Bitcoin versus Namecoin (BTC vs NMC) CryptoRival

Crypto markets 5 years ago vs today. Anyone remember Terracoin? Down 99.1% vs Bitcoin. Ouch.

All stats as compared to BTC.
and on and on... more info in this one-minute video I put together. https://youtu.be/AbOWOzPEJrE
Ouch.
submitted by ChronosCrypto to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

It's time for r/bitcoin to die

There will never be consensus. There will never be consensus. There will never be consensus.
If history has taught us one thing it is that there will never be consensus. A group of people didn't want to pay taxes so they founded a WHOLE NEW COUNTRY! Then those same people years later could not agree on "labor laws." One group wanted to continue to enslave people, the other group wanted freedom for all people. That SPLIT that whole "new" country. Now just about every country is fragmented into dozens of groups. Meat eaters. Non meat eaters. Socialists vs Capitalists. And now there is a political group founded on the fact that they don't get enough pu**y. No...I'm not making this up.
There will never be consensus.
Bitcoin was supposed to be the thing that united us all. The world NEEDED an alternative to banks. And the creators of bitcoin succeeded in that. The blockchain was born. What an accomplishment. It is a technological marvel that can solve so many problems.
The problem is, humans got in the way.
Perhaps being there in the beginning and watching the bitcoin community grow made them BTC maximalists. In the beginning, there WAS only one coin. True bitcoin people did not pay litecoin, or namecoin any attention. (I did invest in peercoin though) I remember when litecoin was $4 and I bought ZERO of that coin because I didn't think it had a purpose. Today my opinion of litecoin is the same...but I'm not going to create a subreddit called allltcholderssuck
I am a big enough person to allow someone to have their own opinion without it imposing on my beliefs. But with bitcoin - which is probably the first subreddit a new crypto wannabe would go to, this is not the case.
If you've never been on bitcoin I can sum up every thread like this. ALL NON BTC COINS ARE TRASH. ALL PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN ANY OTHER COIN ARE STUPID. ROGER VER IS TRASH. ALL HAIL Bitcoin!
Did I miss anything? (nope that sums it up right there).
Any opinion, any new idea, any suggestion is met with a digital beating and a ban. Can we increase the block size? BAN. Is BTC harmful to the environment? BAN. Will BTC ever have smart contracts? BAN. At one point even Ethereum was a bad word.
Why does this matter to you??
Because now, the community that built itself around inclusion and democracy, and the "we hate banks" motto has been fractured. And most of the hate is coming from bitcoin. Now we have people who were in Bitcoin when bitcoin was $300, that don't own any bitcoin! (like me) Not because we don't believe in bitcoin, but because we don't believe in the people behind bitcoin. And this ANTI-bitcoin attitude is growing.
Every coin or token that comes out in hopes to improve the blockchain is a vote against bitcoin. They are saying "we don't believe BTC is enough"
Rather than try to learn from these people, and improve the technology, bitcoin shuts itself off to the rest of the world, and continues to shout BITCOIN ONLY from inside their digital barricades.
Make no mistake THIS is the reason the market is down. Network congestion, led to high fees, led to people selling, led to understanding more about the people behind bitcoin, led to a dislike of the bitcoin maximalist community, led to moving money to other projects.
Its not charts. Its not whales. It is people saying "I want nothing to do with bitcoin." As long as bitcoin continues to spew this nonsense, it WILL be a drag on the entire community. New people (which is the life of any business) will come in - see the hatred - and take their money with them. Whales, will simply invest in other projects. Bitcoin will continue to fall, and unfortunately the entire crypto market will fall with it.
As long as people have a Bitcoin first mentality the crypto market will fall. We have to move towards an inclusive crypto mentality. Any project that actually adds value to the community should be given the opportunity to stand on its own merits. And its not just bitcoin, other coins have also developed this (insert coin here) only mentality.
This is not a zero sum game. Having various options is the definition of democracy. bitcoin mods are literally the hitlers of the crypto world. Spewing hatred, and totalitarianism will get you nowhere...eventually.
It's time for bitcoin to die
submitted by truffledust to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Merged Mining: Analysis of Effects and Implications

Date: 2017-08-24
Author(s): Alexei Zamyatin, Edgar Weippl

Link to Paper


Abstract
Merged mining refers to the concept of mining more than one cryptocurrency without necessitating additional proof-of-work effort. Merged mining was introduced in 2011 as a boostrapping mechanism for new cryptocurrencies and countermeasures against the fragmentation of mining power across competing systems. Although merged mining has already been adopted by a number of cryptocurrencies, to this date little is known about the effects and implications.
In this thesis, we shed light on this topic area by performing a comprehensive analysis of merged mining in practice. As part of this analysis, we present a block attribution scheme for mining pools to assist in the evaluation of mining centralization. Our findings disclose that mining pools in merge-mined cryptocurrencies have operated at the edge of, and even beyond, the security guarantees offered by the underlying Nakamoto consensus for extended periods. We discuss the implications and security considerations for these cryptocurrencies and the mining ecosystem as a whole, and link our findings to the intended effects of merged mining.

