e04de97972901f3d65cfadcf1faf
612724: https://sys1.bcfn.ca/block/205436d25b1b499fce44c29567c5c807beaca915b83cc9f3c35b0d76dbb11f6e
612725: https://sys1.bcfn.ca/block/776d1b1a0f90f655a6bbdf559ff5072459cbdc5682d7615ff4b78c00babdc237
612726: https://sys1.bcfn.ca/block/de4df0994253742a1ac8ac9eec8d2a8c8b0a6d72c53d6f3caa29bb6c171b0a6b
612727: https://sys1.bcfn.ca/block/e5e167c52a9decb313fbaadf49a5e34cb490f8084f642a850385476d4ef10d70
612728: https://sys1.bcfn.ca/block/ab64d989edc71890e7b5b8491c20e9a27520dc45a5f7c776d3dae79057f59fe7
612729: https://sys1.bcfn.ca/block/5e8b7ecd0e36f99d07e4ea6e135fc952bf7ec30164ab6f4d1e98b0f2d405df6d
612730: https://sys1.bcfn.ca/block/d395df3d31dde60bbb0bece6bd5b358297da878f0beb96be389e5f0e043580a3
It is important to note that this POC is not focused on Z-DAG. The performance of Z-DAG has been benchmarked within realistic network conditions: Whiteblock’s audit is publicly available. Network latency tests showed an average TPS around 15k with burst capacity up to 61k. Zero-latency control group exhibited ~150k TPS. Mainnet testing of the Z-DAG network is achievable and will require further coordination and additional resources.
Even further optimizations are expected in the upcoming Syscoin Core release which will implement a UTXO model for our token layer bringing further efficiency as well as open the door to additional scaling technology currently under research by our team and academic partners. At present our token layer is account-based, similar to Ethereum. Opt-in compliance structures will also be introduced soon which will offer some positive performance characteristics as well. It makes the most sense to implement these optimizations before performing another benchmark for Z-DAG, especially on the mainnet considering the resources required to stress-test this network.

Cost Savings

Total cost for these 100k transactions: $0.63 USD
See the live fee comparison for savings estimation between transactions on Ethereum and Syscoin. Below is a snapshot at time of writing:
ETH price: $318.55 ETH gas price: 55.00 Gwei ($0.37)
Syscoin price: $0.11
Snapshot of live fee comparison chart
Z-DAG provides a more efficient fee-market. A typical Z-DAG transaction costs 0.0000582 SYS. Tokens can be safely redeemed/re-spent within seconds or allowed to settle on-chain beforehand. The costs should remain about this low for microtransactions.
Syscoin will achieve further reduction of fees and even greater scalability with offchain payment channels for assets, with Z-DAG as a resilience fallback. New payment channel technology is one of the topics under research by the Syscoin development team with our academic partners at TU Delft. In line with the calculation in the Lightning Networks white paper, payment channels using assets with Syscoin Core will bring theoretical capacity for each person on Earth (7.8 billion) to have five on-chain transactions per year, per person, without requiring anyone to enter a fee market (aka “wait for a block”). This exceeds the minimum LN expectation of two transactions per person, per year; one to exist on-chain and one to settle aggregated value.

Tools, Infrastructure & Documentation

Syscoin Bridge

Mainnet Demonstration of Syscoin Bridge with the Basic Attention Token ERC-20
A two-way blockchain interoperability system that uses Simple Payment Verification to enable:
  • Any Standard ERC-20 token to be moved from Ethereum to the Syscoin blockchain as a Syscoin Platform Token (SPT), and back to Ethereum
  • Any SPT to be moved from Syscoin to the Ethereum blockchain as an ERC-20 token, and back to Syscoin

Benefits

  • Permissionless
  • No counterparties involved
  • No trading mechanisms involved
  • No third-party liquidity providers required
  • Cross-chain Fractional Supply - 2-way peg - Token supply maintained globally
  • ERC-20s gain vastly improved transactionality with the Syscoin Token Platform, along with the security of bitcoin-core-compliant PoW.
  • SPTs gain access to all the tooling, applications and capabilities of Ethereum for ERC-20, including smart contracts.
https://preview.redd.it/l8t2m8ldh8e51.png?width=1180&format=png&auto=webp&s=b0a955a0181746dc79aff718bd0bf607d3c3aa23
https://preview.redd.it/26htnxzfh8e51.png?width=1180&format=png&auto=webp&s=d0383d3c2ee836c9f60b57eca35542e9545f741d

Source code

https://github.com/syscoin/?q=sysethereum
Main Subprojects

API

Tools to simplify using Syscoin Bridge as a service with dapps and wallets will be released some time after implementation of Syscoin Core 4.2. These will be based upon the same processes which are automated in the current live Sysethereum Dapp that is functioning with the Syscoin mainnet.

Documentation

Syscoin Bridge & How it Works (description and process flow)
Superblock Validation Battles
HOWTO: Provision the Bridge for your ERC-20
HOWTO: Setup an Agent
Developer & User Diligence

Trade-off

The Syscoin Ethereum Bridge is secured by Agent nodes participating in a decentralized and incentivized model that involves roles of Superblock challengers and submitters. This model is open to participation. The benefits here are trust-minimization, permissionless-ness, and potentially less legal/regulatory red-tape than interop mechanisms that involve liquidity providers and/or trading mechanisms.
The trade-off is that due to the decentralized nature there are cross-chain settlement times of one hour to cross from Ethereum to Syscoin, and three hours to cross from Syscoin to Ethereum. We are exploring ways to reduce this time while maintaining decentralization via zkp. Even so, an “instant bridge” experience could be provided by means of a third-party liquidity mechanism. That option exists but is not required for bridge functionality today. Typically bridges are used with batch value, not with high frequencies of smaller values, and generally it is advantageous to keep some value on both chains for maximum availability of utility. Even so, the cross-chain settlement time is good to mention here.

Cost

Ethereum -> Syscoin: Matic or Ethereum transaction fee for bridge contract interaction, negligible Syscoin transaction fee for minting tokens
Syscoin -> Ethereum: Negligible Syscoin transaction fee for burning tokens, 0.01% transaction fee paid to Bridge Agent in the form of the ERC-20, Matic or Ethereum transaction fee for contract interaction.

