Bitcoin Mining - The Byzantine Generals Problem

Bitcoin Core, Blockstream and coblee are trying to make you believe that you can't trust miners. You don't have to trust miners because Satoshi have already resolved the Byzantine Generals problem. That's the point of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin Core, Blockstream and coblee are trying to make you believe that you can't trust miners. You don't have to trust miners because Satoshi have already resolved the Byzantine Generals problem. That's the point of Bitcoin. submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

There must be a max blocksize, otherwise the miners have a Byzantine General Problem. /r/Bitcoin

There must be a max blocksize, otherwise the miners have a Byzantine General Problem. /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Avalanche has no place in a Bitcoin based system.

Avalanche is a permission based system, unlike Bitcoin. Signing votes is essential with Avalanche. It is necessary even when identity is provided by the communications media, otherwise horrendously inefficient overhead is required. Compare, for example, the overhead of Leslie Lamport’s original solution to the Byzantine general’s problem with exponential overhead in the number of nodes, vs. the improved solution with digital signatures. Both of these versions were for permissioned systems.
Bitcoin mining is not permissioned and this is a key part of building a censorship proof system. Any new miner or group of miners can come in and a would be censor has no way of knowing whom to attack. Once a fixed group of players is required, the basis for Avalanche, this changes. Now all kinds of new attacks by state actors become possible. It is not just the cost and risks of signatures, it is the attack surface. This is true if Avalanche uses proof of work or proof of stake, the problem comes because the power to write to the ledger is backward looking, unlike Nakamoto consensus which keeps no state as to who gets to decide. With proof of work would be attackers have no way of knowing which node to attack to block the system.
When you add Avalanche to Bitcoin in search of a small quantitative improvement, you break Bitcoin’s fundamental qualitative essence. Avalanche has no place in a Bitcoin based system. Avalanche is a fundamentally different animal.
submitted by tl121 to btc [link] [comments]

Round up of Cryptocurrency News #5 Week 03/08 - 09/08

Welcome again to another recap and the first full week of the new month after breaking the downward trend on the monthly!
 
Firstly, from last weeks uptrend we have seen the market consolidate at this level throughout the week with a steady upward climb at the start of the week to a balance out above $11.5k for Bitcoin towards the end. For the market we have a total increase of $17.5B over the week but a 1% decrease of btc dominance moving mainly toward Chainlink and other altcoins.
 
Closing the week we have had some altcoin action, Ethereum breaking $400 midweek but now staying back in a nice channel between $350-$410 since the start of August. But, Chainlink killing it after breaking $10 and currently sitting comfortably above $13!! Other altcoins that have reaped rewards and I'm keeping an eye on are:
I have picked these as i have noticed they are usually the first movers or the biggest gainers after the market goes red. Chasing those quick gains!
 
What about the news for this week?
 
DISCORD LINK: https://discord.gg/zxXXyuJ 🍕 Bring some virtual pizza to share 🍕
Come have a chat, stimulate a discussion, ask a question or share some knowledge. We are all friendly crypto enthusiasts up for a chat, supportive and want to help each other with knowledge and investments!
Big thanks to our Telegram and My Crypto HQ for the constant news updates! The Gravychain Collective: https://t.me/gravychain My Crypto HQ: https://t.me/My_Crypto_HQ
Links
Important/Notable/Highlights:
Special Mentions:
Other:
submitted by IOTAbesomewhere to Gravychain [link] [comments]

The Retrospect and Prospect of the Crypto Economy——The Development and Evolution of the Consensus Mechanism (Three)

The Retrospect and Prospect of the Crypto Economy——The Development and Evolution of the Consensus Mechanism (Three)

https://preview.redd.it/45wwtygv2rc51.png?width=567&format=png&auto=webp&s=a5f51ea3c620d478231c39e32f198eb64d801897
Foreword
The consensus mechanism is one of the important elements of the blockchain and the core rule of the normal operation of the distributed ledger. It is mainly used to solve the trust problem between people and determine who is responsible for generating new blocks and maintaining the effective unification of the system in the blockchain system. Thus, it has become an everlasting research hot topic in blockchain.
This article starts with the concept and role of the consensus mechanism. First, it enables the reader to have a preliminary understanding of the consensus mechanism as a whole; then starting with the two armies and the Byzantine general problem, the evolution of the consensus mechanism is introduced in the order of the time when the consensus mechanism is proposed; Then, it briefly introduces the current mainstream consensus mechanism from three aspects of concept, working principle and representative project, and compares the advantages and disadvantages of the mainstream consensus mechanism; finally, it gives suggestions on how to choose a consensus mechanism for blockchain projects and pointed out the possibility of the future development of the consensus mechanism.
Contents
First, concept and function of the consensus mechanism
1.1 Concept: The core rules for the normal operation of distributed ledgers
1.2 Role: Solve the trust problem and decide the generation and maintenance of new blocks
1.2.1 Used to solve the trust problem between people
1.2.2 Used to decide who is responsible for generating new blocks and maintaining effective unity in the blockchain system
1.3 Mainstream model of consensus algorithm
Second, the origin of the consensus mechanism
2.1 The two armies and the Byzantine generals
2.1.1 The two armies problem
2.1.2 The Byzantine generals problem
2.2 Development history of consensus mechanism
2.2.1 Classification of consensus mechanism
2.2.2 Development frontier of consensus mechanism
Third, Common Consensus System
Fourth, Selection of consensus mechanism and summary of current situation
4.1 How to choose a consensus mechanism that suits you
4.1.1 Determine whether the final result is important
4.1.2 Determine how fast the application process needs to be
4.1.2 Determining the degree to which the application requires for decentralization
4.1.3 Determine whether the system can be terminated
4.1.4 Select a suitable consensus algorithm after weighing the advantages and disadvantages
4.2 Future development of consensus mechanism
Last lecture review: Chapter 1 Concept and Function of Consensus Mechanism plus Chapter 2 Origin of Consensus Mechanism
Last lecture review: Chapter 3 Common Consensus Mechanisms

Chapter 3 Common Consensus Mechanisms (Part 2)
Figure 6 Summary of relatively mainstream consensus mechanisms

https://preview.redd.it/2yepvjjy2rc51.png?width=567&format=png&auto=webp&s=acaed31fa6106ac2f501fe2cb284f66bb2258a0e
Source: Hasib Anwar, "Consensus Algorithms: The Root Of The Blockchain Technology"
The picture above shows 14 relatively mainstream consensus mechanisms summarized by a geek Hasib Anwar, including PoW (Proof of Work), PoS (Proof of Stake), DPoS (Delegated Proof of Stake), LPoS (Lease Proof of Stake), PoET ( Proof of Elapsed Time), PBFT (Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance), SBFT (Simple Byzantine Fault Tolerance), DBFT (Delegated Byzantine Fault Tolerance), DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph), Proof-of-Activity (Proof of Activity), Proof-of- Importance (Proof of Importance), Proof-of-Capacity (Proof of Capacity), Proof-of-Burn ( Proof of Burn), Proof-of-Weight (Proof of Weight).
Next, we will mainly introduce and analyze the top ten consensus mechanisms of the current blockchain.
》DBFT
-Concept:
Delegated Byzantine fault tolerance. The improved Byzantine fault-tolerant algorithm makes it suitable for blockchain systems. The system consists of nodes, delegators (who can approve blocks), and speakers (who proposes the next block). It is a consensus algorithm that guarantees fault tolerance implemented inside the NEO blockchain.
-Principle:
In this mechanism, there are two participants: the professional bookkeeper "bookkeeping node" and the ordinary users in the system.
Ordinary users vote based on the proportion of holding stake to determine the bookkeeping node. When a consensus is required, a spokesperson is randomly selected from these bookkeeping nodes to draw up a plan, and then other bookkeeping nodes will vote basing on the Byzantine fault tolerance algorithm.That is, majority principle. If more than 66% of the nodes agree to the spokesperson’ plan, a consensus is reached; otherwise, the spokesperson is re-elected and the voting process is repeated.
-Representative application: Neo, etc.
》PoA
-Concept:
Proof of authority. That is, certified by some accredited accounts, these accredited accounts are called "validators". The software that the verifier runs that supports the verifier to place transactions in blocks.
-Principle:
Three conditions:
  1. The identity must be formally verified on the chain, and the information can be cross-verified in a publicly available domain;
  2. The qualifications must be difficult to obtain, so that the rights of the verification block obtained are precious enough;
  3. The authoritative inspection and procedures must be completely unified.
With PoA, every individual has the right to become a verifier, so there is an incentive to maintain the position of the verifier once acquired. By attaching a reputation to the identity, the verifier can be encouraged to maintain the transaction process. Because the verifier does not want to gain a negative reputation, it will lose its hard-won verifier status.
-Representative applications: VeChain, etc.
》DAG
-Concept:
Directed acyclic graph. Each newly added unit in the DAG is not only added to the long chain block, but added to all the previous blocks, verifying each new unit and confirming its parent unit and the parent unit of the parent unit, and gradually confirming until the genesis unit. As the hash of its parent unit is included in its own unit, the blockchains of all transactions are connected to each other to form a graph-like structure with time.
-Principle:
In the DAG network, each node can be a trader and a validator, because the transaction processing in DAG is done by the transaction node itself. Taking IOTA as an example, IOTA’s Tangle led
ger does not need to pay transaction fees while ensuring high-speed transaction processing. However, it does not mean that the transaction is free, because in this ledger, the initiation of each transaction needs to verify the other two random transactions first, and connect the transaction initiated by itself to these two transactions, so the responsibility that miners on the blockchain bear is distributed to all traders. The DAG method of processing transactions can be called asynchronous processing mode.
Figure 10 The difference between the traditional blockchain structure and the DAG structure

https://preview.redd.it/1xfssxj03rc51.png?width=553&format=png&auto=webp&s=95c382f81943c9a188a89ac6b2dadf64446589e6
-Representative applications: IOTA, etc.
》PoET
-Concept:
Proof of elapsed time. That is, it is usually used in a permissioned blockchain network. It can determine the mining rights of the block holders in the network. The permissioned blockchain network requires any prospective participants to verify their identity before joining. According to the principles of the fair lottery system, each node is equally likely to become the winner.
-Principle:
Each participating node in the network must wait for a randomly selected period, and the first node to complete the set waiting time will get a new block. Each node in the blockchain network will generate a random waiting time and sleep for a set time. The node that wakes up first, that is, the node with the shortest waiting time, wakes up and submits a new block to the blockchain, and then broadcasts the necessary information to the entire peer-to-peer network. The same process will be repeated to find the next block.
Two factors:
  1. Participating nodes will naturally select a random time in nature, rather than deliberately;
  2. The winner did complete the waiting time.
-Representative application: HyperLedger Sawtooth, etc.
》PoSV
-Concept:
Proof of stake velocity. Proposed by Reddcoin, drawing on the concept of "money circulation speed" in economics, it mainly allocates bookkeeping rights based on the coin age of nodes participating in the competition.
-Principle:
PoSV also allocates accounting rights according to the coin age of the nodes participating in the competition, but modifies the coin age calculation formula to a function of exponential decay of growth rate. Taking Reddcoin as an example, Reddcoin sets the half-life of the coin age growth rate to 1 month. Assuming that the unit token can accumulate 1CoinDay coin age on the first day, only 0.5CoinDay coin age can be accumulated on the 31st day, and only 0.25CoinDay coin age can be accumulated on the 61st day, and so on. In this way, the nodes are encouraged to use the token to conduct a transaction after holding the token for a period of time, thereby restarting the calculation of the coin age and increasing the circulation speed of the token in the network.
-Representative applications: Reddcoin, etc.
Table 2 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of current mainstream consensus mechanisms

