Bitcoin Core version 0.20.0 released

Gridcoin 5.0.0.0-Mandatory "Fern" Release

https://github.com/gridcoin-community/Gridcoin-Research/releases/tag/5.0.0.0
Finally! After over ten months of development and testing, "Fern" has arrived! This is a whopper. 240 pull requests merged. Essentially a complete rewrite that was started with the scraper (the "neural net" rewrite) in "Denise" has now been completed. Practically the ENTIRE Gridcoin specific codebase resting on top of the vanilla Bitcoin/Peercoin/Blackcoin vanilla PoS code has been rewritten. This removes the team requirement at last (see below), although there are many other important improvements besides that.
Fern was a monumental undertaking. We had to encode all of the old rules active for the v10 block protocol in new code and ensure that the new code was 100% compatible. This had to be done in such a way as to clear out all of the old spaghetti and ring-fence it with tightly controlled class implementations. We then wrote an entirely new, simplified ruleset for research rewards and reengineered contracts (which includes beacon management, polls, and voting) using properly classed code. The fundamentals of Gridcoin with this release are now on a very sound and maintainable footing, and the developers believe the codebase as updated here will serve as the fundamental basis for Gridcoin's future roadmap.
We have been testing this for MONTHS on testnet in various stages. The v10 (legacy) compatibility code has been running on testnet continuously as it was developed to ensure compatibility with existing nodes. During the last few months, we have done two private testnet forks and then the full public testnet testing for v11 code (the new protocol which is what Fern implements). The developers have also been running non-staking "sentinel" nodes on mainnet with this code to verify that the consensus rules are problem-free for the legacy compatibility code on the broader mainnet. We believe this amount of testing is going to result in a smooth rollout.
Given the amount of changes in Fern, I am presenting TWO changelogs below. One is high level, which summarizes the most significant changes in the protocol. The second changelog is the detailed one in the usual format, and gives you an inkling of the size of this release.

Highlights

Protocol

Note that the protocol changes will not become active until we cross the hard-fork transition height to v11, which has been set at 2053000. Given current average block spacing, this should happen around October 4, about one month from now.
Note that to get all of the beacons in the network on the new protocol, we are requiring ALL beacons to be validated. A two week (14 day) grace period is provided by the code, starting at the time of the transition height, for people currently holding a beacon to validate the beacon and prevent it from expiring. That means that EVERY CRUNCHER must advertise and validate their beacon AFTER the v11 transition (around Oct 4th) and BEFORE October 18th (or more precisely, 14 days from the actual date of the v11 transition). If you do not advertise and validate your beacon by this time, your beacon will expire and you will stop earning research rewards until you advertise and validate a new beacon. This process has been made much easier by a brand new beacon "wizard" that helps manage beacon advertisements and renewals. Once a beacon has been validated and is a v11 protocol beacon, the normal 180 day expiration rules apply. Note, however, that the 180 day expiration on research rewards has been removed with the Fern update. This means that while your beacon might expire after 180 days, your earned research rewards will be retained and can be claimed by advertising a beacon with the same CPID and going through the validation process again. In other words, you do not lose any earned research rewards if you do not stake a block within 180 days and keep your beacon up-to-date.
The transition height is also when the team requirement will be relaxed for the network.

GUI

Besides the beacon wizard, there are a number of improvements to the GUI, including new UI transaction types (and icons) for staking the superblock, sidestake sends, beacon advertisement, voting, poll creation, and transactions with a message. The main screen has been revamped with a better summary section, and better status icons. Several changes under the hood have improved GUI performance. And finally, the diagnostics have been revamped.

Blockchain

The wallet sync speed has been DRASTICALLY improved. A decent machine with a good network connection should be able to sync the entire mainnet blockchain in less than 4 hours. A fast machine with a really fast network connection and a good SSD can do it in about 2.5 hours. One of our goals was to reduce or eliminate the reliance on snapshots for mainnet, and I think we have accomplished that goal with the new sync speed. We have also streamlined the in-memory structures for the blockchain which shaves some memory use.
There are so many goodies here it is hard to summarize them all.
I would like to thank all of the contributors to this release, but especially thank @cyrossignol, whose incredible contributions formed the backbone of this release. I would also like to pay special thanks to @barton2526, @caraka, and @Quezacoatl1, who tirelessly helped during the testing and polishing phase on testnet with testing and repeated builds for all architectures.
The developers are proud to present this release to the community and we believe this represents the starting point for a true renaissance for Gridcoin!