Bibliography
[1] Coinmarketcap. http://coinmarketcap.com/. Accessed 2017-09-28.
[2] P2pool. http://p2pool.org/. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[3] M. Ali, J. Nelson, R. Shea, and M. J. Freedman. Blockstack: Design and implementation of a global naming system with blockchains. http://www.the-blockchain.com/docs/BlockstackDesignandImplementationofaGlobalNamingSystem.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-03-29.
[4] G. Andersen. Comment in "faster blocks vs bigger blocks". https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=673415.msg7658481#msg7658481, 2014. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[5] G. Andersen. [bitcoin-dev] weak block thoughts... https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Septembe011157.html, 2015. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[6] L. Anderson, R. Holz, A. Ponomarev, P. Rimba, and I. Weber. New kids on the block: an analysis of modern blockchains. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.06530.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-07-04.
[7] E. Androulaki, S. Capkun, and G. O. Karame. Two bitcoins at the price of one? double-spending attacks on fast payments in bitcoin. In CCS, 2012.
[8] A. Back, M. Corallo, L. Dashjr, M. Friedenbach, G. Maxwell, A. Miller, A. Poelstra, J. Timón, and P. Wuille. Enabling blockchain innovations with pegged sidechains. http://newspaper23.com/ripped/2014/11/http-_____-___-_www___-blockstream___-com__-_sidechains.pdf, 2014. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[9] A. Back et al. Hashcash - a denial of service counter-measure. http://www.hashcash.org/papers/hashcash.pdf, 2002. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[10] S. Barber, X. Boyen, E. Shi, and E. Uzun. Bitter to better - how to make bitcoin a better currency. In Financial cryptography and data security, pages 399–414. Springer, 2012.
[11] J. Becker, D. Breuker, T. Heide, J. Holler, H. P. Rauer, and R. Böhme. Can we afford integrity by proof-of-work? scenarios inspired by the bitcoin currency. In WEIS. Springer, 2012.
[12] I. Bentov, R. Pass, and E. Shi. Snow white: Provably secure proofs of stake. https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/919.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[13] Bitcoin Community. Bitcoin developer guide- transaction data. https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#term-merkle-tree. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[14] Bitcoin Community. Bitcoin protocol documentation - merkle trees. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation#Merkle_Trees. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[15] Bitcoin community. Bitcoin protocol rules. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_rules. Accessed: 2017-08-22.
[16] V. Buterin. Chain interoperability. Technical report, Tech. rep. 1. R3CEV, 2016.
[17] W. Dai. bmoney. http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt, 1998. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[18] C. Decker and R. Wattenhofer. Information propagation in the bitcoin network. In Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P), 2013 IEEE Thirteenth International Conference on, pages 1–10. IEEE, 2013.
[19] C. Decker and R. Wattenhofer. Bitcoin transaction malleability and mtgox. In Computer Security-ESORICS 2014, pages 313–326. Springer, 2014.
[20] Dogecoin community. Dogecoin reference implementation. https://github.com/dogecoin/
[27] A. Gervais, G. Karame, S. Capkun, and V. Capkun. Is bitcoin a decentralized currency? volume 12, pages 54–60, 2014.
[28] A. Gervais, G. O. Karame, K. Wüst, V. Glykantzis, H. Ritzdorf, and S. Capkun. On the security and performance of proof of work blockchains. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 3–16. ACM, 2016.
[29] I. Giechaskiel, C. Cremers, and K. B. Rasmussen. On bitcoin security in the presence of broken cryptographic primitives. In European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS), September 2016.
[30] J. Göbel, H. P. Keeler, A. E. Krzesinski, and P. G. Taylor. Bitcoin blockchain dynamics: The selfish-mine strategy in the presence of propagation delay. Performance Evaluation, 104:23–41, 2016.
[31] E. Heilman, A. Kendler, A. Zohar, and S. Goldberg. Eclipse attacks on bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network. In 24th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 15), pages 129–144, 2015.
[32] Huntercoin developers. Huntercoin reference implementation. https://github.com/chronokings/huntercoin. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[33] B. Jakobsson and A. Juels. Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols, Apr. 8 2008. US Patent 7,356,696; Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[34] M. Jakobsson and A. Juels. Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols. In Secure Information Networks, pages 258–272. Springer, 1999.
[35] A. Judmayer, N. Stifter, K. Krombholz, and E. Weippl. Blocks and chains: Introduction to bitcoin, cryptocurrencies, and their consensus mechanisms. Synthesis Lectures on Information Security, Privacy, & Trust, 9(1):1–123, 2017.
[36] A. Juels and J. G. Brainard. Client puzzles: A cryptographic countermeasure against connection depletion attacks. In NDSS, volume 99, pages 151–165, 1999.
[37] A. Juels and B. S. Kaliski Jr. Pors: Proofs of retrievability for large files. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pages 584–597. Acm, 2007.
[38] H. Kalodner, M. Carlsten, P. Ellenbogen, J. Bonneau, and A. Narayanan. An empirical study of namecoin and lessons for decentralized namespace design. In WEIS, 2015.
[39] G. O. Karame, E. Androulaki, and S. Capkun. Double-spending fast payments in bitcoin. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pages 906–917. ACM, 2012.
[40] G. O. Karame, E. Androulaki, M. Roeschlin, A. Gervais, and S. Čapkun. Misbehavior in bitcoin: A study of double-spending and accountability. volume 18, page 2. ACM, 2015.
[41] A. Kiayias, A. Russell, B. David, and R. Oliynykov. Ouroboros: A provably secure proof-of-stake blockchain protocol. In Annual International Cryptology Conference, pages 357–388. Springer, 2017.
[42] S. King. Primecoin: Cryptocurrency with prime number proof-of-work. July 7th, 2013.
