Let’s Talk About Bitcoin Nodes Hacker Noon

Litecoin Support Phone Number +1(855)3008358 (Toll-Free Number)

Litecoin was released in October 2011 in the form of a client with an open source code on the Internet hosting GitHub by Charles Lee, a former Google employee. The crypto currency works according to the MIT/X11 license, which allows anybody to execute, modify and copy software as well as to distribute any modified copies. It was a fork of the Bitcoin-Qt client, differing primarily by having a decreased block generation time, increased maximum number of coins, different hashing algorithm, and a slightly modified GUI.
The Litecoin exchange rate gave a jump in November 2013: the capitalization of crypto currency exceeded 1 billion dollars.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Litecoin

Advantages


Disadvantages


Litecoin

Litecoin (LTC) is a decentralized cryptocurrency, a fork of Bitcoin intended by its designers to be more feasibly mined using consumer-grade hardware. Litecoin is a peer-to-peer crypto currency that was developed on the base of Bitcoin and has an open source code. Unlike Bitcoin, the Litecoin blockchain is able to process a greater number of transactions.
The creator of Litecoin – Charlie Lee, a former employee of Google – took the Bitcoin source code as a basis and created a crypto currency that needs 2.5 minutes to generate a block – this is 4 times faster than Bitcoin.The full emission of Litecoin makes out 84 million coins, which is also 4 times more than of Bitcoin. The start reward for a block made out 50 Litecoins, and now it is 25 Litecoins.

Features of Litecoin


Some common issues of Litecoin, We fix-


You can contact us for your queries and problems you faced during using litecoin on toll-free number : +1(855)-300-8358
submitted by PrettyEducation4 to u/PrettyEducation4 [link] [comments]

Run a 0.14 Full-Node on RaspberryPi3 Pruned(less than 16GB SD needed)

Hi!
Happy if this guide helps you.
Tip if you want: 19656Uwdwko5RjtnuwQENpjBwE3ChzD59v
UPDATE 04/06/17
Add 'uacomment=UASF-SegWit-BIP148' into your bitcoin.conf if you want to signal UASF.
UPDATE 03/13/17
ADDED a tl;dr; Version at the end of this Post.
UPDATE 03/12/17:
Just to test it - I reinstalled all on 8GB SD and it works as well. But maybe you should use at least 16GB for the beginning.
Using a 128GB card for the first version was a little bit stupid - so I reinstalled everything on a 8GB SD card. Including Linux and a pruned blockchain - and it works.
I used prune=550 and Jessie Lite (headless / command line) - without wallet and gui.
The SD is almost full, but it works so far
I also updated the whole manual a bit to make things more clear. Thank you for all your feedback!
Just started my Bitcoin Node today and wanted to share the way I did it with people who are interested in running their own full node. It took some time to write everything down - hopefully correct so far.
I am sure, many people around bitcoin are way more informed and educated as I am - I am the noob. So I wrote this manual to help users like me - noobs, to get started with a cheap, simple bitcoin node on raspberry pi.
Have fun!
I wanted to get my Raspberry Pi 3 working as a node to support the network. Actually the process of installing and running the node was more or less easy - but for Noobs (like I am) it might be a bit tricky to start the whole thing, because there are different ways.
Did you - like me - think you would need +120GB on the raspi, external USB HDD to be a full node? You won't!
If you have a Raspberry and you know what Bitcoin is, I guess, you are a little bit aware of linux, networks and of course bitcoin - so I won't go into detail too much.
This guide is just a little helper to get a full node running on your raspberry pi. Thanks to the help of the nice people in this sub and of course the documentation by the developers, I got it working - and of course also special thanks to raspnode.com - as I followed their tutorial to start - I went some other ways here and there - so please read carefully.
For the Part 2 I would suggest to have http://raspnode.com/diyBitcoin.html open and read through my manual.
I split the tutorial in 2 Parts - PART ONE is about installing the client on your PC and downloading the Blockchain.
PART TWO is about the setup of the raspberryPi and transferring the pruned blockchain to the pi and run it as a full node!
The first thing to be aware of is: You actually need to download the whole blockchain to get this working - if you already have your bitcoin client synced on the PC / MAC great you can reuse it!
Now you might think "but you said less than 16GB in the title!"
Yes, but the good thing is you won't need to download it on your Raspberry, neither you need to sync it completely on your raspberry which took ages (weeks!) before. When you finished this Guide, you will just have a max. 4GB Blockchain on your Raspberry Pi - but it still is a full node! The magic word is Pruning.
Maybe even a 8GB SD Card works just fine including Linux (jessie lite)!
So, if you already have a full node on your PC - Great you can almost skip PART ONE - BUT have at how to Prune in PART ONE if you don't know about it.
For PART TWO you'll need a Raspberry Pi 2 or 3 (I used 3) min. 8GB (works also) or better 16GB SD Card. (I used a 128GB for the first version of this manual - which is way too big)

PART ONE

This is the manual how to get started on you PC / MAC / Linux (I did it on Win7)
Go to: https://bitcoin.org/en/download and download the core Client for your Machine (I used win64).
Install it and configure it to save the Blockchaindata to the directory of your choice - so instead getting 120GB on your C drive, I would suggest to download it to another place like a USB drive.
You can set this up during the install. Standard folder for the blockchain folder is "%APPDATA%\Bitcoin" on Windows.
or you can do it after the install by creating a bitcoin.conf file inside your installation folder / or %APPDATA%\Bitcoin and add
datadir=l:\yourfolder
to the file. Line by line.
By the way here you could also just add dbcache - to use more memory to speed up the process a bit:
dbcache=4096
if you don't want to use the settings inside the program. (you can also set this inside the program under settings! If you have this inside the bitcoin.conf you will see the amount you set there from inside the program - it overrides the values)
You can check inside the windows client under settings, if you can see a manual dbcache is set by having a look at the left footer area. When your dbcache value shows up, everything is fine.
So the Blockchain download process will take time - maybe a few days! Depending on your machine, internet connection and HDD.
The Blockchain is huge as it contains every single transaction of the past until today. You won't need to keep your PC running all the time, you can turn it off and on and it will resync automatically when you start bitcoin-qt.exe!
Make sure to close the client always via "quit" - ctrl+q.
After you have your bitcoin core installed, the blockchain downloaded and synced - you are ready to PRUNE!
First - close the Client and let it close smoothly. After it is really closed you can follow these steps:
By pruning, your blockchain will dramatically shrink. From 120GB to just a few GB.
Be aware, that you will lose your Downloaded Blockchain as pruning will erase a big chunk of it! If you have enough space, you could of course keep the full blockchain saved somewhere on another HDD.
You can prune by editing your bitcoin.conf file by adding:
prune=550
I used prune=1024 - not sure where the differences are right now (min. prune=550). (for my 8GB version I used 550! I suggest to use this.)
Save the bitcoind.conf file and restart your windows client.
It will now clean up the Blockchain. So just the latest blocks are saved. The client should start without any problems. Maybe it takes some time to prune the blockchain data.
Check if everything works normally (the client opens as usual, you can see an empty wallet) than close the client.
Inside the Bitcoin Folder, you'll find two folders called:
blocks chainstate
those are the interesting folders containing the important data (now pruned) - and we will transfer those two to the raspberry later!
Now you are good to start the raspi transfer explained in the next part.

PART 2

Here is what I did:
1) I installed Raspian Pixel (https://www.raspberrypi.org/downloads/raspbian/) using a 128 GB SD - which is not needed because of "Pruning" - I think a 16GB card might work, too! (You can also install Raspian Jessie Lite - which saves you even more space, as it runs headless - only command line) (Updated: It is better to use Jessie Lite to save a lot of space - when you are fine with only command line)
2) I followed partly this tutorial to get everything running and setup:
http://raspnode.com/diyBitcoin.html
Please have a look at it - I have copied the Headlines in capitals to let you know what I did, and what I skipped.
On Tutorial Page: Start with RASPBIAN (OPTIONAL) CONFIG OPTIONS.
Set You RasPi up including "EDITING FILES" to save your Layout at the tutorial page and come back here.
I skipped the CONFIGURE USB AND SET AUTOMOUNT process, as we are going to use PRUNING to reduce the 120GB to a tiny filesize - so USB Devices are not needed here!
It was necessary to ENLARGE SWAP FILE to install bitcoin core - otherwise it didn't went through which ended in a frozen raspi.
So have a close look by following the raspnode tutorial at: ENLARGE SWAP FILE.
I have my raspi running via cable to router - but you can also WiFi setup everything described under NETWORKING ON THE RASPBERRY PI.
Now comes the interesting part: Follow the steps at DOWNLOADING BITCOIN CORE DEPENDENCIES - they work fine for 0.14.0 too. Git should be on Board already when you installed Pixel - otherwise you would need to install it.
sudo apt-get install git -y (only jessy lite)
I skipped the next command lines - as I don't use bitcoin-qt wallet. If you want to use it as wallet - do the step.
mkdir ~/bin cd ~bin
Now you are in the folder you want your bitcoin core data be downloaded to via git. I didn't Downloaded the Berkeley Database source code - so I also skipped the whole next command lines
[email protected]~/bin$ wget http://download.oracle.com/berkeley-db/db-4.8.30.NC.tar.gz [email protected]~/bin$ tar -xzvf db-4.8.30.NC.tar.gz [email protected]~/bin$ cd db-4.8.30.NC/build_unix/ [email protected]~/bin/db-4.8.30.NC/build_unix$ ../dist/configure --enable-cxx [email protected]~/bin/db-4.8.30.NC/build_unix$ make -j4
and went on with "INSTALLING BITCOIN"!
I followed the first part but instead downloading 0.13 I took of course the latest version:0.14
git clone -b 0.14 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git cd bitcoin ./autogen.sh
this might take some time to start.
If you have trouble with hanging RESOLVING DELTAS - just restart the Raspberry Pi and remove the bitcoin folder inside /~bin using
rm -rf bitcoin
this command will delete the folder and you can reuse
git clone -b 0.14 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git

For some reason RESOLVING DELTAS is a common problem with different downloads - so just retry it and at least after 3 times it should work!

as I didn't use the GUI/ Wallet, I ran
./configure --enable-upnp-default --disable-wallet
as I don't need the wallet functionality.
I didn't need to use "MAKE" which saves you maybe up to 2.5 hours.
instead you can just go ahead with:
sudo make install
(If I am wrong in doing so - please let me know)
The install takes some time - and just a heads up: when it gets stuck somewhere - just redo the installation process - it took three times to went through - stuck at some processing.
After the installation took place you can finally get your Raspberry Pi Node running in no time!
To test if the the installation went through - you can just start bitcoind using:
bitcoind &
than check if everything is working so far:
bitcoin-cli getinfo
after a few seconds you should see version: etc...
if not, something went wrong. Try to redo the steps in the raspnode tutorial.
(don't give up if it failed - retry! Ask your questions here)
IMPORTANT: you need to stop bitcoin on your raspberry now!
bitcoin-cli stop
If you don't need an external USB Drive - what I hope - as we are going to use pruning just go ahead and skip the USB part and create a file inside (or follow the raspnode tutorial on how to setup the USB drive):
cd .bitcoin
sudo nano bitcoin.conf
and enter the exact same pruning size you have used on your Desktop Machine to prune. I used 1024 but the minimum is 550. (used 550 for the 8GB SD card on PC and Raspberry)
prune=550
That's it for the raspi.
update: To signal UASF enter in a new line:
uacomment=UASF-SegWit-BIP148