Summary Changelog

Accrual

Changed

Most significantly, nodes calculate research rewards directly from the magnitudes in EACH superblock between stakes instead of using a two- or three- point average based on a CPID's current magnitude and the magnitude for the CPID when it last staked. For those long-timers in the community, this has been referred to as "Superblock Windows," and was first done in proof-of-concept form by @denravonska.

Removed

Beacons

Added

Changed

Removed

Unaltered

As a reminder:

Superblocks

Added

Changed

Removed

Voting

Added

Changed

Removed

Detailed Changelog

[5.0.0.0] 2020-09-03, mandatory, "Fern"

Added

Changed

Removed

Fixed

submitted by jamescowens to gridcoin [link] [comments]

[ANN][ANDROID MINING][AIRDROP] NewEnglandcoin: Scrypt RandomSpike

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
Roadmap
NENG v1.4.0 Android Mining, randomSpike Evaluation https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/NENG_2020_Q3_report/NENG_2020_Q3_report.pdf
RandomSpike - NENG core v1.3.0 Hardfork Upgrade Proposal https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/2020Q1_Report/Scrypt_RandomSpike_NENGv1.3.0_Hardfork_Proposal.pdf
NENG Security, Decentralization & Valuation
https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/2019Q2_report/NENG_Security_Decentralization_Value.pdf
Whitepaper v1.0 https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/whitepaper_v1.0/NENG_WhitePaper.pdf
DISCORD https://discord.gg/UPeBwgs
Explorer
http://www.findblocks.com/exploreNENG http://86.100.49.209/exploreNENG http://nengexplorer.mooo.com:3001/
Step by step guide on how to setup an explorer: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/nengexplorer
Github https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin
Wallet
Android with UserLand App (arm64/armhf), Chromebook (x64/arm64/armhf): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.5
Linux Wallet (Ubuntu/Linux Mint, Debian/MX Linux, Arch/Manjaro, Fedora, openSUSE): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.3
MacOS Wallet (10.11 El Capitan or higher): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.2
Android with GNUroot on 32 bits old Phones (alpha release) wallet: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0
Windows wallet: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.3.0.1
addnode ip address for the wallet to sync faster, frequently updated conf file: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/cheetah_cpumineblob/mastenewenglandcoin.conf-example
How to Sync Full Node Desktop Wallet https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/comments/er6f0q/how_to_sync_full_node_desktop_wallet/
TWITTER https://twitter.com/newenglandcoin
REDDIT https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/
Cheetah CPU Miner Software https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/cheetah_cpuminer
Solo Mining with GPU or ASIC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52187727#msg52187727
How to Run Two Full Node in Same Desktop PC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53581449#msg53581449
ASIC/GPU Mining Pools Warning to Big ASIC Miners Due to DynDiff Algo on top of Scrypt, solo mining is recommended for ASIC/GPU miners. Further more, even for mining pools, small mining pool will generate better performance than big NENG mining pool because of new algo v1.2.x post hard fork.
The set up configuration of NENG for scrypt pool mining is same as a typical normal scrypt coin. In other word, DynDiff on Scrypt algo is backward compatible with Scrypt algo. Because ASIC/GPU miners rely on CPU miners for smooth blockchain movement, checkout bottom of "Latest News" section for A WARNING to All ASIC miners before you decide to dump big ASIC hash rate into NENG mining.
(1) Original DynDiff Warning: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48324708#msg48324708 (2) New Warning on RandomSpike Spike difficulty (244k) introduced in RandomSpike served as roadblocks to instant mining and provide security against 51% attack risk. However, this spike difficulty like a roadblock that makes big ASIC mining less profitable. In case of spike block to be mined, the spike difficulty immediately serve as base difficulty, which will block GPU/ASIC miners effectively and leave CPU cheetah solo miners dominating mining almost 100% until next base difficulty reset.
FindBlocks http://findblocks.com/
CRpool http://crpool.xyz/
Cminors' Pool http://newenglandcoin.cminors-pool.com/
SPOOL https://spools.online/
Exchange
📷
https://shorelinecrypto.com/
Features: anonymous sign up and trading. No restriction or limit on deposit or withdraw.
The trading pairs available: NewEnglandcoin (NENG) / Dogecoin (DOGE)
Trading commission: A round trip trading will incur 0.10% trading fees in average. Fees are paid only on buyer side. buy fee: 0.2% / sell fee: 0% Deposit fees: free for all coins Withdraw fees: ZERO per withdraw. Mining fees are appointed by each coin blockchain. To cover the blockchain mining fees, there is minimum balance per coin per account: * Dogecoin 2 DOGE * NewEnglandcoin 1 NENG
Latest News Aug 30, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.5 Released for Android/Chromebook Upgrade with armhf, better hardware support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg55098029#msg55098029
Aug 11, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.4 Released for Android arm64 Upgrade / Chromebook Support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54977437#msg54977437