[43] T. Kluyver, B. Ragan-Kelley, F. Pérez, B. E. Granger, M. Bussonnier, J. Frederic, K. Kelley, J. B. Hamrick, J. Grout, S. Corlay, et al. Jupyter notebooks-a publishing format for reproducible computational workflows. In ELPUB, pages 87–90, 2016.
[44] Lerner, Sergio D. Rootstock plattform. http://www.the-blockchain.com/docs/Rootstock-WhitePaper-Overview.pdf. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[45] Y. Lewenberg, Y. Bachrach, Y. Sompolinsky, A. Zohar, and J. S. Rosenschein. Bitcoin mining pools: A cooperative game theoretic analysis. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pages 919–927. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2015.
[46] Litecoin community. Litecoin reference implementation. https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[47] I. Maven. Apache maven project, 2011.
[48] G. Maxwell. Comment in "[bitcoin-dev] weak block thoughts...". https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Septembe011198.html, 2016. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[49] S. Meiklejohn, M. Pomarole, G. Jordan, K. Levchenko, D. McCoy, G. M. Voelker, and S. Savage. A fistful of bitcoins: characterizing payments among men with no names. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Internet measurement conference, pages 127–140. ACM, 2013.
[50] S. Micali. Algorand: The efficient and democratic ledger. http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01341, 2016. Accessed: 2017-02-09.
[51] A. Miller, A. Juels, E. Shi, B. Parno, and J. Katz. Permacoin: Repurposing bitcoin work for data preservation. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2014 IEEE Symposium on, pages 475–490. IEEE, 2014.
[52] A. Miller, A. Kosba, J. Katz, and E. Shi. Nonoutsourceable scratch-off puzzles to discourage bitcoin mining coalitions. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 680–691. ACM, 2015.
[53] B. Momjian. PostgreSQL: introduction and concepts, volume 192. Addison-Wesley New York, 2001.
[54] Myriad core developers. Myriadcoin reference implementation. https://github.com/myriadcoin/myriadcoin. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[55] S. Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, Dec 2008. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[56] S. Nakamoto. Merged mining specification. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Merged_mining_specification, Apr 2011. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[57] Namecoin Community. Merged mining. https://github.com/namecoin/wiki/blob/masteMerged-Mining.mediawiki#Goal_of_this_namecoin_change. Accessed: 2017-08-20.
[58] Namecoin community. Namecoin reference implementation. https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[59] A. Narayanan, J. Bonneau, E. Felten, A. Miller, and S. Goldfeder. Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies: A Comprehensive Introduction. Princeton University Press, 2016.
[60] K. Nayak, S. Kumar, A. Miller, and E. Shi. Stubborn mining: Generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. In 1st IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2016. IEEE, 2016.
[61] K. J. O’Dwyer and D. Malone. Bitcoin mining and its energy footprint. 2014.
[62] R. Pass, L. Seeman, and A. Shelat. Analysis of the blockchain protocol in asynchronous networks. In Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, pages 643–673. Springer, 2017.
[63] D. Pointcheval and J. Stern. Security arguments for digital signatures and blind signatures. Journal of cryptology, 13(3):361–396, 2000.
[64] Pseudonymous("TierNolan"). Decoupling transactions and pow. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179598.0, 2013. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[65] P. R. Rizun. Subchains: A technique to scale bitcoin and improve the user experience. Ledger, 1:38–52, 2016.
[66] K. Rosenbaum. Weak blocks - the good and the bad. http://popeller.io/index.php/2016/01/19/weak-blocks-the-good-and-the-bad/, 2016. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[67] K. Rosenbaum and R. Russell. Iblt and weak block propagation performance. Scaling Bitcoin Hong Kong (6 December 2015), 2015.
[68] M. Rosenfeld. Analysis of bitcoin pooled mining reward systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1112.4980, 2011.
[69] M. Rosenfeld. Analysis of hashrate-based double spending. http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2009, 2014. Accessed: 2016-03-09.
[70] R. Russel. Weak block simulator for bitcoin. https://github.com/rustyrussell/weak-blocks, 2014. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[71] A. Sapirshtein, Y. Sompolinsky, and A. Zohar. Optimal selfish mining strategies in bitcoin. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 515–532. Springer, 2016.
[72] Sathoshi Nakamoto. Comment in "bitdns and generalizing bitcoin" bitcointalk thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28696#msg28696. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[73] O. Schrijvers, J. Bonneau, D. Boneh, and T. Roughgarden. Incentive compatibility of bitcoin mining pool reward functions. In FC ’16: Proceedings of the the 20th International Conference on Financial Cryptography, February 2016.
[74] B. Sengupta, S. Bag, S. Ruj, and K. Sakurai. Retricoin: Bitcoin based on compact proofs of retrievability. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking, page 14. ACM, 2016.
[75] N. Szabo. Bit gold. http://unenumerated.blogspot.co.at/2005/12/bit-gold.html, 2005. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[76] M. B. Taylor. Bitcoin and the age of bespoke silicon. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Compilers, Architectures and Synthesis for Embedded Systems, page 16. IEEE Press, 2013.
[77] Unitus developers. Unitus reference implementation. https://github.com/unitusdev/unitus. Accessed: 2017-08-22.
[78] M. Vukolić. The quest for scalable blockchain fabric: Proof-of-work vs. bft replication. In International Workshop on Open Problems in Network Security, pages 112–125. Springer, 2015.
[79] P. Webb, D. Syer, J. Long, S. Nicoll, R. Winch, A. Wilkinson, M. Overdijk, C. Dupuis, and S. Deleuze. Spring boot reference guide. Technical report, 2013-2016.
[80] A. Zamyatin. Name-squatting in namecoin. (unpublished BSc thesis, Vienna University of Technology), 2015.
submitted by dj-gutz to myrXiv [link] [comments]