TRANSFER

Now you have to transfer the two folders CHAINSTATE and BLOCKS from your PC bitcoind directory to your raspberry.
I am using a program called "WINSCP" - it is free and easy to use: https://winscp.net/eng/download.php
We need this to transfer the files to the Raspberry pi. Pretty sure you can also do it via SSH - but I am the noob. So let's keep it simple.
Open Winscp and put in the IP Address of your Raspberry Pi, User and Password (same as in SSH)
You should now see the directories on your Raspberry Pi. There is a folder called
.bitcoin
enter it and you will see the two folders
blocks & chainstate
you can delete them on the raspberry as they have some data from your previous test inside.
Make sure you can also see the bitcoin.conf file in that directory, which needs to contain the exact same prune line, like the one on your desktop machine. If not, make sure to edit it via SSH. The line "datadir=l:\yourfolder" is obviously not needed in the Raspberry bitcoin.conf file.
Now grab the two folders CHAINSTATE and BLOCKS from your PC and copy them to your .bitcoind folder.
I also copied banlist.dat, fee_estimation.dat, mempool.dat and peers.dat to the folder - not really knowing if needed! Not needed.
The whole copy process might take some minutes (against some weeks in the old way).
After copying is finished, you can now start bitcoind on the Raspberry.
bitcoind &
the & symbol let you still use the command line while the process is running btw.
The process - if succesfull - will take some time to finish.
bitcoin-cli getinfo
Will give you some informations what is going on right now. When you can see, that it is checking the blocks, this is good!
If you get an error - double check - if you have the correct prune size (same as on desktop machine) - in bitcoin.conf and that this file is inside .bitcoin on RaspberryPi. It took me some time, to find my mistakes.
Congrats! You are almost a part of the network!
To make your node now a fullnode, you will need to go to your router (often 192.168.1.1) and enable portforwarding for your raspberry pi - and open ports 8333 - that's it!
You can now go to: https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/
scroll down to "JOIN THE NETWORK" and check check if your node IP is connected!
It will show up as soon as the blocks are checked and the raspi is running.
Well done!
Now you are running a full node, with a small Blockchain and got it working in Minutes, not weeks!
I really hope, my little tutorial worked for you and your are part of the Node network now.
If you have problems or I made a mistake in this helper tut, just let me know and I will try to make it better.
Have fun and NODL!
the noob
tl;dr; (if you are a real noob start with the non-tl;dr version!)
tl;dr; PART ONE
1) Download & install / setup bitcoincore @ https://bitcoin.org/de/download
2) change dbcache to something smaller than your memory and download the whole Blockchain (120GB).
3) create a file called bitcoin.conf put the line prune=550 (or higher) in to activate pruning on win inside %appData%/bitcoin
4) Open ports 8333 on your Router to make this a full node with a smaller Blockchain.
You are running a full node on your PC.
tl;dr; PART TWO
1) Install jessie lite and the needed dependencies on your SDCard - Raspberry
( >git clone -b 0.14 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git )
  • see tutorial for more info.
2) create a file called bitcoin.conf inside .bitcoin and add the same prune=Number you had on your PC.
3) transfer the pruned folders BLOCKS and CHAINSTATE to the Raspberry Folder .bitcoin
4)Start "bitcoind &"
5) let everything sync
6) Make sure you have port 8333 opened on your router.
You are running a full node on your Raspberry with a super small Blockchain (I put all on a 8GB SDcard)
Tip if you want : 19656Uwdwko5RjtnuwQENpjBwE3ChzD59v
updated 03/12 - will update more, soon.
updated 03/12.2 - I updated the whole process a bit and also added some improvements.
updated 03/14/ Added a tl;dr version at the end.
submitted by I-am-the-noob to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Useful Beginner's Guide to Syscoin

What is Syscoin?

Some have described Syscoin (SYS) as the Shopify, Amazon and Ebay of the blockchain world. Syscoin is a revolutionary cryptocurrency that offers near zero cost financial transactions, incredible speed and provides businesses the infrastructure to trade goods, assets, digital certificates and data securely. Syscoin isn’t just about money and trading, it has the ability to attract various business types thanks to its native set of features geared towards business on the blockchain. From eBay traders and High Street shops to Medical applications, Insurance and Gaming, Syscoin’s decentralized network benefits everyone!   Syscoin is developed by Blockchain Foundry (BF). BF provides blockchain technology based services, projects and products for a wide variety of use cases with the stated aim of disrupting markets by leveraging the potential of blockchain technology. Syscoin is mainly known to be the first cryptocurrency to offer a fully decentralized marketplace based on blockchain. What is lesser known is that this is only a part of what Syscoin offers.   With the introduction of Masternodes in February or March 2018 SYS will be transformed from just a ’marketplace coin’ to a completely ‘utilitarian coin’. The Masternode infrastructure allows the addition of decentralized databases and file storage, increased transaction speed to surpass POS/Visa/Mastercard capabilities, true Turing complete smart contract capabilities for unlimited business logic, sidechains, application layers and an identity layer. This will all be accessible through an API, rather than a new language, enabling nearly any developer to create any blockchain application they can conceive. This will usher in the next generation of blockchain applications - made for new or existing businesses - by conveniently offering everything available from the blockchain space today. In simple terms think Dash + Ethereum/Lisk + Monero + Nano + Storj + Particl capabilities all in one coin!    

SYS Origin

The blockchain as conceptualized by Satoshi Nakamoto back in 2008 envisioned a peer-to-peer electronic cash network that would prevent double-spending. A year later, the blockchain became an integral part of bitcoin, serving as the latter's public ledger of transactions. Although Nakamoto's reference client mentioned a decentralized marketplace service, the subsequent implementation did not incorporate this due to a lack of resources.   Syscoin was initially described in a 2014 draft whitepaper that envisioned Decentralized Marketplace Creation, Decentralized Smart Contracts and Documents, Decentralized Certificate Issuance and Transfer, and Decentralized Data Storage and Retrieval, as among the services that it would offer upon its release.   Syscoin aimed to bring Nakamoto's vision of a decentralized marketplace back into the blockchain, among the other commercial-grade services it aims to deliver to clients. Other services that Syscoin plans to provide include secure data storage and transfer, and unique user aliases that link their owners to the services controlled by the alias.   The early Syscoin wallet was superseded by the release of Blockmarket Desktop 1.0 on September 12, 2017, marking the culmination of Syscoin's vision of a fully decentralized marketplace with a desktop GUI based on the blockchain.   The planned release of Blockmarket Web, a fully web-based version, and Blockmarket Professional in 2018 takes that vision one step further, as more advanced seller stores become a reality.    

The Team

The Team that NEVER quits! Before the launch of Syscoin (Q3 2014), there was a presale ICO by Moolah (as a partner), which turned out to be detrimental for Syscoin. The project raised around 1,000BTC for development but the Syscoin Team only managed to access 250BTC which were used for price support. Moolah (Ryan Kennedy) absconded with the bulk of the ICO funds and the Syscoin team were left with ~30million Syscoin at a price around 400 satoshi. Even after this tragic event, the devs didn’t quit and continued to work on the project without stopping. The case against Moolah is still on-going. See the article from CoinDesk here: http://www.coindesk.com/uk-court-syscoin-injunction-moolah-750-btc/.   What is this detail telling us about the dev team? While some crypto projects are just scams and bring little to no innovation, they’ve proven that they are in it for the long term - ably demonstrated by the fact that they continued to work despite their funds being stolen. And now that hard work is beginning to pay off with the entire team going full-time for the first time in January 2018 and new developers being hired following VC funding for BF.
View Team Page.    

Blockchain Foundry Products

BF Products    

What is Blockmarket Desktop?

Building on the World's First Decentralized Marketplace, Blockmarket is the newest generation of Syscoin's Desktop wallet with a complete, state-of-the-art marketplace built-in where you can securely and reliably buy and sell any items you wish. Entire stores can be created directly through the marketplace where you can sell your own products or re-sell others’ products for commission. Use of blockchain technology eliminates middlemen, credit card fees, maintenance fees, downtime and political interference. Persons are literally able to buy or sell anything to anyone, anytime, anywhere on Earth! Blockmarket Desktop was launched on September 12, 2017. Download Blockmarket Desktop 1.2    

Key Blockmarket Features

- Decentralized Marketplace

The marketplace platform provides a decentralized and high redundant channel for selling goods and services. Features include: • Price Pegging to currencies such as USD, EUR, GBP, CAD, CNY and BTC • Bitcoin and Zcash as payment options • Arbitrated Escrow • Encrypted Messaging • KYC/AML Compliance • Images • Unlimited Inventory Items  

- Name Aliases

Wallet addresses for cryptocurrencies generally consist of a unique string of between 27-34 alphanumeric characters. Such an address isn’t easy to memorize. Although the addresses can be added to an address book within the wallet, Syscoin has taken the user's convenience one step further, allowing you to create a unique Alias for your wallet address, such as a name, title, or characters specific to a username. These can be used to send SYS from home, to a mobile wallet, to work, to friends, to common suppliers or to repeat customers easily, without requiring any memorizing, writing it down, copy & pasting or emailing yourself the address.  

- Digital Certificates

Using the cryptography of the blockchain persons can issue, authorize, and exchange digital certificates of any kind. With Syscoin anyone can issue provably-unique certificates with text or ASCII content to one or multiple parties on the Syscoin blockchain. These certificates can be authenticated by anyone via Syscoin’s cryptographic proof of work. This allows for the creation and free exchange of any kind of digital asset such as ownership certificates, warranties, receipts, tickets, certifications, diplomas, software licenses and more.  

- Integrated Exchanges

Integrated Crypto exchanges - Flypme and Changelly will facilitate exchanging 30+ cryptos for SYS, directly within the Blockmarket wallet.  

- Security Audit Verified

Blockmarket was successfully and independently security audited by Digital Boundary Group and was deemed low risk. View Audit Results.    