Z-DAG

Zero-Confirmation Directed Acyclic Graph is an instant settlement protocol that is used as a complementary system to proof-of-work (PoW) in the confirmation of Syscoin service transactions. In essence, a Z-DAG is simply a directed acyclic graph (DAG) where validating nodes verify the sequential ordering of transactions that are received in their memory pools. Z-DAG is used by the validating nodes across the network to ensure that there is absolute consensus on the ordering of transactions and no balances are overflowed (no double-spends).

Benefits

  • Unique fee-market that is more efficient for microtransaction redemption and settlement
  • Uses decentralized means to enable tokens with value transfer scalability that is comparable or exceeds that of credit card networks
  • Provides high throughput and secure fulfillment even if blocks are full
  • Probabilistic and interactive
  • 99.9999% security assurance within 10 seconds
  • Can serve payment channels as a resilience fallback that is faster and lower-cost than falling-back directly to a blockchain
  • Each Z-DAG transaction also settles onchain through Syscoin Core at 60-second block target using SHA-256 Proof of Work consensus
https://preview.redd.it/pgbx84jih8e51.png?width=1614&format=png&auto=webp&s=5f631d42a33dc698365eb8dd184b6d442def6640

Source code

https://github.com/syscoin/syscoin

API

Syscoin-js provides tooling for all Syscoin Core RPCs including interactivity with Z-DAG.

Documentation

Z-DAG White Paper
Useful read: An in-depth Z-DAG discussion between Syscoin Core developer Jag Sidhu and Brave Software Research Engineer Gonçalo Pestana

Trade-off

Z-DAG enables the ideal speed/security tradeoff to be determined per use-case in the application layer. It minimizes the sacrifice required to accept and redeem fast transfers/payments while providing more-than-ample security for microtransactions. This is supported on the premise that a Reddit user receiving points does need security yet generally doesn’t want nor need to wait for the same level of security as a nation-state settling an international trade debt. In any case, each Z-DAG transaction settles onchain at a block target of 60 seconds.

Syscoin Specs

Syscoin 3.0 White Paper
(4.0 white paper is pending. For improved scalability and less blockchain bloat, some features of v3 no longer exist in current v4: Specifically Marketplace Offers, Aliases, Escrow, Certificates, Pruning, Encrypted Messaging)
  • 16MB block bandwidth per minute assuming segwit witness carrying transactions, and transactions ~200 bytes on average
  • SHA256 merge mined with Bitcoin
  • UTXO asset layer, with base Syscoin layer sharing identical security policies as Bitcoin Core
  • Z-DAG on asset layer, bridge to Ethereum on asset layer
  • On-chain scaling with prospect of enabling enterprise grade reliable trustless payment processing with on/offchain hybrid solution
  • Focus only on Simple Value Transfers. MVP of blockchain consensus footprint is balances and ownership of them. Everything else can reduce data availability in exchange for scale (Ethereum 2.0 model). We leave that to other designs, we focus on transfers.
  • Future integrations of MAST/Taproot to get more complex value transfers without trading off trustlessness or decentralization.
  • Zero-knowledge Proofs are a cryptographic new frontier. We are dabbling here to generalize the concept of bridging and also verify the state of a chain efficiently. We also apply it in our Digital Identity projects at Blockchain Foundry (a publicly traded company which develops Syscoin softwares for clients). We are also looking to integrate privacy preserving payment channels for off-chain payments through zkSNARK hub & spoke design which does not suffer from the HTLC attack vectors evident on LN. Much of the issues plaguing Lightning Network can be resolved using a zkSNARK design whilst also providing the ability to do a multi-asset payment channel system. Currently we found a showstopper attack (American Call Option) on LN if we were to use multiple-assets. This would not exist in a system such as this.

Wallets

Web3 and mobile wallets are under active development by Blockchain Foundry Inc as WebAssembly applications and expected for release not long after mainnet deployment of Syscoin Core 4.2. Both of these will be multi-coin wallets that support Syscoin, SPTs, Ethereum, and ERC-20 tokens. The Web3 wallet will provide functionality similar to Metamask.
Syscoin Platform and tokens are already integrated with Blockbook. Custom hardware wallet support currently exists via ElectrumSys. First-class HW wallet integration through apps such as Ledger Live will exist after 4.2.
Current supported wallets
Syscoin Spark Desktop
Syscoin-Qt

Explorers

Mainnet: https://sys1.bcfn.ca (Blockbook)
Testnet: https://explorer-testnet.blockchainfoundry.co

Thank you for close consideration of our proposal. We look forward to feedback, and to working with the Reddit community to implement an ideal solution using Syscoin Platform!

submitted by sidhujag to ethereum [link] [comments]

the year 2020 in Bitcoin Cash so far: a detailed history

the year 2020 in Bitcoin Cash so far: a detailed history
What follows at the bottom is a four page long chronological overview of what happened in BCH in 2020 so far. To make it more digestable and fun to read I start with my narrating of the story.
My attempt was to remain as objective as possible and "let the facts speak for themselve" with everything sourced. I also link to many read.cash articles, the decision of which are the important ones to include is certainly not easy, I count on the rest of the community if I overlooked anything important.