https://preview.redd.it/kb04i7eh3rc51.png?width=1236&format=png&auto=webp&s=42de13bc99afaf258c0a740a6618e2d579b59100
Source: network resources
Chapter 4 Summary of the Selection and Status Quo of Consensus Mechanism
4.1 How to choose a consensus mechanism that suits you
Step 1: Determine whether the final result is important
For some applications, the end result is very important. If you are building a new payment system that can support very small amounts, it is acceptable for the transaction result to change. Similarly, if you are creating a new distributed social network, 100% guarantee that the status is updated immediately is not particularly necessary. On the contrary, if you are creating a new distributed protocol, the final result is critical to the user experience. For example, Bitcoin has a final confirmation time of about 1 hour, Ethereum has a final confirmation time of about 6 minutes, and Tendermint Core only has a final confirmation time of 1 second.
Step 2: Determine how fast the application process needs to be
If you are building a game, is it reasonable to wait 15 seconds before each action? Due to the low block processing time of Ethereum, games built on it will cause poor user experience due to Ethereum's throughput. However, the application for the transfer of housing property rights can be run on Ethereum. Use the Cosmos SDK to build an application that allows developers to freely use Tendermint Core. It has a short block processing time and high throughput, and is capable of processing 10,000 transactions per second. You can reduce the required communication overhead and speed up the application by setting the maximum number of validators for the application.
Step 3: Determine the application's demand for decentralization
Some applications such as games may not require very high censorship resistance as a by-product of decentralization. In theory, does it really matter that the validator can create a cartel in the game and reverse the transaction result for profit? If it is not important, a blockchain such as EOS may be more suitable for your needs because of the fast transaction speed and free fees. However, some applications such as autonomous banks are more powerful and decentralized. Although Ethereum is considered to be decentralized, some supporters claim that Ethereum's mining pool is an important part of centralized platform, although there are actually only 11 validators (mining pools). One of the major benefits of building your own blockchain instead of building on a smart contract platform is that you can customize the way the application completes verification. However, it is difficult to build your own blockchain, so the Cosmos SDK is very useful, you can easily build your own blockchain and customize the degree of decentralization you need.
Step 4: Determine whether the system can be terminated
If you are building a new application similar to a distributed ride-sharing service, then ensuring 24/7 service must be the first priority, even if there are occasional errors in accounting similar to transactions. One of the properties of Tendermint Core is that if there is a disagreement between network validators, the network will suspend operations instead of proceeding erroneous transactions. Applications such as decentralized exchanges require correctness at all costs-if there is a problem, it is far better to suspend trading on the decentralized exchange than there may be trading problems.
Summary: Choose a suitable consensus algorithm after weighing the advantages and disadvantages
All in all, there is no single best consensus algorithm. Each consensus algorithm has its own value and advantages. You need to have your own judgments and choices. However, by understanding the relevant processes of the consensus mechanism, including proposals and agreements, and establishing a framework to consider the types of consensus algorithms that your application may require, you should be able to make wiser decisions.
4.2 Future development of consensus mechanism
The consensus algorithm is one of the core elements of the blockchain. Although there are more than 30 consensus mechanisms listed in the article, there are still many niche consensus mechanisms that may not be discussed. As the blockchain technology is gradually known and accepted by the public, more and more newer and better consensus algorithms may appear in the future, which may be brand-new consensus algorithms, and more should be improvement and optimization version based on the current consensus algorithm.
After 2016 and 2017 years’ fast development, the current consensus algorithm does not have a recognized evaluation standard, but is generally more biased towards fairness and decentralization, as well as some technical related issues, such as energy consumption and scalability , Fault tolerance and security, etc. However, blockchain technology must be combined with requirements and application scenarios, and the consensus mechanism algorithm and incentive mechanism are inseparable. How to customize a suitable consensus mechanism according to the characteristics of your own project and optimize the current consensus mechanism will become the future direction of consensus mechanism development
CelesOS
As the first DPOW financial blockchain operating system, CelesOS adopts consensus mechanism 3.0 to break through the "impossible triangle", which can provide high TPS while also allowing for decentralization. Committed to creating a financial blockchain operating system that embraces supervision, providing services for financial institutions and the development of applications on the supervision chain, and formulating a role and consensus ecological supervision layer agreement for supervision.
The CelesOS team is dedicated to building a bridge between blockchain and regulatory agencies/financial industry. We believe that only blockchain technology that cooperates with regulators will have a real future. We believe in and contribute to achieving this goal.
📷Website
https://www.celesos.com/
📷 Telegram
https://t.me/celeschain
📷 Twitter
https://twitter.com/CelesChain
📷 Reddit
https://www.reddit.com/useCelesOS
📷 Medium
https://medium.com/@celesos
📷 Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/CelesOS1
📷 Youtube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1Xsd8wU957D-R8RQVZPfGA
submitted by CelesOS to u/CelesOS [link] [comments]

Review and Prospect of Crypto Economy-Development and Evolution of Consensus Mechanism (2)

Review and Prospect of Crypto Economy-Development and Evolution of Consensus Mechanism (2)

https://preview.redd.it/a51zsja94db51.png?width=567&format=png&auto=webp&s=99e8080c9e9b1fb5e11cbd70f915f9cb37188f81
Foreword
The consensus mechanism is one of the important elements of the blockchain and the core rule of the normal operation of the distributed ledger. It is mainly used to solve the trust problem between people and determine who is responsible for generating new blocks and maintaining the effective unification of the system in the blockchain system. Thus, it has become an everlasting research hot topic in blockchain.
This article starts with the concept and role of the consensus mechanism. First, it enables the reader to have a preliminary understanding of the consensus mechanism as a whole; then starting with the two armies and the Byzantine general problem, the evolution of the consensus mechanism is introduced in the order of the time when the consensus mechanism is proposed; Then, it briefly introduces the current mainstream consensus mechanism from three aspects of concept, working principle and representative project, and compares the advantages and disadvantages of the mainstream consensus mechanism; finally, it gives suggestions on how to choose a consensus mechanism for blockchain projects and pointed out the possibility of the future development of the consensus mechanism.
Contents
First, concept and function of the consensus mechanism
1.1 Concept: The core rules for the normal operation of distributed ledgers
1.2 Role: Solve the trust problem and decide the generation and maintenance of new blocks
1.2.1 Used to solve the trust problem between people
1.2.2 Used to decide who is responsible for generating new blocks and maintaining effective unity in the blockchain system
1.3 Mainstream model of consensus algorithm
Second, the origin of the consensus mechanism
2.1 The two armies and the Byzantine generals
2.1.1 The two armies problem
2.1.2 The Byzantine generals problem
2.2 Development history of consensus mechanism
2.2.1 Classification of consensus mechanism
2.2.2 Development frontier of consensus mechanism
Third, Common Consensus System
Fourth, Selection of consensus mechanism and summary of current situation
4.1 How to choose a consensus mechanism that suits you
4.1.1 Determine whether the final result is important
4.1.2 Determine how fast the application process needs to be
4.1.2 Determining the degree to which the application requires for decentralization
4.1.3 Determine whether the system can be terminated
4.1.4 Select a suitable consensus algorithm after weighing the advantages and disadvantages
4.2 Future development of consensus mechanism
Last lecture review: Chapter 1 Concept and Function of Consensus Mechanism plus Chapter 2 Origin of Consensus Mechanism
Chapter 3 Common Consensus Mechanisms (Part 1)
Figure 6 Summary of relatively mainstream consensus mechanisms
📷
https://preview.redd.it/9r7q3xra4db51.png?width=567&format=png&auto=webp&s=bae5554a596feaac948fae22dffafee98c4318a7
Source: Hasib Anwar, "Consensus Algorithms: The Root Of The Blockchain Technology"
The picture above shows 14 relatively mainstream consensus mechanisms summarized by a geek Hasib Anwar, including PoW (Proof of Work), PoS (Proof of Stake), DPoS (Delegated Proof of Stake), LPoS (Lease Proof of Stake), PoET ( Proof of Elapsed Time), PBFT (Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance), SBFT (Simple Byzantine Fault Tolerance), DBFT (Delegated Byzantine Fault Tolerance), DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph), Proof-of-Activity (Proof of Activity), Proof-of- Importance (Proof of Importance), Proof-of-Capacity (Proof of Capacity), Proof-of-Burn ( Proof of Burn), Proof-of-Weight (Proof of Weight).
Next, we will mainly introduce and analyze the top ten consensus mechanisms of the current blockchain.
》POW
-Concept:
Work proof mechanism. That is, the proof of work means that it takes a certain amount of computer time to confirm the work.
-Principle:
Figure 7 PoW work proof principle
📷
https://preview.redd.it/xupacdfc4db51.png?width=554&format=png&auto=webp&s=3b6994641f5890804d93dfed9ecfd29308c8e0cc
The PoW represented by Bitcoin uses the SHA-256 algorithm function, which is a 256-bit hash algorithm in the password hash function family:
Proof of work output = SHA256 (SHA256 (block header));
if (output of proof of work if (output of proof of work >= target value), change the random number, recursive i logic, continue to compare with the target value.
New difficulty value = old difficulty value* (time spent by last 2016 blocks /20160 minutes)
Target value = maximum target value / difficulty value
The maximum target value is a fixed number. If the last 2016 blocks took less than 20160 minutes, then this coefficient will be small, and the target value will be adjusted bigger, if not, the target value will be adjusted smaller. Bitcoin mining difficulty and block generation speed will be inversely proportional to the appropriate adjustment of block generation speed.
-Representative applications: BTC, etc.
》POS
-Concept:
Proof of stake. That is, a mechanism for reaching consensus based on the holding currency. The longer the currency is held, the greater the probability of getting a reward.
-Principle:
PoS implementation algorithm formula: hash(block_header) = Coin age calculation formula: coinage = number of coins * remaining usage time of coins
Among them, coinage means coin age, which means that the older the coin age, the easier it is to get answers. The calculation of the coin age is obtained by multiplying the coins owned by the miner by the remaining usage time of each coin, which also means that the more coins you have, the easier it is to get answers. In this way, pos solves the problem of wasting resources in pow, and miners cannot own 51% coins from the entire network, so it also solves the problem of 51% attacks.
-Representative applications: ETH, etc.
》DPoS
-Concept:
Delegated proof of stake. That is, currency holding investors select super nodes by voting to operate the entire network , similar to the people's congress system.
-Principle:
The DPOS algorithm is divided into two parts. Elect a group of block producers and schedule production.
Election: Only permanent nodes with the right to be elected can be elected, and ultimately only the top N witnesses can be elected. These N individuals must obtain more than 50% of the votes to be successfully elected. In addition, this list will be re-elected at regular intervals.
Scheduled production: Under normal circumstances, block producers take turns to generate a block every 3 seconds. Assuming that no producer misses his order, then the chain they produce is bound to be the longest chain. When a witness produces a block, a block needs to be generated every 2s. If the specified time is exceeded, the current witness will lose the right to produce and the right will be transferred to the next witness. Then the witness is not only unpaid, but also may lose his identity.
-Representative applications: EOS, etc.
》DPoW
-Concept:
Delayed proof of work. A new-generation consensus mechanism based on PoB and DPoS. Miners use their own computing power, through the hash algorithm, and finally prove their work, get the corresponding wood, wood is not tradable. After the wood has accumulated to a certain amount, you can go to the burning site to burn the wood. This can achieve a balance between computing power and mining rights.
-Principle:
In the DPoW-based blockchain, miners are no longer rewarded tokens, but "wood" that can be burned, burning wood. Miners use their own computing power, through the hash algorithm, and finally prove their work, get the corresponding wood, wood is not tradable. After the wood has accumulated to a certain amount, you can go to the burning site to burn the wood. Through a set of algorithms, people who burn more wood or BP or a group of BP can obtain the right to generate blocks in the next event segment, and get rewards (tokens) after successful block generation. Since more than one person may burn wood in a time period, the probability of producing blocks in the next time period is determined by the amount of wood burned by oneself. The more it is burned, the higher the probability of obtaining block rights in the next period.
Two node types: notary node and normal node.
The 64 notary nodes are elected by the stakeholders of the dPoW blockchain, and the notarized confirmed blocks can be added from the dPoW blockchain to the attached PoW blockchain. Once a block is added, the hash value of the block will be added to the Bitcoin transaction signed by 33 notary nodes, and a hash will be created to the dPow block record of the Bitcoin blockchain. This record has been notarized by most notary nodes in the network. In order to avoid wars on mining between notary nodes, and thereby reduce the efficiency of the network, Komodo designed a mining method that uses a polling mechanism. This method has two operating modes. In the "No Notary" (No Notary) mode, all network nodes can participate in mining, which is similar to the traditional PoW consensus mechanism. In the "Notaries Active" mode, network notaries use a significantly reduced network difficulty rate to mine. In the "Notary Public Activation" mode, each notary public is allowed to mine a block with its current difficulty, while other notary public nodes must use 10 times the difficulty of mining, and all normal nodes use 100 times the difficulty of the notary public node.
Figure 8 DPoW operation process without a notary node
📷
https://preview.redd.it/3yuzpemd4db51.png?width=500&format=png&auto=webp&s=f3bc2a1c97b13cb861414d3eb23a312b42ea6547
-Representative applications: CelesOS, Komodo, etc.
CelesOS Research Institute丨DPoW consensus mechanism-combustible mining and voting
》PBFT
-Concept:
Practical Byzantine fault tolerance algorithm. That is, the complexity of the algorithm is reduced from exponential to polynomial level, making the Byzantine fault-tolerant algorithm feasible in practical system applications.
-Principle:
Figure 9 PBFT algorithm principle
📷
https://preview.redd.it/8as7rgre4db51.png?width=567&format=png&auto=webp&s=372be730af428f991375146efedd5315926af1ca
First, the client sends a request to the master node to call the service operation, and then the master node broadcasts other copies of the request. All copies execute the request and send the result back to the client. The client needs to wait for f+1 different replica nodes to return the same result as the final result of the entire operation.
Two qualifications: 1. All nodes must be deterministic. That is to say, the results of the operation must be the same under the same conditions and parameters. 2. All nodes must start from the same status. Under these two limited qualifications, even if there are failed replica nodes, the PBFT algorithm agrees on the total order of execution of all non-failed replica nodes, thereby ensuring security.
-Representative applications: Tendermint Consensus, etc.
Next Lecture: Chapter 3 Common Consensus Mechanisms (Part 2) + Chapter 4 Consensus Mechanism Selection and Status Summary
CelesOS
As the first DPOW financial blockchain operating system, CelesOS adopts consensus mechanism 3.0 to break through the "impossible triangle", which can provide high TPS while also allowing for decentralization. Committed to creating a financial blockchain operating system that embraces supervision, providing services for financial institutions and the development of applications on the supervision chain, and formulating a role and consensus ecological supervision layer agreement for supervision.
The CelesOS team is dedicated to building a bridge between blockchain and regulatory agencies/financial industry. We believe that only blockchain technology that cooperates with regulators will have a real future. We believe in and contribute to achieving this goal.