Blockmarket Desktop – Quickstart Tutorials (16 short vids)

BM Desktop – Quickstart Tutorials    

Blockmarket Web – (The Key to Mass Adoption)

BM web will bring SYS’s existing decentralized marketplace and all its features into a web-based version, enabling ease of use with a simple email and password login (grandma friendly) without any need for downloading a wallet or waiting for sync. Blockmarket web will be launched in Q1 2018.   This launch will be accompanied by a marketing campaign roll-out that seeks to build brand recognition with audiences within the existing crypto ecosystem and more significantly with the broader, global, non-crypto audience. For this reason Ballistic Arts, a full-service marketing agency was retained by BF. BF Engages Marketing Agency    

Primary Target Market + Value Potential

The primary target market for BF’s Syscoin/Blockmarket web flagship is the retail e-commerce industry. This sets up their decentralized marketplace to rival such commercial giants as Amazon ($648B market cap), Alibaba ($453B market cap) and eBay ($43B market cap). According to eMarketer’s Worldwide Retail and Ecommerce Sales report, global retail e-commerce sales for 2017 were $2.3 Trillion. This is expected to reach an estimated $4 Trillion by 2020 reflecting the rapid growth within this sector.   To perform a very simple assessment of the Syscoin/Blockmarket web’s potential let’s assume that a 1% portion of the forecasted $4 trillion market is captured, which represents $40 billion in revenue. Assuming a sales to market cap ratio of 1:1 for simplicity, the circulating supply of 531 million SYS, with a $40 billion market cap yields a price of roughly $75 per coin. However, with masternodes that limit the circulating supply and token utility that extends beyond retail e-commerce, the SYS price could likely reach much higher. Please note that these are just very simple assumptions and projections for this exercise, however the real world driven potential that this project has is clearly evident.    

Key Syscoin Developments

- Z-DAG: Zero Confirmation Transactions with Double Spend Protection (WORLD’S FIRST)

View Developer’s Twitter post View Syscoin’s Twitter post  

- Masternodes

Ability for world-class transactions-per-second performance to scale-out with added nodes (theoretically 100k TPS per 1000 Masternodes, 300k TPS/3k masternodes, etc). In later releases, masternodes will also process smart contracts and facilitate sharded+encrypted offchain file-storage (with onchain anchors), among other touted functionality. They should also result in steadying the price movements - less volatility as holding will be incentivized.  

- Masternode Rewards + Min. Hardware Specs

Masternode Rewards + Min. Hardware Specs Masternode ROI Calculator  

- Smart Contracts

Scalable Ethereum Virtual Machine: Allows Turin complete smart contracts to be executed following the ethereum protocol at a much faster speed and at a fraction of the ethereum gas price.  

- Assets & Token Issuance

With its token issuance service, Syscoin allows anyone to create a custom asset token which can then be sent directly to anyone else on the network. This facilitates a variety of use cases including ICO token issuance, supply chain management, reward points, and loyalty programs.  

- Anonymous Transactions

Anonymous transactions: via mixing/shuffling at user-specified denomination. Afterwards, additional tech will be added in the near future which will further compound the degree of anonymity provided -Add ValueShuffle running on top of the masternode layer and you have the world's most advanced privacy tech in any coin. This brings true money fungibility to Syscoin and the missing link for true economic sovereignty. View Developer’s Twitter post.  

- Instant Send

Transactions can be sent and received instantly. This represents a similar sending capability as Dash, but is a step beyond- A type of backend node locking will allow an instantly received sum to be sent immediately, without delay, and without network risk of double-spend.    

Why Invest in Syscoin?

 

Merchants

Merchant Pilot Program    

Partnerships

Development Updates

White Paper

White Paper.pdf Note: It is anticipated that the whitepaper will be updated by the team in the near future due to recent developments    

Roadmap

Roadmap 2017-2018.png    

Blockchain Application Development Architecture

Blockchain Application Development Architecture.png    

Feature List 2017 & 2018

Feature List 2017 & 2018.jpg    

Where to Buy

BittrexPoloniexUpbitTux ExchangeLivecoinYobitAEXBittyliciousChangellyFlyp.me    

Wallets

• Block Market Wallet 1.2 – Windows and Mac. Download from https://syscoin.org/ • QT Wallet for Developers: Download from https://github.com/syscoin/syscoin2/releases/tag/2.1.6Coinomi – Syscoin MultiCoin Wallet (only supports send/receive)HolyTransaction – Syscoin Multicoin Web Wallet (desktop & android)    

Need Help or Want to Contribute?

If you need help for an important wallet issue or if you want to know how you can contribute in promoting Syscoin Join the Slack channel where the SYS team and community members are active, helpful and responsive.    

Credit To

Other Sources

https://syscoin.org/ https://twitter.com/syscoin https://www.blockchainfoundry.co/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syscoin    

Last Updated

This post was last updated on Feb 10 2018.    

Disclaimer

This post was created particularly to aid those who are new to Syscoin. Please note that the content provided within this post is for information purposes only and is not to be construed as investment advice.
submitted by idbrews to SysCoin [link] [comments]

The Strange Birth & History of Monero, Part IV: Monero "as it is now"

