Mining Difficulty and Network Hashrate Explained - Crypto ...
Mining Difficulty and Network Hashrate Explained - Crypto ...
BitcoinGold Difficulty Chart CoinWarz
Bitcoin Difficulty. All about cryptocurrency - BitcoinWiki
Bitcoin Difficulty Chart CoinWarz
Explaining Hashrate and Mining Difficulty: Fundamentals of ...
[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Difficulty vs. Hashrate
The following post by runshitlikeamarathon is being replicated because the post has been silently greylisted. The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link: np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7ypv6s The original post's content was as follows:
From now on Bitcoin Core's 1Mb limit shall be known as "The 1.7 kBps block limit, plus whatever SegWit provides based on it's haphazard adoption; to a max of ~1.2 kBps which currently provides an extra ~0.083 kBps, multiplied/divided by the current hashrate vs the current difficulty"
That makes the ridiculous nature of the current hard limit much more apparent. Maybe it's a bit long though.
From now on Bitcoin Core's 1Mb limit shall be known as "The 1.7 kBps block limit, plus whatever SegWit provides based on it's haphazard adoption; to a max of ~1.2 kBps which currently provides an extra ~0.083 kBps, multiplied/divided by the current hashrate vs the current difficulty" /r/btc
New England New England 6 States Songs: https://www.reddit.com/newengland/comments/er8wxd/new_england_6_states_songs/ NewEnglandcoin Symbol: NENG NewEnglandcoin is a clone of Bitcoin using scrypt as a proof-of-work algorithm with enhanced features to protect against 51% attack and decentralize on mining to allow diversified mining rigs across CPUs, GPUs, ASICs and Android phones. Mining Algorithm: Scrypt with RandomSpike. RandomSpike is 3rd generation of Dynamic Difficulty (DynDiff) algorithm on top of scrypt. 1 minute block targets base difficulty reset: every 1440 blocks subsidy halves in 2.1m blocks (~ 2 to 4 years) 84,000,000,000 total maximum NENG 20000 NENG per block Pre-mine: 1% - reserved for dev fund ICO: None RPCPort: 6376 Port: 6377 NewEnglandcoin has dogecoin like supply at 84 billion maximum NENG. This huge supply insures that NENG is suitable for retail transactions and daily use. The inflation schedule of NengEnglandcoin is actually identical to that of Litecoin. Bitcoin and Litecoin are already proven to be great long term store of value. The Litecoin-like NENG inflation schedule will make NewEnglandcoin ideal for long term investment appreciation as the supply is limited and capped at a fixed number Bitcoin Fork - Suitable for Home Hobbyists NewEnglandcoin core wallet continues to maintain version tag of "Satoshi v0.8.7.5" because NewEnglandcoin is very much an exact clone of bitcoin plus some mining feature changes with DynDiff algorithm. NewEnglandcoin is very suitable as lite version of bitcoin for educational purpose on desktop mining, full node running and bitcoin programming using bitcoin-json APIs. The NewEnglandcoin (NENG) mining algorithm original upgrade ideas were mainly designed for decentralization of mining rigs on scrypt, which is same algo as litecoin/dogecoin. The way it is going now is that NENG is very suitable for bitcoin/litecoin/dogecoin hobbyists who can not , will not spend huge money to run noisy ASIC/GPU mining equipments, but still want to mine NENG at home with quiet simple CPU/GPU or with a cheap ASIC like FutureBit Moonlander 2 USB or Apollo pod on solo mining setup to obtain very decent profitable results. NENG allows bitcoin litecoin hobbyists to experience full node running, solo mining, CPU/GPU/ASIC for a fun experience at home at cheap cost without breaking bank on equipment or electricity. MIT Free Course - 23 lectures about Bitcoin, Blockchain and Finance (Fall,2018) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP63UUkfL0onkxF6MYgVa04Fn CPU Minable Coin Because of dynamic difficulty algorithm on top of scrypt, NewEnglandcoin is CPU Minable. Users can easily set up full node for mining at Home PC or Mac using our dedicated cheetah software. Research on the first forked 50 blocks on v1.2.0 core confirmed that ASIC/GPU miners mined 66% of 50 blocks, CPU miners mined the remaining 34%. NENG v1.4.0 release enabled CPU mining inside android phones. Youtube Video Tutorial How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in Windows 10 Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdOoPvAjzlE How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in Windows 10 Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHnRJvJRzZg How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in macOS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj7NLMeNSOQ Decentralization and Community Driven NewEnglandcoin is a decentralized coin just like bitcoin. There is no boss on NewEnglandcoin. Nobody nor the dev owns NENG. We know a coin is worth nothing if there is no backing from community. Therefore, we as dev do not intend to make decision on this coin solely by ourselves. It is our expectation that NewEnglandcoin community will make majority of decisions on direction of this coin from now on. We as dev merely view our-self as coin creater and technical support of this coin while providing NENG a permanent home at ShorelineCrypto Exchange. Twitter Airdrop Follow NENG twitter and receive 100,000 NENG on Twitter Airdrop to up to 1000 winners Graphic Redesign Bounty Top one award: 90.9 million NENG Top 10 Winners: 500,000 NENG / person Event Timing: March 25, 2019 - Present Event Address: NewEnglandcoin DISCORD at: https://discord.gg/UPeBwgs Please complete above Twitter Bounty requirement first. Then follow Below Steps to qualify for the Bounty: (1) Required: submit your own designed NENG logo picture in gif, png jpg or any other common graphic file format into DISCORD "bounty-submission" board (2) Optional: submit a second graphic for logo or any other marketing purposes into "bounty-submission" board. (3) Complete below form. Please limit your submission to no more than two total. Delete any wrongly submitted or undesired graphics in the board. Contact DISCORD u/honglu69#5911 or u/krypton#6139 if you have any issues. Twitter Airdrop/Graphic Redesign bounty sign up: https://goo.gl/forms/L0vcwmVi8c76cR7m1 Milestones
Sep 3, 2018 - Genesis block was mined, NewEnglandcoin created
Sep 8, 2018 - github source uploaded, Window wallet development work started
Sep 11,2018 - Window Qt Graphic wallet completed
Sep 12,2018 - NewEnglandcoin Launched in both Bitcointalk forum and Marinecoin forum
Sep 14,2018 - NewEnglandcoin is listed at ShorelineCrypto Exchange
Sep 17,2018 - Block Explorer is up
Nov 23,2018 - New Source/Wallet Release v1.1.1 - Enabled Dynamic Addjustment on Mining Hashing Difficulty
Nov 28,2018 - NewEnglandcoin became CPU minable coin
Nov 30,2018 - First Retail Real Life usage for NewEnglandcoin Announced
Dec 28,2018 - Cheetah_Cpuminer under Linux is released
Dec 31,2018 - NENG Technical Whitepaper is released
Jan 2,2019 - Cheetah_Cpuminer under Windows is released
Jan 12,2019 - NENG v1.1.2 is released to support MacOS GUI CLI Wallet
Jan 13,2019 - Cheetah_CpuMiner under Mac is released
Feb 11,2019 - NewEnglandcoin v1.2.0 Released, Anti-51% Attack, Anti-instant Mining after Hard Fork
Mar 16,2019 - NewEnglandcoin v184.108.40.206 Released - Ubuntu 18.04 Wallet Binary Files
Apr 7, 2019 - NENG Report on Security, Decentralization, Valuation
Apr 21, 2019 - NENG Fiat Project is Launched by ShorelineCrypto
Sep 1, 2019 - Shoreline Tradingbot project is Launched by ShorelineCrypto
Dec 19, 2019 - Shoreline Tradingbot v1.0 is Released by ShorelineCrypto
Jan 30, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG v1.3.0 Hardfork Proposed
Feb 24, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG core v1.3.0 Released
Jun 19, 2020 - Linux scripts for Futurebit Moonlander2 USB ASIC on solo mining Released
Jul 15, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0 Released for Android Mining and Ubuntu 20.04 support
Jul 21, 2020 - NENG v220.127.116.11 Released for MacOS Wallet Upgrade with Catalina
Jul 30, 2020 - NENG v18.104.22.168 Released for Linux Wallet Upgrade with 8 Distros
Aug 11, 2020 - NENG v22.214.171.124 Released for Android arm64 Upgrade, Chromebook Support
Aug 30, 2020 - NENG v126.96.36.199 Released for Android/Chromebook with armhf, better hardware support
2018 Q3 - Birth of NewEnglandcoin, window/linux wallet - Done
2018 Q4 - Decentralization Phase I
Blockchain Upgrade - Dynamic hashing algorithm I - Done
Cheetah Version I- CPU Mining Automation Tool on Linux - Done
2019 Q1 - Decentralization Phase II
Cheetah Version II- CPU Mining Automation Tool on Window/Linux - Done
Blockchain Upgrade Dynamic hashing algorithm II - Done
2019 Q2 - Fiat Phase I
Assessment of Risk of 51% Attack on NENG - done
Launch of Fiat USD/NENG offering for U.S. residents - done
Initiation of Mobile Miner Project - Done
2019 Q3 - Shoreline Tradingbot, Mobile Project
Evaluation and planning of Mobile Miner Project - on Hold
Initiation of Trading Bot Project - Done
2019 Q4 - Shoreline Tradingbot
Shoreline tradingbot Release v1.0 - Done
2020 Q1 - Evaluate NENG core, Mobile Wallet Phase I
NENG core Decentralization Security Evaluation for v1.3.x - Done
Light Mobile Wallet Project Initiation, Evaluation
2020 Q2 - NENG Core, Mobile Wallet Phase II
NENG core Decentralization Security Hardfork on v1.3.x - Scrypt RandomSpike
Light Mobile Wallet Project Design, Coding
2020 Q3 - NENG core, NENG Mobile Wallet Phase II
Review on results of v1.3.x, NENG core Dev Decision on v1.4.x, Hardfork If needed
Light Mobile Wallet Project testing, alpha Release
2020 Q4 - Mobile Wallet Phase III
Light Mobile Wallet Project Beta Release
Light Mobile Wallet Server Deployment Evaluation and Decision
the year 2020 in Bitcoin Cash so far: a detailed history
the year 2020 in Bitcoin Cash so far: a detailed history What follows at the bottom is a four page long chronological overview of what happened in BCH in 2020 so far. To make it more digestable and fun to read I start with my narrating of the story. My attempt was to remain as objective as possible and "let the facts speak for themselve" with everything sourced. I also link to manyread.casharticles, the decision of which are the important ones to include is certainly not easy, I count on the rest of the community if I overlooked anything important. summary & my narrating of the story: The year started out relatively calm, with cashfusion in "the news" and an older ongoing controversy between Amaury and Roger Ver being worked out. Starting Jan 22nd all debate broke loose with the announcement of “Infrastructure Funding Plan for Bitcoin Cash” by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP. To illustrate this point 2 days later coinspice ran the title " Roger Ver Praises Vigorous Debate, [...]" and 6 days, less than a week, later Chris Pacia made a read.cash post titled "The 253rd "Thoughts on developer funding" Article" which might have been only a slight exaggeration or he might have been counting. Part of the reason of the tsunami was the lack of worked out details. By the time of Pacia's post a lot had changed: Both BU, Bitcoin Verde and a group of miners had made announcements not to go along with "the plan". On feb 1st, the second version of the IFP was announced by Jiang Zhuoer in a post “BCH miner donation plan update”. Two weeks later on Feb 15th, the third iteration was announced by Bitcoin ABC which was to be activated by hashrate voting and on the same day Flipstarter was introduced, a sign of the search for alternative solutions. After a few more days and a few more people coming out more against the IFP (including Jonald Fyookball, Mark Lundeberg & Josh Ellithorpe), BCHN was announced on feb 20th with a formal release a week later. Also feb 27th, the DAA was brought back into the conversation by Jonathan Toomim with his " The BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm is broken. Here's how to fix it." video. By early march the IFP was effectively dead with its author Jiang Zhuoer vowing to vote against it. This became clear to everyone when ABC, a day later sudddenly shifted gears towards non-protocol, donation based funding: the IFP was dead. End march ABCs 2020 Business Plan was announced as a way to raise $3.3 million. Mid april to mid may was the high time for voluntary funding with four node implementations and General Protocols, a BCH DeFi Startup successfully raising funds. By May 15th, the 6th HF network upgrade things had pretty much cooled down. The upgraded included nothing controversial and even saw an unexpected doubling in the unconfirmed transaction chain. June 15th a month later things started to heat up again with the BCHN announcement to remove the "poison pill" or "automatic replay protection". 