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

Review and Prospect of Crypto Economy-Development and Evolution of Consensus Mechanism (1)

Review and Prospect of Crypto Economy-Development and Evolution of Consensus Mechanism (1)

https://preview.redd.it/7skleasc80a51.png?width=553&format=png&auto=webp&s=fc18cee10bff7b65d5b02487885d936d23382fc8
Table 1 Classification of consensus system
Source: Yuan Yong, Ni Xiaochun, Zeng Shuai, Wang Feiyue, "Development Status and Prospect of Blockchain Consensus Algorithm"
Figure 4 Evolution of consensus algorithm

Figure 4 Evolution of consensus algorithm
Source: Network data

Foreword
The consensus mechanism is one of the important elements of the blockchain and the core rule of the normal operation of the distributed ledger. It is mainly used to solve the trust problem between people and determine who is responsible for generating new blocks and maintaining the effective unification of the system in the blockchain system. Thus, it has become an everlasting research hot topic in blockchain.
This article starts with the concept and role of the consensus mechanism. First, it enables the reader to have a preliminary understanding of the consensus mechanism as a whole; then starting with the two armies and the Byzantine general problem, the evolution of the consensus mechanism is introduced in the order of the time when the consensus mechanism is proposed; Then, it briefly introduces the current mainstream consensus mechanism from three aspects of concept, working principle and representative project, and compares the advantages and disadvantages of the mainstream consensus mechanism; finally, it gives suggestions on how to choose a consensus mechanism for blockchain projects and pointed out the possibility of the future development of the consensus mechanism.
Contents
First, concept and function of the consensus mechanism
1.1 Concept: The core rules for the normal operation of distributed ledgers
1.2 Role: Solve the trust problem and decide the generation and maintenance of new blocks
1.2.1 Used to solve the trust problem between people
1.2.2 Used to decide who is responsible for generating new blocks and maintaining effective unity in the blockchain system
1.3 Mainstream model of consensus algorithm
Second, the origin of the consensus mechanism
2.1 The two armies and the Byzantine generals
2.1.1 The two armies problem
2.1.2 The Byzantine generals problem
2.2 Development history of consensus mechanism
2.2.1 Classification of consensus mechanism
2.2.2 Development frontier of consensus mechanism
Third, Common Consensus System
Fourth, Selection of consensus mechanism and summary of current situation
4.1 How to choose a consensus mechanism that suits you
4.1.1 Determine whether the final result is important
4.1.2 Determine how fast the application process needs to be
4.1.2 Determining the degree to which the application requires for decentralization
4.1.3 Determine whether the system can be terminated
4.1.4 Select a suitable consensus algorithm after weighing the advantages and disadvantages
4.2 Future development of consensus mechanism
Chapter 1 Concept and Function of Consensus Mechanism
1.1 Concept: The core rules for the normal operation of distributed ledgers
Since most cryptocurrencies use decentralized blockchain design, nodes are scattered and parallel everywhere, so a system must be designed to maintain the order and fairness of the system's operation, unify the version of the blockchain, and reward users maintaining the blockchain and punish malicious harmers. Such a system must rely on some way to prove that who has obtained the packaging rights (or accounting rights) of a blockchain and can obtain the reward for packaging this block; or who intends to harm , and will receive certain penalty. Such system is consensus mechanism.
1.2 Role: Solve the trust problem and decide the generation and maintenance of new blocks
1.2.1 Used to solve the trust problem between people
The reason why the consensus mechanism can be at the core of the blockchain technology is that it has formulated a set of rules from the perspective of cryptographic technologies such as asymmetric encryption and time stamping. All participants must comply with this rules. And theese rules are transparent, and cannot be modified artificially. Therefore, without the endorsement of a third-party authority, it can also mobilize nodes across the network to jointly monitor, record all transactions, and publish them in the form of codes, effectively achieving valuable information transfer, solving or more precisely, greatly improving the trust problem between two unrelated strangers who do not trust each other. After all, trusting the objective technology is less risky than trusting a subjective individual.
1.2.2 Used to decide who is responsible for generating new blocks and maintaining effective unity in the blockchain system
On the other hand, in the blockchain system, due to the high network latency of the peer-to-peer network, the sequence of transactions observed by each node is different. To solve this, the consensus mechanism can be used to reach consensus on transactions order within a short period of time to decide who is responsible for generating new blocks in the blockchain system, and to maintain the effective unity of the blockchain.
1.3 The mainstream model of consensus algorithm
The blockchain system is built on the P2P network, and the set of all nodes can be recorded as PP, generally divided into ordinary nodes that produce data or transactions, and"miner" nodes (denoted as M) responsible for mining operations, like verifying, packaging, and updating the data generated by ordinary nodes or transactions. The functions of the two types of nodes may be overlapped; miner nodes usually participate in the consensus competition process in general, and will select certain representative nodes and replace them to participant in the consensus process and compete for accounting rights in specific algorithms. The collection of these representative nodes is recorded as DD; the accounting nodes selected through the consensus process are recorded as AA. The consensus process is repeated in accordance with the round, and each round of the consensus process generally reselects the accounting node for the round . The core of the consensus process is the "select leader" and "accounting" two parts. In the specific operation process, each round can be divided into four stages: Leader election, Block generation, Data validation and Chain updating namely accounting). As shown in Figure 1, the input of the consensus process is the transaction or data generated and verified by the data node, and the output is the encapsulated data block and updated blockchain. The four stages are executed repeatedly, and each execution round will generate a new block.
Stage 1: Leader election
The election is the core of the consensus process, that is, the process of selecting the accounting node AA from all the miner node sets MM: we can use the formula f(M)→f(M)→AA to represent the election process, where the function ff represents the specific implementation of the consensus algorithm. Generally speaking, |A|=1,|A|=1, that is, the only miner node is finally selected to keep accounts.
Stage 2: Block generation
The accounting node selected in the first stage packages the transactions or data generated by all nodes PP in the current time period into a block according to a specific strategy, and broadcasts the generated new block to all miner nodes MM or their representative nodes DD. These transactions or data are usually sorted according to various factors such as block capacity, transaction fees, transaction waiting time, etc., and then packaged into new blocks in sequence. The block generation strategy is a key factor in the performance of the blockchain system, and it also exposes the strategic behavior of miners such as greedy transactions packaging and selfish mining.
Stage 3: Verification
After receiving the broadcasted new block, the miner node MM or the representative node DD will verify the correctness and rationality of the transactions or data encapsulated in the block. If the new block is approved by most verification/representative nodes, the block will be updated to the blockchain as the next block.
Stage 4: On-Chain
The accounting node adds new blocks to the main chain to form a complete and longer chain from the genesis block to the latest block. If there are multiple fork chains on the main chain, the main chain needs to be based on the consensus algorithm judging criteria to choose one of the appropriate fork chain as the main chain.
Chapter 2 The Origin of Consensus Mechanism
2.1 The two armies problems and the Byzantium generals problem
2.1.1 The two armies


Figure 2 Schematic diagram of the two armed forces
Selected from Yuan Yong, Ni Xiaochun, Zeng Shuai, Wang Feiyue, "Development Status and Prospect of Blockchain Consensus Algorithm", Journal of Automation, 2018, 44(11): 2011-2022
As shown in the figure, the 1st and 2nd units of the Blue Army are stationed on two sides of the slope, and cannot communicate remotely between each other. While the White Army is just stationed in the middle of the two Blue Army units. Suppose that the White Army is stronger than either of the two Blue Army units, but it is not as strong as the two Blue Army units combined. If the two units of the Blue Army want to jointly attack the White Army at the same time, they need to communicate with each other, but the White Army is stationed in the middle of them. It is impossible to confirm whether the messengers of two Blue Army units have sent the attack signal to each other, let alone the tampering of the messages. In this case, due to the inability to fully confirm with each other, ultimately no effective consensus can be reached between the two Blue Army units, rendering the "paradox of the two armies".
2.1.2 The Byzantine generals problem


Figure 3 Diagram of the Byzantine generals' problem
Due to the vast territory of the Byzantine roman empire at that time, in order to better achieve the purpose of defense, troops were scattered around the empire, and each army was far apart, and only messengers could deliver messages. During the war, all generals must reach an agreement, or decide whether to attack the enemy based on the majority principle. However, since it is completely dependent on people, if there is a situation where the general rebels or the messenger delivers the wrong message, how can it ensure that the loyal generals can reach agreement without being influenced by the rebels is a problem which was called the Byzantine problem.
The two armies problems and the Byzantine generals problem are all elaborating the same problem: in the case of unreliable information exchange, it is very difficult to reach consensus and coordinate action. The Byzantine general problem is more like a generalization of the "paradox of the two armies".
From the perspective of the computer network, the two armies problem and the Byzantine problem are common contents of computer network courses: the direct communication between two nodes on the network may fail, so the TCP protocol cannot completely guarantee the consistence between the two terminal networks. However, the consensus mechanism can use economic incentives and other methods to reduce this uncertainty to a level acceptable to most people.
It is precisely because of the two armies problem and the Byzantine problem that the consensus mechanism has begun to show its value.
2.2 Development history of consensus mechanism
2.2.1 Classification of consensus mechanism
Because different types of blockchain projects have different requirements for information recording and block generation, and as the consensus mechanism improves due to the development of blockchain technology, there are currently more than 30 consensus mechanisms. These consensus mechanisms can be divided into two categories according to their Byzantine fault tolerance performance: Byzantine fault tolerance system and non-Byzantine fault tolerance system.

Table 1 Classification of consensus mechanism
Source: Yuan Yong, Ni Xiaochun, Zeng Shuai, Wang Feiyue, "Development Status and Prospect of Blockchain Consensus Algorithm"
2.2.2 Development frontier of consensus mechanism
-Development of consensus algorithm
According to the proposed time of the consensus algorithm, we can see relatively clearly the development of the consensus algorithm.
Source: Network data

Figure 4 Development frontier of consensus algorithm

Figure 5 Historical evolution of blockchain consensus algorithm
Source: Yuan Yong, Ni Xiaochun, Zeng Shuai, Wang Feiyue, "Development Status and Prospect of Blockchain Consensus Algorithm"
The consensus algorithm has laid the foundation for the blockchain consensus mechanism. Initially, the research of consensus algorithms was mainly used by computer scientists and computer professors to improve the spam problem or conduct academic discussions.
For example, in 1993, American computer scientist and Harvard professor Cynthia Dwork first proposed the idea of proof of work in order to solve the spam problem; in 1997, the British cryptographer Adam Back also independently proposed to solve the spam problem by use of the mechanism of proof of work for hashing cash and published officially in 2002; in 1999, Markus Jakobsson officially proposed the concept of "proof of work", which laid the foundation for the subsequent design of Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin consensus mechanism.
Next lecture: Chapter 3 Detailed Explanation of Consensus Mechanism Technology
CelesOS
As the first DPOW financial blockchain operating system, CelesOS adopts consensus mechanism 3.0 to break through the "impossible triangle". It provides both high TPS and decentralization. Committed to creating a financial blockchain operating system that embraces regulation, providing services for financial institutions and the development of applications on the regulation chain, and developing a role and consensus eco-system regulation level agreement for regulation.
The CelesOS team is committed to building a bridge between blockchain and regulatory agencies / finance industry. We believe that only blockchain technology that cooperates with regulators will have a bright future and strive to achieve this goal.
📷Website
https://www.celesos.com/
📷 Telegram
https://t.me/celeschain
📷 Twitter
https://twitter.com/CelesChain
📷 Reddit
https://www.reddit.com/useCelesOS
📷 Medium
https://medium.com/@celesos
📷 Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/CelesOS1
📷 Youtube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1Xsd8wU957D-R8RQVZPfGA
submitted by CelesOS to u/CelesOS [link] [comments]

