F2Pool ZDL Crypto Wiki Fandom

Bitcoin Mining Forums: Turning Computers Into Cash Since 2011

The official bitcoin mining forum / subreddit / chat room / place to be!
[link]

Funding the future with the future of currency

**About the Einsteinium Foundation** The Einsteinium Foundation was created to help, in any small way it can, raise funding for cutting edge scientific research. To this aim we created Einsteinium, a new crypto currency (similar to Bitcoin), to gather funds that can be distributed to projects the community chooses. Combined with donations from the community at large we will help fund some of the most innovative projects currently under-way or help seed those waiting to start.
[link]

Ethereum Classic

Ethereum Classic is an open, decentralized, and permissionless public blockchain, that aims to fulfill the original promise of Ethereum, as a platform where smart contracts are free from third-party interference. ETC prioritizes trust-minimization, network security, and integrity. All network upgrades are non-contentious with the aim to fix critical issues or to add value with newly proposed features; never to create new tokens, or to bail out flawed smart contracts and their interest groups.
[link]

The Best Cryptocurrency Mining Pools in 2020

This review is not sponsored! Neither it is an ad.
How to choose a mining pool? How to avoid stale shares? The pros and cons of different services.

What is a cryptocurrency mining pool?

A “mining pool" is a server that distributes the task of calculating the block signature between all connected participants. The contribution of each of them is evaluated using the so-called “shares”, which are potential candidates for receiving a signature. As soon as one of the “shares” hits the target, the pool announces the readiness of the block and distributes the reward.
However, if you participate in the pool, then you will have to share the profit with all the participants in the pool, but for the majority, this usually is the most profitable option.

Which pool is better for mining?

The best mining pools should meet the following criteria:

Key selection criteria

To select a good pool for each specific cryptocurrency, you need to carefully study all the information available about it on its website and on the forums.
To reduce the number of stale shares, it is better to mine on the pool closest to the miner. You can choose the fastest mining pool by studying the information about the processing speed of the share in the mining program or by pinging the time it takes for the signal to pass from the miner's computer to the servers of the pool.

10 most popular and powerful pools: Description

ViaBTC

Coins: BTC, BCH, BSV, LTC, ETH, ETC, ZEC, DASH, XMR, CKB
Commission: 3%, lifetime discount: 1%

EMCD

Coins: BTC, BSV, BCH, LTC, ETC, ETH, DASH
Commission: 0%. There is a donation option: 0.5% of the income

Ethermine

Coins: ETH, ETC, ZEC
Commission: 1%

F2pool

Coins: BTC, LTC, and many other coins
Commission: 3-5%

NanoPool

Coins: XMR, ETH, ETC, SiaCoin, ZEC, PASC, ETN
Commission:1%

Mining Pool Hub

Coins: BTC, BSV, BCH, LTC
Commission: 0.9%

NiceHash

Coins: BTC, ETH, XRP, BCH, LTC, ZEC, DASH, XLM, EOS, USDT, LINK, BAT, ZRX, HOT, OMG, REP, BTG, NEXO, MATIC, ENJ, SNT, ELF, BNT, KNC, POLY, MTL + 20 more.
Commission: 2-5%

Coinotron

Coins: ETH, ETC, PASC, LTC, Zcash, BTG, DASH, FTC, VTC
Commission: 1-1.5%

Monero Mining Pool

Coins: XMR
Commission: 2%

Baikalmine

Coins: ETH, ETC, MOAC, CLO
Commission: 0.5-1%

Independent Pool Statistics

To make sure that the pools work and really exist, check independent sources. These are:
Keep up with the news of the crypto world at CoinJoy.io Follow us on Twitter and Medium. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. Join our Telegram channel. For any inquiries mail us at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
submitted by CoinjoyAssistant to dogemining [link] [comments]

Long live decentralized bitcoin(!) A reading list

Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today.
During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it)
In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited.
For more threads like this see UASF

Summary / The fundamental tradeoff

A trip to the moon requires a rocket with multiple stages by gmaxwell (must read) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/438hx0/a_trip_to_the_moon_requires_a_rocket_with/
Bram Cohen, creator of bittorrent, argues against a hard fork to a larger block size https://medium.com/@bramcohen/bitcoin-s-ironic-crisis-32226a85e39f#.558vetum4
gmaxwell's summary of the debate https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1343716.msg13701818#msg13701818
Core devs please explain your vision (see luke's post which also argues that blocks are already too big) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/
Mod of btc speaking against a hard fork https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57hd14/core_reaction_to_viabtc_this_week/d8scokm/
It's becoming clear to me that a lot of people don't understand how fragile bitcoin is https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/59kflj/its_becoming_clear_to_me_that_a_lot_of_people/
Blockchain space must be costly, it can never be free https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4og24h/i_just_attended_the_distributed_trade_conference/
Charlie Lee with a nice analogy about the fundamental tradeoff https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/eating-the-bitcoin-cake-fc2b4ebfb85e#.444vr8shw
gmaxwell on the tradeoffs https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520693.msg15303746#msg15303746
jratcliff on the layering https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/59upyh/segwit_the_poison_pill_for_bitcoin/d9bstuw/

Scaling on-chain will destroy bitcoin's decentralization

Peter Todd: How a floating blocksize limit inevitably leads towards centralization [Feb 2013] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0 mailing list https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-February/002176.html with discussion on reddit in Aug 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hnvi8/just_a_little_history_lesson_for_everyone_new_the/
Nick Szabo's blog post on what makes bitcoin so special http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html
There is academic research showing that even small (2MB) increases to the blocksize results in drastic node dropoff counts due to the non-linear increase of RAM needed. http://bravenewcoin.com/assets/Whitepapers/block-size-1.1.1.pdf
Reddit summary of above link. In this table, you can see it estimates a 40% drop immediately in node count with a 2MB upgrade and a 50% over 6 months. At 4mb, it becomes 75% immediately and 80% over 6 months. At 8, it becomes 90% and 95%. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qw2wa_future_led_by_bitcoin_unlimited_is_a/dd442pw/
Larger block sizes make centralization pressures worse (mathematical) https://petertodd.org/2016/block-publication-incentives-for-miners
Talk at scalingbitcoin montreal, initial blockchain synchronization puts serious constraints on any increase in the block size https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&t=2h02m06s with transcript https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/block-synchronization-time
Bitcoin's P2P Network: The Soft Underbelly of Bitcoin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kibPzbrIc someone's notes: https://gist.github.com/romyilano/5e22394857a39889a1e5 reddit discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4py5df/so_f2pool_antpool_btcc_pool_are_actually_one_pool/
In adversarial environments blockchains dont scale https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/in-adversarial-environments-blockchains-dont-scale
Why miners will not voluntarily individually produce smaller blocks https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/why-miners-will-not-voluntarily-individually-produce-smaller-blocks
Hal Finney: bitcoin's blockchain can only be a settlement layer (mostly interesting because it's hal finney and its in 2010) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3sb5nj/most_bitcoin_transactions_will_occur_between/
petertodd's 2013 video explaining this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
luke-jr's summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/dficjhj/
Another jratcliff thread https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/

Full blocks are not a disaster

Blocks must be always full, there must always be a backlog https://medium.com/@bergealex4/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-size-size-limit-70db07070a54#.kh2vi86lr
Same as above, the mining gap means there must always be a backlog talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2453&v=iKDC2DpzNbw transcript: https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/security-of-diminishing-block-subsidy
Backlogs arent that bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/49p011/was_the_fee_event_really_so_bad_my_mind_is/
Examples where scarce block space causes people to use precious resources more efficiently https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4kxxvj/i_just_singlehandedly_increased_bitcoin_network/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/47d4m2/why_does_coinbase_make_2_transactions_pe
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/53wucs/why_arent_blocks_full_yet/d7x19iv
Full blocks are fine https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5uld1a/misconception_full_blocks_mean_bitcoin_is_failing/
High miner fees imply a sustainable future for bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/680tvf/fundamentals_friday_week_of_friday_april_28_2017/dgwmhl7/
gmaxwell on why full blocks are good https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6b57ca/full_blocks_good_or_bad/dhjxwbz/
The whole idea of the mempool being "filled" is wrong headed. The mempool doesn't "clog" or get stuck, or anything like that. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7cusnx/to_the_people_still_doubting_that_this_congestion/dpssokf/

Segwit

What is segwit

luke-jr's longer summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6033h7/today_is_exactly_4_months_since_the_segwit_voting/df3tgwg/?context=1
Charlie Shrem's on upgrading to segwit https://twitter.com/CharlieShrem/status/842711238853513220
Original segwit talk at scalingbitcoin hong kong + transcript https://youtu.be/zchzn7aPQjI?t=110
https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability
Segwit is not too complex https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57vjin/segwit_is_not_great/d8vos33/
Segwit does not make it possible for miners to steal coins, contrary to what some people say https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e6bt0/concerns_with_segwit_and_anyone_can_spend/daa5jat/?context=1
https://keepingstock.net/segwit-eli5-misinformation-faq-19908ceacf23#.r8hlzaquz
Segwit is required for a useful lightning network It's now known that without a malleability fix useful indefinite channels are not really possible.
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqgda7/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqbukj/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5x2oh0/olaoluwa_osuntokun_all_active_lightning_network/deeto14/?context=3
Clearing up SegWit Lies and Myths: https://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup
Segwit is bigger blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5pb8vs/misinformation_is_working_54_incorrectly_believe/dcpz3en/
Typical usage results in segwit allowing capacity equivalent to 2mb blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/69i2md/observe_for_yourself_segwit_allows_2_mb_blocks_in/

Why is segwit being blocked

Jihan Wu (head of largest bitcoin mining group) is blocking segwit because of perceived loss of income https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60mb9e/complete_high_quality_translation_of_jihans/
Witness discount creates aligned incentives https://segwit.org/why-a-discount-factor-of-4-why-not-2-or-8-bbcebe91721e#.h36odthq0 https://medium.com/@SegWit.co/what-is-behind-the-segwit-discount-988f29dc1edf#.sr91dg406
or because he wants his mining enterprise to have control over bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6jdyk8/direct_report_of_jihan_wus_real_reason_fo

Segwit is being blocked because it breaks ASICBOOST, a patented optimization used by bitmain ASIC manufacturer

Details and discovery by gmaxwell https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html
Reddit thread with discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/
Simplified explaination by jonny1000 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/
http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin/public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf
https://medium.com/@jimmysong/examining-bitmains-claims-about-asicboost-1d61118c678d
Evidence https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63vn5g/please_dont_stop_us_from_using_asicboost_which/dfxmm75/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63soe3/reverse_engineering_an_asic_is_a_significant_task/dfx9nc
Bitmain admits their chips have asicboost but they say they never used it on the network (haha a likely story) https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/
Worth $100m per year to them (also in gmaxwell's original email) https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/849798529929424898
Other calculations show less https://medium.com/@vcorem/the-real-savings-from-asicboost-to-bitmaintech-ff265c2d305b
This also blocks all these other cool updates, not just segwit https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/dfw0ej3/
Summary of bad consequences of asicboost https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/dg4hyqk/?context=1
Luke's summary of the entire situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ego3s/why_is_killing_asicboost_not_a_priority/diagkkb/?context=1
Prices goes up because now segwit looks more likely https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/849846845425799168
Asicboost discovery made the price rise https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/851520094677200901
A pool was caught red handed doing asicboost, by this time it seemed fairly certain that segwit would get activated so it didnt produce as much interest as earlier https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p7lr5/1hash_pool_has_mined_2_invalid_blocks/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p95dl/interesting_1hash_pool_mined_some_invalid_blocks/ and https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/889475196322811904
This btc user is outraged at the entire forum because they support Bitmain and ASICBOOST https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/67t43y/dragons_den_planned_smear_campaign_of_bitmain/dgtg9l2/
Antbleed, turns out Bitmain can shut down all its ASICs by remote control: http://www.antbleed.com/

What if segwit never activates

What if segwit never activates? https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ab8js/transaction_fees_are_now_making_btc_like_the_banks/dhdq3id/ with https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ksu3o/blinded_bearer_certificates/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4xy0fm/scaling_quickly/