Flux: Revisiting Near Blocks for Proof-of-Work Blockchains

Cryptology ePrint Archive: Report 2018/415
Date: 2018-05-29
Author(s): Alexei Zamyatin∗, Nicholas Stifter, Philipp Schindler, Edgar Weippl, William J. Knottenbelt∗

Link to Paper


Abstract
The term near or weak blocks describes Bitcoin blocks whose PoW does not meet the required target difficulty to be considered valid under the regular consensus rules of the protocol. Near blocks are generally associated with protocol improvement proposals striving towards shorter transaction confirmation times. Existing proposals assume miners will act rationally based solely on intrinsic incentives arising from the adoption of these changes, such as earlier detection of blockchain forks.
In this paper we present Flux, a protocol extension for proof-of-work blockchains that leverages on near blocks, a new block reward distribution mechanism, and an improved branch selection policy to incentivize honest participation of miners. Our protocol reduces mining variance, improves the responsiveness of the underlying blockchain in terms of transaction processing, and can be deployed without conflicting modifications to the underlying base protocol as a velvet fork. We perform an initial analysis of selfish mining which suggests Flux not only provides security guarantees similar to pure Nakamoto consensus, but potentially renders selfish mining strategies less profitable.

References
[1] Bitcoin Cash. https://www.bitcoincash.org/. Accessed: 2017-01-24.
[2] P2pool. http://p2pool.org/. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[3] G. Andersen. Comment in ”faster blocks vs bigger blocks”. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=673415.msg7658481#msg7658481, 2014. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[4] G. Andersen. [bitcoin-dev] weak block thoughts... https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Septembe011157.html, 2015. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[5] E. Androulaki, S. Capkun, and G. O. Karame. Two bitcoins at the price of one? double-spending attacks on fast payments in bitcoin. In CCS, 2012.
[6] J. Becker, D. Breuker, T. Heide, J. Holler, H. P. Rauer, and R. Bohme. ¨ Can we afford integrity by proof-of-work? scenarios inspired by the bitcoin currency. In WEIS. Springer, 2012.
[7] I. Bentov, R. Pass, and E. Shi. Snow white: Provably secure proofs of stake. https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/919.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-11-08.
[8] Bitcoin community. OP RETURN. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP\RETURN. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[9] Bitcoin Wiki. Merged mining specification. [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Merged\](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Merged)) mining\ specification. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[10] Blockchain.info. Hashrate Distribution in Bitcoin. https://blockchain.info/de/pools. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[11] Blockchain.info. Unconfirmed bitcoin transactions. https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[12] J. Bonneau, A. Miller, J. Clark, A. Narayanan, J. A. Kroll, and E. W. Felten. Sok: Research perspectives and challenges for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2015.
[13] V. Buterin. Ethereum: A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform. https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper, 2014. Accessed: 2016-08-22.
[14] C. Decker and R. Wattenhofer. Information propagation in the bitcoin network. In Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P), 2013 IEEE Thirteenth International Conference on, pages 1–10. IEEE, 2013.
[15] J. R. Douceur. The sybil attack. In International Workshop on Peer-toPeer Systems, pages 251–260. Springer, 2002.
[16] I. Eyal, A. E. Gencer, E. G. Sirer, and R. Renesse. Bitcoin-ng: A scalable blockchain protocol. In 13th USENIX Security Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI’16). USENIX Association, Mar 2016.
[17] I. Eyal and E. G. Sirer. Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 436–454. Springer, 2014.
[18] J. Garay, A. Kiayias, and N. Leonardos. The bitcoin backbone protocol: Analysis and applications. In Advances in Cryptology-EUROCRYPT 2015, pages 281–310. Springer, 2015.
[19] A. E. Gencer, S. Basu, I. Eyal, R. Renesse, and E. G. Sirer. Decentralization in bitcoin and ethereum networks. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC). Springer, 2018.
[20] A. Gervais, G. Karame, S. Capkun, and V. Capkun. Is bitcoin a decentralized currency? volume 12, pages 54–60, 2014.
[21] A. Gervais, G. O. Karame, K. Wust, V. Glykantzis, H. Ritzdorf, ¨ and S. Capkun. On the security and performance of proof of work blockchains. https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/555.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-08-10.
[22] M. Jakobsson and A. Juels. Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols. In Secure Information Networks, pages 258–272. Springer, 1999.
[23] A. Judmayer, A. Zamyatin, N. Stifter, A. G. Voyiatzis, and E. Weippl. Merged mining: Curse or cure? In CBT’17: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology, Sep 2017.
[24] G. O. Karame, E. Androulaki, M. Roeschlin, A. Gervais, and S. Capkun. ˇ Misbehavior in bitcoin: A study of double-spending and accountability. volume 18, page 2. ACM, 2015.
[25] A. Kiayias, A. Miller, and D. Zindros. Non-interactive proofs of proof-of-work. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/963, 2017. Accessed:2017-10-03.
[26] A. Kiayias, A. Russell, B. David, and R. Oliynykov. Ouroboros: A provably secure proof-of-stake blockchain protocol. In Annual International Cryptology Conference, pages 357–388. Springer, 2017.
[27] Y. Lewenberg, Y. Sompolinsky, and A. Zohar. Inclusive block chain protocols. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 528–547. Springer, 2015.
[28] Litecoin community. Litecoin reference implementation. https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin. Accessed: 2018-05-03.
[29] G. Maxwell. Comment in ”[bitcoin-dev] weak block thoughts...”. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Septembe011198.html, 2016. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[30] S. Micali. Algorand: The efficient and democratic ledger. http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01341, 2016. Accessed: 2017-02-09.
[31] S. Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, Dec 2008. Accessed: 2015-07-01.
[32] Namecoin community. Namecoin reference implementation. https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[33] Narayanan, Arvind and Bonneau, Joseph and Felten, Edward and Miller, Andrew and Goldfeder, Steven. Bitcoin and cryptocurrency technologies. https://d28rh4a8wq0iu5.cloudfront.net/bitcointech/readings/princeton bitcoin book.pdf?a=1, 2016. Accessed: 2016-03-29.
[34] K. Nayak, S. Kumar, A. Miller, and E. Shi. Stubborn mining: Generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. In 1st IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2016. IEEE, 2016.
[35] K. J. O’Dwyer and D. Malone. Bitcoin mining and its energy footprint. 2014.
[36] R. Pass and E. Shi. Fruitchains: A fair blockchain. http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/916.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-11-08.
[37] C. Perez-Sol ´ a, S. Delgado-Segura, G. Navarro-Arribas, and J. Herrera- ` Joancomart´ı. Double-spending prevention for bitcoin zero-confirmation transactions. http://eprint.iacr.org/2017/394, 2017. Accessed: 2017-06-
[38] Pseudonymous(”TierNolan”). Decoupling transactions and pow. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179598.0, 2013. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[39] P. R. Rizun. Subchains: A technique to scale bitcoin and improve the user experience. Ledger, 1:38–52, 2016.
[40] K. Rosenbaum. Weak blocks - the good and the bad. http://popeller.io/ index.php/2016/01/19/weak-blocks-the-good-and-the-bad/, 2016. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[41] K. Rosenbaum and R. Russell. Iblt and weak block propagation performance. Scaling Bitcoin Hong Kong (6 December 2015), 2015.
[42] M. Rosenfeld. Analysis of hashrate-based double spending. http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2009, 2014. Accessed: 2016-03-09.
[43] R. Russel. Weak block simulator for bitcoin. https://github.com/rustyrussell/weak-blocks, 2014. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[44] A. Sapirshtein, Y. Sompolinsky, and A. Zohar. Optimal selfish mining strategies in bitcoin. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.06183.pdf, 2015. Accessed: 2016-08-22.
[45] E. B. Sasson, A. Chiesa, C. Garman, M. Green, I. Miers, E. Tromer, and M. Virza. Zerocash: Decentralized anonymous payments from bitcoin. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2014 IEEE Symposium on, pages 459–474. IEEE, 2014.
[46] Satoshi Nakamoto. Comment in ”bitdns and generalizing bitcoin” bitcointalk thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28696#msg28696. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[47] Y. Sompolinsky, Y. Lewenberg, and A. Zohar. Spectre: A fast and scalable cryptocurrency protocol. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2016/1159, 2016. Accessed: 2017-02-20.
[48] Y. Sompolinsky and A. Zohar. Secure high-rate transaction processing in bitcoin. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 507–527. Springer, 2015.
[49] Suhas Daftuar. Bitcoin merge commit: ”mining: Select transactions using feerate-with-ancestors”. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7600. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[50] M. B. Taylor. Bitcoin and the age of bespoke silicon. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Compilers, Architectures and Synthesis for Embedded Systems, page 16. IEEE Press, 2013.
[51] F. Tschorsch and B. Scheuermann. Bitcoin and beyond: A technical survey on decentralized digital currencies. In IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, volume PP, pages 1–1, 2016.
[52] P. J. Van Laarhoven and E. H. Aarts. Simulated annealing. In Simulated annealing: Theory and applications, pages 7–15. Springer, 1987.
[53] A. Zamyatin, N. Stifter, A. Judmayer, P. Schindler, E. Weippl, and W. J. Knottebelt. (Short Paper) A Wild Velvet Fork Appears! Inclusive Blockchain Protocol Changes in Practice. In 5th Workshop on Bitcoin and Blockchain Research, Financial Cryptography and Data Security 18 (FC). Springer, 2018.
[54] F. Zhang, I. Eyal, R. Escriva, A. Juels, and R. Renesse. Rem: Resourceefficient mining for blockchains. http://eprint.iacr.org/2017/179, 2017. Accessed: 2017-03-24.
submitted by dj-gutz to myrXiv [link] [comments]