Bitcoin (BTC)A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

Bitcoin (BTC)A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
  • Bitcoin (BTC) is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that aims to function as a means of exchange that is independent of any central authority. BTC can be transferred electronically in a secure, verifiable, and immutable way.
  • Launched in 2009, BTC is the first virtual currency to solve the double-spending issue by timestamping transactions before broadcasting them to all of the nodes in the Bitcoin network. The Bitcoin Protocol offered a solution to the Byzantine Generals’ Problem with a blockchain network structure, a notion first created by Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta in 1991.
  • Bitcoin’s whitepaper was published pseudonymously in 2008 by an individual, or a group, with the pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto”, whose underlying identity has still not been verified.
  • The Bitcoin protocol uses an SHA-256d-based Proof-of-Work (PoW) algorithm to reach network consensus. Its network has a target block time of 10 minutes and a maximum supply of 21 million tokens, with a decaying token emission rate. To prevent fluctuation of the block time, the network’s block difficulty is re-adjusted through an algorithm based on the past 2016 block times.
  • With a block size limit capped at 1 megabyte, the Bitcoin Protocol has supported both the Lightning Network, a second-layer infrastructure for payment channels, and Segregated Witness, a soft-fork to increase the number of transactions on a block, as solutions to network scalability.

https://preview.redd.it/s2gmpmeze3151.png?width=256&format=png&auto=webp&s=9759910dd3c4a15b83f55b827d1899fb2fdd3de1

1. What is Bitcoin (BTC)?

  • Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that aims to function as a means of exchange and is independent of any central authority. Bitcoins are transferred electronically in a secure, verifiable, and immutable way.
  • Network validators, whom are often referred to as miners, participate in the SHA-256d-based Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism to determine the next global state of the blockchain.
  • The Bitcoin protocol has a target block time of 10 minutes, and a maximum supply of 21 million tokens. The only way new bitcoins can be produced is when a block producer generates a new valid block.
  • The protocol has a token emission rate that halves every 210,000 blocks, or approximately every 4 years.
  • Unlike public blockchain infrastructures supporting the development of decentralized applications (Ethereum), the Bitcoin protocol is primarily used only for payments, and has only very limited support for smart contract-like functionalities (Bitcoin “Script” is mostly used to create certain conditions before bitcoins are used to be spent).

2. Bitcoin’s core features

For a more beginner’s introduction to Bitcoin, please visit Binance Academy’s guide to Bitcoin.

Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) model

A UTXO transaction works like cash payment between two parties: Alice gives money to Bob and receives change (i.e., unspent amount). In comparison, blockchains like Ethereum rely on the account model.
https://preview.redd.it/t1j6anf8f3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=33bd141d8f2136a6f32739c8cdc7aae2e04cbc47

Nakamoto consensus

In the Bitcoin network, anyone can join the network and become a bookkeeping service provider i.e., a validator. All validators are allowed in the race to become the block producer for the next block, yet only the first to complete a computationally heavy task will win. This feature is called Proof of Work (PoW).
The probability of any single validator to finish the task first is equal to the percentage of the total network computation power, or hash power, the validator has. For instance, a validator with 5% of the total network computation power will have a 5% chance of completing the task first, and therefore becoming the next block producer.
Since anyone can join the race, competition is prone to increase. In the early days, Bitcoin mining was mostly done by personal computer CPUs.
As of today, Bitcoin validators, or miners, have opted for dedicated and more powerful devices such as machines based on Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (“ASIC”).
Proof of Work secures the network as block producers must have spent resources external to the network (i.e., money to pay electricity), and can provide proof to other participants that they did so.
With various miners competing for block rewards, it becomes difficult for one single malicious party to gain network majority (defined as more than 51% of the network’s hash power in the Nakamoto consensus mechanism). The ability to rearrange transactions via 51% attacks indicates another feature of the Nakamoto consensus: the finality of transactions is only probabilistic.
Once a block is produced, it is then propagated by the block producer to all other validators to check on the validity of all transactions in that block. The block producer will receive rewards in the network’s native currency (i.e., bitcoin) as all validators approve the block and update their ledgers.

The blockchain

Block production

The Bitcoin protocol utilizes the Merkle tree data structure in order to organize hashes of numerous individual transactions into each block. This concept is named after Ralph Merkle, who patented it in 1979.
With the use of a Merkle tree, though each block might contain thousands of transactions, it will have the ability to combine all of their hashes and condense them into one, allowing efficient and secure verification of this group of transactions. This single hash called is a Merkle root, which is stored in the Block Header of a block. The Block Header also stores other meta information of a block, such as a hash of the previous Block Header, which enables blocks to be associated in a chain-like structure (hence the name “blockchain”).
An illustration of block production in the Bitcoin Protocol is demonstrated below.

https://preview.redd.it/m6texxicf3151.png?width=1591&format=png&auto=webp&s=f4253304912ed8370948b9c524e08fef28f1c78d

Block time and mining difficulty

Block time is the period required to create the next block in a network. As mentioned above, the node who solves the computationally intensive task will be allowed to produce the next block. Therefore, block time is directly correlated to the amount of time it takes for a node to find a solution to the task. The Bitcoin protocol sets a target block time of 10 minutes, and attempts to achieve this by introducing a variable named mining difficulty.
Mining difficulty refers to how difficult it is for the node to solve the computationally intensive task. If the network sets a high difficulty for the task, while miners have low computational power, which is often referred to as “hashrate”, it would statistically take longer for the nodes to get an answer for the task. If the difficulty is low, but miners have rather strong computational power, statistically, some nodes will be able to solve the task quickly.
Therefore, the 10 minute target block time is achieved by constantly and automatically adjusting the mining difficulty according to how much computational power there is amongst the nodes. The average block time of the network is evaluated after a certain number of blocks, and if it is greater than the expected block time, the difficulty level will decrease; if it is less than the expected block time, the difficulty level will increase.

What are orphan blocks?

In a PoW blockchain network, if the block time is too low, it would increase the likelihood of nodes producingorphan blocks, for which they would receive no reward. Orphan blocks are produced by nodes who solved the task but did not broadcast their results to the whole network the quickest due to network latency.
It takes time for a message to travel through a network, and it is entirely possible for 2 nodes to complete the task and start to broadcast their results to the network at roughly the same time, while one’s messages are received by all other nodes earlier as the node has low latency.
Imagine there is a network latency of 1 minute and a target block time of 2 minutes. A node could solve the task in around 1 minute but his message would take 1 minute to reach the rest of the nodes that are still working on the solution. While his message travels through the network, all the work done by all other nodes during that 1 minute, even if these nodes also complete the task, would go to waste. In this case, 50% of the computational power contributed to the network is wasted.
The percentage of wasted computational power would proportionally decrease if the mining difficulty were higher, as it would statistically take longer for miners to complete the task. In other words, if the mining difficulty, and therefore targeted block time is low, miners with powerful and often centralized mining facilities would get a higher chance of becoming the block producer, while the participation of weaker miners would become in vain. This introduces possible centralization and weakens the overall security of the network.
However, given a limited amount of transactions that can be stored in a block, making the block time too longwould decrease the number of transactions the network can process per second, negatively affecting network scalability.

3. Bitcoin’s additional features

Segregated Witness (SegWit)

Segregated Witness, often abbreviated as SegWit, is a protocol upgrade proposal that went live in August 2017.
SegWit separates witness signatures from transaction-related data. Witness signatures in legacy Bitcoin blocks often take more than 50% of the block size. By removing witness signatures from the transaction block, this protocol upgrade effectively increases the number of transactions that can be stored in a single block, enabling the network to handle more transactions per second. As a result, SegWit increases the scalability of Nakamoto consensus-based blockchain networks like Bitcoin and Litecoin.
SegWit also makes transactions cheaper. Since transaction fees are derived from how much data is being processed by the block producer, the more transactions that can be stored in a 1MB block, the cheaper individual transactions become.
https://preview.redd.it/depya70mf3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=a6499aa2131fbf347f8ffd812930b2f7d66be48e
The legacy Bitcoin block has a block size limit of 1 megabyte, and any change on the block size would require a network hard-fork. On August 1st 2017, the first hard-fork occurred, leading to the creation of Bitcoin Cash (“BCH”), which introduced an 8 megabyte block size limit.
Conversely, Segregated Witness was a soft-fork: it never changed the transaction block size limit of the network. Instead, it added an extended block with an upper limit of 3 megabytes, which contains solely witness signatures, to the 1 megabyte block that contains only transaction data. This new block type can be processed even by nodes that have not completed the SegWit protocol upgrade.
Furthermore, the separation of witness signatures from transaction data solves the malleability issue with the original Bitcoin protocol. Without Segregated Witness, these signatures could be altered before the block is validated by miners. Indeed, alterations can be done in such a way that if the system does a mathematical check, the signature would still be valid. However, since the values in the signature are changed, the two signatures would create vastly different hash values.
For instance, if a witness signature states “6,” it has a mathematical value of 6, and would create a hash value of 12345. However, if the witness signature were changed to “06”, it would maintain a mathematical value of 6 while creating a (faulty) hash value of 67890.
Since the mathematical values are the same, the altered signature remains a valid signature. This would create a bookkeeping issue, as transactions in Nakamoto consensus-based blockchain networks are documented with these hash values, or transaction IDs. Effectively, one can alter a transaction ID to a new one, and the new ID can still be valid.
This can create many issues, as illustrated in the below example:
  1. Alice sends Bob 1 BTC, and Bob sends Merchant Carol this 1 BTC for some goods.
  2. Bob sends Carols this 1 BTC, while the transaction from Alice to Bob is not yet validated. Carol sees this incoming transaction of 1 BTC to him, and immediately ships goods to B.
  3. At the moment, the transaction from Alice to Bob is still not confirmed by the network, and Bob can change the witness signature, therefore changing this transaction ID from 12345 to 67890.
  4. Now Carol will not receive his 1 BTC, as the network looks for transaction 12345 to ensure that Bob’s wallet balance is valid.
  5. As this particular transaction ID changed from 12345 to 67890, the transaction from Bob to Carol will fail, and Bob will get his goods while still holding his BTC.
With the Segregated Witness upgrade, such instances can not happen again. This is because the witness signatures are moved outside of the transaction block into an extended block, and altering the witness signature won’t affect the transaction ID.
Since the transaction malleability issue is fixed, Segregated Witness also enables the proper functioning of second-layer scalability solutions on the Bitcoin protocol, such as the Lightning Network.

Lightning Network

Lightning Network is a second-layer micropayment solution for scalability.
Specifically, Lightning Network aims to enable near-instant and low-cost payments between merchants and customers that wish to use bitcoins.
Lightning Network was conceptualized in a whitepaper by Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja in 2015. Since then, it has been implemented by multiple companies. The most prominent of them include Blockstream, Lightning Labs, and ACINQ.
A list of curated resources relevant to Lightning Network can be found here.
In the Lightning Network, if a customer wishes to transact with a merchant, both of them need to open a payment channel, which operates off the Bitcoin blockchain (i.e., off-chain vs. on-chain). None of the transaction details from this payment channel are recorded on the blockchain, and only when the channel is closed will the end result of both party’s wallet balances be updated to the blockchain. The blockchain only serves as a settlement layer for Lightning transactions.
Since all transactions done via the payment channel are conducted independently of the Nakamoto consensus, both parties involved in transactions do not need to wait for network confirmation on transactions. Instead, transacting parties would pay transaction fees to Bitcoin miners only when they decide to close the channel.
https://preview.redd.it/cy56icarf3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=b239a63c6a87ec6cc1b18ce2cbd0355f8831c3a8
One limitation to the Lightning Network is that it requires a person to be online to receive transactions attributing towards him. Another limitation in user experience could be that one needs to lock up some funds every time he wishes to open a payment channel, and is only able to use that fund within the channel.
However, this does not mean he needs to create new channels every time he wishes to transact with a different person on the Lightning Network. If Alice wants to send money to Carol, but they do not have a payment channel open, they can ask Bob, who has payment channels open to both Alice and Carol, to help make that transaction. Alice will be able to send funds to Bob, and Bob to Carol. Hence, the number of “payment hubs” (i.e., Bob in the previous example) correlates with both the convenience and the usability of the Lightning Network for real-world applications.

Schnorr Signature upgrade proposal

Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (“ECDSA”) signatures are used to sign transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain.
https://preview.redd.it/hjeqe4l7g3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=8014fb08fe62ac4d91645499bc0c7e1c04c5d7c4
However, many developers now advocate for replacing ECDSA with Schnorr Signature. Once Schnorr Signatures are implemented, multiple parties can collaborate in producing a signature that is valid for the sum of their public keys.
This would primarily be beneficial for network scalability. When multiple addresses were to conduct transactions to a single address, each transaction would require their own signature. With Schnorr Signature, all these signatures would be combined into one. As a result, the network would be able to store more transactions in a single block.
https://preview.redd.it/axg3wayag3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=93d958fa6b0e623caa82ca71fe457b4daa88c71e
The reduced size in signatures implies a reduced cost on transaction fees. The group of senders can split the transaction fees for that one group signature, instead of paying for one personal signature individually.
Schnorr Signature also improves network privacy and token fungibility. A third-party observer will not be able to detect if a user is sending a multi-signature transaction, since the signature will be in the same format as a single-signature transaction.