Lightning

bitcoinmagazine's series on what lightning is and how it works https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-creating-the-network-1465326903/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-completing-the-puzzle-and-closing-the-channel-1466178980/
The Lightning Network ELIDHDICACS (Explain Like I Don’t Have Degrees in Cryptography and Computer Science) https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-lightning-network-elidhdicacs
Ligtning will increases fees for miners, not lower them https://medium.com/lightning-resources/the-lightning-paradox-f15ce0e8e374#.erfgunumh
Cost-benefit analysis of lightning from the point of view of miners https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/miners-and-bitcoin-lightning-a133cd550310#.x42rovlg8
Routing blog post by rusty https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/routing-dijkstra-bellman-ford-and-bfg-7715840f004 and reddit comments https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4lzkz1/rusty_russell_on_lightning_routing_routing/
Lightning protocol rfc https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc
Blog post with screenshots of ln being used on testnet https://medium.com/@btc_coach/lightning-network-in-action-b18a035c955d video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxGiMu4V7ns
Video of sending and receiving ln on testnet https://twitter.com/alexbosworth/status/844030573131706368
Lightning tradeoffs http://www.coindesk.com/lightning-technical-challenges-bitcoin-scalability/
Beer sold for testnet lightning https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/62uw23/lightning_network_is_working_room77_is_accepting/ and https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/848265171269283845
Lightning will result in far fewer coins being stored on third parties because it supports instant transactions https://medium.com/@thecryptoconomy/the-barely-discussed-incredible-benefit-of-the-lightning-network-4ce82c75eb58
jgarzik argues strongly against LN, he owns a coin tracking startup https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/860826532650123264 https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/886128801926795264
luke's great debunking / answer of some misinformation questions https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6st4eq/questions_about_lightning_network/dlfap0u/
Lightning centralization doesnt happen https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6vzau5/reminder_bitcoins_key_strength_is_in_being/dm4ou3v/?context=1
roasbeef on hubs and charging fees https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930209165728825344 and https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930210145790976000

Immutability / Being a swiss bank in your pocket / Why doing a hard fork (especially without consensus) is damaging

A downside of hard forks is damaging bitcoin's immutability https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5em6vu/what_happens_if_segwit_doesnt_activate/dae1r6c/?context=3
Interesting analysis of miners incentives and how failure is possible, don't trust the miners for long term https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5gtew4/why_an_increased_block_size_increases_the_cost_of/daybazj/?context=2
waxwing on the meaning of cash and settlement https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ei7m3/unconfirmed_transactions_60k_total_fees_14btc/dad001v/
maaku on the cash question https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5i5iq5/we_are_spoiled/db5luiv/?context=1
Digital gold funamentalists gain nothing from supporting a hard fork to larger block sizes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xzunq/core_please_compromise_before_we_end_up_with_bu/dem73xg/?context=1
Those asking for a compromise don't understand the underlying political forces https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ef7wb/some_comments_on_the_bip148_uasf_from_the/dia236b/?context=3
Nobody wants a contentious hard fork actually, anti-core people got emotionally manipulated https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5sq5ocontentious_forks_vs_incremental_progress/ddip57o/
The hard work of the core developers has kept bitcoin scalable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hfgpo/an_initiative_to_bring_advanced_privacy_features/cu7mhw8?context=9
Recent PRs to improve bitcoin scaleability ignored by the debate https://twitter.com/jfnewbery/status/883001356168167425
gmaxwell against hard forks since 2013 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.20
maaku: hard forks are really bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zxjza/adam_greg_core_devs_and_big_blockers_now_is_the/df275yk/?context=2

Some metrics on what the market thinks of decentralization and hostile hard forks

The price history shows that the exchange rate drops every time a hard fork threatens: https://i.imgur.com/EVPYLR8.jpg
and this example from 2017 https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/845562763820912642
http://imgur.com/a/DuHAn btc users lose money
price supporting theymos' moderation https://i.imgur.com/0jZdF9h.png
old version https://i.imgur.com/BFTxTJl.png
older version https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxqtUakUQAEmC0d.jpg
about 50% of nodes updated to the soft fork node quite quickly https://imgur.com/O0xboVI

Bitcoin Unlimited / Emergent Consensus is badly designed, changes the game theory of bitcoin

Bitcoin Unlimited was a proposed hard fork client, it was made with the intention to stop segwit from activating
A Future Led by Bitcoin Unlimited is a Centralized Future https://blog.sia.tech/a-future-led-by-bitcoin-unlimited-is-a-centralized-future-e48ab52c817a#.p1ly6hldk
Flexible transactions are bugged https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/57tf5g/bitcoindev_bluematt_on_flexible_transactions/
Bugged BU software mines an invalid block, wasting 13 bitcoins or $12k
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qwtr2/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5qx18i/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
bitcoin.com employees are moderators of btc https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/the-curious-relation-between-bitcoin-com-anti-segwit-propaganda-26c877249976#.vl02566k4
miners don't control stuff like the block size http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/
even gavin agreed that economic majority controls things https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ywoi9/in_2010_gavin_predicted_that_exchanges_ie_the/
fork clients are trying to steal bitcoin's brand and network effect, theyre no different from altcoins https://medium.com/@Coinosphere/why-bitcoin-unlimited-should-be-correctly-classified-as-an-attempted-robbery-of-bitcoin-not-a-9355d075763c#.qeaynlx5m
BU being active makes it easier to reverse payments, increases wasted work making the network less secure and giving an advantage to bigger miners https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5g1x84/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_median_value_of_miner_eb/
bitcoin unlimited takes power away from users and gives it to miners https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/bitcoin-unlimiteds-placebo-controls-6320cbc137d4#.q0dv15gd5
bitcoin unlimited's accepted depth https://twitter.com/tdryja/status/804770009272696832
BU's lying propaganda poster https://imgur.com/osrViDE

BU is bugged, poorly-reviewed and crashes

bitcoin unlimited allegedly funded by kraken stolen coins
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/55ajuh/taint_analysis_on_bitcoin_stolen_from_kraken_on/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/559miz/taint_analysis_on_btc_allegedly_stolen_from_kraken/
Other funding stuff
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zozmn/damning_evidence_on_how_bitcoin_unlimited_pays/
A serious bug in BU https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5h70s3/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_the_developers_have_realized/
A summary of what's wrong with BU: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5z3wg2/jihanwu_we_will_switch_the_entire_pool_to/devak98/

Bitcoin Unlimited Remote Exploit Crash 14/3/2017

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zdkv3/bitcoin_unlimited_remote_exploit_crash/ https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zeb76/timbe https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zdrru/peter_todd_bu_remote_crash_dos_wtf_bug_assert0_in/
BU devs calling it as disaster https://twitter.com/SooMartindale/status/841758265188966401 also btc deleted a thread about the exploit https://i.imgur.com/lVvFRqN.png
Summary of incident https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zf97j/i_was_undecided_now_im_not/
More than 20 exchanges will list BTU as an altcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zyg6g/bitcoin_exchanges_unveil_emergency_hard_fork/
Again a few days later https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60qmkt/bu_is_taking_another_shit_timberrrrr

User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)

site for it, including list of businesses supporting it http://www.uasf.co/
luke's view
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zsk45/i_am_shaolinfry_author_of_the_recent_usedf1dqen/?context=3
threat of UASF makes the miner fall into line in litecoin
https://www.reddit.com/litecoin/comments/66omhlitecoin_global_roundtable_resolution/dgk2thk/?context=3
UASF delivers the goods for vertcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/692mi3/in_test_case_uasf_results_in_miner_consensus/dh3cm34/?context=1
UASF coin is more valuable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6cgv44/a_uasf_chain_will_be_profoundly_more_valuable/
All the links together in one place https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6dzpew/hi_its_mkwia_again_maintainer_of_uasfbitcoin_on/
p2sh was a uasf https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L1283
jgarzik annoyed at the strict timeline that segwit2x has to follow because of bip148 https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/886605836902162432
Committed intolerant minority https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6d7dyt/a_plea_for_rational_intolerance_extremism_and/
alp on the game theory of the intolerant minority https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/user-activated-soft-forks-and-the-intolerant-minority-a54e57869f57
The risk of UASF is less than the cost of doing nothing https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6bof7a/were_getting_to_the_point_where_a_the_cost_of_not/
uasf delivered the goods for bitcoin, it forced antpool and others to signal (May 2016) https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753/ "When asked specifically whether Antpool would run SegWit code without a hard fork increase in the block size also included in a release of Bitcoin Core, Wu responded: “No. It is acceptable that the hard fork code is not activated, but it needs to be included in a ‘release’ of Bitcoin Core. I have made it clear about the definition of ‘release,’ which is not ‘public.’”"
Screenshot of peter rizun capitulating https://twitter.com/chris_belcher_/status/905231603991007232

Fighting off 2x HF

https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/895089909723049984
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6h612o/can_someone_explain_to_me_why_core_wont_endorse/?st=j6ic5n17&sh=cc37ee23
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6smezz/segwit2x_hard_fork_is_completely_useless_its_a/?st=j6ic2aw3&sh=371418dd
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sbspv/who_exactly_is_segwit2x_catering_for_now_segwit/?st=j6ic5nic&sh=1f86cadd
https://medium.com/@elliotolds/lesser-known-reasons-to-keep-blocks-small-in-the-words-of-bitcoin-core-developers-44861968185e
b2x is most of all about firing core https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/912664487135760384
https://medium.com/@StopAndDecrypt/thats-not-bitcoin-this-is-bitcoin-95f05a6fd6c2

Misinformation / sockpuppets

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6uqz6k/markets_update_bitcoin_cash_rallies_for_three/dlurbpx/
three year old account, only started posting today https://archive.is/3STjH
Why we should not hard fork after the UASF worked: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sl1qf/heres_why_we_should_not_hard_fork_in_a_few_months/

History

Good article that covers virtually all the important history https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality/
Interesting post with some history pre-2015 https://btcmanager.com/the-long-history-of-the-fight-over-scaling-bitcoin/
The core scalabality roadmap + my summary from 3/2017 https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe011865.html my summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xa5fa/the_core_development_scalability_roadmap/
History from summer 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xg7f8/the_origins_of_the_blocksize_debate/
Brief reminders of the ETC situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6nvlgo/simple_breakdown_of_bip91_its_simply_the_miners/dkcycrz/
Longer writeup of ethereum's TheDAO bailout fraud https://www.reddit.com/ethereumfraud/comments/6bgvqv/faq_what_exactly_is_the_fraud_in_ethereum/
Point that the bigblocker side is only blocking segwit as a hostage https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/5sqhcq/daily_discussion_wednesday_february_08_2017/ddi3ctv/?context=3
jonny1000's recall of the history of bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6s34gg/rbtc_spreading_misinformation_in_rbitcoinmarkets/dl9wkfx/