Jul 30, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.3 Released for Linux Wallet Upgrade with 8 Distros https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54898540#msg54898540
Jul 21, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.2 Released for MacOS Upgrade with Catalina https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54839522#msg54839522
Jul 19, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.1 Released for MacOS Wallet Upgrade https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54830333#msg54830333
Jul 15, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0 Released for Android Mining, Ubuntu 20.04 support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54803639#msg54803639
Jul 11, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0 Android Mining, randomSpike Evaluation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54777222#msg54777222
Jun 27, 2020 - Pre-Announce: NENG v1.4.0 Proposal for Mobile Miner Upgrade, Android Mining Start in July 2020 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54694233#msg54694233
Jun 19, 2020 - Best Practice for Futurebit Moonlander2 USB ASIC on solo mining mode https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54645726#msg54645726
Mar 15, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG v1.3.0.1 Released for better wallet syncing https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54030923#msg54030923
Feb 23, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG Core v1.3.0 Relased, Hardfork on Mar 1 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53900926#msg53900926
Feb 1, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike Proposal Published- NENG 1.3.0 Hardfork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53735458#msg53735458
Jan 15, 2020 - NewEnglandcoin Dev Team Expanded with New Kickoff https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53617358#msg53617358
Jan 12, 2020 - Explanation of Base Diff Reset and Effect of Supply https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/comments/envmo1/explanation_of_base_diff_reset_and_effect_of/
Dec 19, 2019 - Shoreline_tradingbot version 1.0 is released https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5121953.msg53391184#msg53391184
Sept 1, 2019 - NewEnglandcoin (NENG) is Selected as Shoreline Tradingbot First Supported Coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52331201#msg52331201
Aug 15, 2019 - Mining Update on Effect of Base Difficulty Reset, GPU vs ASIC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52169572#msg52169572
Jul 7, 2019 - CPU Mining on macOS Mojave is supported under latest Cheetah_Cpuminer Release https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg51745839#msg51745839
Jun 1, 2019 - NENG Fiat project is stopped by Square, Inc https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg51312291#msg51312291
Apr 21, 2019 - NENG Fiat Project is Launched by ShorelineCrypto https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50714764#msg50714764
Apr 7, 2019 - Announcement of Fiat Project for all U.S. Residents & Mobile Miner Project Initiation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50506585#msg50506585
Apr 1, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50417196#msg50417196
Mar 27, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50332097#msg50332097
Mar 17, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50208194#msg50208194
Feb 26, 2019 - Community Project - NewEnglandcoin Graphic Redesign Bounty Initiated https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49931305#msg49931305
Feb 22, 2019 - Dev Policy on Checkpoints on NewEnglandcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49875242#msg49875242
Feb 20, 2019 - NewEnglandCoin v1.2.1 Released to Secure the Hard Kork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49831059#msg49831059
Feb 11, 2019 - NewEnglandCoin v1.2.0 Released, Anti-51% Attack, Anti-instant Mining after Hard Fork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49685389#msg49685389
Jan 13, 2019 - Cheetah_CpuMiner added support for CPU Mining on Mac https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49218760#msg49218760
Jan 12, 2019 - NENG Core v1.1.2 Released to support MacOS OSX Wallet https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49202088#msg49202088
Jan 2, 2019 - Cheetah_Cpuminer v1.1.0 is released for both Linux and Windows https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49004345#msg49004345
Dec 31, 2018 - Technical Whitepaper is Released https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48990334#msg48990334
Dec 28, 2018 - Cheetah_Cpuminer v1.0.0 is released for Linux https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48935135#msg48935135
Update on Dec 14, 2018 - NENG Blockchain Stuck Issue https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48668375#msg48668375
Nov 27, 2018 - Exclusive for PC CPU Miners - How to Steal a Block from ASIC Miners https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48258465#msg48258465
Nov 28, 2018 - How to CPU Mine a NENG block with window/linux PC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48298311#msg48298311
Nov 29, 2018 - A Warning to ASIC Miners https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48324708#msg48324708
Disclosure: Dev Team Came from ShorelineCrypto, a US based Informatics Service Business offering Fee for service for Coin Creation, Coin Exchange Listing, Blockchain Consulting, etc.
submitted by honglu69 to NewEnglandCoin [link] [comments]

big miners make BTC blockchain stalled intentionally?