summary & my narrating of the story:
The year started out relatively calm, with cashfusion in "the news" and an older ongoing controversy between Amaury and Roger Ver being worked out. Starting Jan 22nd all debate broke loose with the announcement of “Infrastructure Funding Plan for Bitcoin Cash” by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP. To illustrate this point 2 days later coinspice ran the title " Roger Ver Praises Vigorous Debate, [...]" and 6 days, less than a week, later Chris Pacia made a read.cash post titled "The 253rd "Thoughts on developer funding" Article" which might have been only a slight exaggeration or he might have been counting. Part of the reason of the tsunami was the lack of worked out details. By the time of Pacia's post a lot had changed: Both BU, Bitcoin Verde and a group of miners had made announcements not to go along with "the plan".
On feb 1st, the second version of the IFP was announced by Jiang Zhuoer in a post “BCH miner donation plan update”. Two weeks later on Feb 15th, the third iteration was announced by Bitcoin ABC which was to be activated by hashrate voting and on the same day Flipstarter was introduced, a sign of the search for alternative solutions. After a few more days and a few more people coming out more against the IFP (including Jonald Fyookball, Mark Lundeberg & Josh Ellithorpe), BCHN was announced on feb 20th with a formal release a week later. Also feb 27th, the DAA was brought back into the conversation by Jonathan Toomim with his " The BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm is broken. Here's how to fix it." video. By early march the IFP was effectively dead with its author Jiang Zhuoer vowing to vote against it. This became clear to everyone when ABC, a day later sudddenly shifted gears towards non-protocol, donation based funding: the IFP was dead. End march ABCs 2020 Business Plan was announced as a way to raise $3.3 million. Mid april to mid may was the high time for voluntary funding with four node implementations and General Protocols, a BCH DeFi Startup successfully raising funds.
By May 15th, the 6th HF network upgrade things had pretty much cooled down. The upgraded included nothing controversial and even saw an unexpected doubling in the unconfirmed transaction chain. June 15th a month later things started to heat up again with the BCHN announcement to remove the "poison pill" or "automatic replay protection". 8th Jul Jonathan Toomim posted "BCH protocol upgrade proposal: Use ASERT as the new DAA" which promised the solution to the long dragging DAA problem. Jul 23th however an unexpected twist occurred when Amaury Séchet posted "Announcing the Grasberg DAA" an incompatible, alternative solution. This, again, sparked a ton of debate and discussion. Grasberg lasted just two weeks from Jul 23th to Aug 6th when ABC announced its plans for the november 2020 upgrade but it had successfully united the opposition in the meanwhile. ABCs plan for november included dropping grasberg in favour of aserti3–2d and introducing IFPv4. Now we're here August 8th, the IFP which was declared dead after just over a month (Jan 22-Mar 5) is now back in full force. The rest of the history is still being written but if p2p electronic cash is to succeed in any big regard it's very thinkable that these events will get into history books.

Important resources: coinspice IFP timeline & Compiled list of BCH Miner Dev Fund posts, articles, discussions