The Value of Bitcoin

tldr: Bitcoin allows one individual to give another individual a Bitcoin over the Internet.
No accounts with centralized third parties are needed. You don't have to have an account with VISA or MasterCard, or American Express, or Western Union, or PayPal.
You don't need a credit card reader. You don't have to fight charge backs or frozen accounts. You don't have to wait 7 days for your check to clear. You don't have to sign up for direct deposit.
You also are not limited to how little you can send. Micro payments work within the system (even if they may take longer due to the lack of a transfer fee, but they still work).
If you give me your public address, I can send you money. If you want to send me money, you can do so at this address:
1KC2VBpBAoyKgj8bBpQwQK3u8cvF7Agyon
Edit: 1E21HxPRnJKsmSJGiZBNH81K5YMSzsWz68 sent me .01 BTC (~65 cents as I write this). Of course, since that wasn't the point, I have refunded them. And I don't even know who they are!
Where did I get that address? It is just a public key a Bitcoin Address I generated on my smart phone. (See Edit 1 below) I didn't have to ask anyone permission, or sign any papers, or anything. And if you send me a bitcoin (of any amount) I will just get it. I don't need to have an account with anybody. Heck, I could be homeless! And yet you can send me some fraction of a Bitcoin!
Wing Bang!
If you can do that with a dollar, or a yen, or an Amazon coin, then Bitcoin doesn't add anything to the party.
But you can't, can you?
To do this, and do it securely, Bitcoin requires computer systems to be distributed all over the world, and they have to process and sign off on all the Bitcoin transactions. This established infrastructure is real value. These systems are paid in Bitcoin as it progresses in its initial inflation. (We call these people running these systems "miners")
The initial inflation of Bitcoins we are going through now is more than offset by new users adopting Bitcoin (either for saving or use). This is why their value is rising.
Certainly other Crypto Currencies have the same ability, but it is the rate of adoption and the established infrastructure that matter. At the moment, Bitcoin has all these elements. To the extent that other Crypto Currencies establish themselves (litecoin, namecoin, whatever) they too have value.
But at the end of the day, Bitcoin does have an intrinsic value attribute which justifies its value, not in any physical property, but in its unique kinetic property, the ability to move on its own from one account to another. (See Edit 2 below)
Edit 1: A Bitcoin address is generated from a public/private key pair, and while it might provide some functionality like a public key, it isn't technically a public key. I didn't think the distinction important, but the discussion below does make a good argument for being accurate that I can't really deny.
Edit 2: A long argument about "Intrinsic Value" vs "Subjective Value" theories has prompted me to change the wording to avoid a philosophical argument (to wit, "Can anything have 'Intrinsic Value?'"). The point of this post is to point out Bitcoin has value, and likely that this value is currently undervalued. Maybe by many orders of magnitude. Independent of what theory of value you hold to.
Edit 3: Edited and moved to my blog, The Value of Bitcion
submitted by alanX to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