8th Jul Jonathan Toomim posted "BCH protocol upgrade proposal: Use ASERT as the new DAA" which promised the solution to the long dragging DAA problem. Jul 23th however an unexpected twist occurred when Amaury Séchet posted "Announcing the Grasberg DAA" an incompatible, alternative solution. This, again, sparked a ton of debate and discussion. Grasberg lasted just two weeks from Jul 23th to Aug 6th when ABC announced its plans for the november 2020 upgrade but it had successfully united the opposition in the meanwhile. ABCs plan for november included dropping grasberg in favour of aserti3–2d and introducing IFPv4. Now we're here August 8th, the IFP which was declared dead after just over a month (Jan 22-Mar 5) is now back in full force. The rest of the history is still being written but if p2p electronic cash is to succeed in any big regard it's very thinkable that these events will get into history books. Important resources:coinspice IFP timeline&Compiled list of BCH Miner Dev Fund posts, articles, discussions History Jan 13th : “Do CoinJoins Really Require Equal Transaction Amounts for Privacy? Part One: CashFusion” article by BitcoinMagazine [source] Jan 13th : “Clearing the Way for Cooperation” Read.cash article by Amaury Séchet [source] on the controversy with Roger Ver about the amount of donations over the years Jan 22nd : “Infrastructure Funding Plan for Bitcoin Cash” IFPv1 announced by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] IFPv1: 12.5% of BCH coinbase rewards which will last for 6 months through a Hong Kong-based corporation & to be activated on May 15th Jan 22nd : ”Bitcoin Cash Developers React to Infrastructure Fund Announcement: Cautiously Optimistic” coinspice article including Amaury Séchet, Antony Zegers, Jonald Fyookball & Josh Ellithorpe [source] Jan 23rd : Jiang Zhuoer reddit AMA [source] [coinspice article] Jan 23rd : Vitalik weighs in with his take on twitter [source] Jan 23rd :” On the infrastructure funding plan for Bitcoin Cash” article by Amaury Séchet [source] [coinspice article] in which he proposed to place control of the IFP key in his hands together with Jonald Fyookball and Antony Zegers. . A group of 7 to 12 miners, developers, and businessmen in total would get an advisory function. Jan 24th : “Bitcoin.com's Clarifications on the Miner Development Fund“ which emphasizes, among other things, the temporary and reversible nature of the proposal [source] [coinspice article] Jan 24th : “Little Known (But Important!) Facts About the Mining Plan” Read.cash article by Jonald Fyookball in which he defended the IFP and stressed its necessity and temporary nature. Jan 25th : massive amounts of public debate as documented by coinspice [coinspice article] with Justin Bons, Tobias Ruck and Antony Zegers explaining their take on it. Jan 26th : public debate continues: “Assessment and proposal re: the Bitcoin Cash infrastructure funding situation” Read.cash article by imaginary_username [source] which was noteworthy in part because the post earned over Earns $1,000+ in BCH [coinspice article] and “The Best Of Intentions: The Dev Tax Is Intended to Benefit Investors But Will Corrupt Us Instead” by Peter Rizun [source] Jan 27th : “We are a group of miners opposing the BTC.TOP proposal, here's why” article on Read.cash [source] [reddit announcement] Jan 27th : Bitcoin Unlimited's BUIP 143: Refuse the Coinbase Tax [source][reddit announcement] Jan 28th : “Bitcoin Verde's Response to the Miner Sponsored Development Fund” read.cash article by Josh Green in which he explains “Bitcoin Verde will not be implementing any node validation that enforces new coinbase rules.” [source] Jan 28th : “Update on Developer Funding” read.cash article from Bitcoin.com [source] in which they state “As it stands now, Bitcoin.com will not go through with supporting any plan unless there is more agreement in the ecosystem such that the risk of a chain split is negligible.” And that “any funding proposal must be temporary and reversible.” This announcement from bitcoin.com and their mining pool lead the anonymous opposition miners to stand down. [source] Jan 28th : The 253rd "Thoughts on developer funding" Article – by Chris Pacia, to tackle the “serious misconceptions in the community about how software development works”. He ends on a note of support for the IFP because of lack of realistic alternatives. [source] Feb 1st: “BCH miner donation plan update” IFPv2 announced by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] Which changes the donation mechanism so miners directly send part of their coinbase to the projects they wants to donate to. It would be activated with hashrate voting over a 3-month period with a 2/3 in favour requirement. The proposal also introduces a pilot period and a no donation option, Jiang Zhuoer also says he regards 12.% as too much. Feb 7th: Group of BCH miners led by AsicSeer voice scepticism about the IFP during a reddit AMA [source] Feb 15th: “On the Miner Infrastructure Funding Plan” article by Bitcoin ABC [source] In which they announce they will implement IFPv3 in their upcoming 0.21.0 release. This version has amount reduced to 5% of block reward and will go in effect with BIP 9 hashratevoting and a whitelist with different projects. Feb 15th : “Introducing Flipstarter” [source] Feb 16th :” Bitcoin.com’s stance on the recent block reward diversion proposals” video by Roger Ver on the Bitcoin.com Official Channel. [source] > Ver called Zhuoer’s IFP “clever” but ultimately “problematic.” [coinspice article] Feb 16th :” BCH miner donation plan update again” read.cash article by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] In which he briefly outlines the details of IFPv3 Feb 17th : “Latest Thoughts On Infrastructure Mining Plan” post by Jonald Fyookball [source] Feb 17th : “Regarding the Bitcoin Cash Infrastructure Funding Plan, I am certain now that it should be scrapped immediately.” tweet by Mark Lundeberg [source] Feb 19th : “Thoughts on the IFP - A Dev Perspective“ read.cash article by Josh Ellithorpe [source] Feb 20th : “Bitcoin Cash Node” post announcing the new node implementation [source] Feb 20th : First “Bitcoin Cash Developer Meeting” After IFP Proposal [source] Feb 24th : “Flipstarter 500k, 6 independent campaigns” post announcing the goal to “fund the BCH ecosystem with 6 independent campaigns and an overall 500,000 USD target” [source] Feb 27th : BCHN Formally Released [source] Feb 27th : “The BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm is broken. Here's how to fix it.” Video by Jonathan Toomim [source] Mar 3th :” Bitcoin Cash Node 2020: plans for May upgrade and beyond” post by BCHN [source] Mar 4th :”Author of the Bitcoin Cash IFP [Jiang Zhuoer] Vows to Vote Against It, Using Personal Hash in Opposition” [source] Mar 5th :Bitcoin ABC announces their 2020 Business Plan Fundraising for later in march [source] Mar 15th : “EatBCH campaign funded! Next: node campaigns.” campaign funded after 11 hours [source] Mar 30th : Bitcoin ABC 2020 Business Plan [source] $3.3 Million Fundraiser [source] Apr 17th : Five flipstarter node campaign launched. [source] Apr 26th : BCHN flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source] Apr 27th : VERDE flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source] May 4th : KNUTH flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source] May 7th : “BCH DeFi Startup General Protocols Raises Over $1 mil“ [source] May 8th : BCHD flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source] May 9th : Deadline for node campaigns, ABC flipstarter campaign not funded. [source] May 14th : “With IFP Defeated, Bitcoin ABC, ViaBTC & CoinEX CEO Publicly Consider a Bitcoin Cash Foundation” [source] May 15th : deadline for ABC fundraiser campaign, ends at 55% completed. [source] May 15th : 6th HF network upgrade -> new opcode op_Reversebytes, increased of the chained transaction limit from 25 to 50, and the improved counting of signature operations using the new “Sigchecks” implementation [source] with the “Controversial Funding Plan Rejected by Miners” [source] May 25th : “Announcing the SLP Foundation” [source] Jun 15st : “BCHN lead maintainer report 2020-06-15” announcement to remove the Automatic Replay Protection (a.k.a. the Poison Pill) from BCHN in november [source] Jun 16st : “So [BCHN] is going to fork off from BCH at the next upgrade. Same old story. […]” tweeted Vin Armani [source] Jun 21st : “Why Automatic Replay Protection Exists” post by Shammah Chancellor [source] Jul 7th : “The Popular Stablecoin Tether Is Now Circulating on the Bitcoin Cash Network” [source] Jul 8th : “BCH protocol upgrade proposal: Use ASERT as the new DAA” post by Jonathan Toomim [source] Jul 18th : “$6M Worth of Tether on the Bitcoin Cash Chain Highlights the Benefits of SLP Tokens” [source] Jul 23th : “Announcing the Grasberg DAA” post by Amaury Séchet[source] Jul 24th : “Thoughts on Grasberg DAA” post by Mark Lundeberg [source] Jul 29th : CashFusion security audit has been completed [source] Jul 31st : Electron Cash 4.1.0 release with CashFusion support [source] 4th year, august 2020 – 2021 Aug 1st : “Bitcoin Cash: Scaling the Globe“ Online conference for ForkDay Celebration [source] Aug 2nd : >“Is there going to be a fork between ABC and BCHN?” > “IMO it is very likely. If not in November, then next May.” – Amaury Séchet Aug 3rd : “Dark secrets of the Grasberg DAA” post by Jonathan Toomim [source] Aug 3rd : “Joint Statement On aserti3-2d Algorithm“ post by General Protocols, including Cryptophyl, Read.cash, Software Verde & SpinBCH [source] Aug 3rd : Knuth announces they will be implementing aserti3-2d as DAA for november. [source] Aug 3rd : Amaury rage quit from the developer call [source] Aug 4th : “But why do people care about compensating for historical drift? Seems like a tiny problem and if it's causing this much social discord it seems not even worth bothering to try to fix.” Tweet by Vitalik [source] Aug 5th : “Bitcoin Cash (BCH) November 2020 Upgrade statement” signed by BCHD, electron cash, VERDE, BU members, BCHN developers, Jonathan Toomim, Mark B. Lundeberg and many others [source] Aug 5th : “BCHN FAQ on November 2020 Bitcoin Cash network upgrade” [source] Aug 6th : “Bitcoin ABC’s plan for the November 2020 upgrade” [source] the announcement that they will drop Grasberg in favour of aserti3–2d (ASERT) and will also include FPv4 in which 8% of the blockreward goes to ABC as development funding. Aug 7th : “Joint Statement from BCH Miners regarding Bitcoin ABC and the November 2020 BCH Upgrade.” Read.cash article by asicseer [source] stating “Over recent months, most miners and pools have switched to BCHN, and presently operate a majority of BCH hashrate.” Aug 7th : “Simple Ledger Protocol's Joint Statement Regarding Bitcoin ABC on BCH's November 2020 Upgrade” read.cash post by the SLP-Foundation [source]
Round up of Cryptocurrency News #2 Week 13/07 - 19/07
So much has happened this week! We saw a capitulation point of bitcoin before bears took over and we saw the selling pressure push Bitcoin down toward the $9000USD mark then move back up above $9100USD So far it has been a stable hold, however we may see some more action within the coming weeks.
Widespread scamming within the Twitter-sphere, Youtube and other platforms as Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies may seem like fair game. Cryptocurrencies providing big payouts for scammers without the ability for reversals of accounts. Remember if something seems too good to be true, do some research or just plain do not respond/believe it. Stay safe and careful with your funds!
On the brightside, there has been even more adoption of cryptocurrencies as rumours of Paypal utilising cryptocurrency has been confirmed as they are developing crypto capabilities. In addition to this we received exciting news at the start of this week about Binance partnering with Swipe (SXP) and offering a debit card to spend BNB, SXP, BTC and BUSD. ( I will be keeping a swift eye on BNB and Swipe as its utilisation as tokens has just increased 43 fold).
Positive news for the Bitcoin network as its hashrate reaches all time high which helps to secure the network further even though mining profits have dropped by 50% from the recent halving. If you didn't know already the last Bitcoin will be expected to be mined in 2140 with its difficulty ever increasing and each time securing the network further. Processing units will have to become faster, stronger and most importantly more cost effective to continue to entice miners for the block rewards and further renewable energy practices.
Furthermore we can see Central banks and countries discussing and developing Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC). Read more about it here https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/central-bank-digital-currency-cbdc.asp and check out some of the developments in the world above. This shows the popularity and strong nature of cryptocurrencies. As the saying goes "If you cant beat them, JOIN them".