4. Economics and supply distribution

The Bitcoin protocol utilizes the Nakamoto consensus, and nodes validate blocks via Proof-of-Work mining. The bitcoin token was not pre-mined, and has a maximum supply of 21 million. The initial reward for a block was 50 BTC per block. Block mining rewards halve every 210,000 blocks. Since the average time for block production on the blockchain is 10 minutes, it implies that the block reward halving events will approximately take place every 4 years.
As of May 12th 2020, the block mining rewards are 6.25 BTC per block. Transaction fees also represent a minor revenue stream for miners.
submitted by D-platform to u/D-platform [link] [comments]

How can Stellar be so fast?

How can Stellar be so fast?
If you’ve used our XLMwallet, you know that Stellar is exceptionally fast compared to Bitcoin and Ethereum. How is it possible? They are all blockchains, after all. Does the high speed mean that Stellar is centralized? Not at all — here’s why.
With XLMwallet you can send and receive lumens (XLM) in under 5 seconds. For comparison: with Bitcoin, one confirmation takes 10 minutes (1 block time), and many exchanges and dApps require more than 3 confirmations. So your recipient will need to wait for half an hour or more to get their money.
5 seconds vs 10 minutes — it’s a 120x difference! How can one blockchain network be 120 times faster than another?
Some people who are not familiar with Stellar think that it must be centralized to be so efficient. But the truth is very different!
SCP vs PoW
The key reason why Stellar has such a huge processing speed is that it uses a completely different consensus protocol.
As you probably know, Bitcoin employs Proof-of-Work, where miners have to waste lots of resources trying to find a solution (hash) for each block. Network members together agree that the found hash is correct, and whoever found it first gets a reward. This agreement is known as consensus.
PoW a good system in the sense that it’s difficult to attack. A thief or hacker would need to spend a gigantic sum of money to force the network to agree on something that is not true. But PoW is also hugely wasteful. Maybe you’ve heard that Bitcoin mining consumes as much energy as a small country — it’s true!
The Byzantine problem
Instead of PoW, Stellar uses something called Federated Byzantine Agreement (FBA). This consensus model answers the same question: how can we make the nodes in the network work for the common good? How can we prevent evil agents (nodes) from colluding with each other and deceiving others?
The word Byzantine refers to the so-called Byzantine Generals Problem. The generals are sieging an enemy city, each with his own division. They have to decide if they want to attack, and the only way to communicate is to send a messenger. Some of the generals are actually enemy spies, so they send conflicting messages. Other messages can get lost. The problem is, how do we find out what the real generals think?
Stellar solution
Stellar’s Federated Byzantine Agreement can solve the problem. This model was created in 2015 by a professor from Stanford University. It’s too complicated to describe it in detail here, but here are some facts:
- All the nodes are divided into quorums (groups). Within each quorum, each node trusts some other nodes, and these ‘circles of trust’ are called slices.
- Nodes reach an agreement within each quorum.
- Different quorums intersect, and that ensures general agreement across the network.
- Even if many nodes turn ‘evil’ or get turned off, the system still reaches an agreement.
The bottom line is that there’s a very complex system of interlocking ‘agreement groups’, voting and ballots. Still, it’s many times faster than PoW — and yet very hard to break or hack into. You can read more here.
Even if you don’t know anything about consensus protocols, don’t worry. You can still use XLMwallet and enjoy all of its advantages: fast crypto transfers, user-friendly web interface, support for all Stellar assets (lumens and tokens), transfers by email, account merging, and so on.
By the way, now is still a good time to buy some more XLM. It’s been growing steadily and gained more than 20% in just one week. But there’s still a huge potental for growth after the Bitcoin halving on May 18.
So better make up your mind now — you can buy XLM on any major exchange. To protect your investment, withdraw the lumens from the exchange and store them safely in XLMwallet — the fastest, lightest web wallet for Stellar.
https://xlmwallet.co/
Web site — https://xlmwallet.co/
Medium — https://medium.com/@XLMwalletCo
Teletype — https://teletype.in/@XLMwalletCo
Twitter — https://twitter.com/XLMwalletCo
Reddit — https://www.reddit.com/XLM_wallet/
submitted by Stellar__wallet to XLM_wallet [link] [comments]

SLP Re-Introduces the Byzantine General's Problem and Double Spends

It's really weird how much false information is being given by the developers about what SLP can and can't do. A lot of the devs have been saying loyalty rewards/programs are going to be huge on SLP. The problem is that loyalty rewards/programs are impossible since SLP re-introduced the Byzantine General's Problem. People keep advocating for the use of tokens of value on SLP when there are no SLP miners meaning the double spend protection that Bitcoin has does not carry over to SLP.
I want to be clear that the problem is not tokens and the problem is not unfixable, a week or two of work would fix all the issues. The problem is the protocol itself. The engineers behind it were not considering what they were building on when they built it, they designed their protocol for fiat systems. Bitcoin solves unique problems that no system before it could solve, quit re-introducing the problems into the Bitcoin system and then asking for more donations, the shit gets old.
This video and the previous better explain the points made here. There will be more videos on this since the amount of mistakes made with SLP is mind-blowing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzjUUutlj68&feature=youtu.be
submitted by Imerman2 to btc [link] [comments]

Why not increase the size along with Segwit?

I am pro Core just trying to understand, why not increase the block size along with Segwit so that everyone wins and we can move forward.
I understand BU trying to manipulate and all, but seeing the confirmation times these days it seems logical. Pardon my ignorance.
submitted by Budwiser86 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Vitalik's response to Tuur

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?
Intro
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.)
Ethereum's Joe Lubin in June 2014: "anticipate blockchain bloat—working on various sharding ideas". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJG9g0lCPU8&feature=youtu.be&t=36m41s
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".
That review was off the mark in many ways, eg. see https://twitter.com/technocrypto/status/1071111404340604929, and by the way CBC is not even a prerequisite for Serenity
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…
Ok
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”.
@TuurDemeester Buterin & Poon just published a new scaling proposal for Ethereum, "strongly complementary to base-layer PoS and sharding": plasma.io https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/895467347502182401
Yay, 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.
And here's a set of long arguments from me on why proof of stake is just fine: https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-FAQ. For a more philosophical piece, see https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/a-proof-of-stake-design-philosophy-506585978d51
15/ Also check out this thread about how Proof of Stake blockchains require subjectivity (i.e. a trusted third party) to achieve consensus: https://forum.blockstack.org/t/pos-blockchains-require-subjectivity-to-reach-consensus/762?u=muneeb … and this thread on Bitcoin: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/59t48m/proofofstake_question/
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.
@TuurDemeester TIL Proof-of-stake based private currency designs date at least back to 1998. https://medium.com/swlh/the-untold-history-of-bitcoin-enter-the-cypherpunks-f764dee962a1
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,
[email protected] has been repeatedly accused of /criticised for not crediting prior art. Once again with plasma: https://twitter.com/DamelonBCWS/status/895643582278782976
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.…
...
21/ I was very serious about my criticism. In fact, each one of the three points addressed what Vitalik Buterin has described as “unique value propositions of Ethereum proper”. https://www.reddit.com/ethereum/comments/5jk3he/how_to_prevent_the_cannibalism_of_ethereum_into/dbgujr8/
...
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.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Looks like another Ethereum hard-fork is going to remove the "Ice Age" (difficulty increase meant to incentivize transition to PoS). https://www.cryptocompare.com/coins/guides/what-is-the-ethereum-ice-age/
How is that a broken promise? There was no social contract to only replace the difficulty-bombed protocol with a PoS chain.
31/ Another idea that was marketed heavily early on, was that with ETH you could program smart contract as easily as javascript applications.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: I forgot, but in 2014 Ethereum was quite literally described as "Javascript-on-the-blockchain"
Agree that was over-optimistic, though the part of the metaphor that's problematic is the "be done with complex apps in a couple hours" part, NOT the "general-purpose languages are great" part.
32/ This was criticized by P2P & OS developers as a reckless notion, given that every smart contracts is actually a “de novo cryptographic protocol”. In other words, it’s playing with fire. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1427885.msg14601127#msg14601127
See above
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.
Christopher Allen @ChristopherA: AWS cost: $0.000000066 for calc, Ethereum: $26.55. This is about 400 million times as expensive. World computer? https://hackernoon.com/ether-purchase-power-df40a38c5a2f
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.
@TuurDemeester Finally a media article touching on the elephant in the room: Ethereum has become highly centralized. #infura https://www.coindesk.com/the-race-is-on-to-replace-ethereums-most-centralized-layeamp?__twitter_impression=true
See above
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: ...
See above
39/ Other potential signs of centralization: Vitalik Buterin signing a deal with a Russian government institution, and ETH core developers experimenting with semi-closed meetings: https://twitter.com/coindesk/status/902892844955860993 …,
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…)
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Often heard: "but Ethereum also has world class engineers working on the protocol". Please name names and relevant pedigree so I can follow and learn. https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/963029019447955461
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.
41/ For a while, Microsoft veteran Lucius Meredith was mentioned as playing an important role in ETH scaling, but now he is likely distracted by the failure of his ETH scaling company RChain. https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/12/24/understanding-serenity-part-i-abstraction/
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.
Yay!
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.
@TuurDemeester I just published “I’m not worried about Bitcoin Unlimited, but I am losing sleep over Ethereum” https://medium.com/p/im-not-worried-about-bitcoin-unlimited-but-i-am-losing-sleep-over-ethereum-b5251c54e66d
Ok, good.
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.
What do you mean "instead of"? We did create an open source project and testnet! Whether or not ETH is a security is a legal question; seems like SEC people agree it's not: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/14/bitcoin-and-ethereum-are-not-securities-but-some-cryptocurrencies-may-be-sec-official-says.html
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.
Got it.
50/ I’ll close with a few words from Gregory Maxwell from 2016,: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1427885.msg14601127#msg14601127
See my rebuttal to Greg from 2 years ago: https://www.reddit.com/ethereum/comments/4g1bh6/greg_maxwells_critique_of_ethereum_blockchains/
submitted by shouldbdan to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Staking — The New Way to Earn Crypto for Free

Staking — The New Way to Earn Crypto for Free

https://preview.redd.it/jpadsinyz3c41.png?width=616&format=png&auto=webp&s=c0dc410484430b863b0488727f92135f218edff2
Airdrops are so 2017, free money was fun while it lasted but now when someone says free money in crypto, the first thoughts are scams and ponzi schemes. But in 2020, there is a way to earn free money, in a legitimate, common practice, and logical manner — staking.
Staking is the core concept behind the Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus protocol that is quickly becoming an industry standard throughout blockchain projects. PoS allows blockchains to scale effectively without compromising on security and resource efficiency. Projects that incorporate staking include aelf, Dash, EOS, Cosmos, Cardano, Dfinity and many others.

https://preview.redd.it/luczupo004c41.png?width=616&format=png&auto=webp&s=2a2aba11c35c9962e42d1ea56b9e4f33532750ef

PoW — Why change

First, let’s look at some of the issues facing Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus that led to the development of PoS.
  1. Excessive energy consumption — In 2017, many concerns were raised over the amount of electricity used by the bitcoin network (Largest PoW blockchain). Since then the energy consumption has increased by over 400%, to the point where 1 single transaction on this network has the same carbon footprint of 736,722 Visa transactions or consumes the same amount of electricity as over 20 U.S. households.
  2. Varying Electricity Costs — The profit of any miner on the network is tied to two costs, the initial startup cost to obtain the hardware and infrastructure, and more critically, the running cost of said equipment in relation to electricity usage. Electricity costs can vary from fractions of a cent per kWh to over 50 cents (USD) and in some cases it is free. When a user may only be earning $0.40 USD per hour then this will clearly rule out certain demographics based purely on electricity costs, reducing the potential for complete decentralization.
  3. Reduced decentralization — Due to the high cost of the mining equipment, those with large financial bases setup mining farms, either for others to rent out individual miners or entirely for personal gains. This results in large demographic hotspots on the network reducing the decentralized aspect to a point where it no longer accomplishes this aspect.
  4. Conflicted interests — The requirements of running miners on the network are purely based on having possession of the hardware, electricity and internet connection. There are no limits to the amount a miner can earn, nor do they need to hold any stake in the network, and thus there is very little incentive for them to vote on upgrades that may benefit the network but reduce their rewards.
I want to take this moment to mention a potential benefit to PoW that I have not seen anyone mention previously. It is a very loose argument so don’t take this to heart too strongly.
Consistent Fiat Injection — The majority of miners will be paying for their electricity in fiat currency. At a conservative rate of $0.1 USD per kWh, the network currently uses 73.12 TWh per year. This equates to an average daily cost of over $20 million USD. This means every day around $20 million of fiat currency is effectively being injected into the bitcoin network. Although this concept is somewhat flawed in the sense that the same amount of bitcoin will be released each day regardless of how much is spent on electricity, I’m looking at this from the eyes of the miners, they are reducing their fiat bags and increasing their bitcoin bags. This change of bags is the essence of this point which will inevitably encourage crypto spending. If the bitcoin bags were increased but fiat bags did not decrease, then there would be less incentive to spend the bitcoin, as would see in a staking ecosystem.