You can read here part III.
You can read this whole story translated into Spanish here
This is part IV, the last but not least.
Monero - A secure, private, untreceable cryptocurrency
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.0
Notable comments in this thread:
-201: “I would like to offer 1000 MRO to the first person who creates a pool”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6422665#msg6422665)
[tacotime offers bounty to potential pool developer. Bytecoin devs haven’t released any code for pools, and the only existent pool, minergate (in the future related to BCN interests) was closed source]
-256: “Adam back seems to like CryptoNote the better than Zerocash https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/453493394472697856”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6440769#msg6440769)
-264: “update on pools: The NOMP guy (zone117x) is looking to fork his open source software and get a pool going, so one should hopefully be up soon.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6441302#msg6441302)
-273: “Update on GUI: othe from VertCoin has notified me that he is working on it.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6442606#msg6442606)
-356: “Everyone wanting a pool, please help raise a bounty with me here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=589533.0
And for the GUI:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=589561.0”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6461533#msg6461533)
[5439 MRO + 0.685 BTC + 5728555.555 BCN raised for pool and 1652 XMR, 121345.46695471 BCN for the GUI wallet. Though this wallet was "rejected" as official GUI because wallet still has to be polished before building a GUI]
-437: “Yes, most Windows users should see a higher hashrate with the new build. You can thank NoodleDoodle. ”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6481202#msg6481202)
-446: “Even faster Windows binaries have just been uploaded. Install for more hash power! Once again, it was NoodleDoodle.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6483680#msg6483680)
-448: “that almost doubled my hashrate again! GREAT STUFF !!!”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6484109#msg6484109)
-461: “Noodle only started optimization today so there may be gains for your CPU in the future.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6485247#msg6485247)
[First day of miner optimization by NoodleDoodle, it is only May 1st]
-706: “The unstoppable NoodleDoodle has optimized the Windows build again. Hashrate should more than double. Windows is now faster than Linux. :O”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6549444#msg6549444)
-753: “i here tft is no longer part of the project. so is he forking or relaunching bytecoin under new name and new parameters (merged mining with flatter emission curve.) also. what is the end consensus for the emission curve for monero. will it be adjusted."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6561345#msg6561345)
[May, 5th 2014. TFT is launching FANTOMCOIN, a clone coin which its "only" feature was merged mining]
-761: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6561941#msg6561941) [May, 5th 2014 – eizh on emission curve and tail emission]
-791: “As promised, I did Russian translation of main topic.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6565521#msg6565521)
[one among dozens of decentralized and “altruist” collaborators of Monero in minor tasks]
-827: image
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6571652#msg6571652)
-853: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6575033#msg6575033)
[some are not happy that NoodleDoodle had only released the built binaries, but not the source code]
-950: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6593768#msg6593768)
[Rias, an account suspected to be related to the Bytecoin scam, dares to tag Monero as “instamine”]
-957: “It's rather bizarre that you're calling this an "instamine" scam when you're so fervently supporting BCN, which was mined 80% before entering the clearnet. Difficulty adjustments are per block, so there is no possibility of an instamine unless you don't publish your blockchain (emission is regular at the preset interval, and scales adequately with the network hash rate). What you're accusing monero of is exactly what ByteCoin did.”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6594025#msg6594025
[Discussion with rias drags on for SEVERAL posts]
-1016: “There is no "dev team". There is a community of people working on various aspects of the coin.
I've been keeping the repo up to date. NoodleDoodle likes to optimise his miner. TFT started the fork and also assists when things break. othe's been working on a GUI. zone117x has been working on a pool.
It's a decentralized effort to maintain the fork, not a strawman team of leet hackers who dwell in the underbellies of the internet and conspire for instamines.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6596828#msg6596828)
-1023: “Like I stated in IRC, I am not part of the "dev team", I never was. Just so happens I took a look at the code and changed some extremely easy to spot "errors". I then decided to release the binary because I thought MRO would benefit from it. I made this decision individually and nobody else should be culpable”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6597057#msg6597057)
[Noodledoodle gets rid of the instaminer accusations]
-1029: “I decided to relaunch Monero so it will suit all your wishes that you had: flatter emission curve, open source optimized miner for everybody from the start, no MM with BCN/BMR and the name. New Monero will be ready tomorrow”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6597252#msg6597252)
[people trying to capitalize mistakes is always there.]
-1030: "Pull request has been submitted and merged to update miner speed
It appears from the simplicity of the fix that there may have been deliberate crippling of the hashing algorithm from introduction with ByteCoin."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6597460#msg6597460
[tacotime “officially” raises suspects of possible voluntarily crippled miner]
-1053: "I don't mind the 'relaunch' or the merge-mining fork or any other new coin at all. It's inevitable that the CryptoNote progresses like scrypt into a giant mess of coins. It's not undesirable or 'wrong'. Clones fighting out among themselves is actually beneficial for Monero. Although one of them is clearly unserious and trolling by choosing the same name.
Anyway, this sudden solidarity with BCN or TFT sure is strange when none of these accounts were around for the discussions that took place 3 weeks ago. Such vested interests with no prior indications. Hmm...? "
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6599013#msg6599013
[eizh points out the apparent organized fudding]
-1061: "There was no takeover. The original developer (who himself did a fork of bytecoin and around a dozen lines of code changes) was non-responsive and had disappeared. The original name had been cybersquatted all over the place (since the original developer did not even register any domain name much less create a web site), making it impossible to even create a suitably named web site. A bunch of us who didn't want to see the coin die who represented a huge share of the hash power and ownership of the coin decided to adopt it. We reached out to the original developer to participate in this community effort and he still didn't respond over 24 hours, so we decided to act to save the coin from neglect and actively work toward building the coin."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6599798#msg6599798)
[smooth defends legitimacy of current “dev team” and decisions taken]
-1074: “Zerocash will be announced soon (May 18 in Oakland? but open source may not be ready then?).
Here is a synopsis of the tradeoffs compared to CyptoNote: […]"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6602891#msg6602891)
[comparison among Zerocash y Cryptonote]
-1083: "Altcoin history shows that except in the case of premine (Tenebrix), the first implementation stays the largest by a wide margin. We're repeating that here by outpacing Bytecoin (thanks to its 80% mine prior to surfacing). No other CN coin has anywhere near the hashrate or trading volume. Go check diff in Fantom for example or the lack of activity in BCN trading.
The only CN coin out there doing something valuable is HoneyPenny, and they're open source too. If HP develops something useful, MRO can incorporate it as well. Open source gives confidence. No need for any further edge."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6603452#msg6603452)
[eizh reminds everyone the “first mover” advantage is a real advantage]
-1132: "I decided to tidy up bitmonero GitHub rep tonight, so now there is all valuable things from latest BCN commits & Win32. Faster hash from quazarcoin is also there. So BMR rep is the freshest one.
I'm working on another good feature now, so stay tuned."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6619738#msg6619738)
[first TFT apparition in weeks, he somehow pretends to still be the "lead dev"]
-1139: "This is not the github or website used by Monero. This github is outdated even with these updates. Only trust binaries from the first post."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6619971#msg6619971)
[eizh tries to clarify the community, after tft interference, which are the official downloads]
-1140: “The faster hash is from NoodleDoodle and is already submitted to the moner-project github (https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero) and included in the binaries here.
[trying to bring TFT back on board] It would be all easier if you just work together with the other guys, whats the problem? Come to irc and talk like everyone else?
[on future monero exchangers] I got confirmation from one."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6619997#msg6619997)
[8th may 2014, othe announces NoodleDoodle optimized miner is now open source, asks TFT to collaborate and communicates an exchanger is coming]
-1146: "I'll be impressed if they [BCN/TFT shills] manage to come up with an account registered before January, but then again they could buy those.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6620257#msg6620257)
[smooth]
-1150: “Ring signatures mean that when you sign a transaction to spend an output (coins), no one looking at the block chain can tell whether you signed it or one of the other outputs you choose to mix in with yours. With a mixing factor of 5 or 10 after several transactions there are millions of possible coins all mixed together. You get "anonymity" and mixing without having to use a third party mixer.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6620433#msg6620433)
[smooth answering to “what are ring signatures” in layman terms]
-1170: "Someone (C++ skilled) did private optimized miner a few days ago, he got 74H/s for i5 haswell. He pointed that mining code was very un-optimized and he did essential improvements for yourself. So, high H/S is possible yet. Can the dev's core review code for that?"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6623136#msg6623136)
[forums are talking about an individual or group of individuals with optimized miners - may 9th 2014]
-1230: "Good progress on the pool reported by NOMP dev zone117x. Stay tuned, everyone.
And remember to email your favorite exchanges about adding MRO."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6640190#msg6640190)
-1258: "This is actually as confusing to us as you. At one point, thankful_for_today said he was okay with name change: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563821.msg6368600#msg6368600
Then he disappeared for more than a week after the merge mining vote failed.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6645981#msg6645981)
[eizh on the TFT-issue]
-1358: “Jadehorse: registered on 2014-03-06 and two pages of one line posts:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=263597
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=263597;sa=showPosts
Trustnobody: registered on 2014-03-06 and two pages of one line posts:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=264292
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=264292;sa=showPosts
You guys should really just stop trying. It is quite transparent what you are doing. Or if you want to do it, do it somewhere else. Everyone else: ignore them please."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6666844#msg6666844)
[FUD campaign still ongoing, smooth battles it]
-1387: "The world’s first exchange for Monero just opened! cryptonote.exchange.to"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6675902#msg6675902)
[David Latapie announces an important milestone: exchanger is here]
-1467: "image"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6686125#msg6686125)
[it is weird, but tft appears again, apparently as if he were in a parallel reality]
-1495: “http://monero.cc/blog/monero-price-0-002-passed/”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6691706#msg6691706)
[“trading” milestone reached: monero surpassed for first time 0.002 btc price]
-1513: "There is one and only one coin, formerly called Bitmonero, now called Monero. There was a community vote in favor (despite likely ballot stuffing against). All of the major stakeholders at the time agreed with the rename, including TFT.
The code base is still called bitmonero. There is no reason to rename it, though we certainly could have if we really wanted to.
TFT said he he is sentimental about the Bitmonero name, which I can understand, so I don't think there is any malice or harm in him continuing to use it. He just posted the nice hash rate chart on here using the old name. Obviously he understands that they are one and the same coin."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6693615#msg6693615)
[Smooth clears up again the relation with TFT and BMR. Every time he appears it seems to generate confusion on newbies]
-1543: "Pool software is in testing now. You can follow the progress on the pool bounty thread (see original post on this thread for link)."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6698097#msg6698097)
-1545: "[on the tail emission debate] I've been trying to raise awareness of this issue. The typical response seems to be, "when Bitcoin addresses the problem, so will we." To me this means it will never be addressed. The obvious solution is to perpetually increase the money supply, always rewarding miners with new coins.
Tacotime mentioned a hard fork proposal to never let the block reward drop below 1 coin:
Code: if (blockReward < 1){ blockReward = 1; }
I assume this is merely delaying the problem, however. I proposed a fixed annual debasement (say 2%) with a tx fee cap of like 0.001% of the current block reward (or whatever sounds reasonable). That way we still get the spam protection without worrying about fee escalation down the road."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6698879#msg6698879)
[Johnny Mnemonic wants to debate tail emission. Debate is moved to the “Monero Economy” thread]
-1603: “My GOD,the wallet is very very wierd and too complicated to operate, Why dont release a wallet-qt as Bitcoin?”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6707857#msg6707857)
[Newbies have hard times with monero]
-1605: "because this coin is not a bitcoin clone and so there isnt a wallet-qt to just copy and release. There is a bounty for a GUI wallet and there is already an experimental windows wallet..."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6708250#msg6708250)
-1611: "I like this about Monero, but it seems it was written by cryptographers, not programmers. The damned thing doesn't even compile on Arch, and there are several bugs, like command history not working on Linux. The crypto ideas are top-notch, but the implementation is not."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6709002#msg6709002)
[Wolf0, a miner developer, little by little joining the community]
-1888: "http://198.199.79.100 (aka moneropool.org) successfully submitted a block. Miners will be paid for their work once payments start working.
P.S. This is actually our second block today. The first was orphaned. :/"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6753836#msg6753836)
[May 16th: first pool block]
-1927: "Botnets aren't problem now. The main problem is a private hi-performance miner"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6759622#msg6759622)
-1927: "Evidence?"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6759661#msg6759661)
[smooth about the private optimized miner]
-1937: “[reference needed: smooth battling the weak evidence of optimized miner] Yes, I remember that. Some person on the Internet saying that some other unnamed person said he did something hardly constitutes evidence.
I'm not even doubting that optimized asm code could make a big difference. Just not sure how to know whether this is real or not. Rumors and FUD are rampant, so it is just hard to tell."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6760040#msg6760040)
[smooth does not take the "proof" seriously]
-1949: "image
One i5 and One e5 connected to local pool:
image"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6760624#msg6760624)
[proof of optimized miner]
-1953: "lazybear are you interested in a bounty to release the source code (maybe cleaned up a bit?) your optimized miner? If not, I'll probably play around with the code myself tomorrow and see if I can come up with something, or maybe Noodle Doodle will take an interest."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6760699#msg6760699)
[smooth tries to bring lazybear and his optimized miner on board]
-1957: "smooth, NoodleDoodle just said on IRC his latest optimizations are 4x faster on Windows. Untested on Linux so far but he'll push the source to the git repo soon. We'll be at 1 million network hashrate pretty soon."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6760814#msg6760814)
[eizh makes publics NoodleDoodle also has more miner optimizations ready]
-1985: “Someone (not me) created a Monero block explorer and announced it yesterday in a separate thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=611561.0”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6766206#msg6766206)
[May 16th, 2014: a functional block explorer]
-2018: “Noodle is doing some final tests on Windows and will begin testing on Linux. He expects hashrate should increase across all architectures. I can confirm a 5x increase on an i7 quad-core + Windows 7 64-bit.
Please be patient. These are actual changes to the program, not just a switch that gets flicked on. It needs testing.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6770093#msg6770093)
[eizh has more info on last miner optimization]
-2023: “Monero marketcap is around $300,000 as of now”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6770365#msg6770365)