History
Jan 13th : “Do CoinJoins Really Require Equal Transaction Amounts for Privacy? Part One: CashFusion” article by BitcoinMagazine [source]
Jan 13th : “Clearing the Way for Cooperation” Read.cash article by Amaury Séchet [source] on the controversy with Roger Ver about the amount of donations over the years
Jan 22nd : “Infrastructure Funding Plan for Bitcoin Cash” IFPv1 announced by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] IFPv1: 12.5% of BCH coinbase rewards which will last for 6 months through a Hong Kong-based corporation & to be activated on May 15th
Jan 22nd : ”Bitcoin Cash Developers React to Infrastructure Fund Announcement: Cautiously Optimistic” coinspice article including Amaury Séchet, Antony Zegers, Jonald Fyookball & Josh Ellithorpe [source]
Jan 23rd : Jiang Zhuoer reddit AMA [source] [coinspice article]
Jan 23rd : Vitalik weighs in with his take on twitter [source]
Jan 23rd :” On the infrastructure funding plan for Bitcoin Cash” article by Amaury Séchet [source] [coinspice article] in which he proposed to place control of the IFP key in his hands together with Jonald Fyookball and Antony Zegers. . A group of 7 to 12 miners, developers, and businessmen in total would get an advisory function.
Jan 24th : “Bitcoin.com's Clarifications on the Miner Development Fund“ which emphasizes, among other things, the temporary and reversible nature of the proposal [source] [coinspice article]
Jan 24th : “Little Known (But Important!) Facts About the Mining Plan” Read.cash article by Jonald Fyookball in which he defended the IFP and stressed its necessity and temporary nature.
Jan 25th : massive amounts of public debate as documented by coinspice [coinspice article] with Justin Bons, Tobias Ruck and Antony Zegers explaining their take on it.
Jan 26th : public debate continues: “Assessment and proposal re: the Bitcoin Cash infrastructure funding situation” Read.cash article by imaginary_username [source] which was noteworthy in part because the post earned over Earns $1,000+ in BCH [coinspice article] and “The Best Of Intentions: The Dev Tax Is Intended to Benefit Investors But Will Corrupt Us Instead” by Peter Rizun [source]
Jan 27th : “We are a group of miners opposing the BTC.TOP proposal, here's why” article on Read.cash [source] [reddit announcement]
Jan 27th : Bitcoin Unlimited's BUIP 143: Refuse the Coinbase Tax [source][reddit announcement]
Jan 28th : “Bitcoin Verde's Response to the Miner Sponsored Development Fund” read.cash article by Josh Green in which he explains “Bitcoin Verde will not be implementing any node validation that enforces new coinbase rules.” [source]
Jan 28th : “Update on Developer Funding” read.cash article from Bitcoin.com [source] in which they state “As it stands now, Bitcoin.com will not go through with supporting any plan unless there is more agreement in the ecosystem such that the risk of a chain split is negligible.” And that “any funding proposal must be temporary and reversible.” This announcement from bitcoin.com and their mining pool lead the anonymous opposition miners to stand down. [source]
Jan 28th : The 253rd "Thoughts on developer funding" Article – by Chris Pacia, to tackle the “serious misconceptions in the community about how software development works”. He ends on a note of support for the IFP because of lack of realistic alternatives. [source]
Feb 1st: “BCH miner donation plan update” IFPv2 announced by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] Which changes the donation mechanism so miners directly send part of their coinbase to the projects they wants to donate to. It would be activated with hashrate voting over a 3-month period with a 2/3 in favour requirement. The proposal also introduces a pilot period and a no donation option, Jiang Zhuoer also says he regards 12.% as too much.
Feb 7th: Group of BCH miners led by AsicSeer voice scepticism about the IFP during a reddit AMA [source]
Feb 15th: “On the Miner Infrastructure Funding Plan” article by Bitcoin ABC [source] In which they announce they will implement IFPv3 in their upcoming 0.21.0 release. This version has amount reduced to 5% of block reward and will go in effect with BIP 9 hashratevoting and a whitelist with different projects.
Feb 15th : “Introducing Flipstarter” [source]
Feb 16th :” Bitcoin.com’s stance on the recent block reward diversion proposals” video by Roger Ver on the Bitcoin.com Official Channel. [source] > Ver called Zhuoer’s IFP “clever” but ultimately “problematic.” [coinspice article]
Feb 16th :” BCH miner donation plan update again” read.cash article by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] In which he briefly outlines the details of IFPv3
Feb 17th : “Latest Thoughts On Infrastructure Mining Plan” post by Jonald Fyookball [source]
Feb 17th : “Regarding the Bitcoin Cash Infrastructure Funding Plan, I am certain now that it should be scrapped immediately.” tweet by Mark Lundeberg [source]
Feb 19th : “Thoughts on the IFP - A Dev Perspective“ read.cash article by Josh Ellithorpe [source]
Feb 20th : “Bitcoin Cash Node” post announcing the new node implementation [source]
Feb 20th : First “Bitcoin Cash Developer Meeting” After IFP Proposal [source]
Feb 24th : “Flipstarter 500k, 6 independent campaigns” post announcing the goal to “fund the BCH ecosystem with 6 independent campaigns and an overall 500,000 USD target” [source]
Feb 27th : BCHN Formally Released [source]
Feb 27th : “The BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm is broken. Here's how to fix it.” Video by Jonathan Toomim [source]
Mar 3th :” Bitcoin Cash Node 2020: plans for May upgrade and beyond” post by BCHN [source]
Mar 4th :”Author of the Bitcoin Cash IFP [Jiang Zhuoer] Vows to Vote Against It, Using Personal Hash in Opposition” [source]
Mar 5th :Bitcoin ABC announces their 2020 Business Plan Fundraising for later in march [source]
Mar 15th : “EatBCH campaign funded! Next: node campaigns.” campaign funded after 11 hours [source]
Mar 30th : Bitcoin ABC 2020 Business Plan [source] $3.3 Million Fundraiser [source]
Apr 17th : Five flipstarter node campaign launched. [source]
Apr 26th : BCHN flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
Apr 27th : VERDE flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
May 4th : KNUTH flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
May 7th : “BCH DeFi Startup General Protocols Raises Over $1 mil“ [source]
May 8th : BCHD flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
May 9th : Deadline for node campaigns, ABC flipstarter campaign not funded. [source]
May 14th : “With IFP Defeated, Bitcoin ABC, ViaBTC & CoinEX CEO Publicly Consider a Bitcoin Cash Foundation” [source]
May 15th : deadline for ABC fundraiser campaign, ends at 55% completed. [source]
May 15th : 6th HF network upgrade -> new opcode op_Reversebytes, increased of the chained transaction limit from 25 to 50, and the improved counting of signature operations using the new “Sigchecks” implementation [source] with the “Controversial Funding Plan Rejected by Miners” [source]
May 25th : “Announcing the SLP Foundation” [source]
Jun 15st : “BCHN lead maintainer report 2020-06-15” announcement to remove the Automatic Replay Protection (a.k.a. the Poison Pill) from BCHN in november [source]
Jun 16st : “So [BCHN] is going to fork off from BCH at the next upgrade. Same old story. […]” tweeted Vin Armani [source]
Jun 21st : “Why Automatic Replay Protection Exists” post by Shammah Chancellor [source]
Jul 7th : “The Popular Stablecoin Tether Is Now Circulating on the Bitcoin Cash Network” [source]
Jul 8th : “BCH protocol upgrade proposal: Use ASERT as the new DAA” post by Jonathan Toomim [source]
Jul 18th : “$6M Worth of Tether on the Bitcoin Cash Chain Highlights the Benefits of SLP Tokens” [source]
Jul 23th : “Announcing the Grasberg DAA” post by Amaury Séchet[source]
Jul 24th : “Thoughts on Grasberg DAA” post by Mark Lundeberg [source]
Jul 29th : CashFusion security audit has been completed [source]
Jul 31st : Electron Cash 4.1.0 release with CashFusion support [source]
4th year, august 2020 – 2021
Aug 1st : “Bitcoin Cash: Scaling the Globe“ Online conference for ForkDay Celebration [source]
Aug 2nd : >“Is there going to be a fork between ABC and BCHN?” > “IMO it is very likely. If not in November, then next May.” – Amaury Séchet
Aug 3rd : “Dark secrets of the Grasberg DAA” post by Jonathan Toomim [source]
Aug 3rd : “Joint Statement On aserti3-2d Algorithm“ post by General Protocols, including Cryptophyl, Read.cash, Software Verde & SpinBCH [source]
Aug 3rd : Knuth announces they will be implementing aserti3-2d as DAA for november. [source]
Aug 3rd : Amaury rage quit from the developer call [source]
Aug 4th : “But why do people care about compensating for historical drift? Seems like a tiny problem and if it's causing this much social discord it seems not even worth bothering to try to fix.” Tweet by Vitalik [source]
Aug 5th : “Bitcoin Cash (BCH) November 2020 Upgrade statement” signed by BCHD, electron cash, VERDE, BU members, BCHN developers, Jonathan Toomim, Mark B. Lundeberg and many others [source]
Aug 5th : “BCHN FAQ on November 2020 Bitcoin Cash network upgrade” [source]
Aug 6th : “Bitcoin ABC’s plan for the November 2020 upgrade” [source] the announcement that they will drop Grasberg in favour of aserti3–2d (ASERT) and will also include FPv4 in which 8% of the blockreward goes to ABC as development funding.
Aug 7th : “Joint Statement from BCH Miners regarding Bitcoin ABC and the November 2020 BCH Upgrade.” Read.cash article by asicseer [source] stating “Over recent months, most miners and pools have switched to BCHN, and presently operate a majority of BCH hashrate.”
Aug 7th : “Simple Ledger Protocol's Joint Statement Regarding Bitcoin ABC on BCH's November 2020 Upgrade” read.cash post by the SLP-Foundation [source]
submitted by Mr-Zwets to btc [link] [comments]

SHA256 Blockchains Current Status

SHA256 Blockchains Current Status submitted by santoterracomputing to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Vast Monero network hash rate increase

What is up with this recent increase of the hash rate? It has almost doubled in a matter of days. Has any particular reason for this been confirmed yet?
submitted by fakoshi to Monero [link] [comments]