https://preview.redd.it/8dtqt6e204c41.png?width=631&format=png&auto=webp&s=065aedde87b55f0768968307e59e62a35eac949d

PoS Variations

Different approaches have been taken to tackle different issues the PoS protocol faces. Will Little has an excellent article explaining this and more in PoS, but let me take an excerpt from his piece to go through them:
  • Coin-age selection — Blockchains like Peercoin (the first PoS chain), start out with PoW to distribute the coins, use coin age to help prevent monopolization and 51% attacks (by setting a time range when the probability of being selected as a node is greatest), and implement checkpoints initially to prevent NoS problems.
  • Randomized block selection — Chains like NXT and Blackcoin also use checkpoints, but believe that coin-age discourages staking. After an initial distribution period (either via PoW or otherwise), these chains use algorithms to randomly select nodes that can create blocks.
  • Ethereum’s Casper protocol(s) — Being already widely distributed, Ethereum doesn’t have to worry about the initial distribution problem when/if it switches to PoS. Casper takes a more Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT) approach and will punish nodes by taking away (“slashing”) their stake if they do devious things. In addition, consensus is formed by a multi-round process where every randomly assigned node votes for a specific block during a round.
  • Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) — Invented by Dan Larimer and first used in Bitshares (and then in [aelf,] Steem, EOS, and many others), DPoS tackles potential PoS problems by having the community “elect” delegates that will run nodes to create and validate blocks. Bad behavior is then punished by the community simply out-voting the delegated nodes.
  • Delegated Byzantine Fault Tolerance (DBFT) — Similar to DPoS, the NEO community votes for (delegates) nodes, but instead of each node producing blocks and agreeing on consensus, only 2 out of 3 nodes need to agree on what goes in every block (acting more like bookkeepers than validators).
  • Tendermint — As a more sophisticated form of DBFT and a precursor to Casper, Jae Kwon introduced tendermint in 2014, which leverages dynamic validator sets, rotating leader elections, and voting power (i.e. weight) that is proportional to the self-funding and community allocation of tokens to a node (i.e. a “validator”).
  • Masternodes — First introduced by DASH, a masternode PoS system requires nodes to stake a minimum threshold of coins in order to qualify as a node. Often this comes with requirements to provide “service” to a network in the form of governance, special payment protocols, etc…
  • Proof of Importance (POI)NEM takes a slightly different approach by granting an “importance calculation” to masternodes staking at least 10,000 XEM. This POI system then rewards active nodes that act in a positive way over time to impact the community.
  • “Proof-of-X” — And finally, there is no lack of activity in the PoS world to come up with clever approaches and variants of staking (some are more elaborate than others). In addition to BFT protocols such as Honeybadger, Ouroboros, and Tezos, for further reading, also check out “Proof-of-”: Stake Anonymous, Storage, Stake Time, Stake Velocity, Activity, Burn, and Capacity.
https://preview.redd.it/n28a8n5404c41.png?width=604&format=png&auto=webp&s=0ea8827fd0458e768d4eb3a0a1fa88c984ba0a82

Earning Your Stake

In order to understand how one can earn money from these networks, I’ll break them down into 3 categories: Simple staking, Running nodes, and Voting.
Simple Staking - This is the simplest of the 3 methods and requires almost no action by the user. Certain networks will reward users by simply holding tokens in a specified wallet. These rewards are generally minimal but are the easiest way to earn.
Running a node - This method provides the greatest rewards but also requires the greatest action by the user and most likely will require ongoing maintenance. Generally speaking, networks will require nodes to stake a certain amount of tokens often amounting to thousands of dollars. In DPoS systems, these nodes must be voted in by other users on the network and must continue to provide confidence to their supporters. Some companies will setup nodes and allow users to participate by contributing to the minimum staking amount, with a similar concept to PoW mining pools.
Voting - This mechanism works hand in hand with running nodes in relation to DPoS networks. Users are encouraged to vote for their preferred nodes by staking tokens as votes. Each vote will unlock a small amount of rewards for each voter, the nodes are normally the ones to provide these rewards as a portion of their own reward for running a node.

Aelf’s DPoS system

The aelf consensus protocol utilizes a form of DPoS. There are two versions of nodes on the network, active nodes & backup nodes (official names yet to be announced). Active nodes run the network and produce the blocks, while the backup nodes complete minor tasks and are on standby should any active nodes go offline or act maliciously. These nodes are selected based upon their number of votes received. Initially the top 17 nodes will be selected as active nodes, while the next 100 will stand as the backup ones, each voting period each node may change position should they receive more or less votes than the previous period. In order to be considered as a node, one must stake a minimum amount of ELF tokens (yet to be announced).

https://preview.redd.it/47d3wqe604c41.png?width=618&format=png&auto=webp&s=062a6aa6186b826d400a0015d4c91fd1a4ed0b65
In order to participate as a voter, there is no minimum amount of tokens to be staked. When one stakes, their tokens will be locked for a designated amount of time, selected by the voter from the preset periods. If users pull their tokens out before this locked period has expired no rewards are received, but if they leave them locked for the entire time frame they will receive the set reward, and the tokens will be automatically rolled over into the next locked period. As a result, should a voter decide, once their votes are cast, they can continue to receive rewards without any further action needed.
Many projects have tackled with node rewards in order to make them fair, well incentivized but sustainable for everyone involved. Aelf has come up with a reward structure based on multiple variables with a basic income guaranteed for every node. Variables may include the number of re-elections, number of votes received, or other elements.
As the system matures, the number of active nodes will be increased, resulting in a more diverse and secure network.
Staking as a solution is a win-win-win for network creators, users and investors. It is a much more resource efficient and scalable protocol to secure blockchain networks while reducing the entry point for users to earn from the system.
submitted by Floris-Jan to aelfofficial [link] [comments]

Function X: A Concept Paper introducing the f(x) ecosystem, a universal decentralized internet powered by blockchain technology and smart devices

Function X: A Concept Paper introducing the f(x) ecosystem, a universal decentralized internet powered by blockchain technology and smart devices

https://preview.redd.it/yylq6k0yqrv21.png?width=633&format=png&auto=webp&s=089ffe83e18baeceb87d465ca6fad184939490e4

Prologue

This is a Concept Paper written to introduce the Function X Ecosystem, which includes the XPhone. It also addresses the relationship between the XPOS and Function X.
Pundi X has always been a community-driven project. We have lived by the mission of making sure the community comes first and we are constantly learning from discussions and interactions on social media and in real-life meetings.
As with all discussions, there is always background noise but we have found gems in these community discussions. One such example is a question which we found constantly lingering at the back of our mind, “Has blockchain changed the world as the Internet did in the ’90s, and the automobile in the ‘20s?”. Many might argue that it has, given the rise of so many blockchain projects with vast potential in different dimensions (like ours, if we may add). But the question remains, “can blockchain ever become what the Internet, as we know it today, has to the world?”
Function X, a universal decentralized internet which is powered by blockchain technology and smart devices.
Over the past few months, in the process of implementing and deploying the XPOS solution, we believe we found the answer to the question. A nimble development team was set up to bring the answer to life. We discovered that it is indeed possible to bring blockchain to the world of telephony, data transmission, storage and other industries; a world far beyond financial transactions and transfers.
This is supported by end-user smart devices functioning as blockchain nodes. These devices include the XPOS and XPhone developed by Pundi X and will also include many other hardware devices manufactured by other original equipment manufacturers.
The vision we want to achieve for f(x) is to create a fully autonomous and decentralized network that does not rely on any individual, organization or structure.
Due to the nature of the many new concepts introduced within this Concept Paper, we have included a Q&A after each segment to facilitate your understanding. We will continuously update this paper to reflect the progress we’re making.

Function X: The Internet was just the beginning

The advent of the Internet has revolutionized the world. It created a communications layer so robust that it has resulted in TCP/IP becoming the network standard.
The Internet also created a wealth of information so disruptive that a company like Amazon threatened to wipe out all the traditional brick-and-mortar bookstores. These bookstores were forced to either adapt or perish. The same applies to the news publishing sector: the offerings of Google and Facebook have caused the near extinction of traditional newspapers.
The digitalization of the world with the Internet has enabled tech behemoths like Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook to dominate and rule over traditional companies. The grip of these tech giants is so extensive that it makes you wonder if the choices you make are truly your own or influenced by the data they have on you as a user.
We see the blockchain revolution happening in three phases. The first was how Bitcoin showed the world what digital currency is. The second refers to how Ethereum has provided a platform to build decentralized assets easily. The clearest use case of that has come in the form of the thousands of altcoins seen today that we all are familiar with. The third phase is what many blockchain companies are trying to do now: 1) to bring the performance of blockchain to a whole new level (transaction speed, throughput, sharding, etc.) and 2) to change the course of traditional industries and platforms—including the Internet and user dynamics.
Public blockchains allow trustless transactions. If everything can be transacted on the blockchain in a decentralized manner, the information will flow more efficiently than traditional offerings, without the interception of intermediators. It will level the playing field and prevent data monopolization thus allowing small innovators to develop and flourish by leveraging the resources and data shared on the blockchain.

The Blockchain revolution will be the biggest digital revolution

In order to displace an incumbent technology with something new, we believe the change and improvement which the new technology has to bring will have to be at least a tenfold improvement on all aspects including speed, transparency, scalability and governance (consensus). We are excited to say that the time for this 10-times change is here. It’s time to take it up 10x with Function X.
Function X or f(x) is an ecosystem built entirely on and for the blockchain. Everything in f(x) (including the application source code, transmission protocol and hardware) is completely decentralized and secure. Every bit and byte in f(x) is part of the blockchain.
What we have developed is not just a public chain. It is a total decentralized solution. It consists of five core components: Function X Operating System (OS); Function X distributed ledger (Blockchain); Function X IPFS; FXTP Protocol and Function X Decentralized Docker. All five components serve a single purpose which is to decentralize all services, apps, websites, communications and, most importantly, data.
The purpose of Function X OS is to allow smart hardware and IoTs to harness the upside and potential utility of the decentralization approach. We have built an in-house solution for how mobile phones can leverage Function X OS in the form of the XPhone. Other companies can also employ the Function X OS and further customize it for their own smart devices. Every smart device in the Function X ecosystem can be a node and each will have its own address and private key, uniquely linked to their node names. The OS is based on the Android OS 9.0, therefore benefiting from backward compatibility with Android apps. The Function X OS supports Android apps and Google services (referred to as the traditional mode), as well as the newly developed decentralized services (referred to as the blockchain mode). Other XPhone features powered by the Function X OS will be elaborated on in the following sections.
Using the Function X Ecosystem (namely Function X FXTP), the transmission of data runs on a complex exchange of public and private key data and encryption but never through a centralized intermediary. Hence it guarantees communication without interception and gives users direct access to the data shared by others. Any information that is sent or transacted over the Function X Blockchain will also be recorded on the chain and fully protected by encryption so the ownesender has control over data sharing. And that is how a decentralized system for communications works.
For developers and users transitioning to the Function X platform, it will be a relatively seamless process. We have intentionally designed the process of creating and publishing new decentralized applications (DApps) on Function X to be easy, such that the knowledge and experience from developing and using Android will be transferable. With that in mind, a single line of code in most traditional apps can be modified, and developers can have their transmission protocol moved from the traditional HTTP mode (centralized) to a decentralized mode, thus making the transmission “ownerless” because data can transmit through the network of nodes without being blocked by third parties. How services can be ported easily or built from scratch as DApps will also be explained in the following sections, employing technologies in the Function X ecosystem (namely Function X IPFS, FXTP Protocol and Decentralized Docker).