Misc (mostly memes)

libbitcoin's Understanding Bitcoin series (another must read, most of it) https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Understanding-Bitcoin
github commit where satoshi added the block size limit https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63859l/github_commit_where_satoshi_added_the_block_size/
hard fork proposals from some core devs https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/
blockstream hasnt taken over the entire bitcoin core project https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/622bjp/bitcoin_core_blockstream/
blockstream is one of the good guys https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6cttkh/its_happening_blockstream_opens_liquid_sidechain/dhxu4e
Forkers, we're not raising a single byte! Song lyrics by belcher https://gist.github.com/chris-belche7264cd6750a86f8b4a9a
Some stuff here along with that cool photoshopped poster https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-realism-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-1mb-blocks-c191c35e74cb
Nice graphic https://twitter.com/RNR_0/status/871070843698380800
gmaxwell saying how he is probably responsible for the most privacy tech in bitcoin, while mike hearn screwed up privacy https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/6azyme/hey_bu_wheres_your_testnet/dhiq3xo/?context=6
Fairly cool propaganda poster https://twitter.com/urbanarson/status/880476631583924225
btc tankman https://i.redd.it/gxjqenzpr27z.png https://twitter.com/DanDarkPill/status/853653168151986177
asicboost discovery meme https://twitter.com/allenscottoshi/status/849888189124947971
https://twitter.com/urbanarson/status/882020516521013250
gavin wanted to kill the bitcoin chain https://twitter.com/allenscottoshi/status/849888189124947971
stuff that btc believes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ld4a5/serious_is_the_rbtc_and_the_bu_crowd_a_joke_how/djszsqu/
after segwit2x NYA got agreed all the fee pressure disappeared, laurenmt found they were artificial spam https://twitter.com/i/moments/885827802775396352
theymos saying why victory isnt inevitable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/djvxv2o/
with ignorant enemies like these its no wonder we won https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-999 ""So, once segwit2x activates, from that moment on it will require a coordinated fork to avoid the up coming "baked in" HF. ""
a positive effect of bcash, it made blockchain utxo spammers move away from bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/76lv0b/cryptograffitiinfo_now_accepts_bitcoin_cash/dof38gw/
summary of craig wright, jihan wu and roger ver's positions https://medium.com/@HjalmarPeters/the-big-blockers-bead6027deb2
Why is bitcoin so strong against attack?!?! (because we're motivated and awesome) https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/64wo1h/bitcoin_unlimited_is_being_blocked_by_antivirus/dg5n00x/
what happened to #oldjeffgarzik https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ufv5x/a_reminder_of_some_of_jeff_garziks_greatest/
big blockers fully deserve to lose every last bitcoin they ever had and more https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/756nxf/daily_discussion_monday_october_09_2017/do5ihqi/
gavinandresen brainstorming how to kill bitcoin with a 51% in a nasty way https://twitter.com/btcdrak/status/843914877542567937
Roger Ver as bitcoin Judas https://imgur.com/a/Rf1Pi
A bunch of tweets and memes celebrating UASF
https://twitter.com/shaolinfry/status/842457019286188032 | https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/888335092560441345 | https://twitter.com/btcArtGallery/status/887485162925285377 | https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/888109901611802624 | https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/889211512966873088 | https://twitter.com/lopp/status/888200452197801984 | https://twitter.com/AlpacaSW/status/886988980524396544 | https://twitter.com/BashCo_/status/877253729531162624 | https://twitter.com/tdryja/status/865212300361379840 | https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/871179040157179904 | https://twitter.com/TraceMayestatus/849856343074902016 | https://twitter.com/TraceMayestatus/841855022640033792 | https://fs.bitcoinmagazine.com/img/images/Screen_Shot_2017-08-18_at_01.36.47.original.png
submitted by belcher_ to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Regarding Threads on Bitmain and ASIC Resistance (Mega Thread!)

Guys,
Let’s take a minute to talk about what’s going on. We need to make sure all users are on the same page and the falsifications and assumptions stop.
I'm with you, and I understand that you feel betrayed. However, cleaning up after the constant bickering for those pro-fork and those anti-fork is growing tiresome. It's time we have a civil discussion and talk about facts.

Timeline of events

On 03/31/2018, a user from Ethfans.org posted a video on Telegram of a supposed Ethash ASIC. The video made its way to /Ethermining in a thread. It is important to mention that these values can be modified by changing “get_miner_status.cgi” and “minerStatus.cgi” and that there has been no credible evidence that has popped up in the nine days following the release of the supposed leak. Additionally, the following abnormalities should be noted:
Also on 3/31/2018, a user on Russian site Bits.media noticed that the pre-order for the Bitmain E3 was already up. It was believed to be an April fools joke; needless to say, it wasn’t.
On 04/02/2018, Bitmain launched the E3 and began taking pre-orders for a June delivery. At that time, the price was $800 and promised a hashing power of 180MH/s at 800 watts.
On 04/06/2018, Ethereum core developers decided against hard-forking Ethereum at this time, as they weren't convinced that it would positively impact the community given a hard-fork's disruption and the unknown of how the ASIC worked (specifically if it was programmable). The community became upset over broken promises of ASIC resistance, and this has since spread to a full out finger pointing of who is wrong.
On 04/08/2018, an apparently forged photo showed up showing a higher-hashing ASIC with far less power consumption. This is not only very unlikely, but the link in the photo was gibberish, whereas the E3's link was valid. We're writing that one up as FUD.

The "ASIC Resistance" Argument

At this point, I think that it’s I think it's important that we visit some key points of the Ethereum project. A lot of people have been quoting the whitepaper, calling ETH ASIC-proof and implying that the developers do not care about the problem.
In actuality, Ethereum never promised that it would be ASIC-proof, merely that it would provide an economic incentive to be resistant to the development of an ASIC. I'd like to produce a quote from the Ethereum Wiki, found here.
Ultimately, perfect ASIC resistance is impossible; there are always portions of circuits that are going to be unused by any specific algorithm and that can be trimmed to cut costs in a specialized device. However, what we are looking for is not perfect ASIC resistance but rather economic ASIC resistance.
...
The problem is that measuring an economy in a secure way is a difficult problem. The most obvious metric that the system has access to is mining difficulty, but mining difficulty also goes up with Moore's law and in the short term with ASIC development, and there is no known way to estimate the impact of Moore's law alone and so the currency cannot know if its difficulty increased by 10x due to better hardware, a larger user volume or a combination of both. Other metrics, such as transaction count, are potentially gameable by entities that want the supply to change in a particular direction (generally, holders want a lower supply, miners want a higher supply).
This is solidified by revisiting the whitepaper, specifically the section which identifies how ASICs will be economically stymied:
This model is untested, and there may be difficulties along the way in avoiding certain clever optimizations when using contract execution as a mining algorithm. However, one notably interesting feature of this algorithm is that it allows anyone to "poison the well", by introducing a large number of contracts into the blockchain specifically designed to stymie certain ASICs. The economic incentives exist for ASIC manufacturers to use such a trick to attack each other. Thus, the solution that we are developing is ultimately an adaptive economic human solution rather than purely a technical one.
So with the Ethereum team providing only an economic reason to not develop an ASIC since the beginning, there has been no lie.

Second batch of E3s will not be profitable with Ethereum

As a response to the developers announcing that they are not initiating a hard fork, Bitmain raised the price of the second batch of E3s to $1800. With a PSU ($105) and shipping costs ($225), plus duty fees ($25). That brings each E3 up to $2,155, or $11.97 per MH.
Comparatively, this is like paying $300 per GPU ($1800) plus Mobo/PSU/risers ($355). I have built rigs with similar hashrates for under $1,900 ($10.50 per MH).
If we speculate that Casper is as close as we think (see below), coupled with the rising difficulty, the second batch of E3s are not likely to break-even with Ethereum as a whole. If ETH rises to its ATH, the second batch units may be profitable. Tis the risk of mining.

Current speculation:

  • ASICs are bad!
    • In the Ethereum mining community, ASICs to be viewed as a formidable commodity, when they should rather be viewed as a tool. Tools are never inherently good or bad, but how they are used can be, and some developers intend for the coin to eventually be used with an ASIC. Some coins, such as Sia, were designed to specifically work with an ASIC. > 51% centralization is bad.
  • Bitmain has a better ASIC.
    • Probably. But this is an unknown. Speculation of an ASIC is not a reason to fork the second largest cryptocurrency.
  • Bitmain will be a cause for centralization
    • Everything should be a concern for centralization. Hell, early miners can be a bigger concern. The principals of economies of scale still apply to mining; so those who started out with a lot of GPUs are heavily mining. I've set up warehouses full of GPUs for clients, so if you think some of the guys here are big shots, I promise you there are larger concerns for the current state of centralization.
    • I will also note that yes, we will need to worry about a mass-manufacturer of just ASICs, especially if they are pumping out > 30,000 units per month at the current rate. But the firm that uncovered Bitmain's ASIC, Susquehannah, claims that there are at least three other ASIC manufacturers out there. This puts some silent competition on Bitmain.
  • Ethereum is not as centralized as Bitcoin
    • You'd think that, and the goal of the whitepaper was for Ethereum to be less centralized as bitcoin. It even mentions that "three mining pools indirectly control roughly 50% of processing power in the Bitcoin network." Ethereum is in this state already. Ethermine controls ~28% of the network hashrate, F2pool has ~17%, and SparkPool has ~15%. Arguably, the Ethereum network is in a more sensitive state.
  • Casper is right around the corner.
    • This has been speculation for some time now. Developers confirmed that testnet should be fully operational by August, meaning that we may be able to expect PoS hybrid by DecembeJanuary assuming everything goes as planned.
  • Dev team does not care about miners
    • In the project's current state, miners are a necessity. Remember that seigniorage must be sinigicant enough for miners to continue mining, otherwise, the network would slow and we'd have another Crypto Kitties incident on our hands. Until Ethereum is PoS, you are valid.
  • Dev team wants to get rid of miners
    • Well, yeah. That's what PoS is about. Ethereum will not be Proof of Work forever and that needs to be appreciated.
  • We should fork ourselves into an ASIC-proof currency
    • Do it! Take some initiative and work up a team, I'll be happy to help and support in any way that I can, including pointing my hashing power your way.

Ethereum decision governance

Right now, large decisions are made by the Ethereum core developers. This last decision to not hard-fork was not well received by the community. It feels to be almost an "electoral college" kind of deal, and that's something that has upset a lot of people. Is this the topic that we need to discuss in more detail?

So what is this thread?

For now, this is going to replace our weekly discussion for a few weeks until everything calms down. The sub is in a volatile state and everyone is slinging FUD at everyone else. We need to clean up and calmly discuss our position on the matter at hand. This means:
  • No more fighting about the ASIC in the comments
  • OUTSIDE OF THIS THREAD, please do not shitpost. Meaning, no more strongly worded threads about how you're out of mining completely because of the ASIC, or how the developers screwed you over because ETH was supposed to be ASIC proof, or how people are whining. I'm deleting threads left and right for people who are just using the sub as an outlet to name call on both sides.
  • As always, constructive threads are welcome, but shitposts are to be confined to this thread, please.

We all have different opinions

I am going to remain neutral on this topic. I mine with both GPUs and ASICs, and I've worked with countless numbers of people who do as well. We need to cooperate as a community instead of tearing each other apart over the issue. Let's think before we post and keep comments constructive.
Happy mining!
  • Rob
submitted by Robbbbbbbbb to EtherMining [link] [comments]

Decred Journal – August 2018

Note: you can read this on GitHub (link), Medium (link) or old Reddit (link) to see all the links.