12 Reasons to Invest in Primecoin

‎1- Primecoin‬ is the First non Hash-Cash PoW Crypto-Currency.
2- Naturally Scarce
3- Very fast confirmations - 1min/block
4- Elastic supply
5- Primecoin is sustainable
6- Primecoin is currently the “fairest” coin to mine
7- Primecoin can introduce new participants to the new digital economy
8- Proof-of-work cryptos will gradually transition toward energy-multiuse, ie providing both security & technological computing values. And Primecoin is the pioneer in this realm.
9- Primecoin has anti-centralization features
10- Primecoin captures the Wasted Energy of Bitcoin's Algorithm - The mining is actually useful
11- Primecoin has direct by-products
12- Primecoin has been developed by Sunny King, one of the most talented crypto-technologists of the rank of Satoshi Nakamoto
submitted by crypto_coiner to primecoin [link] [comments]

I rewrote the sidebar text

Markdown (source): First, Rev 1, Rev 2, Rev 3, Rev 4, Rev 5, Rev 6. Use RES or orangered me to get latest.
Changes (First->Latest): (excl. minor edits)
“third” to “fourth” “annum” to “year” Remove “to” Restore paragraph split Restore peerco.in since it's back online Numbered list to bullet points Edit descriptions of exchanges Update link Add marketplace Clean up Link to Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Namecoin Wikipedia pages (last Rev 6 edit) Link to Proof-of-{Stake,Work} explanations Edit cointip text Change FAQ/wiki links Add example screenshots Remove btcto.com until they come out of testing Add link to service list BTC-e now supports two-factor authentication Add Mt.Gox Add important facts link 
Screenshots: current sidebar vs suggested sidebar.
Comment with any suggestions or ideas you have.
PPCoin or Peercoin is the cryptocurrency with the fourth highest market cap after Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Namecoin. It is the first known iteration of a combined proof-of-stake/proof-of-work coin.
It is designed to be energy efficient in the long run, have a steady inflation rate of one percent per year, and (through proof-of-stake) be free of dependence on miners.
/PPCoin FAQ, wiki
Official website, FAQ, wiki
Wikipedia article
Important facts
Getting started
Walkthrough for Peercoin wallet setup
PPCoin.org faucet (free Peercoins)
PPCoinTalk marketplace
List of exchanges and other services
Exchanges
All support two-factor authentication.
Utilities
USD converter (peerco.in)
Cryptocurrency value tracker (altco.in)
Ticker for Chrome (Creator's announcement thread)
Ticker for Firefox (Creator on reddit)
Forums
PPCoinTalk.org
BitcoinTalk.org (alternative currencies section)
Related subreddits
PPCoinMining
Cryptocurrency
Litecoin
Bitcoin
BitcoinTip (Quick Start Guide)
ALTcoinTip
BitcoinTip and ALTcoinTip enabled on /PPCoin.
submitted by AnonymousEntity to ppcoin [link] [comments]

Regarding the "Bitcoin and Magical Thinking" blog post spotlighted on Techmeme today - The network, the infrastructure, and the community behind it is hardly a "magical thought."

I'm referring to this post, which a Bitcoin-opposing friend just sent to me with the subject line, "An damning indictment" -
http://www.techmeme.com/131219/p3#a131219p3
I responded with this:
The network, the infrastructure, and the community behind Bitcoin is hardly a "magical thought" (Here's the definition of that concept from contemporary Western psychology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking)
Two weeks ago, there was very good debate about Bitcoin -
Ultimate Bitcoin Showdown - Posted Dec 2, 2013 - [30:14] - Goldbug/dollar-skeptic Peter Schiff vs. Erik Voorhees, Bitcoin entrepreneur formerly of BitInstant (https://www.bitinstant.com/), now of Coinapult (https://coinapult.com/) - http://www.linkedin.com/pub/erik-voorhees/b/804/385
I'll post the link to the full video below, but I first want to quote from it:
As Voorhees says, gold-backed digital curencies have been attempted and were then quickly shut down by the gov't. He later says (at 9:20), "[Bitcoin] could absolutely go to zero and the whole thing is completely experimental right now. So I'm not here to say that Bitcoin is a good investment. What I'm here to say is that the Bitcoin payment network is one of the most important technologies that has ever been invented, and it's important to understand that there is value in that technology [and] it's important to understand why that technology is so useful to people, especially people who care about liberty around the world." And he explains later that this infrastructure cannot be reproduced easily...even if Bitcoin is not the winner of the crypto-currency market competition. He also compares the hardy vitality of P2P currencies to that of P2P file-sharing. The free, independent Napster file-sharing service was launched in June of 1999 an rocketed to popularity, but the shutdown of it in July of 2001 was not exactly the end of free P2P music-sharing... In fact, just going by the services that I can just recall fellow college students using at the time, there was:
SoulSeek (launched in 1999/2000)
Gnutella (early 2000)
BearShare (December 2000)
Morpheus (2001)
Kazaa (March 2001), and
LimeWire (May 2000).
And of course there are the file-sharing services that are popular today, from Dropbox to these:
http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/file-sharing-websites
to these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BitTorrent_clients
Now. As far as digital crypto-currencies today, there's Litecoin, Peercoin, Namecoin, Quark, Protoshares, Worldcoin, Megacoin, Primecoin, and Dogecoin, and dozens other listed here, totaling in 54:
http://coinmarketcap.com/
The point that Voorhees makes about the pooled inventiveness and ingenuity of the crowd reminds me of something both revolutionary and prophetic that was said by John Gilmore (an American computer science innovator, Libertarian, Internet activist, and one of the founders of Electronic Frontier Foundation). He said:
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
-As quoted in TIME magazine (6 December 1993) (yes, 1993!)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore
Furthermore, on a separate note, the media angle that Bitcoin is practically "over" because of China blocking it (which that same friend was gloating about), here's all I have to say as well:
Here's a list of enterprises that were hardly destroyed after being banned in glorious all-powerful China:
Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Wikipedia, WikiLeaks, and the New York Times' online edition (and a few others, named at the following links) were each NOT blasted into nonexistence by the force of "the Golden Shield Project," which we Americans call "the Great Firewall." Yup, Bitcoin is "over"!
References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia#China
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/world/asia/china-blocks-web-access-to-new-york-times.html?_r=0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
Hey, but waddaya know - Some of the 1,350,695,000 people in The People's Republic have ways around that censorship, as do the millions of people in so many other Internet-censoring countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Evasion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_circumvention#Software