f(x) Chain

f(x) chain is a set of consensus algorithms in the form of a distributed ledger, as part of the Function X ecosystem. The blockchain is the building block of our distributed ledger that stores and verifies transactions including financials, payments, communications (phone calls, file transfers, storage), services (DApps) and more.
Will Function X launch a mainnet?
Yes. The f(x) chain is a blockchain hence there will be a mainnet.
When will the testnet be launched?
Q2 2019 (projected).
When will the mainnet be launched?
Q3 2019 (projected).
How is the Function X blockchain designed?
The f(x) chain is designed based on the philosophy that any blockchain should be able to address real-life market demand of a constantly growing peer-to-peer network. It is a blockchain with high throughput achieved with a combination of decentralized hardware support (XPOS, XPhone, etc.) and open-source software toolkit enhancements.
What are the physical devices that will be connected to the Function X blockchain?
In due course, the XPOS OS will be replaced by the f(x) OS. On the other hand, the XPhone was designed with full f(x) OS integration in mind, from the ground up. After the f(x) OS onboarding, and with adequate stability testings and improvements, XPOS and XPhone will then be connected to the f(x) Chain.
What are the different elements of a block?
Anything that is transmittable over the distributed network can be stored in the block, including but not limited to phone call records, websites, data packets, source code, etc. It is worth noting that throughout these processes, all data is encrypted and only the owner of the private key has the right to decide how the data should be shared, stored, decrypted or even destroyed.
Which consensus mechanism is used?
Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT).
What are the other implementations of Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT)?
Flight systems that require very low latency. For example, SpaceX’s flight system, Dragon, uses PBFT design philosophy. [Appendix]
How do you create a much faster public chain?
We believe in achieving higher speed, thus hardware and software configurations matter. If your hardware is limited in numbers or processing power, this will limit the transaction speed which may pose security risks. The Ethereum network consists of about 25,000 nodes spread across the globe now, just two years after it was launched. Meanwhile, the Bitcoin network currently has around 7,000 nodes verifying the network. As for Pundi X, with the deployment plan (by us and our partners) for XPOS, XPhone and potentially other smart devices, we anticipate that we will be able to surpass the number of Bitcoin and Ethereum nodes within 1 to 2 years. There are also plans for a very competitive software implementation of our public blockchain, the details for which we will be sharing in the near future.

f(x) OS

The f(x) OS is an Android-modified operating system that is also blockchain-compatible. You can switch seamlessly between the blockchain and the traditional mode. In the blockchain mode, every bit and byte is fully decentralized including your calls, messages, browsers and apps. When in traditional mode, the f(x) OS supports all Android features.
Android is the most open and advanced operating system for smart hardware with over 2 billion monthly active users. Using Android also fits into our philosophy of being an OS/software designer and letting third-party hardware makers produce the hardware for the Function X Ecosystem.
What kind of open source will it be?
This has not been finalized, but the options we are currently considering are Apache or GNU GPLv3.
What kind of hardware will it work on?
The f(x) OS works on ARM architecture, hence it works on most smartphones, tablet computers, smart TVs, Android Auto and smartwatches in the market.
Will you build a new browser?
We are currently using a modified version of the Google Chrome browser. The browser supports both HTTP and FXTP, which means that apart from distributed FXTP contents, users can view traditional contents, such ashttps://www.google.com.
What is the Node Name System (NNS)?
A NNS is a distributed version of the traditional Domain Name System. A NNS allows every piece of Function X hardware, including the XPhone, to have a unique identity. This identity will be the unique identifier and can be called anything with digits and numbers, such as ‘JohnDoe2018’ or ‘AliceBob’. More on NNS in the following sections.
Will a third-party device running the f(x) OS be automatically connected to the f(x) blockchain?
Yes, third-party devices will be connected to the f(x) blockchain automatically.

f(x) FXTP

A transmission protocol defines the rules to allow information to be sent via a network. On the Internet, HTTP is a transmission protocol that governs how information such as website contents can be sent, received and displayed. FXTP is a transmission protocol for the decentralized network.
FXTP is different from HTTP because it is an end-to-end transmission whereby your data can be sent, received and displayed based on a consensus mechanism rather than a client-server based decision-making mechanism. In HTTP, the server (which is controlled by an entity) decides how and if the data is sent (or even monitored), whereas in FXTP, the data is sent out and propagates to the destination based on consensus.
HTTP functions as a request–response protocol in the client-server computing model. A web browser, for example, may be the client and an application running on a computer hosting a website may be the server. FXTP functions as a propagation protocol via a consensus model. A node that propagates the protocol and its packet content is both a “client” and a “server”, hence whether a packet reaches a destination is not determined by any intermediate party and this makes it more secure.

f(x) IPFS

IPFS is a protocol and network designed to store data in a distributed system. A person who wants to retrieve a file will call an identifier (hash) of the file, IPFS then combs through the other nodes and supplies the person with the file.
The file is stored on the IPFS network. If you run your own node, your file would be stored only on your node and available for the world to download. If someone else downloads it and seeds it, then the file will be stored on both your node the node of the individual who downloaded it (similar to BitTorrent).
IPFS is decentralized and more secure, which allows faster file and data transfer.

f(x) DDocker

Docker is computer program designed to make it easier to create, deploy, and run applications. Containers allow a developer to package up an application including libraries, and ship it all out as a package.
As the name suggests, Decentralized Docker is an open platform for developers to build, ship and run distributed applications. Developers will be able to store, deploy and run their codes remote in different locations and the codes are secure in a decentralized way.

XPhone

Beyond crypto: First true blockchain phone that is secured and decentralized to the core
XPhone is the world’s first blockchain phone which is designed with innovative features that are not found on other smartphones.
Powered by Function X, an ecosystem built entirely on and for the blockchain, XPhone runs on a new transmission protocol for the blockchain age. The innovation significantly expands the use of blockchain technology beyond financial transfers.
Unlike traditional phones which require a centralized service provider, XPhone runs independently without the need for that. Users can route phone calls and messages via blockchain nodes without the need for phone numbers.
Once the XPhone is registered on the network, for e.g., by a user named Pitt, if someone wants to access Pitt’s publicly shared data or content, that user can just enter FXTP://xxx.Pitt. This is similar to what we do for the traditional https:// protocol.
Whether Pitt is sharing photos, data, files or a website, they can be accessed through this path. And if Pitt’s friends would like to contact him, they can call, text or email his XPhone simply by entering “call.pitt”, “message.pitt”, or “mail.pitt”.
The transmission of data runs on a complex exchange of public and private key data with encryption. It can guarantee communication without interception and gives users direct access to the data shared by others. Any information that is sent or transacted over the Function X Blockchain will also be recorded on the chain.
Toggle between now and the future
Blockchain-based calling and messaging can be toggled on and off on the phone operating system which is built on Android 9.0. XPhone users can enjoy all the blockchain has to offer, as well as the traditional functionalities of an Android smartphone.
We’ll be sharing more about the availability of the XPhone and further applications of Function X in the near future.

DApps

DApps for mass adoption
So far the use of decentralized applications has been disappointing. But what if there was a straightforward way to bring popular, existing apps into a decentralized environment, without rebuilding everything? Until now, much of what we call peer-to-peer or ‘decentralized’ services continue to be built on centralized networks. We set out to change that with Function X; to disperse content now stored in the hands of the few, and to evolve services currently controlled by central parties.
Use Cases: Sharing economy
As seen from our ride-hailing DApp example that was demonstrated in New York back in November 2018, moving towards true decentralization empowers the providers of services and not the intermediaries. In the same way, the XPhone returns power to users over how their data is being shared and with whom. Function X will empower content creators to determine how their work is being displayed and used.
Use Cases: Free naming
One of the earliest alternative cryptocurrencies, Namecoin, wanted to use a blockchain to provide a name registration system, where users can register their names to create a unique identity. It is similar to the DNS system mapping to IP addresses. With the Node Name System (NNS) it is now possible to do this on the blockchain.
NNS is a distributed version of the traditional Domain Name System. A NNS allows every piece of Function X hardware, including the XPhone, to have a unique identifier that can be named anything with digits and numbers, such as ‘JohnDoe2018’ or ‘AliceBob’.
Use Cases: Mobile data currency
According to a study, mobile operator data revenues are estimated at over $600 billion USD by 2020, equivalent to $50 billion USD per month [appendix]. Assuming users are able to use services such as blockchain calls provided by XPhone (or other phones using Function X) the savings will be immense and the gain from profit can be passed on to providers such as DApp developers in Function X. In other words, instead of paying hefty bills to a mobile carrier for voice calls, users can pay less by making blockchain calls, and the fees paid are in f(x) coins. More importantly users will have complete privacy over their calls.
Use Cases: Decentralized file storage
Ethereum contracts claim to allow for the development of a decentralized file storage ecosystem, “where individual users can earn small quantities of money by renting out their own hard drives and unused space can be used to further drive down the costs of file storage.” However, they do not necessarily have the hardware to back this up. With the deployment of XPOS, smart hardware nodes and more, Function X is a natural fit for Decentralized File Storage. In fact, it is basically what f(x) IPFS is built for.
These are just four examples of the many use cases purported, and there can, will and should be more practical applications beyond these; we are right in the middle of uncharted territories.

Tokenomics

Decentralized and autonomous
The f(x) ecosystem is fully decentralized. It’s designed and built to run autonomously in perpetuity without the reliance or supervision of any individual or organization. To support this autonomous structure, f(x) Coin which is the underlying ‘currency’ within the f(x) ecosystem has to be decentralized in terms of its distribution, allocation, control, circulation and the way it’s being generated.
To get the structure of f(x) properly set up, the founding team will initially act as ‘initiators’ and ‘guardians’ of the ecosystem. The role of the team will be similar to being a gatekeeper to prevent any bad actors or stakeholders playing foul. At the same time, the team will facilitate good players to grow within the ecosystem. Once the f(x) ecosystem is up and running, the role of the founding team will be irrelevant and phased out. The long term intention of the team is to step away, allowing the ecosystem to run and flourish by itself.

Utility

In this section, we will explore the utility of the f(x) Coin. f(x) Coin is the native ‘currency’ of the Function X blockchain and ecosystem. All services rendered in the ecosystem will be processed, transacted with, or “fueled” by the f(x) Coin. Some of the proposed use cases include:
  • For service providers: Getting paid by developers, companies and consumers for providing storage nodes, DDocker and improvement of network connections. The role of service providers will be described in greater detail in the rest of the paper.
  • For consumers: Paying for service fees for the DApps, nodes, network resources, storage solutions and other services consumed within the f(x) ecosystem.
  • For developers: Paying for services and resources rendered in the ecosystem such as smart contract creation, file storage (paid to IPFS service provider), code hosting (paid to DDocker service provider), advertisements (paid to other developers) and design works. Developers can also get paid by enterprises or organizations that engaged in the developer’s services.
  • For enterprises or organizations: Paying for services provided by developers and advertisers. Services provided to consumers will be charged and denominated in f(x) Coin.
  • For phone and hardware manufacturers: Paying for further Function X OS customizations. It is worth noting that Pundi X Labs plan to only build a few thousand devices of the XPhone flagship handsets, and leave the subsequent market supply to be filled by third-party manufacturers using our operating system.
  • For financial institutions: receiving payments for financial services rendered in the ecosystem.
  • Applications requiring high throughput.
Hence f(x) Coin can be used as ‘currency’ for the below services,
  • In-app purchases
  • Blockchain calls
  • Smart contract creations
  • Transaction fees
  • Advertisements
  • Hosting fees
  • Borderless/cross-border transactions
We believe f(x) Coin utilization will be invariably higher than other coins in traditional chains due to the breadth of the f(x) ecosystem. This includes storage services and network resources on f(x) that will utilize the f(x) Coin as “fuel” for execution and validation of transactions.
Example 1: A developer creates a ride-hailing DApp called DUber.
DUber developer first uploads the image and data to IPFS (storage) and code to DDocker, respectively. The developer then pays for a decentralized code hosting service provided by the DDocker, and a decentralized file hosting service provided by the IPFS. Please note the storage hosting and code hosting services can be provided by a company, or by a savvy home user with smart nodes connected to the Function X ecosystem. Subsequently, a DUber user pays the developer.
Example 2: User Alice sends an imaginary token called ABCToken to Bob.
ABCToken is created using Function X smart contract. Smart nodes hosted at the home of Charlie help confirms the transaction, Charlie is paid by Alice (or both Alice and Bob).