My top 5 (and more) arguments against the mining tax as implemented in ABC 0.21.0

These are mine, but I'd like to hear yours in the comments!
  1. Corrupting influence. Mixing monetary policy (money supply regulation, in Bitcoin: coin creation) and fiscal policy (roughly: government spending and taxing) is what central banks already do, and we know the results. Bitcoin was not designed to deliver such a mix - the newly created coin was, up to now, fully owned by the miner creating the block, and matures after a certain time when it can be spent. Miners can voluntary spend their coinbase outputs to other parties already. In this way fiscal decisions are decentralized as much possible - meaning every miner / pool gets to decide how to spend 100% of their mining block reward (or share thereof). Do you already see how Bitcoin's design removes all possible financial intermediaries - including any trusted "government" or "fund" that decides how to spend other peoples' money? If so, you already get my first point. Peter Rizun has mentioned the legal concerns around directing colluding miner funds to certain entities with expectation of results. IANAL, but I think the argument that instituting such a change on protocol level could bring BCH into conflict with security law (Howey Test) should be seriously examined.
  2. Due to how information is distributed, a centrally planned economy cannot match the efficiency of the open market. A free market is all that is needed to fund things. Miners and anyone else can already fund any kind of development (or other activities) through the existing protocol. Furthermore, we know there are successful methods of funding public goods in voluntary ways through Assurance Contracts. These have not been deployed on Bitcoin Cash before (early crowdfunding systems didn't implement them properly), but are basically ready to go now (Flipstarter) and could offer BCH an improvement even over other successful systems like Monero's Community Crowdfunding System (CCS) due to the fact that we can do this non-custodially via Bitcoin Cash scripts. Going for a miner tax based "dev fund" with nebulous administration and all the accompanying hazards seems a poor choice before we tried the voluntary route which preserves the original economic freedom and incentives of Bitcoin Cash.
  3. Increased centralization of mining and development. Going with the plan would work counter to a decentralized protocol client environment, and centralize even more power with the dominant client (ABC). The donation address whitelist is hardcoded into the client. Miners/pools who don't obey the new rules of contributing 5% of block reward to active whitelisted addresses have their blocks orphaned, lowering the chain hashrate (security) and driving away small miners who might not be able to afford the margin. This centralizes mining on BCH beyond what's necessary. Again, a free market will deliver better security and service!
  4. Sold with a veneer of false pretenses. We are told that other (non-BCH) SHA256 miners will effectively pay the cost, but this argument has been effectively debunked. The cost is paid for all BCH holders, as it comes out of the agreed upon money supply inflation. It comes at the cost of lowered BCH chain hashrate = security, with the concomitant increased risk of other miners executing attacks on BCH. Yet, holders don't get to vote right now, except by selling their BCH or converting it into hashpower. Did you know financial markets can offer instruments to let holders express their opinion about possible futures (whether they'd prefer one outcome or another) with slight or no punishment in the case of no split - i.e. actually could facilitate a no-split outcome that many BCH users & holders recognize as preferable? Another pretense is that the plan, if successful, would terminate after a limited time. This is not what regularly happens in taxpayer-funded government programs, and it is paradoxical to assume that a measure to support ongoing maintenance and development would, if deemed successful in a trial run, be expected to be terminated. Especially if the people receiving the funds are literally the ones deciding and writing the rules. In governments we at least came up with separation of powers (legislative, judicial, executive). Why should be mix up powers again? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Serious developers also recognize that the dollar amounts we are talking about in the proposed plan are too low to expect completion within the previously announced limited timeframes. Giving a good hint that the limited timeframe was a nothing but a public pacifier when planners already expect it to continue.
  5. The proposal is poorly conceived in terms of safety against malicious activation. Only 66% of hashrate need to vote for it over a two week period. Previously, BCH miners objected to any form of hashrate voting on BCH with the argument that it is still a very-low hashrate minority fork. That has not changed materially, but suddenly we are supposed to accept that hashrate voting on our minority coin is safe. Can't have it both ways. As an additional point, there is no 6 month sunset clause built into the implementation, and it seems removed from the plan agreed between ABC and miners (as per recent ABC website post). This completely reneges on the "update" previously presented to the community in that regard, re-affirming that there is no serious commitment to ending this after a limited time.
I probably squeezed in too many explanations.
Originally my aim was to get a short summary. I should try to sum it up better, but I know there are many people who could do a much better job at that. Please speak up, correct me where you feel I'm wrong, and add points that you think are missing!
P.S. I fully realize that the ones pushing this plan are not likely to be swayed by any of these arguments.
I am presenting mine here in hopes to encourage further discussion, and I hope you will do the same, so everyone is armed with knowledge, going into what looks like it could be an escalating dispute within our community.
Perhaps though, there is a minute chance that backers of the plan could see the danger in the split that they are creating. I still have hope, but I'm also prepared to act.
submitted by ftrader to btc [link] [comments]