Development

dcrd: Version 1.3.0 RC1 (Release Candidate 1) is out! The main features of this release are significant performance improvements, including some that benefit SPV clients. Full release notes and downloads are on GitHub.
The default minimum transaction fee rate was reduced from 0.001 to 0.0001 DCkB. Do not try to send such small fee transactions just yet, until the majority of the network upgrades.
Release process was changed to use release branches and bump version on the master branch at the beginning of a release cycle. Discussed in this chat.
The codebase is ready for the new Go 1.11 version. Migration to vgo module system is complete and the 1.4.0 release will be built using modules. The list of versioned modules and a hierarchy diagram are available here.
The testnet was reset and bumped to version 3.
Comments are welcome for the proposal to implement smart fee estimation, which is important for Lightning Network.
@matheusd recorded a code review video for new Decred developers that explains how tickets are selected for voting.
dcrwallet: Version 1.3.0 RC1 features new SPV sync mode, new ticket buyer, new APIs for Decrediton and a host of bug fixes. On the dev side, dcrwallet also migrated to the new module system.
Decrediton: Version 1.3.0 RC1 adds the new SPV sync mode that syncs roughly 5x faster. The feature is off by default while it receives more testing from experienced users. Other notable changes include a design polish and experimental Politeia integration.
Politeia: Proposal editing is being developed and has a short demo. This will allow proposal owners to edit their proposal in response to community feedback before voting begins. The challenges associated with this feature relate to updating censorship tokens and maintaining a clear history of which version comments were made on. @fernandoabolafio produced this architecture diagram which may be of interest to developers.
@degeri joined to perform security testing of Politeia and found several issues.
dcrdata: mainnet explorer upgraded to v2.1 with several new features. For users: credit/debit tx filter on address page, showing miner fees on coinbase transaction page, estimate yearly ticket rewards on main page, cool new hamburger menu and keyboard navigation. For developers: new chain parameters page, experimental Insight API support, endpoints for coin supply and block rewards, testnet3 support. Lots of minor API changes and frontend tweaks, many bug fixes and robustness improvements.
The upcoming v3.0 entered beta and is deployed on beta.dcrdata.org. Check out the new charts page. Feedback and bug reports are appreciated. Finally, the development version v3.1.0-pre is on alpha.dcrdata.org.
Android: updated to be compatible with the latest SPV code and is syncing, several performance issues are worked on. Details were posted in chat. Alpha testing has started, to participate please join #dev and ask for the APK.
iOS: backend is mostly complete, as well as the front end. Support for devices with smaller screens was improved. What works now: creating and recovering wallets, listing of transactions, receiving DCR, displaying and scanning QR codes, browsing account information, SPV connection to peers, downloading headers. Some bugs need fixing before making testable builds.
Ticket splitting: v0.6.0 beta released with improved fee calculation and multiple bug fixes.
docs: introduced new Governance section that grouped some old articles as well as the new Politeia page.
@Richard-Red created a concept repository sandbox with policy documents, to illustrate the kind of policies that could be approved and amended by Politeia proposals.
decred.org: 8 contributors added and 4 removed, including 2 advisors (discussion here).
decredmarketcap.com is a brand new website that shows the most accurate DCR market data. Clean design, mobile friendly, no javascript required.
Dev activity stats for August: 239 active PRs, 219 commits, 25k added and 11k deleted lines spread across 8 repositories. Contributions came from 2-10 developers per repository. (chart)

Network

Hashrate: went from 54 to 76 PH/s, the low was 50 and the new all-time high is 100 PH/s. BeePool share rose to ~50% while F2Pool shrank to 30%, followed by coinmine.pl at 5% and Luxor at 3%.
Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 95.6 DCR (+3.0) as of Sep 3. During the month, ticket price fluctuated between a low of 92.2 and high of 100.5 DCR. Locked DCR represented between 3.8 and 3.9 million or 46.3-46.9% of the supply.
Nodes: there are 217 public listening and 281 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 2% at v1.4.0(pre) (dev builds), 5% on v1.3.0 (RC1), 62% on v1.2.0 (-5%), 22% on v1.1.2 (-2%), 6% on v1.1.0 (-1%). Almost 69% of nodes are v.1.2.0 and higher and support client filters. Data snapshot of Aug 31.

ASICs

Obelisk posted 3 email updates in August. DCR1 units are reportedly shipping with 1 TH/s hashrate and will be upgraded with firmware to 1.5 TH/s. Batch 1 customers will receive compensation for missed shipment dates, but only after Batch 5 ships. Batch 2-5 customers will be receiving the updated slim design.
Innosilicon announced the new D9+ DecredMaster: 2.8 TH/s at 1,230 W priced $1,499. Specified shipping date was Aug 10-15.
FFMiner DS19 claims 3.1 TH/s for Blake256R14 at 680 W and simultaneously 1.55 TH/s for Blake2B at 410 W, the price is $1,299. Shipping Aug 20-25.
Another newly noticed miner offer is this unit that does 46 TH/s at 2,150 W at the price of $4,720. It is shipping Nov 2018 and the stats look very close to Pangolin Whatsminer DCR (which has now a page on asicminervalue).

Integrations

www.d1pool.com joined the list of stakepools for a total of 16.
Australian CoinTree added DCR trading. The platform supports fiat, there are some limitations during the upgrade to a new system but also no fees in the "Early access mode". On a related note, CoinTree is working on a feature to pay household bills with cryptocurrencies it supports.
Three new OTC desks were added to exchanges page at decred.org.
Two mobile wallets integrated Decred:
Reminder: do your best to understand the security and privacy model before using any wallet software. Points to consider: who controls the seed, does the wallet talk to the nodes directly or via middlemen, is it open source or not?

Adoption

Merchants:

Marketing

Targeted advertising report for August was posted by @timhebel. Facebook appeal is pending, some Google and Twitter campaigns were paused and some updated. Read more here.
Contribution to the @decredproject Twitter account has evolved over the past few months. A #twitter_ops channel is being used on Matrix to collaboratively draft and execute project account tweets (including retweets). Anyone with an interest in contributing to the Twitter account can ask for an invitation to the channel and can start contributing content and ideas there for evaluation by the Twitter group. As a result, no minority or unilateral veto over tweets is possible. (from GitHub)

Events

Attended:
For those willing to help with the events:
BAB: Hey all, we are gearing up for conference season. I have a list of places we hope to attend but need to know who besides @joshuam and @Haon are willing to do public speaking, willing to work booths, or help out at them? You will need to be well versed on not just what is Decred, but the history of Decred etc... DM me if you are interested. (#event_planning)
The Decred project is looking for ambassadors. If you are looking for a fun cryptocurrency to get involved in send me a DM or come talk to me on Decred slack. (@marco_peereboom, longer version here)

Media

Decred Assembly episode 21 is available. @jy-p and lead dcrwallet developer @jrick discussed SPV from Satoshi's whitepaper, how it can be improved upon and what's coming in Decred.
Decred Assembly episodes 1-21 are available in audio only format here.
New instructional articles on stakey.club: Decrediton setup, Deleting the wallet, Installing Go, Installing dcrd, dcrd as a Linux service. Available in both English and Portuguese.
Decred scored #32 in the August issue of Chinese CCID ratings. The evaluation model was explained in this interview.
Satis Group rated Decred highly in their cryptoasset valuation research report (PDF). This was featured by several large media outlets, but some did not link to or omitted Decred entirely, citing low market cap.
Featured articles:
Articles:
Videos:

Community Discussions

Community stats:
Comm systems news:
After another debate about chat systems more people began testing and using Matrix, leading to some gardening on that platform:
Highlights:
Reddit: substantive discussion about Decred cons; ecosystem fund; a thread about voter engagement, Politeia UX and trolling; idea of a social media system for Decred by @michae2xl; how profitable is the Obelisk DCR1.
Chats: cross-chain trading via LN; plans for contractor management system, lower-level decision making and contractor privacy vs transparency for stakeholders; measuring dev activity; what if the network stalls, multiple implementations of Decred for more resilience, long term vision behind those extensive tests and accurate comments in the codebase; ideas for process for policy documents, hosting them in Pi and approving with ticket voting; about SPV wallet disk size, how compact filters work; odds of a wallet fetching a wrong block in SPV; new module system in Go; security of allowing Android app backups; why PoW algo change proposal must be specified in great detail; thoughts about NIPoPoWs and SPV; prerequisites for shipping SPV by default (continued); Decred vs Dash treasury and marketing expenses, spending other people's money; why Decred should not invade a country, DAO and nation states, entangling with nation state is poor resource allocation; how winning tickets are determined and attack vectors; Politeia proposal moderation, contractor clearance, the scale of proposals and decision delegation, initial Politeia vote to approve Politeia itself; chat systems, Matrix/Slack/Discord/RocketChat/Keybase (continued); overview of Korean exchanges; no breaking changes in vgo; why project fund burn rate must keep low; asymptotic behavior of Decred and other ccs, tail emission; count of full nodes and incentives to run them; Politeia proposal translations and multilingual environment.
An unusual event was the chat about double negatives and other oddities in languages in #trading.

Markets

DCR started the month at USD 56 / BTC 0.0073 and had a two week decline. On Aug 14 the whole market took a huge drop and briefly went below USD 200 billion. Bitcoin went below USD 6,000 and top 100 cryptos lost 5-30%. The lowest point coincided with Bitcoin dominance peak at 54.5%. On that day Decred dived -17% and reached the bottom of USD 32 / BTC 0.00537. Since then it went sideways in the USD 35-45 / BTC 0.0054-0.0064 range. Around Aug 24, Huobi showed DCR trading volume above USD 5M and this coincided with a minor recovery.
@ImacallyouJawdy posted some creative analysis based on ticket data.

Relevant External

StopAndDecrypt published an extensive article "ASIC Resistance is Nothing but a Blockchain Buzzword" that is much in line with Decred's stance on ASICs.
The ongoing debates about the possible Sia fork yet again demonstrate the importance of a robust dispute resolution mechanism. Also, we are lucky to have the treasury.
Mark B Lundeberg, who found a vulnerability in atomicswap earlier, published a concept of more private peer-to-peer atomic swaps. (missed in July issue)
Medium took a cautious stance on cryptocurrencies and triggered at least one project to migrate to Ghost (that same project previously migrated away from Slack).
Regulation: Vietnam bans mining equipment imports, China halts crypto events and tightens control of crypto chat groups.
Reddit was hacked by intercepting 2FA codes sent via SMS. The announcement explains the impact. Yet another data breach suggests to think twice before sharing any data with any company and shift to more secure authentication systems.
Intel and x86 dumpsterfire keeps burning brighter. Seek more secure hardware and operating systems for your coins.
Finally, unrelated to Decred but good for a laugh: yetanotherico.com.

About This Issue

This is the 5th issue of Decred Journal. It is mirrored on GitHub, Medium and Reddit. Past issues are available here.
Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research.
Feedback is appreciated: please comment on Reddit, GitHub or #writers_room on Matrix or Slack.
Contributions are welcome too. Some areas are collecting content, pre-release review or translations to other languages. Check out @Richard-Red's guide how to contribute to Decred using GitHub without writing code.
Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee, Haon, jazzah, Richard-Red and thedecreddigest.
submitted by jet_user to decred [link] [comments]

Decred Journal — June 2018

Note: You can read this on GitHub, Medium or old Reddit to see the 207 links.

Development

The biggest announcement of the month was the new kind of decentralized exchange proposed by @jy-p of Company 0. The Community Discussions section considers the stakeholders' response.
dcrd: Peer management and connectivity improvements. Some work for improved sighash algo. A new optimization that gives 3-4x faster serving of headers, which is great for SPV. This was another step towards multipeer parallel downloads – check this issue for a clear overview of progress and planned work for next months (and some engineering delight). As usual, codebase cleanup, improvements to error handling, test infrastructure and test coverage.
Decrediton: work towards watching only wallets, lots of bugfixes and visual design improvements. Preliminary work to integrate SPV has begun.
Politeia is live on testnet! Useful links: announcement, introduction, command line voting example, example proposal with some votes, mini-guide how to compose a proposal.
Trezor: Decred appeared in the firmware update and on Trezor website, currently for testnet only. Next steps are mainnet support and integration in wallets. For the progress of Decrediton support you can track this meta issue.
dcrdata: Continued work on Insight API support, see this meta issue for progress overview. It is important for integrations due to its popularity. Ongoing work to add charts. A big database change to improve sorting on the Address page was merged and bumped version to 3.0. Work to visualize agenda voting continues.
Ticket splitting: 11-way ticket split from last month has voted (transaction).
Ethereum support in atomicswap is progressing and welcomes more eyeballs.
decred.org: revamped Press page with dozens of added articles, and a shiny new Roadmap page.
decredinfo.com: a new Decred dashboard by lte13. Reddit announcement here.
Dev activity stats for June: 245 active PRs, 184 master commits, 25,973 added and 13,575 deleted lines spread across 8 repositories. Contributions came from 2 to 10 developers per repository. (chart)

Network

Hashrate: growth continues, the month started at 15 and ended at 44 PH/s with some wild 30% swings on the way. The peak was 53.9 PH/s.
F2Pool was the leader varying between 36% and 59% hashrate, followed by coinmine.pl holding between 18% and 29%. In response to concerns about its hashrate share, F2Pool made a statement that they will consider measures like rising the fees to prevent growing to 51%.
Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 94.7 DCR (+3.4). The price was steadily rising from 90.7 to 95.8 peaking at 98.1. Locked DCR grew from 3.68 to 3.81 million DCR, the highest value was 3.83 million corresponding to 47.87% of supply (+0.7% from previous peak).
Nodes: there are 240 public listening and 115 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 57% on v1.2.0 (+12%), 25% on v1.1.2 (-13%), 14% on v1.1.0 (-1%). Note: the reported count of non-listening nodes has dropped significantly due to data reset at decred.eu. It will take some time before the crawler collects more data. On top of that, there is no way to exactly count non-listening nodes. To illustrate, an alternative data source, charts.dcr.farm showed 690 reachable nodes on Jul 1.
Extraordinary event: 247361 and 247362 were two nearly full blocks. Normally blocks are 10-20 KiB, but these blocks were 374 KiB (max is 384 KiB).