The flow of f(x) Coin

Four main participants in f(x): Consumer (blue), Developer (blue), Infrastructure (blue), and Financial Service Provider (green)
Broadly speaking, there can be four main participants in the f(x) ecosystem, exhibited by the diagram above:
  • Consumer: Users enjoy the decentralized services available in the f(x) ecosystem
  • Infrastructure Service Provider: Providing infrastructures that make up the f(x) ecosystem such as those provided by mobile carriers, decentralized clouds services.
  • Developer: Building DApp on the f(x) network such as decentralized IT, hospitality and financial services apps.
  • Financial Service Provider: Providing liquidity for the f(x) Coin acting as an exchange.
The f(x) ecosystem’s value proposition:
  • Infrastructure service providers can offer similar services that they already are providing in other markets such as FXTP, DDocker and IPFS, to earn f(x) Coin.
  • Developers can modify their existing Android apps to be compatible with the f(x) OS environment effortlessly, and potentially earn f(x) Coin.
  • Developers, at the same time, also pay for the infrastructure services used for app creation.
  • Consumers immerse in the decentralized app environments and pay for services used in f(x) Coin.
  • Developer and infrastructure service providers can earn rewards in f(x) Coin by providing their services. They can also monetize it through a wide network of financial service providers to earn some profit, should they decide to do so.
Together, the four participants in this ecosystem will create a positive value flow. As the number of service providers grow, the quality of service will be enhanced, subsequently leading to more adoption. Similarly, more consumers means more value is added to the ecosystem by attracting more service providers,and creating f(x) Coin liquidity. Deep liquidity of f(x) Coin will attract more financial service providers to enhance the stability and quality of liquidity. This will attract more service providers to the ecosystem.
Figure: four main participants of the ecosystem The rationale behind f(x) Coin generation is the Proof of Service concept (PoS)
Service providers are crucial in the whole f(x) Ecosystem, the problem of motivation/facilitation has become our priority. We have to align our interests with theirs. Hence, we have set up a Tipping Jar (similar to mining) to motivate and facilitate the existing miners shift to the f(x) Ecosystem and become part of the infrastructure service provider or attract new players into our ecosystem. Income for service provider = Service fee (from payer) + Tipping (from f(x) network generation)
The idea is that the f(x) blockchain will generate a certain amount of f(x) Coin (diminishing annually) per second to different segments of service provider, such as in the 1st year, the f(x) blockchain will generate 3.5 f(x) Coin per second and it will be distributed among the infrastructure service provider through the Proof of Service concept. Every service provider such as infrastructure service providers, developers and financial service providers will receive a ‘certificate’ of Proof of Service in the blockchain after providing the service and redeeming the f(x) Coin.
Example: There are 3 IPFS providers in the market, and the total Tipping Jar for that specific period is 1 million f(x) Coin. Party A contributes 1 TB; Party B contributes 3 TB and Party C contributes 6 TB. So, Party A will earn 1/10 * 1 million = 100k f(x) Coin; Party B will earn 3/10 * 1 million = 300k f(x) Coin. Party C will earn 6/10 * 1 million = 600k f(x) Coin.
Note: The computation method of the distribution of the Tipping Jar might vary due to the differences in the nature of the service, period and party.
Figure: Circulation flow of f(x) Coin
The theory behind the computation.
Blockchain has integrated almost everything, such as storage, scripts, nodes and communication. This requires a large amount of bandwidth and computation resources which affects the transaction speed and concurrency metric.
In order to do achieve the goal of being scalable with high transaction speed, the f(x) blockchain has shifted out all the ‘bulky’ and ‘heavy duty’ functions onto other service providers, such as IPFS, FXTP, etc. We leave alone what blockchain technology does best: Calibration. Thus, the role of the Tipping Jar is to distribute the appropriate tokens to all participants.
Projected f(x) Coin distribution per second in the first year
According to Moore’s Law, the number of transistors in a densely integrated circuit doubles about every 18 -24 months. Thus, the performance of hardware doubles every 18-24 months. Taking into consideration Moore’s Law, Eric Schmidt said if you maintain the same hardware specs, the earnings will be cut in half after 18-24 months. Therefore, the normal Tipping Jar (reward) for an infrastructure service provider will decrease 50% every 18 months. In order to encourage infrastructure service providers to upgrade their hardware, we have set up another iteration and innovation contribution pool (which is worth of 50% of the normal Tipping Jar on the corresponding phase) to encourage the infrastructure service provider to embrace new technology.
According to the Andy-Bill’s law, “What Andy gives, Bill takes away”; software will always nibble away the extra performance of the hardware. The more performance a piece of hardware delivers, the more the software consumes. Thus, the developer will always follow the trend to maintain and provide high-quality service. The Tipping Jar will increase by 50% (based upon the previous quota) every 18 months.
Financial service providers will have to support the liquidation of the whole ecosystem along the journey, the Tipping Jar (FaaS) will increase by 50% by recognizing the contribution and encouraging innovation.
From the 13th year (9th phase), the Tipping Jar will reduce by 50% every 18 months. We are well aware that the “cliff drop” after the 12th year is significant. Hence, we have created a 3year (two-phase) diminishing transition period. The duration of each phase is 18 months. There are 10 phases in total which will last for a total of 15 years.
According to Gartner’s report, the blockchain industry is forecast to reach a market cap of
3.1 trillion USD in 2030. Hence, we believe a Tipping Jar of 15 years will allow the growth of Function X into the “mature life cycle” of the blockchain industry.

f(x) Coin / Token Allocation

Token allocation We believe great blockchain projects attempt to equitably balance the interests of different segments of the community. We hope to motivate and incentivize token holders by allocating a total of 65% of tokens from the Token Generation Event (TGE). Another 20% is allocated to the Ecosystem Genesis Fund for developer partnerships, exchanges and other such related purposes. The remaining 15% will go to engineering, product development and marketing. There will be no public or private sales for f(x) tokens.
NPXS / NPXSXEM is used to make crypto payments as easy as buying bottled water, while f(x) is used for the operation of a decentralized ecosystem and blockchain, consisting of DApps and other services. NPXS / NPXSXEM will continue to have the same functionality and purpose after the migration to the Function X blockchain in the future. Therefore, each token will be expected to assume different fundamental roles and grant different rights to the holders.
https://preview.redd.it/xohy6c6pprv21.png?width=509&format=png&auto=webp&s=a2c0bd0034805c5f055c3fea4bd3ba48eb59ff07
65% of allocation for NPXS / NPXSXEM holders is broken down into the following: 15% is used for staking (see below) 45% is used for conversion to f(x) tokens. (see below) 5% is used for extra bonus tasks over 12 months (allocation TBD).

https://preview.redd.it/6jmpfhmxprv21.png?width=481&format=png&auto=webp&s=c9eb2c124e0181c0851b7495028a317b5c9cd6b7
https://preview.redd.it/1pjcycv0qrv21.png?width=478&format=png&auto=webp&s=c529d5d99d760281efd0c3229edac494d5ed7750
Remarks All NPXS / NPXSXEM tokens that are converted will be removed from the total supply of NPXS / NPXSXEM; Pundi X will not convert company's NPXS for f(x) Tokens. This allocation is designed for NPXS/NPXSXEM long term holders. NPXS / NPXSXEM tokens that are converted will also be entitled to the 15% f(x) Token distribution right after the conversion.

Usage

Management of the Ecosystem Genesis Fund (EGF)
The purpose of setting up the Ecosystem Initialization Fund, is to motivate, encourage and facilitate service providers to join and root into the f(x) Ecosystem and, at the same time, to attract seed consumers to enrich and enlarge the f(x) Ecosystem. EIF comes from funds raised and will be used as a bootstrap mechanism to encourage adoption before the Tipping Jar incentives fully kicks in.
The EGF is divided into 5 parts:
  1. Consumer (10%): To attract consumers and enlarge the customer base;
  2. Developer (20%): To encourage developers to create DApps on the f(x) blockchain;
  3. Infrastructure Service Provider (20%): To set up or shift to the f(x) infrastructure;
  4. Financial Service Provider (20%): To create a trading platform for f(x) Coin and increase liquidity; and
  5. Emergency bridge reserve (30%): To facilitate or help the stakeholders in f(x) during extreme market condition
To implement the spirit of decentralization and fairness, the EGF will be managed by a consensus-based committee, called the f(x) Open Market Committee (FOMC).

Summary

Time moves fast in the technology world and even faster in the blockchain space. Pundi X’s journey started in October 2017, slightly over a year ago, and we have been operating at a lightning pace ever since, making progress that can only be measured in leaps and bounds. We started as a blockchain payment solution provider and have evolved into a blockchain service provider to make blockchain technology more accessible to the general public, thereby improving your everyday life.
The creation of Function X was driven by the need to create a better suited platform for our blockchain point-of sale network and through that process, the capabilities of Function X have allowed us to extend blockchain usage beyond finance applications like payment solutions and cryptocurrency.
The complete decentralized ecosystem of Function X will change and benefit organizations, developers, governments and most importantly, society as a whole.
The XPhone prototype which we have created is just the start to give everyone a taste of the power of Function X on how you can benefit from a truly decentralized environment. We envision a future where the XPOS, XPhone and other Function X-enabled devices work hand-in-hand to make the decentralized autonomous ecosystem a reality.
You may wonder how are we able to create such an extensive ecosystem within a short span of time? We are fortunate that in today’s open source and sharing economy, we are able to tap onto the already established protocols (such as Consensus algorithm, FXTP, etc), software (like Android, IPFS, PBFT, Dockers, etc.) and hardware (design knowledge from existing experts) which were developed by selfless generous creators. Function X puts together, aggregates and streamlines all the benefits and good of these different elements and make them work better and seamlessly on the blockchain. And we will pay it forward by making Function X as open and as decentralized as possible so that others may also use Function X to create bigger and better projects.
To bring Function X to full fruition, we will continue to operate in a transparent and collaborative way. Our community will continue to be a key pillar for us and be even more vital as we get Function X up and running. As a community member, you will have an early access to the Function X ecosystem through the f(x) token conversion.
We hope you continue to show your support as we are working hard to disrupt the space and re-engineer this decentralized world.

Reference

Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance
http://pmg.csail.mit.edu/papers/osdi99.pdf
Byzantine General Problem technical paper
https://web.archive.org/web/20170205142845/http://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/byz.pdf
Global mobile data revenues to reach $630 billion by 2020
https://www.parksassociates.com/blog/article/pr-07112016
NPXSXEM token supply
https://medium.com/pundix/a-closer-look-at-npxsxem-token-supply-843598d0e7b6
NPXS circulating token supply and strategic purchaser
https://medium.com/pundix/total-token-supply-and-strategic-investors-b41717021583
[total supply might differ from time to time due to token taken out of total supply aka “burn”]
ELC: SpaceX lessons learned (PBFT mentioned) https://lwn.net/Articles/540368/

Full: https://functionx.io/assets/file/Function_X_Concept_Paper_v2.0.pdf
submitted by crypt0hodl1 to PundiX [link] [comments]

Byzantine General's Problem The Byzantine Generals Problem and Blockchain Consensus ... Bitcoin einfach erklärt Teil 1 - Der byzantinische Fehler Bitcoin Q&A: Miners, pools, and consensus Bitcoin and Byzantine Generals  Programmer explains

Bitcoin and Byzantine Generals Problem. 30/05/2019 Cryptocurrency Analysis No Comments 623 Views 1. Byzantine Generals Problem is a common term in the blockchain field as well as a core issue in cryptography. Byzantine Generals Problem is a distributed peer-to-peer network communication fault tolerance proposed by Leslie Lamport in his paper The Byzantine Generals Problem. In the dictionary of ... In Satoshi’s version of the blockchain, the Byzantine General’s Problem is resolved by the miners who are like the generals. Each node must try to validate transactions, which are like the ... Byzantine Generals’ Problem and Bitcoin. The above dilemma isn’t necessarily limited to just two generals. In a distributed network such as that of Bitcoin’s, all participants and nodes are essentially of equally hierarchy. So, now instead of needing to reach verification and agreement between two parties, we need all participants to approve, while neutralizing corrupt or misleading ... The Byzantine Generals’ Problem is one of the most well-known and classic problems faced by decentralized networks. Solving this problem was one of the key developments in the creation of Bitcoin and, by extension, all other cryptocurrencies. In this article, we will first examine The 2 Generals Problem. We will look at how the 2 Generals Problem leads us to the Byzantine Generals Problem. And finally, how Proof of Work, serves as the source of consensus for the Bitcoin blockchain solving the Byzantine Generals Problem. If you can’t Trust a General, who can you Trust? The 2 ...

[index] [19912] [49187] [3598] [24571] [45647] [29557] [27936] [42685] [3420] [27703]

Byzantine General's Problem

In this tutorial we will learn about the Byzantines's General Problem. The Byzantine Generals Problem and Blockchain Consensus Models ... Avery Carter 16,581 views. 18:25. Bitcoin and Byzantine Generals Programmer explains - Duration: 23:39. Ivan on Tech 34,321 ... Bitcoin and Byzantine Generals Programmer explains - Duration: 23 ... The Byzantine Generals Problem - An Intro To Blockchain - Duration: 1:46. district0x Network 13,303 views. 1:46 . The ... In this video, I cover the Two Generals Problem, The Byzantine Generals Problem, Byzantine Fault Tolerance, Proof of Work, Proof of Stake, and Delegated Byza... These questions are from the MOOC sessions 7.2, 8.2, and 9.2 covering the Byzantine Generals' Problem, which took place on February 26th 2017, September 15th 2017, and February 23rd 2018 ...

#