Here's the full video of the Bitcoin debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mUn-d8R98k
Edit/Follow-up: To extend the analogy of P2P digital currencies and P2P file-sharing (and most notably, music-sharing), what would be the currency equivalent of iTunes, which came ou in January 2001? Will JPMorgan's crypto-currency project (as I saw here, and it was downvoted to hell: http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/1sp6hh/jpmorgan_is_looking_to_copy_bitcoin_and_the_coin/), even though it was initially rejected 175 times, find some way to charge/surcharge people small amounts at a time for usage (a la iTunes' 99 cents per song), in traditional-bank-style?
submitted by wazzzzah to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The case for Ethereum: general-purpose vs special-purpose blockchains

Bitcoin and Alt-coins are Special-Purpose Chains

What's the difference between a general-purpose blockchain and a special-purpose blockchain? Let's start with bitcoin, the original special-purpose chain for computing and comparing sha256 hashes. Bitcoin users started the chain by mining on generic x86 (general-purpose) CPUs. But because sha256 hashing is a specific computation, btc mining is now dominated by Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) hardware. Litecoin is another special-purpose chain, except it computes scrypt hashes (some manufacturers are already started shipping scrypt ASIC miners). There's also a Primecoin for computing prime numbers, and a bunch of other special-purpose chains commonly known as alt-coins.

Special-Purpose Chains: Backend and User Perspective

How does it work when we want to use the services provided by separate special-purpose chains? Let's look at the granddaddy of alt-coins, namecoin, which like bitcoin uses sha256 hashes. Additionally, it also provides some standard namecoin script opcodes for associating plaintext pseudonyms with unique addresses (public/private keypairs), so namecoin addresses can register and "own" domain names or identities/handles. Let's say you want to use bitcoins to purchase a namecoin .bit domain that its owner is selling. What does it take to get these two special-purpose blockchains (bitcoin and namecoin) to interact with each other? The immediate option (and the only one available today) is a centralized service running a web server in front of both p2p daemons (as nodes of their respective networks, bitcoind and namecoind). That centralized service is a BTC/NMC exchange, and maybe it has an interface allowing you to register "dot-bit" names (otherwise you'd have to open up two separate wallets - one for each coin). The centralized exchange is a trusted third-party that holds in escrow the BTC and NMC of each user (whose coins could be stolen by a dishonest exchange operator).

A General-Purpose Chain: Backend and User Perspective

So how is using a unified general-purpose chain different from a special-purpose one? On the Ethereum general-purpose chain, each service is provided by some "DApp" (distributed app "hosted" by all ethereum miners). A DApp is an interface to a specific "contract", running at some address on the blockchain. For instance, to register a name, you would open the EtherNames DApp in the ethereum client's built-in browser, type in the name you want to register, and "send" the registration as a transaction with data. There's no need to copy and paste addresses since the Ethereum client provides hooks for seamless wallet access inside every DApp. The registration transaction is sent to the EtherName DApp's contract address, which is running some variant of the namecoin contract code. A specific contract gets initialized at a particular address by some untrusted third-party individual/entity (the DApp author). The contract author is not trusted, all the author does is upload the contract code and pay the initial "gas" fee. The contract code is independently executed and verified by each ethereum miner as part of a single atomic transaction. Atomicity means that the ledger database updates are all-or-nothing, so no user has to worry about the risk of having to pay first because any and all transactions needed to fulfill a contract are guaranteed to occur within the same block, or the contract is broken and won't run at all. Think of Ethereum contracts as interconnected threads in a big web of complex multi-sig transactions of Ethers and contract-specific sub-currencies, all of which run atop the same unified blockchain.

Special-Purpose Chains: Developer Perspective

From the developer's perspective, operating a service that uses two separate special-purpose chains requires maintaining both blockchains (upgrading separate software, providing enough processing power, disk space, and bandwidth for each chain). It also requires maintaining user accounts, as well as wallets on two separate chains (multiplied by the number of users). Hosting a server is needed to run both the namecoin daemon and bitcoin daemon (unless outsourced to a centralized API). The web developer will need to maintain a web server and app stack such as LAMP (Linux Apache Mysql Php) or MEAN (Mongodb Express Angular Node). Finally, the service must hold the users' deposits of bitcoins and namecoins in secure hot wallets and offline cold storage, keeping them safe from hacker thieves. Altogether, every service operator needs to independently maintain a separate full-stack system, which can be a herculean effort.

A General-Purpose Chain: Developer Perspective

A service operating on Ethereum has a DApp backend hosted right on the blockchain, maintained by miners (who earn gas fees). A developer simply authors the contract code and pays the gas fee to initialize it on the blockchain, which is much easier than forking an alt-coin to start yet another genesis block. DApp's do not need a separate API for access and integration by other developers; authors just name functions inside a contract, directly exposing an API (with optional fee-per-use) that enables message calls from any other Ethereum DApp. Also, DApp authors do not need to maintain user accounts, since the users interact with the DApp directly on the blockchain through their ethereum addresses. Nor do DApp authors need to maintain user wallets since private keys stay private in a decentralized system. Unlike the current convention where coins are deposited to a wallet address controlled by some third-party, in a truly decentralized system private keys are only used for signing transactions as inputs to contracts.