Overall, very solid week full of adoption, animation and anticipation. Another post next week for a weekly round up! See you then but in the mean time join us at our Gravychain Discord. - DISCORD LINK: https://discord.gg/zxXXyuJ 🍕 Bring some virtual pizza to share 🍕 Come have a chat, stimulate a discussion, ask a question or share some knowledge. We are all friendly crypto enthusiasts up for a chat, supportive and want to help each other with knowledge and investments! Big thanks to our Telegram and My Crypto HQ for the constant news updates! - The Gravychain Collective: https://t.me/gravychain - My Crypto HQ: https://t.me/My_Crypto_HQ Important/Notable/Highlights:
Bitcoin (BTC) is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that aims to function as a means of exchange that is independent of any central authority. BTC can be transferred electronically in a secure, verifiable, and immutable way.
Launched in 2009, BTC is the first virtual currency to solve the double-spending issue by timestamping transactions before broadcasting them to all of the nodes in the Bitcoin network. The Bitcoin Protocol offered a solution to the Byzantine Generals’ Problem with ablockchainnetwork structure, a notion first created byStuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta in 1991.
Bitcoin’s whitepaper was published pseudonymously in 2008 by an individual, or a group, with the pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto”, whose underlying identity has still not been verified.
The Bitcoin protocol uses an SHA-256d-based Proof-of-Work (PoW) algorithm to reach network consensus. Its network has a target block time of 10 minutes and a maximum supply of 21 million tokens, with a decaying token emission rate. To prevent fluctuation of the block time, the network’s block difficulty is re-adjusted through an algorithm based on the past 2016 block times.
With a block size limit capped at 1 megabyte, the Bitcoin Protocol has supported both the Lightning Network, a second-layer infrastructure for payment channels, and Segregated Witness, a soft-fork to increase the number of transactions on a block, as solutions to network scalability.
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that aims to function as a means of exchange and is independent of any central authority. Bitcoins are transferred electronically in a secure, verifiable, and immutable way.
Network validators, whom are often referred to as miners, participate in the SHA-256d-based Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism to determine the next global state of the blockchain.
The Bitcoin protocol has a target block time of 10 minutes, and a maximum supply of 21 million tokens. The only way new bitcoins can be produced is when a block producer generates a new valid block.
The protocol has a token emission rate that halves every 210,000 blocks, or approximately every 4 years.
Unlike public blockchain infrastructures supporting the development of decentralized applications (Ethereum), the Bitcoin protocol is primarily used only for payments, and has only very limited support for smart contract-like functionalities (Bitcoin “Script” is mostly used to create certain conditions before bitcoins are used to be spent).
In the Bitcoin network, anyone can join the network and become a bookkeeping service provider i.e., a validator. All validators are allowed in the race to become the block producer for the next block, yet only the first to complete a computationally heavy task will win. This feature is called Proof of Work (PoW). The probability of any single validator to finish the task first is equal to the percentage of the total network computation power, or hash power, the validator has. For instance, a validator with 5% of the total network computation power will have a 5% chance of completing the task first, and therefore becoming the next block producer. Since anyone can join the race, competition is prone to increase. In the early days, Bitcoin mining was mostly done by personal computer CPUs. As of today, Bitcoin validators, or miners, have opted for dedicated and more powerful devices such as machines based on Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (“ASIC”). Proof of Work secures the network as block producers must have spent resources external to the network (i.e., money to pay electricity), and can provide proof to other participants that they did so. With various miners competing for block rewards, it becomes difficult for one single malicious party to gain network majority (defined as more than 51% of the network’s hash power in the Nakamoto consensus mechanism). The ability to rearrange transactions via 51% attacks indicates another feature of the Nakamoto consensus: the finality of transactions is only probabilistic. Once a block is produced, it is then propagated by the block producer to all other validators to check on the validity of all transactions in that block. The block producer will receive rewards in the network’s native currency (i.e., bitcoin) as all validators approve the block and update their ledgers.
The Bitcoin protocol utilizes the Merkle tree data structure in order to organize hashes of numerous individual transactions into each block. This concept is named after Ralph Merkle, who patented it in 1979. With the use of a Merkle tree, though each block might contain thousands of transactions, it will have the ability to combine all of their hashes and condense them into one, allowing efficient and secure verification of this group of transactions. This single hash called is a Merkle root, which is stored in the Block Header of a block. The Block Header also stores other meta information of a block, such as a hash of the previous Block Header, which enables blocks to be associated in a chain-like structure (hence the name “blockchain”). An illustration of block production in the Bitcoin Protocol is demonstrated below. https://preview.redd.it/m6texxicf3151.png?width=1591&format=png&auto=webp&s=f4253304912ed8370948b9c524e08fef28f1c78d
Block time and mining difficulty
Block time is the period required to create the next block in a network. As mentioned above, the node who solves the computationally intensive task will be allowed to produce the next block. Therefore, block time is directly correlated to the amount of time it takes for a node to find a solution to the task. The Bitcoin protocol sets a target block time of 10 minutes, and attempts to achieve this by introducing a variable named mining difficulty. Mining difficulty refers to how difficult it is for the node to solve the computationally intensive task. If the network sets a high difficulty for the task, while miners have low computational power, which is often referred to as “hashrate”, it would statistically take longer for the nodes to get an answer for the task. If the difficulty is low, but miners have rather strong computational power, statistically, some nodes will be able to solve the task quickly. Therefore, the 10 minute target block time is achieved by constantly and automatically adjusting the mining difficulty according to how much computational power there is amongst the nodes. The average block time of the network is evaluated after a certain number of blocks, and if it is greater than the expected block time, the difficulty level will decrease; if it is less than the expected block time, the difficulty level will increase.
What are orphan blocks?
In a PoW blockchain network, if the block time is too low, it would increase the likelihood of nodes producingorphan blocks, for which they would receive no reward. Orphan blocks are produced by nodes who solved the task but did not broadcast their results to the whole network the quickest due to network latency. It takes time for a message to travel through a network, and it is entirely possible for 2 nodes to complete the task and start to broadcast their results to the network at roughly the same time, while one’s messages are received by all other nodes earlier as the node has low latency. Imagine there is a network latency of 1 minute and a target block time of 2 minutes. A node could solve the task in around 1 minute but his message would take 1 minute to reach the rest of the nodes that are still working on the solution. While his message travels through the network, all the work done by all other nodes during that 1 minute, even if these nodes also complete the task, would go to waste. In this case, 50% of the computational power contributed to the network is wasted. The percentage of wasted computational power would proportionally decrease if the mining difficulty were higher, as it would statistically take longer for miners to complete the task. In other words, if the mining difficulty, and therefore targeted block time is low, miners with powerful and often centralized mining facilities would get a higher chance of becoming the block producer, while the participation of weaker miners would become in vain. This introduces possible centralization and weakens the overall security of the network. However, given a limited amount of transactions that can be stored in a block, making the block time too longwould decrease the number of transactions the network can process per second, negatively affecting network scalability.
3. Bitcoin’s additional features
Segregated Witness (SegWit)
Segregated Witness, often abbreviated as SegWit, is a protocol upgrade proposal that went live in August 2017. SegWit separates witness signatures from transaction-related data. Witness signatures in legacy Bitcoin blocks often take more than 50% of the block size. By removing witness signatures from the transaction block, this protocol upgrade effectively increases the number of transactions that can be stored in a single block, enabling the network to handle more transactions per second. As a result, SegWit increases the scalability of Nakamoto consensus-based blockchain networks like Bitcoin and Litecoin. SegWit also makes transactions cheaper. Since transaction fees are derived from how much data is being processed by the block producer, the more transactions that can be stored in a 1MB block, the cheaper individual transactions become. https://preview.redd.it/depya70mf3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=a6499aa2131fbf347f8ffd812930b2f7d66be48e The legacy Bitcoin block has a block size limit of 1 megabyte, and any change on the block size would require a network hard-fork. On August 1st 2017, the first hard-fork occurred, leading to the creation of Bitcoin Cash (“BCH”), which introduced an 8 megabyte block size limit. Conversely, Segregated Witness was a soft-fork: it never changed the transaction block size limit of the network. Instead, it added an extended block with an upper limit of 3 megabytes, which contains solely witness signatures, to the 1 megabyte block that contains only transaction data. This new block type can be processed even by nodes that have not completed the SegWit protocol upgrade. Furthermore, the separation of witness signatures from transaction data solves the malleability issue with the original Bitcoin protocol. Without Segregated Witness, these signatures could be altered before the block is validated by miners. Indeed, alterations can be done in such a way that if the system does a mathematical check, the signature would still be valid. However, since the values in the signature are changed, the two signatures would create vastly different hash values. For instance, if a witness signature states “6,” it has a mathematical value of 6, and would create a hash value of 12345. However, if the witness signature were changed to “06”, it would maintain a mathematical value of 6 while creating a (faulty) hash value of 67890. Since the mathematical values are the same, the altered signature remains a valid signature. This would create a bookkeeping issue, as transactions in Nakamoto consensus-based blockchain networks are documented with these hash values, or transaction IDs. Effectively, one can alter a transaction ID to a new one, and the new ID can still be valid. This can create many issues, as illustrated in the below example:
Alice sends Bob 1 BTC, and Bob sends Merchant Carol this 1 BTC for some goods.
Bob sends Carols this 1 BTC, while the transaction from Alice to Bob is not yet validated. Carol sees this incoming transaction of 1 BTC to him, and immediately ships goods to B.
At the moment, the transaction from Alice to Bob is still not confirmed by the network, and Bob can change the witness signature, therefore changing this transaction ID from 12345 to 67890.
Now Carol will not receive his 1 BTC, as the network looks for transaction 12345 to ensure that Bob’s wallet balance is valid.
As this particular transaction ID changed from 12345 to 67890, the transaction from Bob to Carol will fail, and Bob will get his goods while still holding his BTC.
With the Segregated Witness upgrade, such instances can not happen again. This is because the witness signatures are moved outside of the transaction block into an extended block, and altering the witness signature won’t affect the transaction ID. Since the transaction malleability issue is fixed, Segregated Witness also enables the proper functioning of second-layer scalability solutions on the Bitcoin protocol, such as the Lightning Network.
Lightning Network is a second-layer micropayment solution for scalability. Specifically, Lightning Network aims to enable near-instant and low-cost payments between merchants and customers that wish to use bitcoins. Lightning Network was conceptualized in a whitepaper by Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja in 2015. Since then, it has been implemented by multiple companies. The most prominent of them include Blockstream, Lightning Labs, and ACINQ. A list of curated resources relevant to Lightning Network can be found here. In the Lightning Network, if a customer wishes to transact with a merchant, both of them need to open a payment channel, which operates off the Bitcoin blockchain (i.e., off-chain vs. on-chain). None of the transaction details from this payment channel are recorded on the blockchain, and only when the channel is closed will the end result of both party’s wallet balances be updated to the blockchain. The blockchain only serves as a settlement layer for Lightning transactions. Since all transactions done via the payment channel are conducted independently of the Nakamoto consensus, both parties involved in transactions do not need to wait for network confirmation on transactions. Instead, transacting parties would pay transaction fees to Bitcoin miners only when they decide to close the channel. https://preview.redd.it/cy56icarf3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=b239a63c6a87ec6cc1b18ce2cbd0355f8831c3a8 One limitation to the Lightning Network is that it requires a person to be online to receive transactions attributing towards him. Another limitation in user experience could be that one needs to lock up some funds every time he wishes to open a payment channel, and is only able to use that fund within the channel. However, this does not mean he needs to create new channels every time he wishes to transact with a different person on the Lightning Network. If Alice wants to send money to Carol, but they do not have a payment channel open, they can ask Bob, who has payment channels open to both Alice and Carol, to help make that transaction. Alice will be able to send funds to Bob, and Bob to Carol. Hence, the number of “payment hubs” (i.e., Bob in the previous example) correlates with both the convenience and the usability of the Lightning Network for real-world applications.