ASICs

Update from Obelisk: shipping is expected in first half of July and there is non-zero chance to meet hashrate target.
Another Chinese ASIC spotted on the web: Flying Fish D18 with 340 GH/s at 180 W costing 2,200 CNY (~340 USD). (asicok.comtranslated, also on asicminervalue)
dcrASIC team posted a farewell letter. Despite having an awesome 16 nm chip design, they decided to stop the project citing the saturated mining ecosystem and low profitability for their potential customers.

Integrations

bepool.org is a new mining pool spotted on dcred.eu.
Exchange integrations:
Two OTC trading desks are now shown on decred.org exchanges page.
BitPro payment gateway added Decred and posted on Reddit. Notably, it is fully functional without javascript or cookies and does not ask for name or email, among other features.
Guarda Wallet integrated Decred. Currently only in their web wallet, but more may come in future. Notable feature is "DCR purchase with a bank card". See more details in their post or ask their representative on Reddit. Important: do your best to understand the security model before using any wallet software.

Adoption

Merchants:
BlueYard Capital announced investment in Decred and the intent to be long term supporters and to actively participate in the network's governance. In an overview post they stressed core values of the project:
There are a few other remarkable characteristics that are a testament to the DNA of the team behind Decred: there was no sale of DCR to investors, no venture funding, and no payment to exchanges to be listed – underscoring that the Decred team and contributors are all about doing the right thing for long term (as manifested in their constitution for the project).
The most encouraging thing we can see is both the quality and quantity of high calibre developers flocking to the project, in addition to a vibrant community attaching their identity to the project.
The company will be hosting an event in Berlin, see Events below.
Arbitrade is now mining Decred.

Events

Attended:
Upcoming:

Media

stakey.club: a new website by @mm:
Hey guys! I'd like to share with you my latest adventure: Stakey Club, hosted at stakey.club, is a website dedicated to Decred. I posted a few articles in Brazilian Portuguese and in English. I also translated to Portuguese some posts from the Decred Blog. I hope you like it! (slack)
@morphymore translated Placeholder's Decred Investment Thesis and Richard Red's write-up on Politeia to Chinese, while @DZ translated Decred Roadmap 2018 to Italian and Russian, and A New Kind of DEX to Italian and Russian.
Second iteration of Chinese ratings released. Compared to the first issue, Decred dropped from 26 to 29 while Bitcoin fell from 13 to 17. We (the authors) restrain ourselves commenting on this one.
Videos:
Audio:
Featured articles:
Articles:

Community Discussions

Community stats: Twitter followers 40,209 (+1,091), Reddit subscribers 8,410 (+243), Slack users 5,830 (+172), GitHub 392 stars and 918 forks of dcrd repository.
An update on our communication systems:
Jake Yocom-Piatt did an AMA on CryptoTechnology, a forum for serious crypto tech discussion. Some topics covered were Decred attack cost and resistance, voting policies, smart contracts, SPV security, DAO and DPoS.
A new kind of DEX was the subject of an extensive discussion in #general, #random, #trading channels as well as Reddit. New channel #thedex was created and attracted more than 100 people.
A frequent and fair question is how the DEX would benefit Decred. @lukebp has put it well:
Projects like these help Decred attract talent. Typically, the people that are the best at what they do aren’t driven solely by money. They want to work on interesting projects that they believe in with other talented individuals. Launching a DEX that has no trading fees, no requirement to buy a 3rd party token (including Decred), and that cuts out all middlemen is a clear demonstration of the ethos that Decred was founded on. It helps us get our name out there and attract the type of people that believe in the same mission that we do. (slack)
Another concern that it will slow down other projects was addressed by @davecgh:
The intent is for an external team to take up the mantle and build it, so it won't have any bearing on the current c0 roadmap. The important thing to keep in mind is that the goal of Decred is to have a bunch of independent teams on working on different things. (slack)
A chat about Decred fork resistance started on Twitter and continued in #trading. Community members continue to discuss the finer points of Decred's hybrid system, bringing new users up to speed and answering their questions. The key takeaway from this chat is that the Decred chain is impossible to advance without votes, and to get around that the forker needs to change the protocol in a way that would make it clearly not Decred.
"Against community governance" article was discussed on Reddit and #governance.
"The Downside of Democracy (and What it Means for Blockchain Governance)" was another article arguing against on-chain governance, discussed here.
Reddit recap: mining rig shops discussion; how centralized is Politeia; controversial debate on photos of models that yielded useful discussion on our marketing approach; analysis of a drop in number of transactions; concerns regarding project bus factor, removing central authorities, advertising and full node count – received detailed responses; an argument by insette for maximizing aggregate tx fees; coordinating network upgrades; a new "Why Decred?" thread; a question about quantum resistance with a detailed answer and a recap of current status of quantum resistant algorithms.
Chats recap: Programmatic Proof-of-Work (ProgPoW) discussion; possible hashrate of Blake-256 miners is at least ~30% higher than SHA-256d; how Decred is not vulnerable to SPV leaf/node attack.

Markets

DCR opened the month at ~$93, reached monthly high of $110, gradually dropped to the low of $58 and closed at $67. In BTC terms it was 0.0125 -> 0.0150 -> 0.0098 -> 0.0105. The downturn coincided with a global decline across the whole crypto market.
In the middle of the month Decred was noticed to be #1 in onchainfx "% down from ATH" chart and on this chart by @CoinzTrader. Towards the end of the month it dropped to #3.

Relevant External

Obelisk announced Launchpad service. The idea is to work with coin developers to design a custom, ASIC-friendly PoW algorithm together with a first batch of ASICs and distribute them among the community.
Equihash-based ZenCash was hit by a double spend attack that led to a loss of $450,000 by the exchange which was targeted.
Almost one year after collecting funds, Tezos announced a surprise identification procedure to claim tokens (non-javascript version).
A hacker broke into Syscoin's GitHub account and implanted malware stealing passwords and private keys into Windows binaries. This is a painful reminder for everybody to verify binaries after download.
Circle announced new asset listing framework for Poloniex. Relevant to recent discussions of exchange listing bribery:
Please note: we will not accept any kind of payment to list an asset.
Bithumb got hacked with a $30 m loss.
Zcash organized Zcon0, an event in Canada that focused on privacy tech and governance. An interesting insight from Keynote Panel on governance: "There is no such thing as on-chain governance".
Microsoft acquired GitHub. There was some debate about whether it is a reason to look into alternative solutions like GitLab right now. It is always a good idea to have a local copy of Decred source code, just in case.
Status update from @sumiflow on correcting DCR supply on various sites:
To begin with, none of the below sites were showing the correct supply or market cap for Decred but we've made some progress. coingecko.com, coinlib.io, cryptocompare.com, livecoinwatch.com, worldcoinindex.com - corrected! cryptoindex.co, onchainfx.com - awaiting fix coinmarketcap.com - refused to fix because devs have coins too? (slack)

About This Issue

This is the third issue of Decred Journal after April and May.
Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research.
The new public Matrix logs look promising and we hope to transition from Slack links to Matrix links. In the meantime, the way to read Slack links is explained in the previous issue.
As usual, any feedback is appreciated: please comment on Reddit, GitHub or #writers_room. Contributions are welcome too, anything from initial collection to final review to translations.
Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee and Richard-Red. Special thanks to @Haon for bringing May 2018 issue to medium.
submitted by jet_user to decred [link] [comments]