I've been monitoring BTC chain last 2 weeks and found something interesting. When blocks are solved, they would be solved pretty fast, mostly under 7 minutes. But when the chain stops moving, time to solve a block is around 20 minutes to 45 minutes.
I know everything can happen in terms of probability, but this happened quite often, so I don't believe it's not an intentional action. There're 2 main reasons that most miners may decide to "rest" at a specific time:
- Make all transactions stuck, so people have to increase their fees (if they are in hurry). Last 2 weeks, there were at least 2-3 times mempool reached 25k transactions (excluded the time when BTC surpass $10k) and the fees were insane.
- Make the diff remain "low" enough. So they can maintain a good revenue/electricity_cost ratio. Assumes when they stop mining BTC, they switch to other coins.
By one action, they'll have better rewards on the next few blocks and don't change the diff of next epoch.
It's kinda a type of game theory that when you stop mining BTC at a specific time you have to be sure other miners stop mining BTC too. My gut feeling is telling me that it's true. Because speaking of a long-term plan for mining bitcoin, this strategy is the best.
submitted by nov88akoleg6 to btc [link] [comments]

Advertising for Escorts post backpage

This is general advice and my opinions They are based on many years of experience. ... and to be CLEAR, I am in no way affiliated with any of the sites running today or mentioned here. I don't make ANY money from them... I could care less if you take the advice or shit all over it. This is not an advertisement for any one site... It is my opinions based on my experiences in this industry. I have made a LOT of money in the industry, and made a lot of other people a lot of money. There are good and bad things about every site out there, some I recommend here, others I will shit on, but I make nothing, own nothing, am not affiliated with any of them.
I have often been asked a LOT of questions by people looking for advertising and website help. I decided this was the best way to answer all the questions and help the community.
I hope you can learn something from this that helps you as you advertise or even better keeps you safe..
I worked for backpage for a long time, I helped start the bitcoin payment side of the site, I also helped start one of the backpage replacements. I have consulted on 2 other clone site startups, and to top it all off.. I owned a escort agency on the east coast from 2003 to 2011.
I owned my agency with 2 partners, I kinda fell into it. They needed computer help, I was a computer and marketing guy.
SO through all of that I am pretty sure I know a LOT about advertising for sex workers and the industry in general.
For Escorts and sexworkers things are very different in today’s post backpage.com and SESTA/FOSTA world. These changes and new laws are having serious effects on advertising adult services.
Here are a list of things to consider: Many of us remember Escorts.com, and Craigslist. Those were really the only places a SWr needed advertise. A simple $5 ad on Craiglsist could make an advertisers phone ring for days. A single ad on escorts.com could fill a schedule for weeks. Then Eros got big, it became as good if not better than escorts.com quickly, most often attracting the most quality clients.
Our Agency's used all 3, escorts., eros. and CL. At the time backpage was a shit site we didn't bother with... there were a FEW other sites we listed links to our own websites on, like southerngfe.com or openadultdirectory.com and a few others... more for SEO than anything else... they didn't bring much.. CL was all we needed. ECCIE was not big at all in our region then, so we never really used them.
Then it all started to change… CL took down the Adult services section. Escorts.com was raided and shuttered.
Backpage became king. I remember people paying just .25 cents to post an ad for a week on BP, then just days after CL closed it was $3? I had started working for Village Voice by then as a consultant, and was there when CL closed...
I got calls from my partners... usually by 1pm we had booked a few calls in each city (we were in 3) and had taken several dozen calls asking prices... we had booked ZERO that day and taken less than 5 calls... ALL from our website and google searches... our CL ads had not made phones ring once... they kept testing the phones... they all worked.
Then word came through from my office at BP that CL had pulled the plug... they put a big "CENSORED" label over the adult services tab... a few days later it was gone.
After the smoke cleared, there was only a few places you really needed to be on... cityguidex.com, eros.com, ECCIE (in certain regions) and backpage. That was it.
THere were a few other sites... and they were more regional... this is 2010/2011 I am talking about...
The only place a escort REALLY needed to post an ad was backpage… if another site popped up, the rule of thumb was simple… if no other SW’s are posting there… don’t bother… its not worth it.