-2059: I was skeptical of this conspiracy theory at first but after thinking about the numbers and looking back at the code again, I'm starting to believe it.
These are not deep optimizations, just cleaning up the code to work as intended.
At 100 H/s, with 500k iterations, 70 cycles per L3 memory access, we're now at 3.5 GHz which is reasonably close. So the algorithm is finally memory-bound, as it was originally intended to be. But as delivered by the bytecode developers not even close.
I know this is going to sound like tooting our own horn but this is another example of the kind of dirty tricks you can expect from the 80% premine crowd and the good work being done in the name of the community by the Monero developers.
Assuming they had the reasonable, and not deoptimized, implementation of the algorithm as designed all along (which is likely), the alleged "two year history" of bytecoin was mined on 4-8 PCs. It's really one of the shadiest and sleaziest premines scams yet, though this shouldn't be surprising because in every type of scam, the scams always get sneakier and more deceptive over time (the simple ones no longer work)."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6773168#msg6773168)
[smooth blowing the lid: if miner was so de-optimized, then BCN adoption was even lower than initially thought]
-2123: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6781481#msg6781481)
[fluffypony first public post in Monero threads]
-2131: "moneropool.org is up to 2KHs, (average of 26Hs per user). But that's still only 0.3% of the reported network rate of 575Khs.
So either a large botnet is mining, or someone's sitting quietly on a much more efficient miner and raking in MRO."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6782192#msg6782192)
[with pools users start to notice that “avg” users account for a very small % of the network hashrate, either botnets or a super-optimized miner is mining monero]
-2137: “I figure its either:
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6782852#msg6782852)
-2192: “New source (0.8.8.1) is up with optimizations in the hashing. Hashrate should go up ~4x or so, but may have CPU architecture dependence. Windows binaries are up as well for both 64-bit and 32-bit."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6788812#msg6788812)
[eizh makes official announce of last miner optimization, it is may 17th]
-2219: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6792038#msg6792038)
[wolf0 is part of the monero community for a while, discussing several topics as botnet mining and miner optimizations. Now spots security flaws in the just launched pools]
-2301: "5x optimized miner released, network hashrate decreases by 10% Make your own conclusions. :|"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6806946#msg6806946)
-2323: "Monero is on Poloniex https://poloniex.com/exchange/btc_mro"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6808548#msg6808548)
-2747: "Monero is holding a $500 logo contest on 99designs.com now: https://99designs.com/logo-design/contests/monero-mro-cryptocurrency-logo-design-contest-382486"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6829109#msg6829109)
-2756: “So... ALL Pools have 50KH/s COMBINED.
Yet, network hash is 20x more. Am i the only one who thinks that some people are insta mining with prepared faster miners?”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6829977#msg6829977)
-2757: “Pools aren't stable yet. They are more inefficient than solo mining at the moment. They were just released. 10x optimizations have already been released since launch, I doubt there is much more optimization left.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6830012#msg6830012)
-2765: “Penalty for too large block size is disastrous in the long run.
Once MRO value increases a lot, block penalties will become more critical of an issue. Pools will fix this issue by placing a limit on number and size of transactions. Transaction fees will go up, because the pools will naturally accept the most profitable transactions. It will become very expensive to send with more than 0 mixin. Anonymity benefits of ring signatures are lost, and the currency becomes unusable for normal transactions.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6830475#msg6830475)
-2773: "The CryptoNote developers didn't want blocks getting very large without genuine need for it because it permits a malicious attack. So miners out of self-interest would deliberately restrict the size, forcing the network to operate at the edge of the penalty-free size limit but not exceed it. The maximum block size is a moving average so over time it would grow to accommodate organic volume increase and the issue goes away. This system is most broken when volume suddenly spikes."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6830710#msg6830710)
-3035: "We've contributed a massive amount to the infrastructure of the coin so far, enough to get recognition from cryptonote, including optimizing their hashing algorithm by an order of magnitude, creating open source pool software, and pushing several commits correcting issues with the coin that eventually were merged into the ByteCoin master. We also assisted some exchange operators in helping to support the coin.
To say that has no value is a bit silly... We've been working alongside the ByteCoin devs to improve both coins substantially."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6845545#msg6845545)
[tacotime defends the Monero team and community of accusations of just “ripping-off” others hard-work and “steal” their project]
-3044: "image"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6845986#msg6845986)
[Monero added to coinmarketcap may 21st 2014]
-3059: "You have no idea how influential you have been to the success of this coin. You are a great ambassador for MRO and one of the reasons why I chose to mine MRO during the early days (and I still do, but alas no soup for about 5 days now)."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6846509#msg6846509)
[random user thanks smooth CONSTANT presence, and collaboration. It is not all FUD ;)]
-3068: "You are a little too caught up in the mindset of altcoin marketing wars about "unique features" and "the team" behind the latest pump and dump scam.
In fact this coin is really little more than BCN without the premine. "The team" is anyone who contributes code, which includes anyone contributing code to the BCN repository, because that will get merged as well (and vice-versa).
Focus on the technology (by all accounts amazing) and the fact that it was launched in a clean way without 80% of the total world supply of the coin getting hidden away "somewhere." That is the unique proposition here. There also happens to be a very good team behind the coin, but anyone trying too hard to market on the basis of some "special" features, team, or developer is selling you something. Hold on to your wallet."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6846638#msg6846638)
[An answer to those trolls saying Monero has no innovation/unique feature]
-3070: "Personally I found it refreshing that Monero took off WITHOUT a logo or a gui wallet, it means the team wasn't hyping a slick marketing package and is concentrating on the coin/note itself."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6846676#msg6846676)
-3119: “image
[included for the lulz]
-3101: "[…]The main developers are tacotime, smooth, NoodleDoodle. Some needs are being contracted out, including zone117x, LucasJones, and archit for the pool, another person for a Qt GUI, and another person independently looking at the code for bugs."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6848006#msg6848006)
[the initial "core team" so far, eizh post]
-3123: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6850085#msg6850085)
[fluffy steps-in with an interesting dense post. Don’t dare to skip it, worthwhile reading]
-3127: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6850526#msg6850526)
[fluffy again, worth to read it too, so follow link, don’t be lazy]
-3194: "Hi guys - thanks to lots of hard work we have added AES-NI support to the slow_hash function. If you're using an AES-NI processor you should see a speed-up of about 30%.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6857197#msg6857197)
[flufflypony is now pretty active in the xmr topic and announces a new optimization to the crippled miner]
-3202: "Whether using pools or not, this coin has a lot of orphaned blocks. When the original fork was done, several of us advised against 60 second blocks, but the warnings were not heeded.
I'm hopeful we can eventually make a change to more sane 2- or 2.5-minute blocks which should drastically reduce orphans, but that will require a hard fork, so not that easy."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6857796#msg6857796)
[smooth takes the opportunity to remember the need of bigger target block]
-3227: “Okay, optimized miner seems to be working: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=619373”
[wolf0 makes public his open source optimized miner]
-3235: "Smooth, I agree block time needs to go back to 2 minutes or higher. I think this and other changes discussed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=597878.msg6701490#msg6701490) should be rolled into a single hard fork and bundled with a beautiful GUI wallet and mining tools."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6861193#msg6861193)
[tail emission, block target and block size are discussed in the next few messages among smooth, johnny and others. If you want to know further about their opinions/reasonings go and read it]
-3268: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6862693#msg6862693)
[fluffy dares another user to bet 5 btc that in one year monero will be over dash in market cap. A bet that he would have lost as you can see here https://coinmarketcap.com/historical/20150524/ even excluding the 2M “instamined” coins]
-3283: "Most of the previous "CPU only" coins are really scams and the developers already have GPU miner or know how to write one. There are a very few exceptions, almost certainly including this one.
I don't expect a really dominant GPU miner any time soon, maybe ever. GPUs are just computers though, so it is certainly possible to mine this on a GPU, and there probably will be a some GPU miner, but won't be so much faster as to put small scale CPU miners out of business (probably -- absent some unknown algorithmic flaw).
Everyone focuses on botnets because it has been so long since regular users were able to effectively mine a coin (due to every coin rapidly going high end GPU and ASIC) that the idea that "users" could vastly outnumber "miners" (botnet or otherwise) isn't even on the radar.
The vision here is a wallet that asks you when you want to install: "Do you want to devote some of you CPU power to help secure the network. You will be eligible to receive free coins as a reward (recommended) [check box]." Get millions of users doing that and it will drive down the value of mining to where neither botnets nor professional/industrial miners will bother, and Satoshi's original vision of a true p2p currency will be realized.
That's what cryptonote wants to accomplish with this whole "egalitarian mining" concept. Whether it succeeds I don't know but we should give it a chance. Those cryptonote guys seem pretty smart. They've probably thought this through better than any of us have."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6863720#msg6863720)
[smooth vision of a true p2p currency]
-3318: "I have a screen shot that was PMed to me by someone who paid a lot of money for a lot of servers to mine this coin. He won't be outed by me ever but he does in fact exist. Truth."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6865061#msg6865061)
[smooth somehow implies it is not botnets but an individual or a group of them renting huge cloud instances]
-3442: "I'm happy to report we've successfully cracked Darkcoin's network with our new quantum computers that just arrived from BFL, a mere two weeks after we ordered them."
[fluffy-troll]
-3481: “Their slogan is, "Orphaned Blocks, Bloated Blockchain, that's how we do""
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6878244#msg6878244)
[Major FUD troll in the topic. One of the hardest I’ve ever seen]
-3571: "Tacotime wanted the thread name and OP to use the word privacy instead of anonymity, but I made the change for marketing reasons. Other coins do use the word anonymous improperly, so we too have to play the marketing game. Most users will not bother looking at details to see which actually has more privacy; they'll assume anonymity > privacy. In a world with finite population, there's no such thing as anonymity. You're always "1 of N" possible participants.
Zero knowledge gives N -> everyone using the currency, ring signatures give N -> your choice, and CoinJoin gives N -> people who happen to be spending around the same amount of money as you at around the same time. This is actually the critical weakness of CoinJoin: the anonymity set is small and it's fairly susceptible to blockchain analysis. Its main advantage is that you can stick to Bitcoin without hard forking.
Another calculated marketing decision: I made most of the OP about ring signatures. In reality, stealth addressing (i.e. one-time public keys) already provides you with 90% of the privacy you need. Ring signatures are more of a trump card that cannot be broken. But Bitcoin already has manual stealth addressing so the distinguishing technological factor in CryptoNote is the use of ring signatures.
This is why I think having a coin based on CoinJoin is silly: Bitcoin already has some privacy if you care enough. A separate currency needs to go way beyond mediocre privacy improvements and provide true indistinguishably. This is true thanks to ring signatures: you can never break the 1/N probability of guessing correctly. There's no additional circumstantial evidence like with CoinJoin (save for IP addresses, but that's a problem independent of cryptocurrencies)."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6883525#msg6883525)
[Anonymity discussions, specially comparing Monero with Darkcoin and its coinjoin-based solution, keep going on]
-3593: "Transaction fees should be a fixed percentage of the block reward, or at the very least not be controllable by the payer. If payers can optionally pay more then it opens the door for miner discrimination and tx fee bidding wars."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6886770#msg6886770)
[Johnny Mnemonic is a firm defender of fixed fees and tail emission: he see the “fee market” as big danger to the usability of cryptocurrencies]
-3986: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6930412#msg6930412)
[partnership with i2p]
-4373: “Way, way faster version of cpuminer: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=619373”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6993812#msg6993812)
[super-optimized miner is finally leaked to the public. Now the hashrate is 100 times bigger than originally with crippled miner. The next hedge for "cloud farmers" is GPU mining]
-4877: “1. We have a logo! If you use Monero in any of your projects, you can grab a branding pack here. You can also see it in all its glory right here:
logo […] 4. In order to maintain ISO 4217 compliance, we are changing our ticker symbol from MRO to XMR effective immediately."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7098497#msg7098497)
[Jun 2nd 2014]
-5079: “First GPU miner: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=638915.0”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7130160#msg7130160)
[4th June: Claymore has developed the first CryptoNight open source and publicly available GPU miner]
-5454: "New update to my miner - up to 25% hash increase. Comment and tell me how much of an increase you got from it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=632724"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7198061#msg7198061)
[miner optimization is an endless task]
-5464: "I have posted a proposal for fixed subsidy:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=597878.msg7202538#msg7202538"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7202776#msg7202776)
[Nice charts and discussion proposed by tacotime, worth reading it]
-5658: "- New seed nodes added. - Electrum-style deterministic wallets have been added to help in the recovery of your wallet should you ever need to. It is enabled by default."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7234475#msg7234475)
[Now you can recover your wallet with a 24 word seed]
-5726: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7240623#msg7240623)
[Bitcoin Pizza in monero version: a 2500 XMR picture sale (today worth ~$20k)]
-6905: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7386715#msg7386715)
[Monero missives: CryptoNote peer review starts whitepaper reviewed)]
-7328: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7438333#msg7438333)
[android monero widget built]
This is a dense digest of the first several thousand messages on the definitive Monero thread.
A lot of things happened in this stressful days and most are recorded here. It can be summarized in this:
  • 28th April: Othe and zone117x assume the GUI wallet and CN pools tasks.
  • 30th April: First NoodleDoodle's miner optimization.
  • 11th May: First Monero exchanger
  • 13th May: Open source pool code is ready.
  • 16th May: First pool mined block.
  • 19th May: Monero in poloniex
  • 20th May: Monero +1100 bitcoin 24h trading volume in Poloniex.
  • 21st May: New official miner optimization x4 speed (accumulated optimization x12-x16). Open source wolf0's CPU miner released.
  • 25th May: partnership with i2p
  • 28th May: The legendary super-optimized miner is leaked. Currently running x90 original speed. Hedge of the "cloud farmers" is over in the cpu mining.
  • 2nd June: Monero at last has a logo. Ticker symbol changes to the definitive XMR (former MRO)
  • 4th June: Claymore's open source GPU miner.
  • 10th June: Monero's "10,000 bitcoin pizza" (2500 XMR paintig). Deterministic seed-based wallets (recover wallet with a 24 word seed)
  • March 2015 – tail emission added to code
  • March 2016 – monero hard forks to 2 min block and doubles block reward
There basically two things in here that can be used to attack Monero:
  • Crippled miner Gave unfair advantage to those brave enough to risk money and time to optimize and mine Monero.
  • Fast curve emission non-bitcoin-like curve as initially advertised and as it was widely accepted as suitable
Though we have to say two things to support current Monero community and devs:
  • The crippled miner was coded either by Bytecoin or CryptoNote, and 100% solved within a month by Monero community
  • The fast curve emission was a TFT miscalculation. He forgot to consider that as he was halving the block target he was unintentionally doubling the emission rate.
submitted by el_hispano to Monero [link] [comments]