Schnorr Signature upgrade proposal
Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (“ECDSA”) signatures are used to sign transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. https://preview.redd.it/hjeqe4l7g3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=8014fb08fe62ac4d91645499bc0c7e1c04c5d7c4 However, many developers now advocate for replacing ECDSA with Schnorr Signature. Once Schnorr Signatures are implemented, multiple parties can collaborate in producing a signature that is valid for the sum of their public keys. This would primarily be beneficial for network scalability. When multiple addresses were to conduct transactions to a single address, each transaction would require their own signature. With Schnorr Signature, all these signatures would be combined into one. As a result, the network would be able to store more transactions in a single block. https://preview.redd.it/axg3wayag3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=93d958fa6b0e623caa82ca71fe457b4daa88c71e The reduced size in signatures implies a reduced cost on transaction fees. The group of senders can split the transaction fees for that one group signature, instead of paying for one personal signature individually. Schnorr Signature also improves network privacy and token fungibility. A third-party observer will not be able to detect if a user is sending a multi-signature transaction, since the signature will be in the same format as a single-signature transaction.
4. Economics and supply distribution
The Bitcoin protocol utilizes the Nakamoto consensus, and nodes validate blocks via Proof-of-Work mining. The bitcoin token was not pre-mined, and has a maximum supply of 21 million. The initial reward for a block was 50 BTC per block. Block mining rewards halve every 210,000 blocks. Since the average time for block production on the blockchain is 10 minutes, it implies that the block reward halving events will approximately take place every 4 years. As of May 12th 2020, the block mining rewards are 6.25 BTC per block. Transaction fees also represent a minor revenue stream for miners.
Why is the RandomX algorithm being hyped to the moon?
TL;DR: don't assume the average return from mining RandomX will be higher than the current CryptonightR algorithm. Hold back your excitement for now. I think we all need to bring something to our attention. Over the last month, there have been so many topics and comments here on MoneroMining about the new 'RandomX' algorithm. This algorithm is supposed to be launched a couple of months from now. There are many questions like "is this a good hashrate for my CPU"? "What's your power usage on RandomX"? "How can I tune my CPU for RandomX"? "How would the algorithm perform on this hardware"? I think these are great constructive comments that are at the heart of what miners stand for. We miners love optimizing our rigs and educating ourselves on technological trends. But I've noticed many questions such as "what parts should I buy for a RandomX mining rig"? "Is an AMD Ryzen 9 3900x a good investment"? "What parts will give me the most profit when RandomX launches"? Many of these questions are asked with very little research. I think there's a gold fever brewing behind some of these comments. The kind of motives that have bankrupted many miners in the past bubbles. As we have seen in 2014 and 2018, anybody who enters the crypto industry with an 'I want easy profit' attitude almost always goes bankrupt. They buy coins or hardware at the peak of the bubble. Sometimes they get lucky and sell their coins or rigs right before the crash (only to get burned in a future bubble later). But most of the time, these new users lose most of their investment. As a veteran miner, a lot of alarm bells ring in my head when I read these kinds of RandomX hype posts. I have no reason to think CPU mining will be more profitable on RandomX than on the current CryptonightR.
If the new AMD CPUs are very efficient on RandomX, that just means more people will buy them, driving up the difficulty. Your shiny R9 3900x's profit will start falling because it's no longer as competitive against the other hardware on the network.
If the profits on day 1 of the RandomX launch are indeed high, more people will start adding rigs to the network. If the average miner's profit is above the equilibrium of the market, it will start going down. That equilibrium is largely set by botnets, large scale farms in China/Russia/Niagara Falls/Georgia, and datacenters with spare capacity. So if your R9 3900x earns $10/day on day 1, you can count on that golden streak ending soon.
CPU mining as a market is never stable. Your CPU rig is limited tojust 1 or 2 coins: Monero and Veruscoin. Edit: there are a few more CPU coins than these. AMD GPUs can at least mine 3 or 4 coins well, while nVidia GPUs are the best at 5-10 different algorithms. GPU mining is a safer, less risky investment. GPU mining is like playing blackjack. Building a rig specifically for CPU mining is like tossing a coin. You're locked into one coin by building a CPU rig. Yes, it has resale value to gamers, but it's much harder to resell a MOBO combo than a bunch of GPUs at any price. Trust me, I've sold hundreds of GPUs and dozens of MOBOs before!
I don't know what the market share of CPUs vs. GPUs on CryptonightR is right now. But if most of the current nethash is made up of CPUs, these CPUs will have no choice but to switch to RandomX when it is out. There's no other coin for them to mine, unless they have some work to do outside of mining. So almost all of them will get onto the RandomX network, too, along with your expensive new CPU rig. I think this'll be the biggest factor driving up difficulty. Yes, the older CPUs might not be as efficient as the new Ryzens, but many of them are already paid for in terms of capital (like in a datacenter) or have free power (like in a botnet or apartment with free power).
You might say that Monero will always be profitable enough because it has survived so long, or the developers are better, or they're taking action against ASICs. But that doesn't necessarily guarantee profit. Monero might be a successful coin and overtake ETH, but that has nothing to do with profit on the network. Even though Bitcoin's really successful, you're guaranteed to lose money if you buy the latest Antminer and run it at residential power rates. Meanwhile, Dogecoin back in the day had awesome profits even though it was a blatant fork of LTC with few improvements.
Your new RandomX rig might look like it has decent "ROI" to you, but that doesn't mean it was the best investment. You might have been better off building a GPU rig and mining Grincoin or Ravencoin. I.E. if you build a RandomX rig, you're earning less profit for the same amount of capital invested. And even if you earn the same return, you still took a higher risk than if you built a GPU rig (see the point above).
In the GPU mining community, I have the feeling that there's a lot of resentment over the 2018 crypto recession and the whole 'ASIC miner invasion'. I think people here are feeling burned over their losses last year and the evil ASIC takeover, and want an opportunity for the little guy to start mining again. So we're falsely seeing the RandomX ray of hope as a floodlight, and getting overexcited. And in general, the ordinary person cannot make a significant, steady profit in the crypto mining industry. The guy who wrote that thread is very rich and even 100 GTX 1080 Ti's cost nothing to him. The reason he became wealthy is because he avoided get-rich-quick gimmicks back in the day (like the dotcom sites) and focused on learning technology for the future. Mining will not make you rich, and especially not RandomX coin tossing. If you love RandomX, build your rig now, keep benchmarking and undervolting and have fun at it. But if you just want profit, wait until RandomX is up and running. And consider all the risks involved with a new algorithm and commercial mining in general. So I hope we can all reconsider whether we're excited about RandomX for the right reasons. Let's try to avoid jumping to conclusions about profitability and hold off on the Newegg 'checkout' button. Even though 12 cores at 70 watts sounds awesome. Happy mining!
Hello All, This post is meant to address the elephant in the room, and the #1 criticism that IOTA gets which is the existence of the Coordinator node.
What is the Coordinator
The Coordinator or, COO for short, is a special piece of software that is operated by the IOTA Foundation. This software's function is to drop "milestone" transactions onto the Tangle that help in ordering of Transactions. As this wonderful post on reddit highlights (https://www.reddit.com/Iota/comments/7c3qu8/coordinator_explained/)
When you want to know if a transaction is verified, you find the newest Milestone and you see if it indirectly verifies your transaction (i.e it verifies your transaction, or if verifies a transaction that verifies your transaction, or if it verifies a transaction that verifies a transaction that verifies your transaction, etc). The reason that the Milestones exist is because if you just picked any random transaction, there's the possibility that the node you're connected to is malicious and is trying to trick you into verifying its transactions. The people who operate nodes can't fake the signatures on Milestones, so you know you can trust the Milestones to be legit.
Why is the COO a Problem?
The COO protects the network, that is great right? No, it is not. The coordinator represents a centralized entity that draws the ire of the concurrency community in general is the reason behind a lot of FUD.
When is the COO Expected to be Removed?
Here is where things get dicey. If you ask the IOTA Foundation, the last official response I heard was
We are running super computer simulations with the University of St. Peteresburg to determine when that could be a possibility.
This answer didn't satisfy me, so I've spent the last few weeks thinking about the problem and think I can explain the challenges that the IOTA Foundation are up against, what they expect to model with the super computer simulations, and what ultimately what my intuition (backed up by some back of the napkin mathematics) tells me that outcomes will be.
IOTA Hashrate Explained
In order to understand the bounds of the problem, we first need to understand what our measuring stick is. Our measuring stick provides measurements with respect to hashed per second. A hash, is a mathematical operation that blockchain (and DAG) based applications require before accepting your transaction. This is generally thought of as an anti-spam measure used to protect a blockchain network. IOTA and Bitcoin share some things in common, and one of those things is that they both require Proof of Work in order to interact with the blockchain. In IOTA, a single hash is completed for each Transaction that you submit. You complete this PoW at the time of submitting your Transaction, and you never revisit it again. In Bitcoin, hashes are guessed at by millions of computers (miners) competing to be the first person to find solve the correct hash, and ultimately mint a new block. Because of the competitive nature of the bitcoin mining mechanism, the bitcoin hashrate is a sustained hashrate, while the IOTA hashrate is "bursty" going through peaks and valleys as new transactions are submitted. Essentially, IOTA performance is a function of the current throughput of the network. While, bitcoin's performance is a delicate balance between all collective miners, the hashing difficulty with the goal of pegging the block time to 10 minutes. With all that said, I hope it is clear that we can come to the following conclusion. The amount of CPU time required to compute 1 Bitcoin hash is much much greater then the amount of CPU time required to compute 1 IOTA hash. T(BtcHash) >> T(IotaHash) After all, low powered IOT devices are supposed to be able to execute the IOTA hashing function in order to submit their own transactions.
Measuring Work to be Proven
A "hash" has be looked at as an amount of work that needs to be completed. If you are solving a bitcoin hash, it will take a lot more work to solve then an IOTA hash. When we want to measure IOTA, we usually look at "Transactions Per Second". Since each Transaction requires a single Hash to be completed, we can translate this measurement into "Hashes Per Second" that the entire network supports. IOTA has seen Transactions Per Second on the order of magnitude of <100. That means, that at current adoption levels the IOTA network is supported and secured by 100 IOTA hashes per second (on a very good day). Bitcoin hashes are much more difficult to solve. The bitcoin network is secured by 1 Bitcoin hash every 10 minutes (which adjust's it's difficult over time to remain pegged at 10 minutes). (More details on bitcoin mining: https://www.coindesk.com/information/how-bitcoin-mining-works/)
Understanding how IOTA would be hacked without the COO
Without the COOs protection, IOTA would be a juicy target destroy. With only 100 IOTA hashes per second securing the network, that means that an individual would only need to maintain a sustained 34 hashes per second in order to completely take over the network.
How many of my personal gaming PCs would it take to 34% attack IOTA?
Personally, my relatively moderate gaming PC takes about 60 seconds to solve IOTA Proof of Work before my transaction will be submitted to the Tangle. This is not a beastly machine, nor does it utilize specialized hardware to solve my Proof of Work. This gaming PC cost about $1000 to build, and provides me .0166 hashes per second. **Using this figure, we can derive that consumer electronics provide hashing efficiency of roughly $60,000 USD / Hash / Second ($60k per hash per second) on the IOTA network. Given that the Tx/Second of IOTA is around 100 on a good day, and it requires $60,000 USD to acquire 1Hash/Second of computing power we would need 34 * $60,000 to attack the IOTA network. The total amount of money required to 34% the IOTA project is $2,040,00 This is a very small number. Not only that, but the hash rate required to conduct such an attack already exists, and it is likely that this attack has already been attempted. The simple truth is, that due to the economic incentive of mining the hash rate required to attack IOTA is already centralized, and are foaming at the mouth to attack IOTA. This is why the Coordinator exists, and why it will not be going anywhere anytime soon.
What will it take to Remove the COO?
The most important thing that needs to occur to remove the COO, is that the native measurement of transactions per second (which ultimately also measures the hashes per second) need to go drastically up in orders of magnitude. If the IOTA transaction volume were to increase to 1000 transactions per second, then it would require 340 transactions per second from a malicious actor to compromise the network. In order to complete 340 transactions per second, the attacker would need now need the economic power of 340 * $60,000 to 34% attack the IOTA network. In this hypothetical scenario, the cost of attacking the IOTA network is $20,400,000. This number is still pretty small, but at least you can see the pattern. IOTA will likely need to hit many-thousand transactions per second before it can be considered secure.