Proof-of-Work vs Proof-of-Stake algorithms and why PYRK uses PoW

Proof-of-Work vs Proof-of-Stake algorithms and why PYRK uses PoW
Hello, community! 👋🏻 In this post, we will tell you about Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake algorithms and why PYRK uses PoW.
🔗 A large part of 2019 was discussed in the discussion of the pricing of the key digital assets, which slightly increased, slightly higher than before. 2020 began with the confirmation of the bullish trend, taking into account the increase in bitcoin in January at Z0%. At the same time, the process between Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake (proof of share) did not complete. Emotional gain increased by the approximation of the Ethereum switch from the PoW protocol to the PoS protocol.
🔗 Coins with PoW support are mined in the sector, having a colossal share of 82.92% and a cumulative market capitalization of about $ 213, 5 billion. The predominance of market capitalization on PoW is ensured by the fact that the bitcoin dodu accounts for 65% of the total market capitalization of crypto assets. Its main advantages of PoW are protection against DoS attacks and the low impact of the miner’s cryptocurrency share on mining opportunities.
🏆 PYRK Proof-of-Work triple algorithm
✅ Since PoW is still the preferred mining consensus mechanism, PYRK proposes to take a multiple algorithm approach. Instead of trying to use algorithms which are ASIC resistant, we propose to use algorithms which have had ASIC miners for quite some time. These are: SHA256, Scrypt, and X11.
✅ Since these miners are already in wide use, the distribution of mining should be fair and even. Furthermore, the use of three different algorithms results in a far less chance of any single person gaining a majority hash rate share. Lastly, we use the Multishield difficulty adjustment algorithm to prevent difficulty spike issues resulting from burst mining.
✅ The idea of multi-algorithm originated in Digibyte. Splitting the mining into three different algorithms effectively splits the amount of work performed by each algorithm to 33% of the total network hashrate. This means that any pool or miner mining can only achieve 33% of the total hashrate even if they are mining 100% of the hash rate of a single algorithm. It is an exceedingly unlikely case that a single miner attains 100% of the hash rate of a single algorithm, especially as the number of miners and pools grow with the network. The triple algorithm approach helps to further protect the network from bad actors while also providing the preferred Proof-of-Work mechanism.
Read more about PYRK project and its Proof-of-Work triple algorithm in our Whitepaper: https://www.pyrk.org/Pyrk-Whitepaper.pdf
And on our website: https://www.pyrk.org
https://preview.redd.it/jmkjz2am47051.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=8c4080d36769f7a953fdb436510e97b646e78d1d
submitted by VS_community to pyrk [link] [comments]

howmanyconfs.com - How does the security of different Proof-of-Work blockchains compare to Bitcoin?

howmanyconfs.com - How does the security of different Proof-of-Work blockchains compare to Bitcoin? submitted by dyslexiccoder to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Proposal to switch to dual POW algorithm(GPU+Merged Mining) or just full Merged Mining

I'm not the biggest Eth classic holder nor is it a majority of my bags, but I do have it in a special place in my heart.
These constant 51% attacks are so BAD. :(
I much like GPU mining but let face it you need to be a dominant hasher and even then due to costs of making an ASIC(a much needed to secure the chain) the attacker can attack with it huge amount of money made AGAIN. Nichhashable :(
But what if we can keep GPU but make it dual mining.
Reuse Bitcoin Mining-"it kinda like free mining for sha256 miners" and due to the size of pools and incentives to max payments it be VERY secure. By making it mine 50% of the blocks and 50% blocks just done by GPU(which allows more ease of use for newcomers to mine), Eth classic will be much safer.
Or just go full Merged Mining..... It would help Eth classic to have closer ties with Bitcoin(just saying) ile lowering possible inflation and even out emission curve.
After this is done, voluntary POB can be used to help out the chain and offset the supply getting increased if needed.....
The chain itself needs to be secured ASAP. This is not normal at all!!!!
submitted by samee1771 to EthereumClassic [link] [comments]

Digibyte and features of applying its solutions in PYRK

Digibyte and features of applying its solutions in PYRK
Hello. 👋🏻 In this post we will tell you about Digibyte and the features of applying its solutions in PYRK
❓ What is Digibyte?
Digibyte is a cryptocurrency that was created as an alternative to Bitcoin to solve its mining problems.
⚙️ Digibyte Multi-level Difficulty Adjustment
🔸 The idea of ​​a multilevel adjustment of Multishell complexity is that the algorithm can adjust the mining complexity to maintain the block creation speed. Due to the fact that the number of miners can increase or decrease, the network can be unstable, therefore Multishell corrects the difficulty of computing, and hence mining.
🔸 If the miners provide too much power for the network, the algorithm will adjust to this and increase the complexity of mining to the required level. If there is an outflow of capacities, then the algorithm will simplify mining.
💡 Digibyte Multi-Algorithm Mechanism
🔸 Digibyte Multi-Algorithm is a great solution to limit miners. Some algorithms are more complicated than their counterparts. Let's say there is a pool of miners whose ASICs are designed for a very high speed of working with SHA256. If they start mining on SHA256, they will be able to achieve only 33% of hashrate. The remaining 66% belong to two other algorithms.
✅ PYRK borrowed both of these solutions
🔹 This opens up new opportunities for PYRK. The coin will be able to efficiently provide high speed operation both at high network load and at low. Thanks to the Triple Proof-of-Work Algorithm, it is possible to mine on different algorithms. Thus, it is very unlikely for a single miner to attain 100% of the hash rate of a single algorithm.
📢 Read more about the benefits and features of PYRK, based on Digibyte at: http://pyrk.org
https://preview.redd.it/1k5fg1xsk8c51.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=6230b6cf5ad794c6187ff3f7681402544a461602
submitted by VS_community to pyrk [link] [comments]

Questions Regarding BTC Mining

I have been wondering about some of the details related to bitcoin mining bit couldn't find an answer, I would bet the answer can be found was I capable of looking up the mining algorithms but I'm not that savvy (not yet at least) so here it goes.
I understand that during mining, the miners take the hash calculated from a given block then appends a nonce to it and calculate SHA256 for the whole expression, if the hash value is larger than the limit set by mining difficulty, the miner must attempt again the SHA256 calculation again by appending a different nonce and repeat until a hash smaller than the limit is found.
What I wanted to ask is the following:
1) Is my understanding above correct? If not then please disregard the below questions since they would be garbage most likely (correcting the fault lines in my understanding would more than enough).
2) How are these nonces to be appended chosen? Are they chosen randomly at every attempt or changed sequentially by adding 1 for example?
3) Does the bitcoin blockchain enforces the use of a specific algorithm for generating nonces or is it left to the miners to concoct their own algorithms as they see fit? (If enforced by the bitcoin block chain, I'd appreciate an explanation why)
4) If the choice is left to miners to generate nonces as they see fit, what is the best approach to generating these nonces available?
5) In a mining pools where many ASICs are hashing together, is there any coordination at the pool or at least at individual ASIC miner level to ensure no two ASIC chips are calculating the hash for the same nonce while trying to find the block? If not, what are the difficulties preventing such an implementation?
Thanks in advance and if there are any useful resources addressing these questions please share them especially ones describing the mining algorithm generating nonces.
submitted by BitcoinAsks to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

PiNode-XMR (Single board computer Plug and Play Full Monero Node) Free image download and updated to v2.12.19. **Lots of new features**