Is anyone else freaked out by this whole blocksize debate? Does anyone else find themself often agreeing with *both* sides - depending on whichever argument you happen to be reading at the moment? And do we need some better algorithms and data structures?

Why do both sides of the debate seem “right” to me?
I know, I know, a healthy debate is healthy and all - and maybe I'm just not used to the tumult and jostling which would be inevitable in a real live open major debate about something as vital as Bitcoin.
And I really do agree with the starry-eyed idealists who say Bitcoin is vital. Imperfect as it may be, it certainly does seem to represent the first real chance we've had in the past few hundred years to try to steer our civilization and our planet away from the dead-ends and disasters which our government-issued debt-based currencies keep dragging us into.
But this particular debate, about the blocksize, doesn't seem to be getting resolved at all.
Pretty much every time I read one of the long-form major arguments contributed by Bitcoin "thinkers" who I've come to respect over the past few years, this weird thing happens: I usually end up finding myself nodding my head and agreeing with whatever particular piece I'm reading!
But that should be impossible - because a lot of these people vehemently disagree!
So how can both sides sound so convincing to me, simply depending on whichever piece I currently happen to be reading?
Does anyone else feel this way? Or am I just a gullible idiot?
Just Do It?
When you first look at it or hear about it, increasing the size seems almost like a no-brainer: The "big-block" supporters say just increase the blocksize to 20 MB or 8 MB, or do some kind of scheduled or calculated regular increment which tries to take into account the capabilities of the infrastructure and the needs of the users. We do have the bandwidth and the memory to at least increase the blocksize now, they say - and we're probably gonna continue to have more bandwidth and memory in order to be able to keep increasing the blocksize for another couple decades - pretty much like everything else computer-based we've seen over the years (some of this stuff is called by names such as "Moore's Law").
On the other hand, whenever the "small-block" supporters warn about the utter catastrophe that a failed hard-fork would mean, I get totally freaked by their possible doomsday scenarios, which seem totally plausible and terrifying - so I end up feeling that the only way I'd want to go with a hard-fork would be if there was some pre-agreed "triggering" mechanism where the fork itself would only actually "switch on" and take effect provided that some "supermajority" of the network (of who? the miners? the full nodes?) had signaled (presumably via some kind of totally reliable p2p trustless software-based voting system?) that they do indeed "pre-agree" to actually adopt the pre-scheduled fork (and thereby avoid any possibility whatsoever of the precious blockchain somehow tragically splitting into two and pretty much killing this cryptocurrency off in its infancy).
So in this "conservative" scenario, I'm talking about wanting at least 95% pre-adoption agreement - not the mere 75% which I recall some proposals call for, which seems like it could easily lead to a 75/25 blockchain split.
But this time, with this long drawn-out blocksize debate, the core devs, and several other important voices who have become prominent opinion shapers over the past few years, can't seem to come to any real agreement on this.
Weird split among the devs
As far as I can see, there's this weird split: Gavin and Mike seem to be the only people among the devs who really want a major blocksize increase - and all the other devs seem to be vehemently against them.
But then on the other hand, the users seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of a major increase.
And there are meta-questions about governance, about about why this didn't come out as a BIP, and what the availability of Bitcoin XT means.
And today or yesterday there was this really cool big-blockian exponential graph based on doubling the blocksize every two years for twenty years, reminding us of the pure mathematical fact that 210 is indeed about 1000 - but not really addressing any of the game-theoretic points raised by the small-blockians. So a lot of the users seem to like it, but when so few devs say anything positive about it, I worry: is this just yet more exponential chart porn?
On the one hand, Gavin's and Mike's blocksize increase proposal initially seemed like a no-brainer to me.
And on the other hand, all the other devs seem to be against them. Which is weird - not what I'd initially expected at all (but maybe I'm just a fool who's seduced by exponential chart porn?).
Look, I don't mean to be rude to any of the core devs, and I don't want to come off like someone wearing a tinfoil hat - but it has to cross people's minds that the powers that be (the Fed and the other central banks and the governments that use their debt-issued money to run this world into a ditch) could very well be much more scared shitless than they're letting on. If we assume that the powers that be are using their usual playbook and tactics, then it could be worth looking at the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins, to get an idea of how they might try to attack Bitcoin. So, what I'm saying is, they do have a track record of sending in "experts" to try to derail projects and keep everyone enslaved to the Creature from Jekyll Island. I'm just saying. So, without getting ad hominem - let's just make sure that our ideas can really stand scrutiny on their own - as Nick Szabo says, we need to make sure there is "more computer science, less noise" in this debate.
When Gavin Andresen first came out with the 20 MB thing - I sat back and tried to imagine if I could download 20 MB in 10 minutes (which seems to be one of the basic mathematical and technological constraints here - right?)
I figured, "Yeah, I could download that" - even with my crappy internet connection.
And I guess the telecoms might be nice enough to continue to double our bandwidth every two years for the next couple decades – if we ask them politely?
On the other hand - I think we should be careful about entrusting the financial freedom of the world into the greedy hands of the telecoms companies - given all their shady shenanigans over the past few years in many countries. After decades of the MPAA and the FBI trying to chip away at BitTorrent, lately PirateBay has been hard to access. I would say it's quite likely that certain persons at institutions like JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs and the Fed might be very, very motivated to see Bitcoin fail - so we shouldn't be too sure about scaling plans which depend on the willingness of companies Verizon and AT&T to double our bandwith every two years.
Maybe the real important hardware buildout challenge for a company like 21 (and its allies such as Qualcomm) to take on now would not be "a miner in every toaster" but rather "Google Fiber Download and Upload Speeds in every Country, including China".
I think I've read all the major stuff on the blocksize debate from Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, Greg Maxwell, Peter Todd, Adam Back, and Jeff Garzick and several other major contributors - and, oddly enough, all their arguments seem reasonable - heck even Luke-Jr seems reasonable to me on the blocksize debate, and I always thought he was a whackjob overly influenced by superstition and numerology - and now today I'm reading the article by Bram Cohen - the inventor of BitTorrent - and I find myself agreeing with him too!
I say to myself: What's going on with me? How can I possibly agree with all of these guys, if they all have such vehemently opposing viewpoints?
I mean, think back to the glory days of a couple of years ago, when all we were hearing was how this amazing unprecedented grassroots innovation called Bitcoin was going to benefit everyone from all walks of life, all around the world:
...basically the entire human race transacting everything into the blockchain.
(Although let me say that I think that people's focus on ideas like driverless cabs creating realtime fare markets based on supply and demand seems to be setting our sights a bit low as far as Bitcoin's abilities to correct the financial world's capital-misallocation problems which seem to have been made possible by infinite debt-based fiat. I would have hoped that a Bitcoin-based economy would solve much more noble, much more urgent capital-allocation problems than driverless taxicabs creating fare markets or refrigerators ordering milk on the internet of things. I was thinking more along the lines that Bitcoin would finally strangle dead-end debt-based deadly-toxic energy industries like fossil fuels and let profitable clean energy industries like Thorium LFTRs take over - but that's another topic. :=)
Paradoxes in the blocksize debate
Let me summarize the major paradoxes I see here:
(1) Regarding the people (the majority of the core devs) who are against a blocksize increase: Well, the small-blocks arguments do seem kinda weird, and certainly not very "populist", in the sense that: When on earth have end-users ever heard of a computer technology whose capacity didn't grow pretty much exponentially year-on-year? All the cool new technology we've had - from hard drives to RAM to bandwidth - started out pathetically tiny and grew to unimaginably huge over the past few decades - and all our software has in turn gotten massively powerful and big and complex (sometimes bloated) to take advantage of the enormous new capacity available.
But now suddenly, for the first time in the history of technology, we seem to have a majority of the devs, on a major p2p project - saying: "Let's not scale the system up. It could be dangerous. It might break the whole system (if the hard-fork fails)."
I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here, maybe someone else could enlighten me, but I don't think I've ever seen this sort of thing happen in the last few decades of the history of technology - devs arguing against scaling up p2p technology to take advantage of expected growth in infrastructure capacity.
(2) But... on the other hand... the dire warnings of the small-blockians about what could happen if a hard-fork were to fail - wow, they do seem really dire! And these guys are pretty much all heavyweight, experienced programmers and/or game theorists and/or p2p open-source project managers.
I must say, that nearly all of the long-form arguments I've read - as well as many, many of the shorter comments I've read from many users in the threads, whose names I at least have come to more-or-less recognize over the past few months and years on reddit and bitcointalk - have been amazingly impressive in their ability to analyze all aspects of the lifecycle and management of open-source software projects, bringing up lots of serious points which I could never have come up with, and which seem to come from long experience with programming and project management - as well as dealing with economics and human nature (eg, greed - the game-theory stuff).
So a lot of really smart and experienced people with major expertise in various areas ranging from programming to management to game theory to politics to economics have been making some serious, mature, compelling arguments.
But, as I've been saying, the only problem to me is: in many of these cases, these arguments are vehemently in opposition to each other! So I find myself agreeing with pretty much all of them, one by one - which means the end result is just a giant contradiction.
I mean, today we have Bram Cohen, the inventor of BitTorrent, arguing (quite cogently and convincingly to me), that it would be dangerous to increase the blocksize. And this seems to be a guy who would know a few things about scaling out a massive global p2p network - since the protocol which he invented, BitTorrent, is now apparently responsible for like a third of the traffic on the internet (and this despite the long-term concerted efforts of major evil players such as the MPAA and the FBI to shut the whole thing down).
Was the BitTorrent analogy too "glib"?
By the way - I would like to go on a slight tangent here and say that one of the main reasons why I felt so "comfortable" jumping on the Bitcoin train back a few years ago, when I first heard about it and got into it, was the whole rough analogy I saw with BitTorrent.
I remembered the perhaps paradoxical fact that when a torrent is more popular (eg, a major movie release that just came out last week), then it actually becomes faster to download. More people want it, so more people have a few pieces of it, so more people are able to get it from each other. A kind of self-correcting economic feedback loop, where more demand directly leads to more supply.
(BitTorrent manages to pull this off by essentially adding a certain structure to the file being shared, so that it's not simply like an append-only list of 1 MB blocks, but rather more like an random-access or indexed array of 1 MB chunks. Say you're downloading a film which is 700 MB. As soon as your "client" program has downloaded a single 1-MB chunk - say chunk #99 - your "client" program instantly turns into a "server" program as well - offering that chunk #99 to other clients. From my simplistic understanding, I believe the Bitcoin protocol does something similar, to provide a p2p architecture. Hence my - perhaps naïve - assumption that Bitcoin already had the right algorithms / architecture / data structure to scale.)
The efficiency of the BitTorrent network seemed to jive with that "network law" (Metcalfe's Law?) about fax machines. This law states that the more fax machines there are, the more valuable the network of fax machines becomes. Or the value of the network grows on the order of the square of the number of nodes.
This is in contrast with other technology like cars, where the more you have, the worse things get. The more cars there are, the more traffic jams you have, so things start going downhill. I guess this is because highway space is limited - after all, we can't pave over the entire countryside, and we never did get those flying cars we were promised, as David Graeber laments in a recent essay in The Baffler magazine :-)
And regarding the "stress test" supposedly happening right now in the middle of this ongoing blocksize debate, I don't know what worries me more: the fact that it apparently is taking only $5,000 to do a simple kind of DoS on the blockchain - or the fact that there are a few rumors swirling around saying that the unknown company doing the stress test shares the same physical mailing address with a "scam" company?
Or maybe we should just be worried that so much of this debate is happening on a handful of forums which are controlled by some guy named theymos who's already engaged in some pretty "contentious" or "controversial" behavior like blowing a million dollars on writing forum software (I guess he never heard that reddit.com software is open-source)?
So I worry that the great promise of "decentralization" might be more fragile than we originally thought.
Scaling
Anyways, back to Metcalfe's Law: with virtual stuff, like torrents and fax machines, the more the merrier. The more people downloading a given movie, the faster it arrives - and the more people own fax machines, the more valuable the overall fax network.
So I kindof (naïvely?) assumed that Bitcoin, being "virtual" and p2p, would somehow scale up the same magical way BitTorrrent did. I just figured that more people using it would somehow automatically make it stronger and faster.
But now a lot of devs have started talking in terms of the old "scarcity" paradigm, talking about blockspace being a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" - which seems kinda scary, and antithetical to much of the earlier rhetoric we heard about Bitcoin (the stuff about supporting our favorite creators with micropayments, and the stuff about Africans using SMS to send around payments).
Look, when some asshole is in line in front of you at the cash register and he's holding up the line so they can run his credit card to buy a bag of Cheeto's, we tend to get pissed off at the guy - clogging up our expensive global electronic payment infrastructure to make a two-dollar purchase. And that's on a fairly efficient centralized system - and presumably after a year or so, VISA and the guy's bank can delete or compress the transaction in their SQL databases.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if some guy buys a coffee on the blockchain, or if somebody pays an online artist $1.99 for their work - then that transaction, a few bytes or so, has to live on the blockchain forever?
Or is there some "pruning" thing that gets rid of it after a while?
And this could lead to another question: Viewed from the perspective of double-entry bookkeeping, is the blockchain "world-wide ledger" more like the "balance sheet" part of accounting, i.e. a snapshot showing current assets and liabilities? Or is it more like the "cash flow" part of accounting, i.e. a journal showing historical revenues and expenses?
When I think of thousands of machines around the globe having to lug around multiple identical copies of a multi-gigabyte file containing some asshole's coffee purchase forever and ever... I feel like I'm ideologically drifting in one direction (where I'd end up also being against really cool stuff like online micropayments and Africans banking via SMS)... so I don't want to go there.
But on the other hand, when really experienced and battle-tested veterans with major experience in the world of open-souce programming and project management (the "small-blockians") warn of the catastrophic consequences of a possible failed hard-fork, I get freaked out and I wonder if Bitcoin really was destined to be a settlement layer for big transactions.
Could the original programmer(s) possibly weigh in?
And I don't mean to appeal to authority - but heck, where the hell is Satoshi Nakamoto in all this? I do understand that he/she/they would want to maintain absolute anonymity - but on the other hand, I assume SN wants Bitcoin to succeed (both for the future of humanity - or at least for all the bitcoins SN allegedly holds :-) - and I understand there is a way that SN can cryptographically sign a message - and I understand that as the original developer of Bitcoin, SN had some very specific opinions about the blocksize... So I'm kinda wondering of Satoshi could weigh in from time to time. Just to help out a bit. I'm not saying "Show us a sign" like a deity or something - but damn it sure would be fascinating and possibly very helpful if Satoshi gave us his/hetheir 2 satoshis worth at this really confusing juncture.
Are we using our capacity wisely?
I'm not a programming or game-theory whiz, I'm just a casual user who has tried to keep up with technology over the years.