How does JINN play into this
What we have to keep in mind here, is that IOTA has an ace up their sleeve, and that Ace is JINN Labs and the ternary processor that they are working on. Ultimately, JINN is the end-game for the IOTA project that will make the removal of the COO a reality. In order to understand what JINN is, we need to understand a little bit about computer architecture and the nature of computational instruction in general. A "processor" is a piece of hardware that performs micro calculations. These micro calculations are usually very simple, such as adding two numbers, subtracting two numbers, incrementing, decrementing, and the like. The operation that is completed (addition, subtraction) is called the opcode while the numbers being operated on are called the operands. Traditional processors, like the ones you find in my "regular gaming PC" are binary processors where both the opcode and operands are expected to be binary numbers (or a collection of 0s and 1s). The JINN processor, provides the same functionality, mainly a hardware implementation of micro instructions. However, it expects the opcodes and operands to be ternary numbers (or a collection of 0s, 1s, and 2s). I won't get into the computational data density of base 2 vs. base 3 processors, nor will get I get into the energy efficiency of those processors. What I will be getting into however, is how certain tasks are simpler to solve in certain number systems. Depending on what operations are being executed upon the operands, performing the calculation in a different base will actually reduce the amount of steps required, and thus the execution time of the calculation. For an example, see how base 12 has been argued to be superior to base 10 (https://io9.gizmodo.com/5977095/why-we-should-switch-to-a-base-12-counting-system) I want to be clear here. I am not saying that any 1 number system is superior to any other number system for all types of operations. I am simply saying, that there exist certain types of calculations that are easier to perform in base 2, then they are performed in base 10. Likewise, there are calculations that are vastly simpler in base 3 then they are in base 2. The IOTA POW, and the algorithms required to solve for it is one of these algorithms. The IOTA PoW was designed to be ternary in nature, and I suggest that this is the reason right here. The data density and electricity savings that JINN provides are great, but the real design decision that has led to base 3 has been that they can now manufacture hardware that is superior at solving their own PoW calculations.
Understanding Binary Emulation vs. Native Processing
Binary emulation, is when a binary processor is asked to perform ternary operations. A binary processor is completely able to solve ternary hashes, but in order to do so it will need to emulate the ternary micro instructions at a higher level in the application stack from away from the hardware. If you had access to a base 3 processor, and needed perform a base 3 addition operation you could easily ask your processor to natively perform that calculation. If all you have access to, is a base 2 processor, you would need to emulate a base 3 number system in software. This would ultimately result in a higher number of instructions passing through your processor, more electricity being utilized, more time to complete.
The Economic Incentive of JINN
Finally, let's review these figures. It costs roughly $60k to acquire 1hash per second in BASE 2 consumer electrictronic. It costs roughly $2M to acquire enough BASE 2 hash rate to 34% the IOTA network. JINN, will be specifically manufactured hardware that will solve base 3 hashes natively. What this likely means, is that $1 spent on JINN will be much more effective at acquiring base 3 hash rate then $1 spent on base 2 hash rate.
The Economic Attrition Miners will feel
Finally, with bitcoin and traditional block chain applications there lies economic incentive to amass mining hardware. It first starts out by a miner earning income from his mining rig. He then reinvests those profits on additional hardware to increase his income. Eventually, this spirals into an arms raise where the players that are left in the game have increasingly available resources up until the point that there are only a handful of players left. This economic incentive, creates a mass centralization of computing resources capable of being misused in a coordinated effort to attack a cryptocurrency. IOTA aims to break this economic incentive, and the centralization that is causes. However, over the short term the fact that the centralization of such resources does exist is an existential peril to IOTA, and the COO is an inconvenient truth that we all have to live with.
Due to all the above, I think we can come to the following conclusions:
IOTA will not be able to remove the COO until the transactions per second (and ultimately hashrate) increase by orders of magnitude.
The performance of JINN processors, and their advantage of being able to compute natively on ternary operands and opcodes will be important for the value ratio of $USD / hash rate on the IOTA network
Existing mining hardware is at a fundamental disadvantage to computing base 3 hashes when compared to a JINN processor designed specifically for that function
Attrition of centralized base 2 hash power will occur if the practice of mining can be defeated and the income related to it. Then the incentive of amassing a huge amount of centralized computing power will be reduced.
JINN processors, and their adoption in consume electronics (like cell phones and cars) hold the key in being able to provide enough "bursty" hash rate to defend the network from 34% attacks without the help of the COO.
What are the super computer simulations? I think they are simulating a few things. They are modeling tip selection algorithms to reduce the amount of unverified transactions, however I think they may also be performing some simulations regarding the above calculations. JINN processors have not been released yet, so the performance benchmarks, manufacturing costs, retail costs, and adoption rates are all variables that I cannot account for. The IF probably has much better insight into all of those figures, which will allow them to better understand when the techno-economic environment would be conducive to the disabling of the COO.
The COO will likely be decentralized before it is removed. With all this taken into account, the date that the COO will be removed is years off if I was forced to guess. This means, that decentralizing the COO itself would be a sufficient stop-gap to the centralized COO that we see today.
We've just mined block #525000! Wohoo! That means right now we're exactly halfway between Bitcoin's second and third halvening (the point in time where the block-reward drops by 50%, which happens every 210000 blocks or ~4 years). Why does this matter? Well, it means only half as many coins are being put into circulation, and thus only half as many new coins can potentially be sold to interested buyers. Supply vs. demand, yada, yada... the price should increase! The last halvening took place on July 9 2016, which is 1 year 10 months 20 days ago (a total of 689 days). That means we are statistically about 41 days ahead of schedule to reach this halfway-point (which would be 730 days per design)! Thanks to the ever-rising hashing power, blocks have been found quicker than the targeted 10 minutes mark - and of course there's always variance!. Sooo... where does that leave us?
If we keep the current hashrate (or keep on deploying/removing it in a way that we achieve a block-time of exactly 10 minutes on average until block 630000 (the next halvening!)) - we would need another 730 days - which would let the next halvening happen on May 28 2020!
If we keep on deploying more hashrate at the same rate as since the last halvening - we would only need another 689 days - which would make the magic already happen on April 17 2020!
When do you think this exciting day is going to take place? Any guesses? Let's revisit in approx. 2 years and figure out who won!
Trending Subreddits for 2017-12-24: /r/CryptoCurrency, /r/YouShouldKnow, /r/ExpectationVsReality, /r/wholesomememes, /r/badwomensanatomy
What's this? We've started displaying a small selection of trending subreddits on the front page. Trending subreddits are determined based on a variety of activity indicators (which are also limited to safe for work communities for now). Subreddits can choose to opt-out from consideration in their subreddit settings. We hope that you discover some interesting subreddits through this. Feel free to discuss other interesting or notable subreddits in the comment thread below -- but please try to keep the discussion on the topic of subreddits to check out.
Current Infographic Text - Please help with updates and ideas!
Here is the infographic text as it stands. There are things we need to update, and we could use a refresh. What would you like to see on the infographic? Please also refer to the infographic itself on the sidebar and comment below! If you'd rather propose updates on the document itself, please go here. The translations are there too, but I don't think we've ever really used an infographic in another language. Myriad A Coin For Everyone The Most Secure, Decentralized, Fairly Distributed Coin The Myriad Multi-PoW Blockchain uses 5 Hashing Algorithms Simultaneously Myriad can be mined with CPUs (including Android devices!), GPUs or ASICsT ANYONE can mine Myriad with whatever hardware they have available. Myriad is NOT Pre-Mined Everyone has an equal opportunity to obtain coins at the market rate = no hidden fortunes or controlling shares possessed by insiders Each Algorithm = 20% of total hashrate = EXCEPTIONAL RESISTANCE TO 51% ATTACKS Pie Chart 1 j 51% of Single Algo Coin (eg Bitcoin) = Network Corruption :( To execute a successful 51% attack against nearly all cryptocurrencies, an attacker only needs to coordinate 51% hashrate share of a single algorithm Pie Chart 2 51% of Single Myriad Algo = only 11% of total hashrate :) An attacker would need to control 51% o all 5 algorithms, or 100% of at least 3, to successfully execute a 51% attack against Myriad. Considering the diversity of hardware + miners on each algorithm, this proves exceptionally difficult to coordinate logistically, making Myriad the most 51% attack resistant coin out there. Difficulty = Weighted per Algorithm, per Block Miners compete equally for block rewards no matter what kind of hardware. Each algorithm creates coins at the same rate. ASICs don’t have an unfair advantage. Myriad = Multi-PoW Block Rewards given for contributing resources to the processing network, not for hoarding coins. Does not create systematic wealth inequality in the long term = FAIR 1 minute block processing time vs 10 minutes for Bitcoin = faster payment processing Block reward halving every 96 weeks Early mining period much longer than most coins = price remains intentionally low during initial distribution to allow more people to obtain coins at accessible prices PROJECTS IN THE WORKS New and improved wallets Wider acceptance by merchants and much more! For More Info, visit: www.myriadcoin.org Connect with us! (reddit snoot?) www.reddit.com/myriadcoin (facebook logo) themyriadplatform (twitter logo) @myriadcoin
Market Pullback, Halved Rewards for Miners, Is the LTC Halving the End or the Beginning?
The mining of the block 1,680,000 at 18:16 (UTC +8) on August 5 marked the second LTC halving was successful, slashing the block rewards for miners from 25 LTC to 12.5 LTC. On the day of halving, the price of LTC once surged to $106.63 with the biggest rise of 16.4% and fell gradually after the halving. The first halving of LTC, which was born in 2011, took place on August 28, 2015. Six months before the second halving, the market trend was roughly the same as the first halving, price surge driven by the reduction in production was more concentrated in the first few months. From February to June this year, LTC rose from 32 US dollars to the highest $145.8, an increase of 355%, leading an upward movement of the market. Views on LTC’s trend varies In response to the impact of this LTC halving, many insiders have expressed their views: Bullish: 1) Production cuts will change the market supply of Litecoin. Assuming the demand growth rate remains the same, the demand could be driven higher on the wave of hypes and FOMO. Once the supply growth rate declines, the price will rise in theory. 2) When the first halving happened in 2015, the cryptocurrency sphere was in the bear market. Four years later, public recognition and technological development have been completely different, the cryptocurrency sparked a market rally, therefore, the bullish trend was expectable after the halving. 3) Bitcoin's production cut expectation may also bring in the market ahead of time, driving the LTC to continue to rise. 4) After LTC production reduction, the supply and demand greatly adjusted. Since the inflation rate has been reduced from 8% to 4%, miners and holders will be reluctant to sell, and thus, the market will remain a long-term and positive momentum. Of course, some hold the opposite attitude: 1) The bullish has already cashed in. Looking at the halving in 2015, the market broke out three months ahead of schedule, and the unit price rose from $1.3 to the highest $8.96. Then the price fell and dropped to $2.95 on the day of the production cut. However, from the beginning of 2019, the price of LTC has increased five times. As the saying goes, "too much water drowned the miller", therefore, bearish will follow the extreme bullish. 2) Investors who have enjoyed the earnings of this LTC halving will make a plan for the halving of BTC next year. According to the law of halving starts 3-6 months ahead of the scheduled time, it is expected that more funds will be gradually shifted from Litecoin and other digital currencies to bitcoin, which may cause the price decline of BTC. In the investment market, price rises and falls are mixed blessing, so are the digital market. It’s hopeless to realize high profits through the trick of buy-low and sell-high in digital currency trading. However, with contract trading, such as the contract series of 58COIN, investors can make profits no matter long or short the position, and gain expanded earnings by using leverages. At present, Litecoin existed in the three major contract categories of 58COIN, namely the standard contract, USDT contract, and delivery contract. Also, 58COIN covers other popular cryptocurrency contracts, providing free choices to investors. Short-Term Earnings after Halving is Depressing Compared with the optimistic expectations of the secondary market, Litecoin's production reduction will cause "injuries" to miners in the short term. "After halving, the overall income of the miners should be reduced by half, and the overall profit will be reduced to 10% to 30%. If the price does not rise, the mining earnings will become very pessimistic," an industry source said. The above-mentioned person pointed out that the current miners are mainly Antminer L3+ and L3++, of which the power consumption of L3+ is 800W, daily consumption is 19.2 kWh, and the total earnings is 0.008 LTC, equivalent to about 5.7 Yuan. If the electricity cost is 0.26 Yuan on average, it will account for more than 87% of the income. After halving the output, the mined LTC will basically cover the electricity cost. L3+ may “not worth a cent” because of the decline in energy efficiency. In the face of possible adverse effect on the miners by halving, Li Qiwei said in the recent review that some miners may turn off the machines, but the difficulty of mining will be re-adjusted in a few days and everything will back to normal. Industry insiders also reminded investors who are interested in mining that the hashrate will have new changes after the halving, and direct purchasing of coins is a more secure option. LTC Halving Make Way for BTC Halving Charles Li, the previous Google engineer, created Litecoin eight years ago. In principle, the production mechanism of LTC is the same as that of Bitcoin, which was then dubbed the altcoin of BTC. Compared with Bitcoin, LTC has a shorter block generation time with an average of 2.5 minutes, and a higher total supply of 84 million. Bitcoin vs. Litecoin Litecoin has long been considered a “test-pillow” for Bitcoin, on which many innovative technologies are first deployed, whether being the isolation test or the lightning network, LTC always “take the lead”. Some people believe that this halving of Litecoin is a rehearsal of Bitcoin halving next year. In short, due to the increasing correlation between digital currencies, the path of LTC and other cryptocurrencies depends a lot on Bitcoin. Around May 20, 2020 Website: https://ww.58coin.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/coin.58COIN Twitter: https://twitter.com/58_coin Telegram: https://t.me/official58
Let's discuss what's going on with the Bitcoin hashrate the last (blocks?) hours - is this the start of the hypothetical flippening?
https://fork.lol/pow/hashrate The average 7 days total hashpower of the Bitcoin chain (BTC+BCH) has been around 13 Eh/s , worldwide. The average lately (using blocks as time measurement is more accurate for this situation) is up to 16-17 Eh/s among both chains, while BCH has remained constant. This means there was an enourmous amount of hashpower (therefore, asics) dormant, so miners having asics ready but not using them voluntarily. These are now mining the BTC chain - I've been monitoring this the last 12 hours as I had a theory of something similar could happen in a theoretical flippening scenario.