PiNode-XMR (Single board computer Plug and Play Full Monero Node) Free image download and updated to v2.12.19. **Lots of new features**


https://preview.redd.it/f81i3qsnr6941.jpg?width=740&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=da729d5a37c1be43832d7cf2ccdce6ccc4c4d637

Main project page with manual and screenshots https://github.com/shermand100/pinode-xmr
Download PiNode-XMR_v2.12.19_m0.15.0.1.img -Hosted on Google drive - 6.45GB
SHA256 Hash: 0EE90EEC65F430DC89FB3236474AA576BA0AFFFF4005B044FFE40D4A47B148F0
Hardware: Raspberry Pi 3/4 including B and + models
New Features:
  • Onion Monero Blockchain Explorer by mWo12 included.
  • Auto loading menu for Monero updates, and script that auto detects, formats and mounts attached USB drives. Labels drive for simple detection by future versions of PiNode-XMR so the blockchain is maintained between versions.
  • Public node - RPC_payments ready. Receive payment* for running a node (more info here) Pending monero/pull/6260 ( context of issue monero/issues/3083 )
All features:
  • 4 Node modes (click to start)
    • Private Node
    • tor bridging Node - routes your transactions through the tor network
    • Public Node - Using new RPC payment feature* - soon
    • Private Node - with mining (For education/experiment only)
  • Simple control with Web-UI
    • View Monero node and hardware status
    • Control bandwidth, connection limits and RPC port
    • Transaction pool and summary viewer
    • View connected peer info
    • Monerod log file view page
  • Easy setup menu for config of passwords, USB storage, Update and optional dynamic DNS.
  • All the benefits of running on a Pi, silent/fanless, low power (approx 15w) for 24/7 node, low cost.
  • Headless (No need for extra monitor,keyboard,etc) and connect via Ethernet or WiFi**
Background:
I've been making nodes for other coins for a few years to learn about some crypto basics. It got a bit of interest for I have a site https://PiNode.co.uk but recently far more advanced projects have come on the scene (such as RaspiBlitz for Bitcoin) which was so far superior there was no sense pursuing it . However there are benefits for Monero users running their own node and we didn't have that quality of plug and play node. So I've been giving it a go and this is the result.
The Future of PiNode-XMR:
First of all project needs feedback to continue, I don't know what to develop and introduce unless people say what they don't like, do like or want.
Second, it'd be great if anyone else in the Monero community would like to get involved, we have a great group and I'm sure there is an aspect of this project someone takes an interest in. Please get in touch. Like if there are any budding website designers in our midst the UI is the last module of this project that isn't open source, it's from a template and I've put it together best I can but...throwing that out there :) I'd be nice if the monero community could completely own this project, completely open source.
Finally, I know that now there is more choice on the single board computer market and although the Raspberry Pi is popular it may not be the best hardware choice. So the next plan is to rather than make disk images that are hardware specific, to instead make scripts that are based on an OS ( probably Debian ). This way this project can be built by anyone using a single command onto Pine64, Odroid, Bananapi or any old laptop/pc with Debian for thier full node.
Thanks for taking an interest and readingDan
The "Advanced Settings" page from the UI for a bit of colour after all that text:

https://preview.redd.it/4pqg5mcqr6941.png?width=1340&format=png&auto=webp&s=aa1f9ee176746ea064c8e8573ba04ee864ab5bc3
Edit: Added download link to this page too. Corrected image layout.
Edit2: Added hash of image. And note it's also possible to flash the image directly onto a USB drive with a program like Rufus and not insert a MicroSD at all. You'll need to then manually expand that partition to the size of the drive, but may be useful to know.
submitted by shermand100 to Monero [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash infrastructure tax

https://medium.com/@jiangzhuoeinfrastructure-funding-plan-for-bitcoin-cash-131fdcd2412e
Miscellaneous observations:
  1. Large Miners' ability to easily soft fork by themselves is a result of BCH having only a fraction of hashrate. Having a minority hashrate is not required, though: for example, a coin with 60% of hashrate could be 51% attacked by 31% hashrate. In other words, given the amount of mining centralization that exists, this problem could conceivably also affect BTC in the future.
  2. Obviously, this change is controversial. As such, highly invested miners have apparently shown a willingness to use their SHA256 hardware to execute a 51% attack. This might be evidence that Bitcoin's long term security model is basically broken. I'm sure some BTC people will dismiss this as a BCH-local problem but I feel like it's everyone's problem who uses SHA256.
  3. While the article proposes that any miners who are driven out of business will flock to BTC and drive up the hashrate, that might be an oversimplification, as some might be driven out of business entirely (further enriching miners of either coin who had large margins to begin with).
  4. As usual, BTC could theoretically avoid the incoming hashrate (and flood BCH with hashrate in the process) by changing PoW if it was considered a serious enough problem. (A similar skewing of "independent" miners to preferentially mine BTC probably already exists once existed because of ASICBOOST.)
  5. If some or all of the infrastructure tax went directly into the cartel's pockets, they could of course undercut all other miners.
  6. This post notes that a UASF could theoretically prevent such a MASF by banning multiple coinbase outputs. I'm not sure if it's that simple: imagine, for example, a scheme where all coinbases must directly pay Amaury Sechet, who then promises to reimburse 90% to the pool that mined the block. Banning pool identification strings doesn't work either: so long as mining pools can somehow encode information into blocks (for example, by manipulating the transaction set) for ~free, they can use that to secretly communicate their identity.
  7. Even Monero, which is typically much more secure against censorship than Bitcoin, isn't immune to this type of MASF because of view keys.
submitted by yamaha20 to BitcoinDiscussion [link] [comments]

Solve the "storage, mining pool and exchange centralization", and only generate 1G data every year