Meta-Coins as Feature Specs

Meta-coin protocol extensions like Colored Coins, MasterCoin, and CounterParty work by organizing a group of users who agree to interpret bitcoin transaction data according to some metadata specification, supplementing the base rules of the bitcoin protocol. For example, MasterCoin specifies creating multisig 1-of-n bitcoin transactions and encoding data in the n-minus-1 unused public keys. In the meta-coin approach, each feature or "contract" is specified in the meta-protocol. Two MasterCoin features are registration of a data stream and the creation of a sub-currency, these are baked into the specification and reference client alongside the other features. While you can register new data streams and sub-currencies, if you want to create a new contract that is some kind of a hybrid between a data stream and a sub-currency, such as a call/put option or a Contract For Difference (CFD), it would need to be implemented directly in the reference client, and unlocked as a feature at some future block number. Implementing new features in a meta-coin protocol that doesn't have a scripting language requires specifying them directly in the protocol and must be effected at the organizational level.

Scripts and DApps vs Forks and Features

Embedding a scripting language into a crypto-currency gives it the same kind of extensibility that gamers crave in video games. Scripts empower players to create "mods" and customize their game-world with new levels, characters, and maps. In the crypto-currency world, scripting allows for the extension of a plethora of decentralized features such as trading, lotteries, and ecommerce, all atop a shared, compatible platform. Bitcoin has a scripting language, but with severe limitations including: lack of loops, binary state variables limited to spent or unspent transaction outputs, and blockchain blindness. The difficulty of using bitcoin script has in effect given rise to a landscape of competing alt-coins and meta-coins with incompatible protocols. The preferable route, and vision of Ethereum, is to foster a fully-featured ecosystem of compatible, interacting DApps. Providing a Turing-complete scripting language on a general-purpose blockchain with message calls between contracts stimulates adoption of Ethereum as a shared decentralized Operating System and kernel.

Decentralized House, Decentralized Dealer

Consider the concept of a decentralized lottery. In a semi-decentralized lottery that is merely provably fair, although the operator is not capable of altering any particular dice outcome, he can simply shut down the service immediately after a big winning bet comes in, scamming the user of his money and winnings. But in a fully decentralized lottery, the mechanism for distributing the winnings is written into the contract itself (open-source and audited by users), so no central operator is needed. While writing such a contract in bitcoin script is theoretically possible (see pages 12-15), to my knowledge none has been implemented. In practice, it is easier to create a LottoCoin as a special-purpose alt-chain. In contrast, writing a script on the Ethereum platform for a fully decentralized lottery is not only feasible but relatively easy.

Conclusion

The limitations and difficulties of using bitcoin script to implement decentralized features natively on the bitcoin blockchain has resulted in a fragmented ecosystem of incompatible, competing alt-chains and meta-coins. While it is theoretically possible to use bitcoin script for complex contracts like cross-chain atomic trading, practical implementations of such features have yet to be achieved (to my knowledge). On the other hand, Ethereum focuses on providing an easy-to-use scripting language for implementing advanced contracts on a general-purpose blockchain. Ethereum's extensible platform enables the realization of advanced decentralized features that previously were inaccessible.
submitted by martinBrown1984 to ethereum [link] [comments]

Bitcoin vs Litecoin vs Ethereum - Which Should You Buy? Litecoin vs Bitcoin Which is better BITCOIN vs. LITECOIN - wer ist bullischer? CrypTrader - Bitcoin & Cryptocurrency Trading Platform Litecoin VS Bitcoin! - YouTube

Comprehensive information about the NMC BTC (Namecoin vs. Bitcoin Livecoin). You will find more information by going to one of the sections on this page such as historical data, charts, converter ... Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you like cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics. The likes of Namecoin (Bitcoin’s first fork) and Litecoin followed the original idea of decentralized money and triggered the development of other altcoins. Today, there are lots of them. Litecoin is universal and can boast of the fact that the transaction confirmation on its blockchain is 4 times faster than it is on Bitcoin’s. Litecoin Vs Bitcoin: What’s The Difference? Contrary to misconceptions, Litecoin cryptocurrency is not the first fork of Bitcoin. Those were the digital asset and the Namecoin payment system of the same name. Although this did not prevent Litecoin from winning the title of virtual silver. It is safe to say that 2011 was a turning… Litecoin – 84 Million Coins Faster Than Bitcoin Capitalization: 734 Million Dollars. Price as of 12/2/12: ~$30 . Pros: • At .5 billion dollars, it has the second or third biggest market cap ...

[index] [6597] [34073] [7949] [23552] [29008] [24069] [6045] [12694] [18315] [31981]

Bitcoin vs Litecoin vs Ethereum - Which Should You Buy?

Litecoin vs Bitcoin: Which is better? Here, we have discussed the various difference in Bitcoin vs Litecoin and filtered out our opinion on the best cryptocurrency to invest in between the two. # ... Zur heutigen Wochenmitte wird es mal wieder Zeit die Kryptos näher zu betrachten. Hierbei im speziellen den Bitcoin (BTC/USD) und den Litecoin (LTC/USD). Beide mit grundsätzlich konstruktiver ... Charlie Lee, creator of Litecoin, joins Michael Green of Thiel Macro to talk about how his background led him to digital currencies. Lee sees bitcoin as a better form of gold, and litecoin as the ... Twitter: https://twitter.com/Crypto_Daily Instagram: http://instagram.com/crypto_daily Disclaimer: I am not a financial adviser and this is not financial adv... Bitcoin Litecoin Namecoin and other cryptocurrency browser based trading platform. Trade across multiple exchanges at once with live updating charts and click to trade interface. Totally free to ...

#