If we check BTC blocks in any block explorer such as https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/blocks , we can clearly see this new amount of hashrate is coming from ViaBTC and Antpool mainly - two mining pools pro-BCH. (ViaBTC's CEO is a board member of the Bitcoin Cash Fund nonprofit organization; Antpool is Bitmain's mining pool, the ASIC manufacturer who has all reasons to be against Core and BTC after the recent halong mining rigs scandal where they supposedly only perform at the advertised 16Th/s in the segwit chain).
If we compare the % of BCH blocks mined by those pools respectively in the last 1000 blocks vs. in the last 144 blocks in the graphs in https://cash.coin.dance/blocks , we can see both ViaBTC and Antpool's % have decreased, while BCH's network hashrate hasn't increased. This means they have withdrawn part of their hashing power from this chain, and added it to BTC's chain.
If we check at the same graphs of the BTC chain now comparing last week vs last day in https://coin.dance/blocks , we can see ViaBTC and Antpool's % have increased.
This basically means miners who are heavily for Bitcoin Cash are intentionally mining BTC at an exorbitant rate and plugging an extra 3-4Eh/s that had never been connected before to mine the BTC chain against what profitability would dictate. This started over 12 hours ago, when BTC price was stabilized at 11600-700 for a day - this is not due to BTC price increasing 1k in the last hours, specially when BCH's algorithm adjusts every 1 block and keeps mining profitability quite balanced between both chains. Furthermore, adding to this last point, BCH's price remained constant the previous 36-48h hours at the ~$1500 level and this hashrate migration started well before the recent price drop to $1410 levels. With market price of both coins having been stabilized and hashrate leaving this chain, BCH's algorithm causes profitability to mine BCH to increase - yet these miners started mining the BTC chain instead - the chain whose future they don't support.
What is this maneuver pro-BCH miners are doing? Helping to clear the mempool before a flippening scenario so people can withdraw (from 59k to 43k stuck txs)? Further contributing to upping BTC's difficulty before the adjustment?
Bitcoin, huh? WTF is going on? Should we scale you on-chain or off-chain? Will you stay decentralized, distributed, immutable?
0. Shit, this is long, TLWR please! Too long, won't read. EDIT: TLDR TLWR for clarity.
Bitcoin is a decentralized, distributed, immutable network. It has users, nodes, and miners, all of which participate in building a public and pseudonymous ledger of blocks called blockchain. The blockchain requires its own currency to function and this currency is called Bitcoin.
The bitcoin network is going through growing pains. Some believe that it should be scaled on-chain with high-volume-low-cost transaction fees, whereas others believe that it has to be scaled off-chain with low-volume-high-cost transaction fees and more affordable second layer solutions. Each have relative advantages and disadvantages. A compromise has not been reached yet.
The off-chain scaling solution via Bitcoin Core SegWit’s lightning network diminishes distributed and immutable network properties. It replaces bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network with a two-layer institution-to-institution network and peer-to-hub-to-peer second layer solution.
The on-chain scaling solution via Bitcoin Cash’s increased block size limit is feasible at the moment but inefficient in the long run. It could be merged with several good concepts from the lightning network proposal and new ideas outlined in this overview.
An appropriate scaling analogy is to recall email attachments early on. They too were limited to a few MB at first, then 10MB, 20MB, up until 25MB on Gmail. But even then, Gmail eventually started using Google Drive internally.
Similarly, any second layer solutions should be integrated within the existing bitcoin network secured by miners and nodes. The revenue from any second layer solutions should be redistributed internally to miners and nodes, not to additional third party hubs which the lightning network envisions.
The author of this overview recommends on-chain scaling for the time being, with the understanding that off-chain scaling should be implemented as soon as possible, as long as these second layer solutions keep the bitcoin peer-to-peer and decentralized, distributed, immutable. Unfortunately, the lightning network does not accomplish this.
The author remains impartial to Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash proposals, with a preference for Bitcoin Cash’s way of handling immutability and overall progress thus far.
1. Bitcoin, huh? Brief introduction. There are 3 sections to this overview. The first section is a brief introduction to bitcoin. The second section looks at recent developments in the bitcoin world, through the analogy of email attachments, and the third section discusses what could be next, through the perspective of resilience and network security. This is just a continuation of a long, long, possibly never-ending debate that started with the release of the bitcoin whitepaper in 2008 (see https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf). The recent mess during the past few years boils down to the controversy with the block size limit and how to appropriately scale bitcoin, the keyword appropriately. Scaling bitcoin is a controversial debate with valid arguments from all sides (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy). I have researched, studied, and written this overview as objectively and as impartially as possible. By all means, this is still an opinion and everyone is advised to draw their own conclusions. My efforts are to make at least a few readers aware that ultimately there is only one team, and that team is the team bitcoin. Yes, currently though, there are factions within the team bitcoin. I hope that we can get beyond partisan fights and work together for the best bitcoin. I support all scaling proposals as long as they are the best for the given moment in time. Personally, I hate propaganda and love free speech as long as it is not derogatory and as long as it allows for constructive discussions. The goal of this overview is to explain to a novice how bitcoin network works, what has been keeping many bitcoin enthusiasts concerned, and if we can keep the bitcoin network with three main properties described as decentralized, distributed, immutable. Immutable means censorship resistant. For the distinction between decentralized and distributed, refer to Figure 1: Centralized, decentralized and distributed network models by Paul Baran (1964), which is a RAND Institute study to create a robust and nonlinear military communication network (see https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM3420.pdf). Note that for the overall network resilience and security, distributed is more desirable than decentralized, and the goal is to get as far away from central models as possible. Of course, nothing is strictly decentralized or strictly distributed and all network elements are at different levels of this spectrum. For those unaware how bitcoin works, I recommend the Bitcoin Wikipedia (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page). In short, the bitcoin network includes users which make bitcoin transactions and send them to the network memory pool called mempool, nodes which store the public and pseudonymous ledger called blockchain and which help with receiving pending transactions and updating processed transactions, thus securing the overall network, and miners which also secure the bitcoin network by mining. Mining is the process of confirming pending bitcoin transactions, clearing them from the mempool, and adding them to blocks which build up the consecutive chain of blocks on the blockchain. The blockchain is therefore a decentralized and distributed ledger built on top of bitcoin transactions, therefore impossible to exist without bitcoin. If someone claims to be working on their own blockchain without bitcoin, by the definition of the bitcoin network however, they are not talking about the actual blockchain. Instead, they intend to own a different kind of a private database made to look like the public and pseudonymous blockchain ledger. There are roughly a couple of dozen mining pools, each possibly with hundreds or thousands of miners participating in them, to several thousand nodes (see https://blockchain.info/pools and https://coin.dance/nodes). Therefore, the bitcoin network has at worst decentralized miners and at best distributed nodes. The miner and node design makes the blockchain resilient and immune to reversible changes, making it censorship resistant, thus immutable. The bitcoin blockchain avoids the previous need for a third party to trust. This is a very elegant solution to peer-to-peer financial exchange via a network that is all: decentralized, distributed, immutable. Extra features (escrow, reversibility via time-locks, and other features desirable in specific instances) can be integrated within the network or added on top of this network, however, they have not been implemented yet. Miners who participate receive mining reward consisting of newly mined bitcoins at a predetermined deflationary rate and also transaction fees from actual bitcoin transactions being processed. It is estimated that in 2022, miners will have mined more than 90% of all 21 million bitcoins ever to be mined (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply). As the mining reward from newly mined blocks diminishes to absolute zero in 2140, the network eventually needs the transaction fees to become the main component of the reward. This can happen either via high-volume-low-cost transaction fees or low-volume-high-cost transaction fees. Obviously, there is the need to address the question of fees when dealing with the dilemma how to scale bitcoin. Which type of fees would you prefer and under which circumstances? 2. WTF is going on? Recent developments. There are multiple sides to the scaling debate but to simplify it, first consider the 2 main poles. In particular, to scale bitcoin on blockchain or to scale it off it, that is the question! The first side likes the idea of bitcoin as it has been until now. It prefers on-chain scaling envisioned by the bitcoin creator or a group of creators who chose the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. It is now called Bitcoin Cash and somewhat religiously follows Satoshi’s vision from the 2008 whitepaper and their later public forum discussions (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366). Creators’ vision is good to follow but it should not be followed blindly and dogmatically when better advancements are possible, the keyword when. To alleviate concerning backlog of transactions and rising fees, Bitcoin Cash proponents implemented a simple one-line code update which increased the block size limit for blockhain blocks from 1MB block size limit to a new, larger 8MB limit. This was done through a fork on August 1, 2017, which created Bitcoin Cash, and which kept the bitcoin transaction history until then. Bitcoin Cash has observed significant increase in support, from 3% of all bitcoin miners at first to over 44% of all bitcoin miners after 3 weeks on August 22, 2017 (see http://fork.lol/pow/hashrate and http://fork.lol/pow/hashrateabs). An appropriate scaling analogy is to recall email attachments early on. They too were limited to a few MB at first, then 10MB, 20MB, up until 25MB on Gmail. But even then, Gmail eventually started using Google Drive internally. Note that Google Drive is a third party to Gmail, although yes, it is managed by the same entity. The second side argues that bitcoin cannot work with such a scaling approach of pre-meditated MB increases. Arguments against block size increases include miner and node centralization, and bandwidth limitations. These are discussed in more detail in the third section of this overview. As an example of an alternative scaling approach, proponents of off-chain scaling want to jump to the internally integrated third party right away, without any MB increase and, sadly, without any discussion. Some of these proponents called one particular implementation method SegWit, which stands for Segregated Witness, and they argue that SegWit is the only way that we can ever scale up add the extra features to the bitcoin network. This is not necessarily true because other scaling solutions are feasible, such as already functioning Bitcoin Cash, and SegWit’s proposed solution will not use internally integrated third party as shown next. Note that although not as elegant as SegWit is today, there are other possibilities to integrate some extra features without SegWit (see /Bitcoin/comments/5dt8tz/confused_is_segwit_needed_for_lightning_network). Due to the scaling controversy and the current backlog of transactions and already high fees, a third side hastily proposed a compromise to a 2MB increase in addition to the proposed SegWit implementation. They called it SegWit2x, which stands for Segregated Witness with 2MB block size limit increase. But the on-chain scaling and Bitcoin Cash proponents did not accept it due to SegWit’s design redundancy and hub centralization which are discussed next and revisited in the third section of this overview. After a few years of deadlock, that is why the first side broke free and created the Bitcoin Cash fork. The second side stuck with bitcoin as it was. In a way, they inherited the bitcoin network without any major change to public eye. This is crucial because major changes are about to happen and the original bitcoin vision, as we have known it, is truly reflected only in what some media refer to as a forked clone, Bitcoin Cash. Note that to avoid confusion, this second side is referred to as Bitcoin Core by some or Legacy Bitcoin by others, although mainstream media still refers to it simply as Bitcoin. The core of Bitcoin Core is quite hardcore though. They too rejected the proposed compromise for SegWit2x and there are clear indications that they will push to keep SegWit only, forcing the third side with SegWit2x proponents to create another fork in November 2017 or to join Bitcoin Cash. Note that to certain degree, already implemented and working Bitcoin Cash is technically superior to SegWit2x which is yet to be deployed (see /Bitcoin/comments/6v0gll/why_segwit2x_b2x_is_technically_inferior_to). Interestingly enough, those who agreed to SegWit2x have been in overwhelming