IRC Log from Ravencoin Open Developer Meeting - Aug 24, 2018

[14:05] <@wolfsokta> Hello Everybody, sorry we're a bit late getting started
[14:05] == block_338778 [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.72.214.222.226] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:06] <@wolfsokta> Here are the topics we would like to cover today • 2.0.4 Need to upgrade - What we have done to communicate to the community • Unique Assets • iOS Wallet • General Q&A
[14:06] == Chatturga changed the topic of #ravencoin-dev to: 2.0.4 Need to upgrade - What we have done to communicate to the community • Unique Assets • iOS Wallet • General Q&A
[14:06] <@wolfsokta> Daben, could you mention what we have done to communicate the need for the 2.0.4 upgrade?
[14:07] == hwhwhsushwban [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.172.58.37.35] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:07] <@wolfsokta> Others here are free to chime in where they saw the message first.
[14:07] == hwhwhsushwban [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.172.58.37.35] has quit [Client Quit]
[14:08] Whats up bois
[14:08] hi everyone
[14:08] hi hi
[14:08] <@wolfsokta> Discussing the 2.0.4 update and the need to upgrade.
[14:08] <@Chatturga> Sure. As most of you are aware, the community has been expressing concerns with the difficulty oscillations, and were asking that something be done to the difficulty retargeting. Many people submitted suggestions, and the devs decided to implement DGW.
[14:09] <@Tron> I wrote up a short description of why we're moving to a new difficulty adjustment. https://medium.com/@tronblack/ravencoin-dark-gravity-wave-1da0a71657f7
[14:09] <@Chatturga> I have made posts on discord, telegram, bitcointalk, reddit, and ravencointalk.org from testnet stages through current.
[14:10] <@Chatturga> If there are any other channels that can reach a large number of community members, I would love to have more.
[14:10] <@wolfsokta> Thanks Tron, that hasn't been shared to the community at large yet, but folks feel free to share it.
[14:10] When was this decision made and by whom and how?
[14:10] <@Chatturga> I have also communicated with the pool operators and exchanges about the update. Of all of the current pools, only 2 have not yet updated versions.
[14:11] <@wolfsokta> The decision was made by the developers through ongoing requests for weeks made by the community.
[14:12] <@wolfsokta> Evidence was provided by the community of the damages that could be caused to projects when the wild swings continue.
[14:12] So was there a meeting or vote? How can people get invited
[14:12] <@Tron> It was also informed by my conversations with some miners that recommended that we make the change before the coin died. They witnessed similar oscillations from which other coins never recovered.
[14:13] only two pools left to upgrade is good, what about the exchanges? Any word on how many of those have/have not upgraded?
[14:13] <@wolfsokta> We talked about here in our last meeting Bruce_. All attendees were asked if they had any questions or concerns.
[14:13] == blondfrogs [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.185.245.87.219] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:13] == roshii [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.41.251.25.100] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:13] sup roshii long time no see
[14:14] <@Chatturga> Bittrex, Cryptopia, and IDCM have all either updated or have announced their intent to update.
[14:14] == wjcgiwgu283ik3cj [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.172.58.37.35] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:15] sup russki
[14:15] what's the status here?
[14:15] I don’t think that was at all clear from the last dev meeting
[14:15] I can’t be the only person who didn’t understand it
[14:15] <@wolfsokta> Are there any suggestions on how to communicate the need to upgrade even further? I am concerned that others might also not understand.
[14:17] I’m not sold on the benefit and don’t understand the need for a hard fork — I think it’s a bad precedent to simply go rally exchanges to support a hard fork with little to no discussion
[14:17] so just to note, the exchanges not listed as being upgraded or have announced their intention to upgrade include: qbtc, upbit, and cryptobridge (all with over $40k usd volume past 24 hours according to coinmarketcap)
[14:18] <@wolfsokta> I don't agree that there was little or no discussion at all.
[14:19] <@wolfsokta> Looking back at our meeting notes from two weeks ago "fork" was specifically asked about by BrianMCT.
[14:19] If individual devs have the power to simple decide to do something as drastic as a hard fork and can get exchanges and miners to do it that’s got a lot of issues with centralization
[14:19] <@wolfsokta> It had been implemented on testnet by then and discussed in the community for several weeks before that.
[14:19] == under [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.72.200.168.56] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:19] howdy
[14:19] Everything I’ve seen has been related to the asset layer
[14:19] I have to agree with Bruce_, though I wasn't able to join the last meeting here. That said I support the fork
[14:20] Which devs made this decision to do a fork and how was it communicated?
[14:20] well mostly the community made the decision
[14:20] Consensus on a change is the heart of bitcoin development and I believe the devs have done a great job building that consensus
[14:20] a lot of miners were in uproar about the situation
[14:20] <@wolfsokta> All of the devs were supporting the changes. It wasn't done in isolation at all.
[14:21] This topic has been a huge discussion point within the RVN mining community for quite some time
[14:21] the community and miners have been having issues with the way diff is adjusted for quite some time now
[14:21] Sure I’m well aware of that -
[14:21] Not sold on the benefits of having difficulty crippled by rented hashpower?
[14:21] The community saw a problem. The devs got together and talked about a solution and implemented a solution
[14:21] I’m active in the community
[14:22] So well aware of the discussions on DGW etc
[14:22] Hard fork as a solution to a problem community had with rented hashpower (nicehash!!) sounds like the perfect decentralized scenario!
[14:23] hard forks are very dangerous
[14:23] mining parties in difficulty drops are too
[14:23] <@wolfsokta> Agreed, we want to keep them to an absolute minimum.
[14:23] But miners motivation it’s the main vote
[14:24] What would it take to convince you that constantly going from 4 Th/s to 500 Gh/s every week is worse for the long term health of the coin than the risk of a hard fork to fix it?
[14:24] == Tron [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.173.241.144.77] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
[14:24] This hardfork does include the asset layer right? if so why is it being delayed in implementation?
[14:24] <@wolfsokta> Come back Tron!
[14:24] coudl it have been implement through bip9 voting?
[14:24] also hard fork is activated by the community! that's a vote thing!
[14:24] @mrsushi to give people time to upgrade their wallet
[14:25] @under, it would be much hard to keep consensus with a bip9 change
[14:25] <@wolfsokta> We investigated that closely Under.
[14:25] == Tron [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.173.241.144.77] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:25] <@wolfsokta> See Tron's post for more details about that.
[14:25] <@spyder_> Hi Tron
[14:25] <@wolfsokta> https://medium.com/@tronblack/ravencoin-dark-gravity-wave-1da0a71657f7
[14:25] Sorry about that. Computer went to sleep.
[14:26] I'm wrong
[14:26] 2 cents. the release deadline of october 31st puts a bit of strain on getting code shipped. (duh). but fixing daa was important to the current health of the coin, and was widely suppported by current mining majority commuity. could it have been implemented in a different manner? yes . if we didnt have deadlines
[14:27] == wjcgiwgu283ik3cj [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.172.58.37.35] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[14:27] sushi this fork does not include assets. it's not being delayed though, we're making great progress for an Oct 31 target
[14:28] I don’t see the urgency but my vote doesn’t matter since my hash power is still CPUs
[14:28] <@wolfsokta> We're seeing the community get behind the change as well based on the amount of people jumping back in to mine through this last high difficulty phase.
[14:28] So that will be another hardfork?
[14:28] the fork does include the asset code though set to activate on oct 30th
[14:28] yes
[14:29] <@wolfsokta> Yes, it will based on the upgrade voting through the BIP9 process.
[14:29] I wanted to ask about burn rates from this group: and make a proposal.
[14:29] we're also trying hard to make it the last for awhile
[14:29] Can you clear up the above — there will be this one and another hard fork?
[14:29] <@wolfsokta> Okay, we could discuss that under towards the end of the meeting.
[14:30] If this one has the asset layer is there something different set for October
[14:30] <@wolfsokta> Yes, there will be another hard fork on October 31st once the voting process is successful.
[14:31] <@wolfsokta> The code is in 2.0.4 now and assets are active on testnet
[14:31] Bruce, the assets layer is still being worked on. Assets is active on mainnet. So in Oct 31 voting will start. and if it passes, the chain will fork.
[14:31] this one does NOT include assets for mainnet Bruce -- assets are targeted for Oct 31
[14:31] not***
[14:31] not active****
[14:31] correct me if I'm wrong here, but if everyone upgrades to 2.0.4 for this fork this week, the vote will automatically pass on oct 31st correct? nothing else needs to be done
[14:31] Will if need another download or does this software download cover both forks?
[14:31] <@wolfsokta> Correct Urgo
[14:32] thats how the testnet got activated and this one shows "asset activation status: waiting until 10/30/2018 20:00 (ET)"
[14:32] Will require another upgrade before Oct 31
[14:32] thank you for the clarification wolfsokta
[14:32] <@wolfsokta> It covers both forks, but we might have additional bug fixes in later releases.
[14:32] So users DL one version now and another one around October 30 which activates after that basically?
[14:33] I understand that, but I just wanted to make it clear that if people upgrade to this version for this fork and then don't do anything, they are also voting for the fork on oct 31st
[14:33] Oh okay — one DL?
[14:33] Bruce, Yes.
[14:33] Ty
[14:33] well there is the issue that there maybe some further consensus bugs dealing with the pruneability of asset transactions that needs to be corrected between 2.0.4 and mainnet. so i would imagine that there will be further revisions required to upgrade before now and october 31
[14:33] @under that is correct.
[14:34] I would highly recommend bumping the semver up to 3.0.0 for the final pre 31st release so that the public know to definitely upgrade
[14:34] @under +1
[14:35] out of curiosity, have there been many bugs found with the assets from the version released in july for testnet (2.0.3) until this version? or is it solely a change to DGW?
[14:35] <@wolfsokta> That's not a bad idea under.
[14:35] <@spyder_> @under good idea
[14:35] @urgo. Bugs are being found and fixed daily.
[14:35] Any time the protocol needs to change, there would need to be a hard fork (aka upgrade). It is our hope that we can activate feature forks through the BIP process (as we are doing for assets). Mining pools and exchanges will need to be on the newest software at the point of asset activation - should the mining hash power vote for assets.
[14:35] blondfrogs: gotcha
[14:35] There have been bugs found (and fixed). Testing continues. We appreciate all the bug reports you can give us.
[14:36] <@wolfsokta> Yes! Thank you all for your help in the community.
[14:37] (pull requests with fixes and test coverage would be even better!)
[14:37] asset creation collision is another major issue. current unfair advantage or nodes that fore connect to mining pools will have network topologies that guarantee acceptance. I had discussed the possibility of fee based asset creation selection and i feel that would be a more equal playing ground for all users
[14:38] *of nodes that force
[14:38] <@wolfsokta> What cfox said, we will always welcome development help.
[14:38] So just to make sure everyone know. When assets is ready to go live on oct 31st. Everyone that wants to be on the assets chain without any problems will have to download the new binary.
[14:39] <@wolfsokta> The latest binary.
[14:39] under: already in the works
[14:39] excellent to hear
[14:39] == UserJonPizza [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.24.218.60.237] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:39] <@wolfsokta> Okay, we've spent a bunch of time on that topic and I think it was needed. Does anybody have any other suggestions on how to get the word out even more?
[14:40] maybe preface all 2.0.X releases as pre-releases... minimize the number of releases between now and 3.0 etc
[14:41] <@wolfsokta> Bruce_ let's discuss further offline.
[14:41] wolfsokta: which are the remaining two pools that need to be upgraded? I've identified qbtc, upbit, and cryptobridge as high volume exchanges that haven't said they were going to do it yet
[14:41] so people can help reach out to them
[14:41] f2pool is notoriously hard to contact
[14:41] are they on board?
[14:42] <@wolfsokta> We could use help reaching out to QBTC and Graviex
[14:42] I can try to contact CB if you want?
[14:42] <@Chatturga> The remaining pools are Ravenminer and PickAxePro.
[14:42] <@Chatturga> I have spoken with their operators, the update just hasnt been applied yet.
[14:42] ravenminer is one of the largest ones too. If they don't upgrade that will be a problem
[14:42] okay good news
[14:42] (PickAxePro sounds like a Ruby book)
[14:43] I strongly feel like getting the word out on ravencoin.org would be beneficial
[14:44] that site is sorely in need of active contribution
[14:44] Anyone can volunteer to contribute
[14:44] <@wolfsokta> Okay, cfox can you talk about the status of unique assets?
[14:44] sure
[14:45] <@wolfsokta> I'll add website to the end of our topics.
[14:45] code is in review and will be on the development branch shortly
[14:45] would it make sense to have a page on the wiki (or somewhere else) that lists the wallet versions run by pools & exchanges?
[14:45] will be in next release
[14:45] furthermore, many sites have friendly link to the standard installers for each platform, if the site linked to the primary installers for each platform to reduce github newb confusion that would be good as well
[14:46] likely to a testnetv5 although that isn't settled
[14:46] <@wolfsokta> Thanks cfox.
[14:46] <@wolfsokta> Are there any questions about unique assets, and how they work?
[14:47] after the # are there any charachters you cant use?
[14:47] will unique assets be constrained by the asset alphanumeric set?
[14:47] ^
[14:47] <@Chatturga> @Urgo there is a page that tracks and shows if they have updated, but it currently doesnt show the actual version that they are on.
[14:47] a-z A-Z 0-9
[14:47] <@Chatturga> https://raven.wiki/wiki/Exchange_notifications#Pools
[14:47] There are a few. Mostly ones that mess with command-line
[14:47] you'll be able to use rpc to do "issueunique MATRIX ['Neo','Tank','Tank Brother']" and it will create three assets for you (MATRIX#Neo, etc.)
[14:47] @cfox - No space
[14:48] @under the unique tags have an expanded set of characters allowed
[14:48] Chatturga: thank you
[14:48] @UJP yes there are some you can't use -- I'll try to post gimmie a sec..
[14:49] Ok. Thank you much!
[14:49] 36^36 assets possible and 62^62 uniques available per asset?
[14:49] <@spyder_> std::regex UNIQUE_TAG_CHARACTERS("^[[email protected]$%&*()[\\]{}<>_.;?\\\\:]+$");
[14:50] regex UNIQUE_TAG_CHARACTERS("^[[email protected]$%&*()[\\]{}<>_.;?\\\\:]+$")
[14:50] oh thanks Mark
[14:51] <@wolfsokta> Okay, next up. I want to thank everybody for helping test the iOS wallet release.
[14:51] <@wolfsokta> We are working with Apple to get the final approval to post it to the App Store
[14:51] @under max asset length is 30, including unique tag
[14:51] Does the RVN wallet have any other cryptos or just RVN?
[14:52] == BruceFenton [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.67.189.233.170] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:52] will the android and ios source be migrated to the ravenproject github?
[14:52] I've been adding beta test users. I've added about 80 new users in the last few days.
[14:52] <@wolfsokta> Just RVN, and we want to focus on adding the asset support to the wallet.
[14:53] == Bruce_ [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.67.189.233.170] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
[14:53] <@wolfsokta> Yes, the code will also be freely available on GitHub for both iOS and Android. Thank you Roshii!
[14:53] Would you consider the iOS wallet to be a more secure place for one's holdings than say, a Mac connected to the internet?
[14:53] will there be a chance of a more user freindly wallet with better graphics like the iOS on PC?
[14:53] the android wallet is getting updated for DGW, correct?
[14:53] <@wolfsokta> That has come up in our discussion Pizza.
[14:54] QT framework is pretty well baked in and is cross platform. if we get some qt gurus possibly
[14:54] Phones are pretty good because the wallet we forked uses the TPM from modern phones.
[14:54] Most important is to write down and safely store your 12 word seed.
[14:54] TPM?
[14:54] <@wolfsokta> A user friendly wallet is one of our main goals.
[14:55] TPM == Trusted Platform Module
[14:55] Ahhh thanks
[14:55] just please no electron apps. they are full of security holes
[14:55] <@spyder_> It is whats makes your stuffs secure
[14:55] not fit for crypto
[14:55] under: depends on who makes it
[14:55] The interface screenshots I've seen look like Bread/Loaf wallet ... I assume that's what was forked from
[14:55] ;)
[14:56] <@wolfsokta> @roshii did you see the question about the Android wallet and DGW?
[14:56] Yes, it was a fork of breadwallet. We like their security.
[14:56] chromium 58 is the last bundled electron engine and has every vuln documented online by google. so unless you patch every vuln.... methinks not
[14:56] Agreed, great choice
[14:57] <@wolfsokta> @Under, what was your proposal?
[14:58] All asset creation Transactions have a mandatory OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY of 1 year(or some agreed upon time interval), and the 500 RVN goes to a multisig devfund, run by a custodial group. We get: 1) an artificial temporary burn, 2) sustainable community and core development funding for the long term, after OSTK/Medici 3) and the reintroduction of RVN supply at a fixed schedule, enabling the removal of the 42k max cap of total As
[14:58] *im wrong on the 42k figure
[14:58] <@wolfsokta> Interesting...
[14:59] <@wolfsokta> Love to hear others thoughts.
[14:59] Update: I posted a message on the CryptoBridge discord and one of their support members @stepollo#6276 said he believes the coin team is already aware of the fork but he would forward the message about the fork over to them right now anyway
[14:59] Ifs 42 million assets
[14:59] yep.
[15:00] I have a different Idea. If the 500 RVN goes to a dev fund its more centralized. The 500 RVN should go back into the unmined coins so miners can stay for longer.
[15:01] *without a hardfork
[15:01] <@wolfsokta> lol
[15:01] that breaks halving schedule, since utxos cant return to an unmined state.
[15:01] @UJP back into coinbase is interesting. would have to think about how that effects distribution schedule, etc.
[15:01] only way to do that would be to dynamicaly grow max supply
[15:02] and i am concerned already about the max safe integer on various platforms at 21 billion
[15:02] js chokes on ravencoin already
[15:02] <@wolfsokta> Other thoughts on Under's proposal? JS isn't a real language. ;)
[15:02] Well Bitcoin has more than 21 bn Sats
[15:02] Is there somebody who wants to volunteer to fix js.
[15:02] hahaha
[15:03] I honestly would hate for the coins to go to a dev fund. It doesn't seem like Ravencoin to me.
[15:03] Yep, but we're 21 billion x 100,000,000 -- Fits fine in a 64-bit integer, but problematic for some languages.
[15:03] <@wolfsokta> Thanks UJP
[15:04] <@wolfsokta> We're past time but I would like to continue if you folks are up for it.
[15:04] Yeah no coins can go anywhere centrality contorted like a dev fund cause that would mean someone has to run it and the code can’t decide that so it’s destined to break
[15:05] currently and long term with out the financial backing of development then improvements and features will be difficult. we are certainly thankful for our current development model. but if a skunkworks project hits a particular baseline of profitability any reasonable company would terminate it
[15:05] Yes let’s contibue for sure
[15:05] the alternative to a dev fund in my mind would be timelocking those funds back to the issuers change address
[15:06] But we can’t have dev built in to the code — it has to be open source like Bitcoin and monero and Litecoin - it’s got drawbacks but way more advantages- it’s the best model
[15:06] Dev funding
[15:06] i highly reccommend not reducing the utility of raven by removing permanently the supply
[15:07] == BW_ [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.138.68.243.202] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[15:07] timelocking those funds accompllishes the same sacrifice
[15:07] @under timelocking is interesting too
[15:07] How exactly does timelocking work?
[15:07] <@wolfsokta> ^
[15:07] I mean you could change the price of assets with the Block reward halfing.
[15:07] == Roshiix [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.105.67.2.212] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[15:08] funds cant be spent from an address until a certain time passes
[15:08] but in a what magical fairy land do people continue to work for free forever. funding development is a real issue... as much as some might philosphically disagree. its a reality
[15:08] You’d still need a centralized party to decide how to distribute the funds
[15:08] even unofficially blockstream supports bitcoin devs
[15:08] on chain is more transparent imho
[15:09] == Tron_ [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.173.241.144.77] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[15:09] @UJP yes there are unlimited strategies. one factor that I think is v important is giving application developers a way to easily budget for projects which leads to flat fees
[15:09] If the project is a success like many of believe it will be, I believe plenty of people will gladly done to a dev fund. I don't think the 500 should be burned.
[15:09] *donate
[15:09] centralized conservatorship, directed by community voting process
[15:10] == Tron [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.173.241.144.77] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
[15:10] <@wolfsokta> Thanks Under, that's an interesting idea that we should continue to discuss in the community. You also mentioned the existing website.
[15:10] It would need to be something where everyone with a QT has a vote
[15:10] think his computer went to sleep again :-/
[15:10] I agree UJP
[15:10] with the website
[15:10] No that’s ico jargon — any development fund tied to code would have to be centralized and would therefor fail
[15:11] ^
[15:11] ^
[15:11] ^
[15:11] dashes model for funding seems to be pretty decentralized
[15:11] community voting etc
[15:11] Once you have a dev fund tied to code then who gets to run it? Who mediates disputes?
[15:11] oh well another discussion
[15:11] Dash has a CEO
[15:12] <@wolfsokta> Yeah, let's keep discussing in the community spaces.
[15:12] Dash does have a good model. It's in my top ten.
[15:12] having the burn go to a dev fund is absolute garbage
[15:12] These dev chats should be more target than broad general discussions — changing the entire nature of the coin and it’s economics is best discussed in the RIPs or other means
[15:13] <@wolfsokta> Yup, let's move on.
[15:13] just becuase existing implementation are garbage doesnt mean that all possible future governance options are garbage
[15:13] <@wolfsokta> To discussing the website scenario mentioned by under.
[15:13] the website needs work. would be best if it could be migrated to github as well.
[15:13] What about this: Anyone can issue a vote once the voting feature has been added, for a cost. The vote would be what the coins could be used for.
[15:14] features for the site that need work are more user friendly links to binaries
[15:14] <@wolfsokta> We investigated how bitcoin has their website in Github to make it easy for contributors to jump in.
[15:14] that means active maintenance of the site instead of its current static nature
[15:15] <@wolfsokta> I really like how it's static html, which makes it super simple to host/make changes.
[15:15] the static nature isn’t due to interface it’s due to no contributors
[15:15] no contribution mechanism has been offered
[15:15] github hosted would allow that
[15:16] We used to run the Bitcoin website from the foundation & the GitHub integration seemed to cause some issues
[15:16] its doesnt necessarily have to be hosted by github but the page source should be on github and contributions could easily be managed and tracked
[15:17] for example when a new release is dropped, the ability for the downlaods section to have platform specific easy links to the general installers is far better for general adoption than pointing users to github releases
[15:18] <@wolfsokta> How do people currently contribute to the existing website?
[15:18] they dont?
[15:18] We did that and it was a complete pain to host and keep working — if someone wants to volunteer to do that work hey can surely make the website better and continually updated — but they could do that in Wordpress also
[15:19] I’d say keep an eye out for volunteers and maybe we can get a group together who can improve the site
[15:19] == digitalvap0r-xmr [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.67.255.25.134] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[15:19] And they can decide best method
[15:20] I host the source for the explorer on github and anyone can spin it up instantly on a basic aws node. changes can be made to interface etc, and allow for multilingual translations which have been offered by some community members
[15:20] there are models that work. just saying it should be looked at
[15:20] i gotta run thank you all for your contributions
[15:20] <@wolfsokta> I feel we should explore the source for the website being hosted in GitHub and discuss in our next dev meeting.
[15:21] <@Chatturga> Thanks Under!
[15:21] == under [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.72.200.168.56] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[15:21] <@wolfsokta> Thanks, we also need to drop soon.
[15:21] There is no official site so why care. Someone will do better than the next if RVN is worth it anyway. That's already the case.
[15:21] <@wolfsokta> Let's do 10 mins of open Q&A
[15:22] <@wolfsokta> Go...
[15:23] <@Chatturga> Beuller?
[15:24] No questions ... just a comment that the devs and community are great and I'm happy to be a part of it
[15:24] I think everyone moved to discord. I'll throw this out there. How confident is the dev team that things will be ready for oct 31st?
[15:24] <@wolfsokta> Alright! Thanks everybody for joining us today. Let's plan to get back together as a dev group in a couple of weeks.
[15:25] thanks block!
[15:25] <@wolfsokta> Urgo, very confident
[15:25] Please exclude trolls from discord who havent read the whitepaper
[15:25] great :)
[15:25] "things" will be ready..
[15:25] Next time on discord right?
[15:25] woah why discord?
[15:25] some of the suggestions here are horrid
[15:25] this is better less point
[15:25] == blondfrogs [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.185.245.87.219] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[15:25] Assets are working well on testnet. Plan is to get as much as we can safely test by Sept 30 -- this includes dev contributions. Oct will be heavy testing and making sure it is safe.
[15:26] people
[15:26] <@wolfsokta> Planning on same time, same IRC channel.
[15:26] == BW_ [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.138.68.243.202] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[15:26] @xmr any in particular?
[15:27] (or is "here" discord?)
[15:27] Cheers - Tron
[15:27] "Cheers - Tron" - Tron
submitted by Chatturga to Ravencoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin dev IRC meeting in layman's terms (2015-11-05)