Now lets be honest.. there are advertisers that could make a very nice living and book a lot of calls from just backpage... and there are the ones that would never could never... These were advertisers that had their own sites, charged upwards of 500/hr and did the fly me to you type stuff...
very few advertisers doing 150h/h calls off backpage have websites... we all know what I am talking about if you have been around at all.
During this time for the most part , Agency's in most citys started going out of business...
this was for a few reasons... 1. the yellow pages DIED! Smart phones KILLED the yellow pages. NO ONE USES A PHONE BOOK ANYMORE!! It cost a min of $10k up front to put even a small ad in the yellow pages... the agency's that could and did had ruled the escort world since the 80's... if you were a sexworker you worked for an agency because you couldn't get calls otherwise...(generally speaking)
suddenly CL and other sites like it made it so ANYone with a cell phone could run their own agency, or even better, go "independent"
And the indys and the independents and the internet sites like CL and backpage killed the agency's.
Clients looked at the math like this... lets say an agency charged $200/hr... the girl was usually getting a 50/50 split, so she took 100. They would then "charge" a tip of an avg of $100... so the girl got 200, the agency 100.. and the guy was out 300... but that same girl could post an ad saying 175/hr with NO upsell... and although yea... she made 25 less... she would book 10 times the calls and not have to split shit... guys wanted to deal direct to save and get more "bang" for their buck.. (pardon the pun)
So the internet was suddenly swamped with independents... at about the same time CL was king and then died... it was a crazy time... suddenly all these independents need a place to advertise, because its back to the agency's (pimps in a lot of cases) if they cant get calls... very few were gonna start their own websites, and if they did... how do they drive traffic? Backpage filled the void. ECCIE grew as did a few other sites
Again, I was working with them by now... and it was retarded. "Craigslist alternative" was one of the top google searched terms in the WORLD in sept 2010 when CL closed... think about that.
Of course BP starts charging more... and more... and more. They offered more features.. charging for all of them... and now it was a crazier time... all the other sites are either crap or being shut down. Eros was super expensive, and wanted your DL licence and more...
SO BP was king! But we all remember how that went... and come April of 2018.. BP is gone, and then the real shitshow started.
Bedpage.com, Onebackapge.com, Ibackpage.com Ebackpage.com backpage.cl the site I helped start with the backpagecredits.com guys was yesbackpage.com, then skipthegames.com cityguidex.com slixa.com tryst.link there was some gator site out of Australia, afterdarkads.com, eros.com had a knock off.. DOZENS of sites and I cant remember how many others have popped up and died in the past year... its been insane. I consulted on afterdarkads.com for payment systems, and they are doing great. Others are dying. ECCIE is doing better than ever
And ALL of the rules you thought you knew about advertising are gone.
Since the demise of backpage, there are literally dozens of sites popping up all jockeying to be the next backpage. The truth is… it will never happen. Some will have more success than others, some will fold, some will remain… but the new reality is there are now be dozens of places to advertise. I helped the girl making verified vixens... she has already shut down for a few months because she is underfunded and cant market the site right. (she says she will be back... it was a GREAT site)
The rule of thumb was that if you saw a site that you could advertise on, and there was no one else in your city/region... dont bother. ESPECIALLY if you had to pay...
So now, when you find a new site, and there is just a few ads you figure are fake there… should you ignore it and move on?
NO! advertising today is a different animal. An advertiser needs to have as many ads up in as many places as possible… and most importantly, needs to think and act like a client.
We here in the industry knew an hour after backpage closed… we were searching for alternatives immediately. There are clients out there that look for an escort maybe 1 time a year on vacation, or the guy that found his regular SW’r on backpage 2 years ago… and now is looking for a new one… they are searching for “backpage alternative” or “backpage replacement” (according to google analytics those are the TOP search terms related to sex work and backpage since April 2018) they are searching craiglslist personals replacement, or "new backpage" ...