majority, nearly 87% of all bitcoin miners on July 31, 2017 prior to the fork, and a little over 90% of remaining Bitcoin Core miners to date after the fork (see https://coin.dance/blocks). Despite such staggering support, another Bitcoin Core fork is anticipated later in November (see https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-is-splitting-once-again-are-you-ready) and the "Outcome #2: Segwit2x reneges on 2x or does not prioritize on-chain scaling" seems to be on track from the perspective of Bitcoin Core SegWit, publicly seen as the original Bitcoin (see https://blog.bridge21.io/before-and-after-the-great-bitcoin-fork-17d2aad5d512). The sad part is that although in their overwhelming majority, the miners who support SegWit2x would be the ones creating another Bitcoin Core SegWit2x fork or parting ways from the original Bitcoin. In a way, this is an ironic example how bitcoin’s built-in resiliency to veto changes causes majority to part away when a small minority has status quo and holds off fully-consented progress. Ultimately, this will give the minority Bitcoin Core SegWit proponents the original Bitcoin branding, perhaps to lure in large institutional investors and monetize on bitcoin’s success as we have it seen it during the past 9 years since its inception. Recall that bitcoin of today is already a decentralized, distributed, immutable network by its definition. The bitcoin network was designed to be an alternative to centralized and mutable institutions, so prevalent in modern capitalist societies. Bitcoin Core SegWit group wants to change the existing bitcoin network to a network with dominant third parties which, unlike Google Drive to Gmail, are not internal. In particular, they intend to do so via the lightning network, which is a second layer solution (2L). This particular 2L as currently designed relies on an artificial block size limit cap which creates a bottleneck in order to provide high incentives for miners to participate. It monetizes on backlog of transaction and high fees, which are allocated to miners, not any group in particular. Cheaper and more instantaneous transactions are shifted to the lightning network which is operated by hubs also earning revenue. Note that some of these hubs may choose to monitor transactions and can possibly censor who is allowed to participate in this no longer strictly peer-to-peer network. We lose the immutability and instead we have a peer-to-hub-to-peer network that is mutable and at best decentralized, and certainly not distributed (see https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800). For regular day-to-day and recurring transactions, it is not a considerable risk or inconvenience. And one could choose to use the main chain any time to bypass the lightning network and truly transact peer-to-peer. But since the main chain has an entry barrier in the form of artificially instilled high transaction fees, common people are not able to use bitcoin as we have known it until now. Peer-to-peer bitcoin becomes institution-to-institution bitcoin with peer-to-hub-to-peer 2L. To reiterate and stress, note the following lightning network design flaw again. Yes, activating SegWit and allowing 2L such as lightning allows for lower transaction fees to coexist side by side with more costly on-chain transactions. For those using this particularly prescribed 2L, the fees remain low. But since these 2L are managed by hubs, we introduce another element to trust, which is contrary to what the bitcoin network was designed to do at the first place. Over time, by the nature of the lightning network in its current design, these third party hubs grow to be centralized, just like Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover, etc. There is nothing wrong with that in general because it works just fine. But recall that bitcoin set out to create a different kind of a network. Instead of decentralized, distributed, immutable network with miners and nodes, with the lightning network we end up with at best decentralized but mutable network with hubs. Note that Bitcoin Core SegWit has a US-based organization backing it with millions of dollars (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockstream and https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/the-truth-about-who-is-behind-blockstream-and-segwit-as-the-saying-goes-follow-the-money). Their proponents are quite political and some even imply $1000 fees on the main bitcoin blockchain (see https://cointelegraph.com/news/ari-paul-tuur-demeester-look-forward-to-up-to-1k-bitcoin-fees). Contrary to them, Bitcoin Cash proponents intend to keep small fees on a scale of a few cents, which in large volume in larger blockchain blocks provide sufficient incentive for miners to participate. On the one hand, sticking to the original vision of peer-to-peer network scaled on-chain has merit and holds potential for future value. On the other hand, 2L have potential to carry leaps forward from current financial infrastructure. As mentioned earlier, 2L will allow for extra features to be integrated off-chain (e.g. escrow, reversibility via time-locks), including entirely new features such as smart contracts, decentralized applications, some of which have been pioneered and tested on another cryptocurrency network called Ethereum. But such features could be one day implemented directly on the main bitcoin blockchain without the lightning network as currently designed, or perhaps with a truly integrated 2L proposed in the third section of this overview. What makes the whole discussion even more confusing is that there are some proposals for specific 2L that would in fact increase privacy and make bitcoin transactions less pseudonymous than those on the current bitcoin blockchain now. Keep in mind that 2L are not necessarily undesirable. If they add features and keep the main network characteristics (decentralized, distributed, immutable), they should be embraced with open arms. But the lightning network as currently designed gives up immutability and hub centralization moves the network characteristic towards a decentralized rather than a distributed network. In a sense, back to the initial email attachment analogy, even Gmail stopped with attachment limit increases and started hosting large files on Google Drive internally, with an embedded link in a Gmail email to download anything larger than 25MB from Google Drive. Anticipating the same scaling decisions, the question then becomes not if but when and how such 2L should be implemented, keeping the overall network security and network characteristics in mind. If you have not gotten it yet, repeat, repeat, repeat: decentralized, distributed, immutable. Is it the right time now and is SegWit (one way, my way or highway) truly the best solution? Those siding away from Bitcoin Core SegWit also dislike that corporate entities behind Blockstream, the one publicly known corporate entity directly supporting SegWit, have allegedly applied for SegWit patents which may further restrict who may and who may not participate in the creation of future hubs, or how these hubs are controlled (see the alleged patent revelations, https://falkvinge.net/2017/05/01/blockstream-patents-segwit-makes-pieces-fall-place, the subsequent Twitter rebuttal Blockstream CEO, http://bitcoinist.com/adam-back-no-patents-segwit, and the subsequent legal threats to SegWit2x proponents /btc/comments/6vadfi/blockstream_threatening_legal_action_against). Regardless if the patent claims are precise or not, the fact remains that there is a corporate entity dictating and vetoing bitcoin developments. Objectively speaking, Bitcoin Core SegWit developers paid by Blockstream is a corporate takeover of the bitcoin network as we have known it. And on the topic of patents and permissionless technological innovations, what makes all of this even more complicated is that a mining improvement technology called ASICboost is allowed on Bitcoin Cash. The main entities who forked from Bitcoin Core to form Bitcoin Cash had taken advantage of patents to the ASICboost technology on the original bitcoin network prior to the fork (see https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/breaking-down-bitcoins-asicboost-scandal). This boost saved estimated 20% electricity for miners on 1MB blocks and created unfair economic advantage for this one particular party. SegWit is one way that this boost is being eliminated, through the code. Larger blocks are another way to reduce the boost advantage, via decreased rate of collisions which made this boost happen at the first place (see https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/breaking-down-bitcoins-asicboost-scandal-solutions and https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/the-relation-between-segwit-and-asicboost-covert-and-overt). Therefore, the initial Bitcoin Cash proponents argue that eliminating ASICboost through the code is no longer needed or necessary. Of course, saving any amount electricity between 0% and 20% is good for all on our planet but in reality any energy saved in a mining operation is used by the same mining operation to increase their mining capacity. In reality, there are no savings, there is just capacity redistribution. The question then becomes if it is okay that only one party currently and already holds onto this advantage, which they covertly hid for relatively long time, and which they could be using covertly on Bitcoin Cash if they desired to do so, even though it would an advantage to a smaller degree. To be fair to them, they are mining manufacturers and operators, they researched and developed the advantage from own resources, so perhaps they do indeed have the right to reap ASICboost benefits while they can. But perhaps it should happen in publicly know way, not behind closed doors, and should be temporary, with agreed patent release date. In conclusion, there is no good and no bad actor, each side is its own shade of grey. All parties have their own truth (and villainy) to certain degree. Bitcoin Cash's vision is for bitcoin to be an electronic cash platform and daily payment processor whereas Bitcoin Core SegWit seems to be drawn more to the ideas of bitcoin as an investment vehicle and a larger settlement layer with the payment processor function managed via at best decentralized third party hubs. Both can coexist, or either one can eventually prove more useful and digest the other one by taking over all use-cases. Additionally, the most popular communication channel on /bitcoin with roughly 300k subscribers censors any alternative non-Bitcoin-Core-SegWit opinions and bans people from posting their ideas to discussions (see https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43). This is because their moderators are also supported by Blockstream. Note that the author of this overview has not gotten banned from this particular subreddit (yet), but has experienced shadow-banning first hand. Shadow-banning is a form of censorship. In this particular case, their moderator robot managed by people moderators, collaboratively with the people moderators, do the following:
(1) look for "Bitcoin Cash" and other undesirable keywords,
(2) warn authors that “Bitcoin Cash” is not true bitcoin (which objectively speaking it is, and which is by no means “BCash” that Bitcoin Core SegWit proponents refer to, in a coordinated effort to further confuse public, especially since some of them have published plans to officially release another cryptocurrency called “BCash” in 2018, see https://medium.com/@freetrade68/announcing-bcash-8b938329eaeb),
(3) further warn authors that if they try to post such opinions again, they could banned permanently,
(4) tell authors to delete their already posted posts or comments,
(5) hide their post from publicly seen boards with all other posts, thus preventing it from being seeing by the other participants in this roughly 300k public forum,
This effectively silences objective opinions and creates a dangerous echo-chamber. Suppressing free speech and artificially blowing up transaction fees on Bitcoin Core SegWit is against bitcoin’s fundamental values. Therefore, instead of the original Reddit communication channel, many bitcoin enthusiasts migrated to /btc which has roughly 60k subscribers as of now, up from 20k subscribers a year ago in August 2016 (see http://redditmetrics.com/btc). Moderators there do not censor opinions and allow all polite and civil discussions about scaling, including all opinions on Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Core, etc. Looking beyond their respective leaderships and communication channels, let us review a few network fundamentals and recent developments in Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash networks. Consequently, for now, these present Bitcoin Cash with more favorable long-term prospects.
(1) The stress-test and/or attack on the Bitcoin Cash mempool earlier on August 16, 2017 showed that 8MB blocks do work as intended, without catastrophic complications that Bitcoin Core proponents anticipated and from which they attempted to discourage others (see https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/uahf/#2w for the Bitcoin Cash mempool and https://core.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#2w for the Bitcoin Core mempool). Note that when compared to the Bitcoin Core mempool on their respective 2 week views, one can observe how each network handles backlogs. On the most recent 2 week graphs, the Y-scale for Bitcoin Core is 110k vs. 90k on Bitcoin Cash. In other words, at the moment, Bitcoin Cash works better than Bitcoin Core even though there is clearly not as big demand for Bitcoin Cash as there is for Bitcoin Core. The lack of demand for Bitcoin Cash is partly because Bitcoin Cash is only 3 weeks old and not many merchants have started accepting it, and only a limited number of software applications to use Bitcoin Cash has been released so far. By all means, the Bitcoin Cash stress-test and/or attack from August 16, 2017 reveals that the supply will handle the increased demand, more affordably, and at a much quicker rate.
(2) Bitcoin Cash “BCH” mining has become temporarily more profitable than mining Bitcoin Core “BTC” (see http://fork.lol). Besides temporary loss of miners, this puts Bitcoin Core in danger of permanently fleeing miners. Subsequently, mempool backlog and transaction fees are anticipated to increase further.
(3) When compared to Bitcoin Cash transaction fees at roughly $0.02, transaction fees per kB are over 800 times as expensive on Bitcoin Core, currently at over $16 (see https://cashvscore.com).