Once again my attempt to summarize and explain the weekly bitcoin developer meeting in layman's terms. Link to last weeks summarization Note that I crosspost this to Voat, bitcoin.com and the bitcoin-discuss mailing list every week. I can't control what's being talking about in the meeting, if certain things come up I might not be able to post here because of "guidelines".
Disclaimer
Please bear in mind I'm not a developer and I'd have problems coding "hello world!", so some things might be incorrect or plain wrong. Like any other write-up it likely contains personal biases, although I try to stay as neutral as I can. There are no decisions being made in these meetings, so if I say "everyone agrees" this means everyone present in the meeting, that's not consensus, but since a fair amount of devs are present it's a good representation. The dev IRC and mailinglist are for bitcoin development purposes. If you have not contributed actual code to a bitcoin-implementation, this is probably not the place you want to reach out to. There are many places to discuss things that the developers read, including this sub-reddit.
link to this week logs Meeting minutes by meetbot
Main topics discussed where:
Sigcache performance Performance goals for 0.12 transaction priority sigops flooding attack chain limits
Short topics/notes
Note: cfields, mcelrath and BlueMatt (and maybe more) missed the meeting because of daylight saving time.
Closing date for proposals for the scaling bitcoin workshop is the 9th.
Check to see if there are any other commits for the 0.11.2 RC. As soon as 6948 and 6825 are merged it seems good to go. We need to move fairly quick as there are already miners voting for CLTV (F2Pool). Also testnet is CLTV locked already and is constantly forking. 0.11.2 RC1 has been released as of today: https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.11.2/test/
Most of the mempool-limiting analysis assumed child-pays-for-parent, however that isn't ready for 0.12 yet, so we should think about possible abuses in context of the existing mining algorithm.
Because of time-constrains opt-in replace-by-fee has been deferred to next weeks meeting, but most people seem to want it in 0.12. sdaftuar makes a note that we need to make clear to users what they need to do if they don't want to accept opt-in transactions.
Sigcache performance
The signature cache, which is in place to increase performance (by not having to check the signature multiple times), and to mitigate some attacks currently has a default limit of 50 000 signatures. Sipa has a pull-request which proposes to: Change the limit from number of entries to megabytes Change the default to 40MB, which corresponds to 500 000 signatures Store salted hashes instead of full entries Remove entries that have been validated in a block
Sipa did benchmarks for various signature cache sizes on hitrate in blocks (how many of the cached signatures are in the block). The maximum sigcache size was 68MB, resulting in a 3% miss-rate. Some blocks though have extremely high miss rates (60%) while others have none. Likely caused by miners running different policies. Gmaxwell proposed to always run script verification for mempool transactions, even if these transactions get rejected into the mempool by the clients policy. The result of that is that even a 300MB sigcache size only gets down to 15% misses. So there's too much crap being relayed to keep any reasonable sized cache. Gmaxwell points out downsides to not checking any rejected transactions, namely: there are some DOS attacks possible, and you increase your misrate if you set a policy which is more restrictive than the typical network, which might result in a race to the bottom.
Sipa continues his work and seeks out other strategies
Performance goals for 0.12
Bitcoin-core 0.12 is scheduled for release December 1st.
Everybody likes to include secp256k1 ASAP, as it has a very large performance increase. Some people would like to include the sigcache pull-request, BIP30, modifyNewCoins and a createNewBlock rewrite if it's ready. Wumpus advises against merging last-minute performance improvements for 0.12.
Mentioned pull-requests should be reviewed, prioritizing CreateNewBlock
transaction priority
Each transaction is assigned a priority, determined by the age, size, and number of inputs. Which makes some transactions free.
Sipa thinks we should get rid of the current priority completely and replace it with a function that modifies fee or size of a transaction. There's a pull-request available that optimizes the current transaction priority, thereby avoiding the political debate that goes with changing the definition of transaction priority. Luke-jr thinks the old policy should remain possible.
Check to see if PR #6357 is safe and efficient enough.
sigops flooding attack
The number of ECDSA signature-checking operations or sigops is currently limited to 20 000 per block. This in order to prevent miners creating blocks that take ages to verify as those operations are time-consuming. You could however construct transactions that have a very high sigops count and since most miners don't take into account the sigops count they end up with very small blocks because the sigop limit is reached. This attack is described here.
Suggestion to take the number of sigops relative to the maximum blocksize into account with the total size. Meaning a 10k sigops transaction would currently be viewed as 500kB in size (for that single transaction, not towards the block). That suggestion would be easy to change in the mining code, but more invasive to try and plug that into everything that looks at feerate. This would also open up attacks on the mempool if these transactions are not evicted by mempool limiting. Luke-jr has a bytes-per-sigop limit, that filters out these attack transactions.
More analysis should be done, people seem fine with the general direction of fixing it.
chain limits
Chain in this context means connected transactions. When you send a transaction that depends on another transaction that has yet to be confirmed we talk about a chain of transactions. Miners ideally take the whole chain into account instead of just every single transaction (although that's not widely implemented afaik). So while a single transaction might not have a sufficient fee, a depending transaction could have a high enough fee to make it worthwhile to mine both. This is commonly known as child-pays-for-parent. Since you can make these chains very big it's possible to clog up the mempool this way. With the recent malleability attacks, anyone who made transactions going multiple layers deep would've already encountered huge problems doing this (beautifully explained in let's talk bitcoin #258 from 13:50 onwards) Proposal and github link.
sdaftuar's analysis shows that 40% of blocks contain a chain that exceeds the proposed limits. Even a small bump doesn't make the problem go away. Possible sources of these chains: a service paying the fees on other transactions (child-pays-for-parent), an iOS wallet that gladly spends unconfirmed change. A business confirms they use child-pays-for-parent when they receive bitcoins from an unspent chain. It is possible that these long chains are delivered to miners directly, in which case they wouldn't be affected by the proposed relay limits (and by malleability). Since this is a problem that needs to be addressed, people seem fine with merging it anyway, communicating in advance to let businesses think about how this affects them.
Merge "Policy: Lower default limits for tx chains" Morcos will mail the developer mailing list after it's merged.
Participants
morcos Alex Morcos gmaxwell Gregory Maxwell wumpus Wladimir J. van der Laan sipa Pieter Wuille jgarzik Jeff Garzik Luke-Jr Luke Dashjr phantomcircuit Patrick Strateman sdaftuar Suhas Daftuar btcdrak btcdrak jouke ??Jouke Hofman?? jtimon Jorge Timón jonasschnelli Jonas Schnelli 
Comic relief
20:01 wumpus #meetingend 20:01 wumpus #meetingstop 20:01 gmaxwell Thanks all. 20:01 btcdrak #exitmeeting 20:01 gmaxwell #nomeetingnonono 20:01 btcdrak #meedingexit 20:01 wumpus #endmeeting 20:01 lightningbot Meeting ended Thu Nov 5 20:01:29 2015 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . 20:01 btcdrak #rekt 
submitted by G1lius to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