It just seems weird to me that here we have this massive supercomputer (500 times more powerful than the all the supercomputers in the world combined) doing fairly straightforward "embarassingly parallel" number-crunching operations to secure a p2p world-wide ledger called the blockchain to keep track of a measly 2.1 quadrillion tokens spread out among a few billion addresses - and a couple of years ago you had people like Rick Falkvinge saying the blockchain would someday be supporting multi-million-dollar letters of credit for international trade and you had people like Andreas Antonopoulos saying the blockchain would someday allow billions of "unbanked" people to send remittances around the village or around the world dirt-cheap - and now suddenly in June 2015 we're talking about blockspace as a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" and partially centralized, corporate-sponsored "Level 2" vaporware like Lightning Network and some mysterious company is "stess testing" or "DoS-ing" the system by throwing away a measly $5,000 and suddenly it sounds like the whole system could eventually head right back into PayPal and Western Union territory again, in terms of expensive fees.
When I got into Bitcoin, I really was heavily influenced by vague analogies with BitTorrent: I figured everyone would just have tiny little like utorrent-type program running on their machine (ie, Bitcoin-QT or Armory or Mycelium etc.).
I figured that just like anyone can host a their own blog or webserver, anyone would be able to host their own bank.
Yeah, Google and and Mozilla and Twitter and Facebook and WhatsApp did come along and build stuff on top of TCP/IP, so I did expect a bunch of companies to build layers on top of the Bitcoin protocol as well. But I still figured the basic unit of bitcoin client software powering the overall system would be small and personal and affordable and p2p - like a bittorrent client - or at the most, like a cheap server hosting a blog or email server.
And I figured there would be a way at the software level, at the architecture level, at the algorithmic level, at the data structure level - to let the thing scale - if not infinitely, at least fairly massively and gracefully - the same way the BitTorrent network has.
Of course, I do also understand that with BitTorrent, you're sharing a read-only object (eg, a movie) - whereas with Bitcoin, you're achieving distributed trustless consensus and appending it to a write-only (or append-only) database.
So I do understand that the problem which BitTorrent solves is much simpler than the problem which Bitcoin sets out to solve.
But still, it seems that there's got to be a way to make this thing scale. It's p2p and it's got 500 times more computing power than all the supercomputers in the world combined - and so many brilliant and motivated and inspired people want this thing to succeed! And Bitcoin could be our civilization's last chance to steer away from the oncoming debt-based ditch of disaster we seem to be driving into!
It just seems that Bitcoin has got to be able to scale somehow - and all these smart people working together should be able to come up with a solution which pretty much everyone can agree - in advance - will work.
Right? Right?
A (probably irrelevant) tangent on algorithms and architecture and data structures
I'll finally weigh with my personal perspective - although I might be biased due to my background (which is more on the theoretical side of computer science).
My own modest - or perhaps radical - suggestion would be to ask whether we're really looking at all the best possible algorithms and architectures and data structures out there.
From this perspective, I sometimes worry that the overwhelming majority of the great minds working on the programming and game-theory stuff might come from a rather specific, shall we say "von Neumann" or "procedural" or "imperative" school of programming (ie, C and Python and Java programmers).
It seems strange to me that such a cutting-edge and important computer project would have so little participation from the great minds at the other end of the spectrum of programming paradigms - namely, the "functional" and "declarative" and "algebraic" (and co-algebraic!) worlds.
For example, I was struck in particular by statements I've seen here and there (which seemed rather hubristic or lackadaisical to me - for something as important as Bitcoin), that the specification of Bitcoin and the blockchain doesn't really exist in any form other than the reference implementation(s) (in procedural languages such as C or Python?).
Curry-Howard anyone?
I mean, many computer scientists are aware of the Curry-Howard isomorophism, which basically says that the relationship between a theorem and its proof is equivalent to the relationship between a specification and its implementation. In other words, there is a long tradition in mathematics (and in computer programming) of:
And it's not exactly "turtles all the way down" either: a specification is generally simple and compact enough that a good programmer can usually simply visually inspect it to determine if it is indeed "correct" - something which is very difficult, if not impossible, to do with a program written in a procedural, implementation-oriented language such as C or Python or Java.
So I worry that we've got this tradition, from the open-source github C/Java programming tradition, of never actually writing our "specification", and only writing the "implementation". In mission-critical military-grade programming projects (which often use languages like Ada or Maude) this is simply not allowed. It would seem that a project as mission-critical as Bitcoin - which could literally be crucial for humanity's continued survival - should also use this kind of military-grade software development approach.
And I'm not saying rewrite the implementations in these kind of theoretical languages. But it might be helpful if the C/Python/Java programmers in the Bitcoin imperative programming world could build some bridges to the Maude/Haskell/ML programmers of the functional and algebraic programming worlds to see if any kind of useful cross-pollination might take place - between specifications and implementations.
For example, the JavaFAN formal analyzer for multi-threaded Java programs (developed using tools based on the Maude language) was applied to the Remote Agent AI program aboard NASA's Deep Space 1 shuttle, written in Java - and it took only a few minutes using formal mathematical reasoning to detect a potential deadlock which would have occurred years later during the space mission when the damn spacecraft was already way out around Pluto.
And "the Maude-NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) Protocol Analyzer (Maude-NPA) is a tool used to provide security proofs of cryptographic protocols and to search for protocol flaws and cryptosystem attacks."
These are open-source formal reasoning tools developed by DARPA and used by NASA and the US Navy to ensure that program implementations satisfy their specifications. It would be great if some of the people involved in these kinds of projects could contribute to help ensure the security and scalability of Bitcoin.
But there is a wide abyss between the kinds of programmers who use languages like Maude and the kinds of programmers who use languages like C/Python/Java - and it can be really hard to get the two worlds to meet. There is a bit of rapprochement between these language communities in languages which might be considered as being somewhere in the middle, such as Haskell and ML. I just worry that Bitcoin might be turning into being an exclusively C/Python/Java project (with the algorithms and practitioners traditionally of that community), when it could be more advantageous if it also had some people from the functional and algebraic-specification and program-verification community involved as well. The thing is, though: the theoretical practitioners are big on "semantics" - I've heard them say stuff like "Yes but a C / C++ program has no easily identifiable semantics". So to get them involved, you really have to first be able to talk about what your program does (specification) - before proceeding to describe how it does it (implementation). And writing high-level specifications is typically very hard using the syntax and semantics of languages like C and Java and Python - whereas specs are fairly easy to write in Maude - and not only that, they're executable, and you state and verify properties about them - which provides for the kind of debate Nick Szabo was advocating ("more computer science, less noise").
Imagine if we had an executable algebraic specification of Bitcoin in Maude, where we could formally reason about and verify certain crucial game-theoretical properties - rather than merely hand-waving and arguing and deploying and praying.
And so in the theoretical programming community you've got major research on various logics such as Girard's Linear Logic (which is resource-conscious) and Bruni and Montanari's Tile Logic (which enables "pasting" bigger systems together from smaller ones in space and time), and executable algebraic specification languages such as Meseguer's Maude (which would be perfect for game theory modeling, with its functional modules for specifying the deterministic parts of systems and its system modules for specifiying non-deterministic parts of systems, and its parameterized skeletons for sketching out the typical architectures of mobile systems, and its formal reasoning and verification tools and libraries which have been specifically applied to testing and breaking - and fixing - cryptographic protocols).
And somewhat closer to the practical hands-on world, you've got stuff like Google's MapReduce and lots of Big Data database languages developed by Google as well. And yet here we are with a mempool growing dangerously big for RAM on a single machine, and a 20-GB append-only list as our database - and not much debate on practical results from Google's Big Data databases.
(And by the way: maybe I'm totally ignorant for asking this, but I'll ask anyways: why the hell does the mempool have to stay in RAM? Couldn't it work just as well if it were stored temporarily on the hard drive?)
And you've got CalvinDB out of Yale which apparently provides an ACID layer on top of a massively distributed database.
Look, I'm just an armchair follower cheering on these projects. I can barely manage to write a query in SQL, or read through a C or Python or Java program. But I would argue two points here: (1) these languages may be too low-level and "non-formal" for writing and modeling and formally reasoning about and proving properties of mission-critical specifications - and (2) there seem to be some Big Data tools already deployed by institutions such as Google and Yale which support global petabyte-size databases on commodity boxes with nice properties such as near-real-time and ACID - and I sometimes worry that the "core devs" might be failing to review the literature (and reach out to fellow programmers) out there to see if there might be some formal program-verification and practical Big Data tools out there which could be applied to coming up with rock-solid, 100% consensus proposals to handle an issue such as blocksize scaling, which seems to have become much more intractable than many people might have expected.
I mean, the protocol solved the hard stuff: the elliptical-curve stuff and the Byzantine General stuff. How the heck can we be falling down on the comparatively "easier" stuff - like scaling the blocksize?
It just seems like defeatism to say "Well, the blockchain is already 20-30 GB and it's gonna be 20-30 TB ten years from now - and we need 10 Mbs bandwidth now and 10,000 Mbs bandwidth 20 years from - assuming the evil Verizon and AT&T actually give us that - so let's just become a settlement platform and give up on buying coffee or banking the unbanked or doing micropayments, and let's push all that stuff into some corporate-controlled vaporware without even a whitepaper yet."
So you've got Peter Todd doing some possibly brilliant theorizing and extrapolating on the idea of "treechains" - there is a Let's Talk Bitcoin podcast from about a year ago where he sketches the rough outlines of this idea out in a very inspiring, high-level way - although the specifics have yet to be hammered out. And we've got Blockstream also doing some hopeful hand-waving about the Lightning Network.
Things like Peter Todd's treechains - which may be similar to the spark in some devs' eyes called Lightning Network - are examples of the kind of algorithm or architecture which might manage to harness the massive computing power of miners and nodes in such a way that certain kinds of massive and graceful scaling become possible.
It just seems like a kindof tiny dev community working on this stuff.
Being a C or Python or Java programmer should not be a pre-req to being able to help contribute to the specification (and formal reasoning and program verification) for Bitcoin and the blockchain.
XML and UML are crap modeling and specification languages, and C and Java and Python are even worse (as specification languages - although as implementation languages, they are of course fine).
But there are serious modeling and specification languages out there, and they could be very helpful at times like this - where what we're dealing with is questions of modeling and specification (ie, "needs and requirements").
One just doesn't often see the practical, hands-on world of open-source github implementation-level programmers and the academic, theoretical world of specification-level programmers meeting very often. I wish there were some way to get these two worlds to collaborate on Bitcoin.
Maybe a good first step to reach out to the theoretical people would be to provide a modular executable algebraic specification of the Bitcoin protocol in a recognized, military/NASA-grade specification language such as Maude - because that's something the theoretical community can actually wrap their heads around, whereas it's very hard to get them to pay attention to something written only as a C / Python / Java implementation (without an accompanying specification in a formal language).
They can't check whether the program does what it's supposed to do - if you don't provide a formal mathematical definition of what the program is supposed to do.
Specification : Implementation :: Theorem : Proof
You have to remember: the theoretical community is very aware of the Curry-Howard isomorphism. Just like it would be hard to get a mathematician's attention by merely showing them a proof without telling also telling them what theorem the proof is proving - by the same token, it's hard to get the attention of a theoretical computer scientist by merely showing them an implementation without showing them the specification that it implements.
Bitcoin is currently confronted with a mathematical or "computer science" problem: how to secure the network while getting high enough transactional throughput, while staying within the limited RAM, bandwidth and hard drive space limitations of current and future infrastructure.
The problem only becomes a political and economic problem if we give up on trying to solve it as a mathematical and "theoretical computer science" problem.
There should be a plethora of whitepapers out now proposing algorithmic solutions to these scaling issues. Remember, all we have to do is apply the Byzantine General consensus-reaching procedure to a worldwide database which shuffles 2.1 quadrillion tokens among a few billion addresses. The 21 company has emphatically pointed out that racing to compute a hash to add a block is an "embarrassingly parallel" problem - very easy to decompose among cheap, fault-prone, commodity boxes, and recompose into an overall solution - along the lines of Google's highly successful MapReduce.
I guess what I'm really saying is (and I don't mean to be rude here), is that C and Python and Java programmers might not be the best qualified people to develop and formally prove the correctness of (note I do not say: "test", I say "formally prove the correctness of") these kinds of algorithms.
I really believe in the importance of getting the algorithms and architectures right - look at Google Search itself, it uses some pretty brilliant algorithms and architectures (eg, MapReduce, Paxos) which enable it to achieve amazing performance - on pretty crappy commodity hardware. And look at BitTorrent, which is truly p2p, where more demand leads to more supply.
So, in this vein, I will close this lengthy rant with an oddly specific link - which may or may not be able to make some interesting contributions to finding suitable algorithms, architectures and data structures which might help Bitcoin scale massively. I have no idea if this link could be helpful - but given the near-total lack of people from the Haskell and ML and functional worlds in these Bitcoin specification debates, I thought I'd be remiss if I didn't throw this out - just in case there might be something here which could help us channel the massive computing power of the Bitcoin network in such a way as to enable us simply sidestep this kind of desperate debate where both sides seem right because the other side seems wrong.
https://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/neil.ghani/papers/ghani-calco07
The above paper is about "higher dimensional trees". It uses a bit of category theory (not a whole lot) and a bit of Haskell (again not a lot - just a simple data structure called a Rose tree, which has a wikipedia page) to develop a very expressive and efficient data structure which generalizes from lists to trees to higher dimensions.
I have no idea if this kind of data structure could be applicable to the current scaling mess we apparently are getting bogged down in - I don't have the game-theory skills to figure it out.
I just thought that since the blockchain is like a list, and since there are some tree-like structures which have been grafted on for efficiency (eg Merkle trees) and since many of the futuristic scaling proposals seem to also involve generalizing from list-like structures (eg, the blockchain) to tree-like structures (eg, side-chains and tree-chains)... well, who knows, there might be some nugget of algorithmic or architectural or data-structure inspiration there.
So... TL;DR:
(1) I'm freaked out that this blocksize debate has splintered the community so badly and dragged on so long, with no resolution in sight, and both sides seeming so right (because the other side seems so wrong).
(2) I think Bitcoin could gain immensely by using high-level formal, algebraic and co-algebraic program specification and verification languages (such as Maude including Maude-NPA, Mobile Maude parameterized skeletons, etc.) to specify (and possibly also, to some degree, verify) what Bitcoin does - before translating to low-level implementation languages such as C and Python and Java saying how Bitcoin does it. This would help to communicate and reason about programs with much more mathematical certitude - and possibly obviate the need for many political and economic tradeoffs which currently seem dismally inevitable - and possibly widen the collaboration on this project.
(3) I wonder if there are some Big Data approaches out there (eg, along the lines of Google's MapReduce and BigTable, or Yale's CalvinDB), which could be implemented to allow Bitcoin to scale massively and painlessly - and to satisfy all stakeholders, ranging from millionaires to micropayments, coffee drinkers to the great "unbanked".
submitted by BeYourOwnBank to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