(4) Tipping service that used to work on Bitcoin Core's /Bitcoin a few years back has been revived by a new tipping service piloted on the more neutral /btc with the integration of Bitcoin Cash (see /cashtipperbot).
3. Should we scale you on-chain or off-chain? Scaling bitcoin. Let us start with the notion that we are impartial to both Bitcoin Core (small blocks, off-chain scaling only) and Bitcoin Cash (big blocks, on-chain scaling only) schools of thought. We will support any or all ideas, as long as they allow for bitcoin to grow organically and eventually succeed as a peer-to-peer network that remains decentralized, distributed, immutable. Should we have a preference in either of the proposed scaling solutions? First, let us briefly address Bitcoin Core and small blocks again. From the second section of this overview, we understand that there are proposed off-chain scaling methods via second layer solutions (2L), most notably soon-to-be implemented lightning via SegWit on Bitcoin Core. Unfortunately, the lightning network diminishes distributed and immutable network properties by replacing bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network with a two-layer institution-to-institution network and peer-to-hub-to-peer 2L. Do we need this particular 2L right now? Is its complexity truly needed? Is it not at best somewhat cumbersome (if not very redundant)? In addition to ridiculously high on-chain transaction fees illustrated in the earlier section, the lightning network code is perhaps more robust than it needs to be now, with thousands of lines of code, thus possibly opening up to new vectors for bugs or attacks (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network and https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd). Additionally, this particular 2L as currently designed unnecessarily introduces third parties, hubs, that are expected to centralize. We already have a working code that has been tested and proven to handle 8MB blocks, as seen with Bitcoin Cash on August 16, 2017 (see https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/first-8mb-bitcoin-cash-block-just-mined). At best, these third party hubs would be decentralized but they would not be distributed. And these hubs would be by no means integral to the original bitcoin network with users, nodes, and miners. To paraphrase Ocam’s razor problem solving principle, the simplest solution with the most desirable features will prevail (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor). The simplest scalability solution today is Bitcoin Cash because it updates only one line of code, which instantly increases the block size limit. This also allows other companies building on Bitcoin Cash to reduce their codes when compared to Bitcoin Core SegWit’s longer code, some even claiming ten-fold reductions (see /btc/comments/6vdm7y/ryan_x_charles_reveals_bcc_plan). The bitcoin ecosystem not only includes the network but it also includes companies building services on top of it. When these companies can reduce their vectors for bugs or attacks, the entire ecosystem is healthier and more resilient to hacking disasters. Obviously, changes to the bitcoin network code are desirable to be as few and as elegant as possible. But what are the long-term implications of doing the one-line update repeatedly? Eventually, blocks would have to reach over 500MB size if they were to process Visa-level capacity (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability). With decreasing costs of IT infrastructure, bandwidth and storage could accommodate it, but the overhead costs would increase significantly, implying miner and/or full node centralization further discussed next. To decrease this particular centralization risk, which some consider undesirable and others consider irrelevant, built-in and integrated 2L could keep the block size at a reasonably small-yet-still-large limit. At the first sight, these 2L would remedy the risk of centralization by creating their own centralization incentive. At the closer look and Ocam’s razor principle again, these 2L do not have to become revenue-seeking third party hubs as designed with the current lightning network. They can be integrated into the current bitcoin network with at worst decentralized miners and at best distributed nodes. Recall that miners will eventually need to supplement their diminishing mining reward from new blocks. Additionally, as of today, the nodes have no built-in economic incentive to run other than securing the network and keeping the network’s overall value at its current level. Therefore, if new 2L were to be developed, they should be designed in a similar way like the lightning network, with the difference that the transaction processing revenue would not go to third party hubs but to the already integrated miners and nodes. In other words, why do we need extra hubs if we have miners and nodes already? Let us consider the good elements from the lightning network, forget the unnecessary hubs, and focus on integrating the hubs’ responsibilities to already existing miner and node protocols. Why would we add extra elements to the system that already functions with the minimum number of elements possible? Hence, 2L are not necessarily undesirable as long as they do not unnecessarily introduce third party hubs. Lastly, let us discuss partial on-chain scaling with the overall goal of network security. The network security we seek is the immutability and resilience via distributed elements within otherwise decentralized and distributed network. It is not inconceivable to scale bitcoin with bigger blocks as needed, when needed, to a certain degree. The thought process is the following:
(1) Block size limit:
We need some upper limit to avoid bloating the network with spam transactions. Okay, that makes sense. Now, what should this limit be? If we agree to disagree with small block size limit stuck at 1MB, and if we are fine with flexible block size limit increases (inspired by mining difficulty readjustments but on a longer time scale) or big block propositions (to be increased incrementally), what is holding us off next?
(2) Miner centralization:
Bigger blocks mean that more data will be transferred on the bitcoin network. Consequently, more bandwidth and data storage will be required. This will create decentralized miners instead of distributed ones. Yes, that is true. And it has already happened, due to the economy of scale, in particular the efficiency of grouping multiple miners in centralized facilities, and the creation of mining pools collectively and virtually connecting groups of miners not physically present in the same facility. These facilities tend to have huge overhead costs and the data storage and bandwidth increase costs are negligible in this context. The individual miners participating in mining pools will quite likely notice somewhat higher operational costs but allowing for additional revenue from integrated 2L described earlier will give them economic incentive to remain actively participating. Note that mining was never supposed to be strictly distributed and it was always at worst decentralized, as defined in the first section of this overview. To assure at best a distributed network, we have nodes.
(3) Node centralization:
Bigger blocks mean that more data will be transferred on the bitcoin network. Consequently, more bandwidth and data storage will be required. This will create decentralized nodes instead of distributed ones. Again, recall that we have a spectrum of decentralized and distributed networks in mind, not their absolutes. The concern about the node centralization (and the subsequent shift from distributed to decentralized network property) is valid if we only follow on-chain scaling to inconsiderate MB values. If addressed with the proposed integrated 2L that provides previously unseen economic incentives to participate in the network, this concern is less serious. Furthermore, other methods to reduce bandwidth and storage needs can be used. A popular proposal is block pruning, which keeps only the most recent 550 blocks, and eventually deletes any older blocks (see https://news.bitcoin.com/pros-and-cons-on-bitcoin-block-pruning). Block pruning addresses storage needs and makes sure that not all nodes participating in the bitcoin network have to store all transactions that have ever been recorded on the blockchain. Some nodes storing all transactions are still necessary and they are called full nodes. Block pruning does not eliminate full nodes but it does indeed provide an economic incentive for the reduction and centralization (i.e. saving on storage costs). If addressed with the proposed integrated 2L that provides previously unseen economic incentives to participate in the network, this concern is less serious. In other words, properly designed 2L should provide economic incentives for all nodes (full and pruned) to remain active and distributed. As of now, only miners earn revenue for participating. The lightning network proposes extra revenue for hubs. Instead, miner revenue could increase by processing 2L transactions as well, and full nodes could have an economic incentive as well. To mine, relatively high startup costs is necessary in order to get the most up to date mining hardware and proper cooling equipment. These have to be maintained and periodically upgraded. To run a full node, one needs only stable bandwidth and a sufficiently large storage, which can be expanded as needed, when needed. To run a full node, one needs only stable bandwidth and relatively small storage, which does not need to be expanded. Keeping the distributed characteristic in mind, it would be much more secure for the bitcoin network if one could earn bitcoin by simply running a node, full or pruned. This could be integrated with a simple code change requiring each node to own a bitcoin address to which miners would send a fraction of processed transaction fees. Of course, pruned nodes would collectively receive the least transaction fee revenue (e.g. 10%), full nodes would collectively receive relatively larger transaction fee revenue (e.g. 20%), whereas mining facilities or mining pools would individually receive the largest transaction fee revenue (e.g. 70%) in addition to the full mining reward from newly mined blocks (i.e. 100%). This would assure that all nodes would remain relatively distributed. Hence, block pruning is a feasible solution. However, in order to start pruning, one would have to have the full blockchain to begin with. As currently designed, downloading blockchain for the first time also audits previous blocks for accuracy, this can take days depending on one’s bandwidth. This online method is the only way to distribute the bitcoin blockchain and the bitcoin network so far. When the size of blockchain becomes a concern, a simpler distribution idea should be implemented offline. Consider distributions of Linux-based operating systems on USBs. Similarly, the full bitcoin blockchain up to a certain point can be distributed via easy-to-mail USBs. Note that even if we were to get the blockchain in bulk on such a USB, some form of a block audit would have to happen nevertheless. A new form of checkpoint hashes could be added to the bitcoin code. For instance, each 2016 blocks (whenever the difficulty readjusts), all IDs from previous 2015 blocks would be hashed and recorded. That way, with our particular offline blockchain distribution, the first time user would have to audit only the key 2016th blocks, designed to occur on average once in roughly 2 weeks. This would significantly reduce bandwidth concerns for the auditing process because only each 2016th block would have to be uploaded online to be audited. Overall, we are able to scale the bitcoin network via initial on-chain scaling approaches supplemented with off-chain scaling approaches. This upgrades the current network to a pruned peer-to-peer network with integrated 2L managed by miners and nodes who assure that the bitcoin network stays decentralized, distributed, immutable.
Note that the author u/bit-architect appreciates any Bitcoin Cash donations on Reddit directly or on bitcoin addresses 178ZTiot2QVVKjru2f9MpzyeYawP81vaXi bitcoincash:qp7uqpv2tsftrdmu6e8qglwr2r38u4twlq3f7a48uq (Bitcoin Cash) and 1GqcFi4Cs1LVAxLxD3XMbJZbmjxD8SYY8S (Bitcoin Core).
The BitcoinGold difficulty chart provides the current BitcoinGold difficulty (BTG diff) target as well as a historical data graph visualizing BitcoinGold mining difficulty chart values with BTG difficulty adjustments (both increases and decreases) defaulted to today with timeline options of 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, and all time The difficulty is measured in hashes (usually terahashes – TH), concerning mining, it signifies the unit of work performed. The network hashrate or nethash (number of miners) are measured by hashes per second (TH/s). The network itself adjusts difficulty in such a way that the difficulty/nethash = block time (in case of Musicoin it is 15 ... Bitcoin, Litecoin Hashrate vs. Price in USD historical chart Average hashrate (hash/s) per day vs. Average price, per day, USD. Share: btc eth ltc bch xrp xmr zec bsv etc dash doge btg rdd vtc blk ftc nvc nmc. Scale: linear log. Latest Prices: BTC/USD: 12813.75 (bitasset) BTC/USD: 12775.54 (hitbtc) LTC/USD: 52.4298 (hitbtc) LTC/USD: 52.51 (gdax) Zoom: 3 months 6 months 1 year 2 years all ... The Bitcoin difficulty chart provides the current Bitcoin difficulty (BTC diff) target as well as a historical data graph visualizing Bitcoin mining difficulty chart values with BTC difficulty adjustments (both increases and decreases) defaulted to today with timeline options of 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, and all time difficulty = hashrate / (2^256 / max_target / intended_time_per_block) = hashrate / (2^256 / (2^208*65535) / 600) = hashrate / (2^48 / 65535 / 600) = hashrate / 7158388.055 (where hashrate is expressed in hashes/s) Longer answer: there is no direct relation between the actual network hashrate and the difficulty, because the actual hashrate cannot be observed. What happens is that every 2016 ...
This usually relates to the difficulty of generating a new hash address, also known as mining. This is a variable that the Bitcoin system is using to keep the growth of new Bitcoins on a ... Insbesondere möchte ich euch erklären, warum eine steigende Hashrate keinen automatisch steigenden Bitcoin-Preis zur Folge haben muss. Gleichzeitig stelle ich euch mit Bitcoin Difficulty Ribbon ... The Bitcoin Mempool, Difficulty Adjustment, Hashrate, Block Time, Block Reward, Transaction Fees and much more is explained simply in this video. Bitcoin onchain data: https://studio.glassnode.com ... Bitcoin Mining Difficulty & Bitcoin Hashrate Erklärung 2019 Herzlich Willkommen zu diesem Video. Heute erkläre ich dir, wieso der Bitcoin-Preis gesunken ist, was die Tendenzen sind und was das ... Bitcoin mining difficulty drops a historical 16%, bitcoin hashrate down 45%. Bitcoin mining difficulty explained in this video. Start mining bitcoins in the warrior mining btc mining farm: https ...