F2Pool is not properly validating blocks, their fork is winning temporarily. SPV clients and Blockchain.info are inaccurate

https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000cb7a20ee4e199e347ad7369936abae53a1518efa531ec61
You'll notice that your up to date full node and other properly run block explorers won't even recognize 00000000000000000cb7a20ee4e199e347ad7369936abae53a1518efa531ec61 since it's an invalid block.
This fork should resolve itself once F2Pools fork loses. All miners using F2Pool should migrate until F2Pool updates.
Edit: Antpool just mined a block on top of that, leave antpool as well https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000966d65e0fd87d1d5a8f154a2c955816c28e2006e381aa18
Just to be clear I am not endorsing blockchain.info and am in fact only using their links because they are using an out of date client that considers these blocks valid.
Right now the invalid fork is at 363734, the valid fork is at 363732, they the split starts at 363731 (they both agree on block 363730). In other words the invalid fork is 4 blocks deep, the valid fork is 2. SPV clients may be inaccurate.
Edit 2: invalid fork at 5 blocks deep, valid fork at 2. Fortunately most of these blocks don't have transactions except for 94 in 0000000000000000009cc829aa25b40b2cd4eb83dd498c12ad0d26d90c439d99 (the rest have only the coinbase tx).
Edit 3: Since Antpool + F2Pool + BTCNuggets aren't following the rules and comprise about 40% of the hashrate, until they update you can expect forks like this that will be quite long.
If you're a miner, validate blocks. Not validating blocks is harmful to the network, run a full node and use GBT with a pool providing that option or P2Pool and you won't even have to worry about your hash power contributing to this.
Edit 4: The invalid fork is winning 6-2, anyone who is told by either their SPV client, Blockchain.info or an old Bitcoin client that they have 6 confirmations actually has 0, these 99 transactions are on an invalid blockchain and will be reorged out in a 6 block reorg.
Edit 5: 5-6 now, it's almost over, F2Pool is not mining for now it seems.
Edit 6: Fork is over until it happens again. Mine fully validating!
submitted by 110101002 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin dev IRC meeting in layman's terms (2016-01-21)

Once again my attempt to summarize and explain the weekly bitcoin developer meeting in layman's terms. Link to last summarisation
Disclaimer
Please bear in mind I'm not a developer so some things might be incorrect or plain wrong. There are no decisions being made in these meetings, but since a fair amount of devs are present it's a good representation. Copyright: Public domain

Logs

Main topics

Short topics

0.11 backport release for chainstate obfuscation

background

As some windows users might have experienced in the past, anti-virus software regularly detects values in the bitcoin database files which are false-positives. Thereby deleting those files and corrupting the database. To prevent this from happening developers discussed a way to obfuscate the database files and implemented it last year. While downgrading after upgrading is possible, if you start from a new 0.12 installation or you've done a -reindex on 0.12 it's impossible to downgrade to 0.11 (without starting from scratch).

meeting comments

The proposed pull-request detects the obfuscation in 0.11 so it throws a relevant error message. To avoid this in the future it would be good to have versionnumbers for the chainstate.

meeting conclusion

Release a 0.11 backport release right after the 0.12 final release to avoid confusion.

C++11 update

background

C++11 is an update of the C++ language. It offers new functionalities, an extended standard library, etc. Zerocash had to be written with some c++11 libraries and some IBLT simulation code was written in c++11, which they want to recycle for the eventual core commit.

meeting comments

All changes needed for C++11 have gone in and it's ready to switch. Cfields talked to the travis team and all the features needed (trusty, caching) will be ready by the end of the month, so he proposes to wait until then to flip the switch. Wangchung from f2pool indicated he would not run code that required a C++11 compiler. No one knows what his exact concerns are. Wumpus notes the gitian-built executables don't need any special OS support after the C++11 switch.

meeting conclusion

Wait for Travis update to switch to C++11. Talk to wangchung about his concerns.

EOL Policy / release cycles

background

In general bugfixes, translations and softforks are maintained for 2 major releases. btcdrak proposed to makes this official into a software life-cycle document for bitcoin core in order to inform users what to expect and developers what to code for. Pull request for this document. Given the huge 0.12 changelog jonasschnelli asks whether shorter release cycles might be a good idea. Currently there's a +/- 6 month release cycle.

meeting comments

Gmaxwell notes he doesn't know how useful the backports are given there's no feedback about them, but thinks the current policy is not bad. "I am observing the backports appear to be a waste of time. From a matter of principle, I think they are important, but the industry doesn't appear to agree." If no one is using the backports, it might not see sufficient testing. People generally agree with the 2 major releases approach.
The cyclelength also contributes to frustration and pressure to get features in, as it won't see the light of day for 6 months if it doesn't make the new release. For users it's not really better to have more frequent major releases, as upgrading may not always be a trivial process. There's also a lot of work going into releases. If the GUI and wallet where detached there could be more frequent releases for that part.

meeting conclusion

Policy will be: final release of 0.X means end-of-life of 0.(X-2), which means a 1 year support on the 6 month cycle.

Participants

wumpus Wladimir J. van der Laan gmaxwell Gregory Maxwell jonasshnelli Jonas Schnelli cfields Cory Fields btcdrak btcdrak sipa Pieter Wuille jtimon Jorge Timón maaku Mark Friedenbach kangx_ ??? Kang Zhang ??? sdaftuar Suhas Daftuar phantomcircuit Patrick Strateman CodeShark Eric Lombrozo bsm117532 Bob McElrath dkog ?dkog? jeremias ??? Jeremias Kangas ??? 

Comic relief

jonasschnelli maaku: refactoring? We have a main.cpp. We don't need refactoring. :) gmaxwell jonasschnelli: can we move everything back into main.cpp? I'd save a lot of time grepping. :P wumpus #endmeeting lightningbot` Meeting ended Thu Jan 21 19:55:48 2016 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) btcdrak wumpus: hole in one maaku Did it right this time! gmaxwell Hurray! 
submitted by G1lius to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

f2Pool.com Explainer Video FREE BITCOINS SOFTWARE 2019 NEW - YouTube Free Bitcoin Mining Website 2020  Mine 0.08BTC Daily ... F2pool leaves Segwit 2x (Is it enough though) Bitcoin Generator + Payment Proof [March 2020 Updated]

F2Pool is a geographically distributed mining pool, helping miners all over the globe secure Bitcoin and 40+ Proof–of–Work networks since 2013. Mining-Pools sind Gruppen kooperierender Miners, die zustimmen, Blockbelohnungen im Verhältnis zu ihrer eingebrachten Mining-Hashing-Macht zu teilen. Während Mining-Pools für den durchschnittlichen Miner wünschenswert sind, da sie Belohnungen glätten und sie berechenbarer machen, konzentrieren sie unglücklicherweise die Energie auf den Besitzer des Mining-Pools. Pages in category "Pool Operators" The following 63 pages are in this category, out of 63 total. "History: F2pool is China’s oldest bitcoin mining pool, and the second largest BTC pool in the world today after BTC.com. It also operates the third largest ethereum mining operation. As the Bitcoin Wiki explains, the F2pool was once known as Discus Fish on account of its coinbase signature of 七彩神仙鱼 (Discus Fish), the nickname of one of the operators. Today, F2pool captures 12.38 ... F2Pool is a Chinese mining pool, also referred to as "Discus Fish". The pool opened on May 5, 2013. This name stems from the time before the pool had an English interface. At the time they were known only by their coinbase signature, which is 七彩神仙鱼 (Discus Fish), the nickname of one of the operators.. The coinbase signature for this pool is: "七彩神仙鱼[...]Mined by username".

[index] [7307] [4254] [15170] [8714] [51458] [7662] [33539] [40052] [46295] [41096]

f2Pool.com Explainer Video

Skip navigation Best Free Bitcoin mining earn up to 0.025 BTC every day Automated miner site link https://zee.gl/K8cV How to create Coinbase acound ? https://youtu.be/KV... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue Queue How to mine bitcoin F2Pool with antminer - F2Pool worker tutorial - Duration: 7:17. DudeTV 8,123 views. 7:17.

#