You need to be on the sites that come up in those results, EVEN IF THERE IS NO ONE ELSE SMART ENOUGH TO POST AN AD THERE!!! The clients are searching using those terms…and dozens of others, and they are browsing the links they find… and they are not finding you! Why is that? You are not thinking like a client… you found bedpage… saw there was a ton of ads… and figured that if everyone else is posting there… I should as well. Bedpage used a bot to crawl backpage in the weeks before it closed, and copy/pasted the majority of ads it found to bedpage… MANY advertisers report getting calls and finding their ads posted on bedpage… and they did not create an account or post. MOST of the ads you are PAYING to compete with are fake... clients know it.. they are moving on from those sites FAST.
Sites like bedpage use to be having lots of success… they had a LOT of posts, and word got around to advertisers fast… BUT THE CLIENTS DIDN’T GET THE WORD! Yes, dedicated sex mongers that search for escorts daily know… and the guys that spend time on the boards and in forums know.. but the MAJORITY of clients are the guys that MIGHT call one or 2 times a year… they have never heard of usasexguide.nl or the otherboards.com… they are doing something simple… typing in backpage… finding its gone… then going to google, and typing “backpage alternative”.
And here is the next issue, Bedpage, ebackpage, ibackpage, yesbackpage… they all have a similar problem, they attract the WORST customers. The calls and texts looking for a $50 blow and go all come from sites like them. The guys that DO crawl through the dozens and dozens of fake ads end up just blasting texts to every phone they find (even tho you said no texts in the ad) 3 am msgs that say "hey" or even worse.. "blow me in my car for 50$" after demanding pics to "prove" you are real...
Advertisers today need to get on as many sites as they can. Get on all of them... ESPECIALLY the ones with hardly any ads. The unfortunate byproduct will be you will get those shitty messages.. part of the price you must pay for being in this industry...
Here is why: 1. Branding... Most of these clients are searching on dozens of sites for an escort... if they see you on afterdarkads.com, AND on tryst, AND then on eros., then AGAIN when they kick back to afterdarkads.com, AND then AGAIN when they find slixa.com ... and THEN they FINALLY decide to book.. was it really the ad on slixa that really did it? Or the fact they saw you everyplace and it helped him know you are real, not a fake ad? Was it the ease of finding your ad on a site like afterdarkads.com because they only had to sort through 5 or 6 ads? What was it that made him book? Do you REALLY think having just ONE ad on bedpage, because that's where everyone posts is the best idea? It was because he saw you over and over he was BRANDED and eventually booked.
Branding is this, what do you clean your ears with? NO, not q-tips... its a cotton swab, you have been branded. WHat do you blow your nose with? NO, not kleenex... its a tissue... you are branded. Whats "The best part of wake-ing up.......? its WHAT in your cup... yea.. its coffee.. but you just said Folgers... BRANDING... get in front of ALL the clients as often as possible... BRAND them to think of you when they think of an escort.
The MAJORITY of clients are searching for an escort or hire escorts just a few times a year... they have never heard of all these sites the way we have... a few years ago 1 ad on one site was all you needed... now escorts need 30 ads on 10 sites. Its the way it is.
  1. Simple odds... there are 20+ new sites online... if you are on just 3 of them.. what are your odds that perfect client looking for a girl/guy just like you finds you? Be on all 20 and your odds are much better. There are plenty of clients seeking a sexworker or escort that are only finding escort sites like afterdarkads.com or slixa.com , etc right now for the first time... and in most cities there are just 1 or 2 ads... the bigger cities a few more... if you posted a free ad on there last week.. that you didn't even need bump or pay to feature... he WILL find you... BUT, if you are not there... he will end up moving on, maybe even searching a dozen other sites with barley any posts... maybe give up, search for an agency... go to a strip club book your competition.. who knows. What I DO know is that every time you post an ad on another site... you increase your odds dramatically that you are found. REMEMBER, these clients don't know all the sites... who knows what site they will end up on. And if you are NOT on the ones they find.. there is 1000% chance they call you.
A great way to booking more is to get a website. There are a lot of VERY inexpensive ways to post one.. many advertisers cant or don't have the resources or ability's... be very careful with the services promising escort websites for money.