The blockheader has two segments with a total length of 64 bit0 (of which blocktime is 64 bits), which strongly prevents the collapse effect of the sha256 operation in the ASIC miner, so that the mining difficulty will not increase indefinitely. The centralization for the high hashrate of the mining pool is strongly restricted. Census and prune the transactions (at most 4 outputs per transaction) whose all outputs are spent,in the block below 1300 depth in batches(i.e. clear up the input and output at the same time, and only keep the version of all-outs-spent transaction on the disk,--not serialize vin and vout). 250 for each batch, 20 block files(one file per block) will be reconstructed for each block received from other nodes, that is to say, 5000 transactions will be pruned at a time. And special mechanism is used to make the synchronization of data from malicious nodes error free. Only 1G data is increased every year. The data it running for 1000 years will be no more than 1T. Block size is 2M, and only 1g data is increased every year without SPV, which strongly prevents the storage of a large number of block data reducing the number of nodes. At the same time, 'four outputs per tx' limit the settlement of the mining pool, and strongly prevent the centralization of the mining pool. For example, the settlement is sent to 4000 miners, which requires 1000 transactions. All currencies are locked in the maturity of 300 blocks (the input can only be used as prevout after 300 blocks), which strongly prevents the frequency of trading speculation, the crash from the online exchange, and prevent the centralization of the biggest online exchange in the world.
This has achieved "absolute decentralization".
At present, the tip height is only 600, and there is no pre-mined. The RPC is stable and reliable same as bitcoin 0.10.2. No segwit but P2SH, a little change based on 0.10.2. Usage: $ /download-directory/bitcoind -addnode =47.114.58.108 (same for Ubuntu) with bitcoin.conf configuration file
Detailed introduction,original text is as follows: github-holyangel250-bitsupercoin
submitted by DangerousDetail8 to BitcoinSerious [link] [comments]

Solve the "storage, mining pool and exchange centralization", and only generate 1G data every year(only pc-miner)

The blockheader has two segments with a total length of 64 bit0 (of which blocktime is 64 bits), which strongly prevents the collapse effect of the sha256 operation in the ASIC miner, so that the mining difficulty will not increase indefinitely. The centralization for the high hashrate of the mining pool is strongly restricted. Census and prune the transactions (at most 4 outputs per transaction) whose all outputs are spent,in the block below 1300 depth in batches(i.e. clear up the input and output at the same time, and only keep the version of all-outs-spent transaction on the disk,--not serialize vin and vout). 250 for each batch, 20 block files(one file per block) will be reconstructed for each block received from other nodes, that is to say, 5000 transactions will be pruned at a time. And special mechanism is used to make the synchronization of data from malicious nodes error free. Only 1G data is increased every year. The data it running for 1000 years will be no more than 1T. Block size is 2M, and only 1g data is increased every year without SPV, which strongly prevents the storage of a large number of block data reducing the number of nodes. At the same time, 'four outputs per tx' limit the settlement of the mining pool, and strongly prevent the centralization of the mining pool. For example, the settlement is sent to 4000 miners, which requires 1000 transactions. All currencies are locked in the maturity of 300 blocks (the input can only be used as prevout after 300 blocks), which strongly prevents the frequency of trading speculation, the crash from the online exchange, and prevent the centralization of the biggest online exchange in the world.
This has achieved "absolute decentralization".
At present, the tip height is only 600, and there is no pre-mined. The RPC is stable and reliable same as bitcoin 0.10.2. No segwit but P2SH, a little change based on 0.10.2. Usage: $ /download-directory/bitcoind -addnode =47.114.58.108 (same for Ubuntu) with bitcoin.conf configuration file
Detailed introduction,original text is as follows: github-holyangel250-bitsupercoin
submitted by DangerousDetail8 to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

HashFlare how to setup pools on SHA-256 mine Bitcoins. Solo Bitcoin Gridseeds + GekkoScience w/ Raspberry PI 3 & Antrouter R1 Best Bitcoin Mining Pools in 2018 How to mine bitcoins? What is Cryptomining? solo mining -pool Mining EXPLAINED! #AXT Mini Bitcoin Mining Farm: Gekkoscience 2PAC USB (SHA256 ...

Here you can find them all, e.g. A Hash Pool, Fairmine. Coins; Mining pools; Algorithms; Sha256 mining pools Request adding new: coin pool. Filter coins by algorithm Filter coins by algorithm: NeoScrypt 60 EquiHash 17 EquiHash (192,7) 1 EquiHash (96,5) 1 ZHash 7 Skein 24 Lyra2v2 30 TimeTravel10 1 C11 16 PHI1612 2 PHI2 8 Lyra2z 36 Skunkhash 0 Scrypt 310 X11 171 Keccak-C 3 Keccak 4 Nist5 11 ... This is a Bitcoin (BTC) SHA256 SOLO Mining pool. No registration required. Instant Payout immediately when block found. Bitcoin (BTC) SHA256 Mining Pool - PROP & SOLO Mining ASIC BOOST Custom Difficulty Custom Payouts No Registration DOS Protection Vardiff Stratums Automatic payments every 30 minutes for confirmed blocks at a minimum balance of 0.01 Anonymous + SSL Low 1% Fee Friendly Multilingual Support Bitcoin (BTC) - SHA256 ASIC Boost Friendly Payments go out every 30 minutes for minimum ... Merged Mining Pool for Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, Darkcoin, and other alternate cryptocurrencies. List of known Minerium Coin pools (MINR) SHA-256 PoW algorithm. Live hashrate distribution, pool fees & minimum payment comparison. Mining Pools & Block Explorer

[index] [5707] [19406] [44072] [9289] [19743] [7315] [9190] [1474] [20359] [17250]

HashFlare how to setup pools on SHA-256 mine Bitcoins.

What is a mining pool and why is it best to mine Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies on mining pools? Here is our review and explanation of mining pools, how ... Hashflare Bitcoin Mining How To Start Mining And ROI Review ... What is a Bitcoin hash and SHA-256 - Duration: 1:54. Ofir Beigel 64,406 views. 1:54. Arnold Schwarzenegger This Speech Broke The ... How to choose a Bitcoin mining pool - Duration: 6:02. bitcoin master 50,887 views. 6:02. The Gold Mine In The Clouds Super Structures Spark - Duration: 51:41. Spark Recommended for you. 51:41 ... What is SHA256? Bitcoin Mining using Raspberry Pi explains to you about bitcoin mining from its very basics. Initially, you will learn about all the different terminologies associated with the ... Today we look at the top 4 bitcoin mining pools and determine which one is the best. Fiat to Cryptocurrency EXCHANGES 1) Coinbase - Buy Cryptocurrency With Fiat → BTC-BCH-ETH-LTC » Registration ...

#