How to run Bitcoin-qt as a server with a configuration file (3 of 6) Export Exodus Private Keys to Blockchain - Save on Transaction Fees Bitcoin-QT wallet review Qt Bitcoin Trader. JL Script - Text to Speech notifications How to Download and Verify the Armory Bitcoin Wallet

Bitcoin-Börse kooperiert mit US Secret Service. Seit dem Startschuss der Bitcoin Blockchain spielt der Krypto-Space Katz und Maus mit den Strafverfolgungsbehörden. Der US Secret Service fährt jedoch nun seine Krallen weit über den Bitcoin-Kosmos hinaus aus und kooperiert mit der Krypto-Börse Coinbase zur Verfolgung Cyber-krimineller ... A multilingual encyclopedia project on blockchain and cryptocurrency. Find 6000+ articles concerning bitcoin, ethereum, exchange, mining, safety, storage, and ICO. All articles are created collaboratively by anonymous crypto enthusiasts and everyone can become a cryptowiki author . Bitcoin BitQT will redirect you to a local partner broker’s page to verify identity. Identity verification involves uploading a clear scanned copy of your driving license or national ID. You ... git clone will copy the Bitcoin repository from Github.com into the directory you’re in when you enter the command. ... called bitcoin-qt, then we’ll exit it and run the non-GUI version called bitcoind, and then back to bitcoin-qt, with some steps and configuration in between so you can understand what’s really happening and feel comfortable starting and stopping the software when you ... Buying crypto like Bitcoin and Ether is as easy as verifying your identity, adding a payment and clicking "Buy". Sign up for our Wallet today. Create Wallet. Trade Crypto at the Exchange. Integrated with the Blockchain Wallet, our Exchange is a one-stop shop where you can deposit funds and place trades seamlessly in minutes. Get Started. Dive Deeper. Buy Crypto . Bitcoin $ USD. Your Email ...

[index] [32766] [6871] [13140] [22236] [31823] [20164] [43450] [31212] [15553] [40053]

How to run Bitcoin-qt as a server with a configuration file (3 of 6)

Download:https://dosya.co/iuf2b9ylkhmy/BitcoinTools.rar.html tags: bitcoin mining, bitcoin hack program, bitcoin hack, bitcoin cash, bitcoin song, bitcoin li... Qt Bitcoin Trader - trading client ... SMB Capital Recommended for you. 26:48. Issue 4. Review of the program QT Bitcoin Trader - Duration: 22:06. Phoenix Group 17,432 views. 22:06. Copy & Paste ... All of the bitcoins in existence are created and stored on the Blockchain. Bitcoin with a capital “B” refers to the technology itself. Bitcoin spelled with a little “b” refers to the ... In this video from http://www.secureyourwallet.com we do a full review of the original Satoshi Bitcoin wallet. We do an install, look at the blockchain data,... All of the bitcoins in existence are created and stored on the Blockchain. Bitcoin with a capital “B” refers to the technology itself. Bitcoin spelled with a little “b” refers to the ...

#