I am happy to walk you through some easy free steps that can get you on the right path, I will also build a simple free site, just cover the cost, The hosting I recommend will cost you about $10/month, the domain registration and privacy will be about $25 a year, for under $50 I will put a basic site online for you , and show you how to modify it and post to it form your phone. I want nothing for it... I am happy to help anyone in this industry. just PM me. Once you have one.. .LIST YOUR ESCORT WEBSITE ON ALL THE ESCORT SITES!
Another thing to beware of, MANY reports claim that bedpage, aka ebackpage, aka, ibackpage, aka, onebackpage, aka icracker aka yesbackpage (all the same few guys in India and Bangladesh) have all been known to of given access to advertiser accounts to law enforcement resulting in several arrests. Escorts in NY, TX, and Co all report the same thing, when they were arrested, LE had access to their ad account, showing IP’s they posted from (leading one agency to the actual incall location they also posted ads from) payment methods and more. Be CAREFUL with what you post... use a VPN, do NOT use any payment method that can be connected to you, Tryst has a secure system it looks like and you can use btc or gift cards. Most of the other sites accepting credit/debit cards are at risk... if you are paying with a CC, GET A GIFT CARD like vanilla visa and pay cash for it... afterdarkads.com uses a payment site called adacredits.com and allows payment via many ways that hide your identity like gift cards, Bedpage does something similar but I worry its out of india... but do NOT use your personal amazon acct to buy an amazon card to buy credits from any escort advertisement site. Don't use your CC to buy a best buy card or target card to get an ad on bedpage. . If a site is asking for you to use a debit credit card, or worse upload an ID as proof of anything, you are taking a HUGE risk. eventually a lot of these sites are gonna get raided or closed. or hacked... ( I see rumors yesbackpage just got hacked by one of the owner siddiqs little jerkoff programmers thiefs... lol) whatever info they have stored is all sitting there waiting to be exploited. BE CAREFUL
Use a VPN... ALWAYS. If you cant, get a burner smart phone from Walmart through straight talk.. DO NOT sign into your personal FB on that phone, or your reg email... you want that phone and everything on it to NEVER have any attachment to who you are. pay cash for it all and to reup monthly. INSTALL A VPN if you can. Ask for help here on how to do it.. your safety and freedom depend on this.
Its not just the gov you are hiding from... its clients that have tech backgrounds. I will promise you.. there are VERY few advertisers out there, that if I wanted to, I could get your real name, address, phone, birth-date, and MUCH more. There are THOUSANDS of people out there like me... Laugh if you want but its true. At least I am a decent guy, I don't see sexworkers myself, not that I find anything wrong with it at all.. I am safe, you dont need worry about me, But we all know there are PLENTY of weirdos out there that will stalk you, harass you, and then there are the ones that want to hurt you. Yea, the gov will use your information to arrest you or fuck with you... but those scumbags are killers that will rape you and stick you in a dumpster... BE CAREFUL. BE SAFE. BE SMART.
YOU NEED TO BE ADVERTISING A LOT AND OFTEN!!! Those days of 1 ad producing tons of results are OVER… unless backpage returns… you need to be posting a LOT… it is the new world we live in!! On MANY sites! tryst.link is a top result and is working hard to bring the traffic, they seem to care about advertisers. slixa is a great site but not a lot of results. you know the deal with most of the older backpage clones like bedpage. skip the games is REALLY solid. As I said I helped the girls that started afterdarkads.com, they like tryst care, are sexworkers themselves, and verify advertisers... you are not competing to post against fake ads on afterdarkads. They are doing a great job. Cityxguide is solid for the most part I can see, I hear that on the west coast they are killing it. There were a few guys from BP that went to work for them, I hear good things... You need to be on ALL of them and posting a LOT!! post 1 ad per day on EVERY single site that has daily posting EVEN IF YOU JUST POSTED THE ONLY AD YESTERDAY!!!! on sites like tryst with a profile, at a minimum 1 profile, its smart to have a second with dif pics and numbers... pics hiding a face, diff description... in one describe yourself as a sexy cute fun playful thing.. in the other describe yourself as a dominant sex machine... As sexworkers the best bet is to be a chameleon and adapt yourself to what the client is looking to pay for...
HAVE A SCREENING PROCESS!!! Most high end advertisers with their own websites have extensive screening processes... go find them, read their requirements... what will work for you? Mimic them.
Advertising after backpage is not as easy as it once was… it takes work… it takes INVESTING in yourself. EVERY dollar you spend advertising is an investment. Not enough money in your pocket? INVEST MORE!
I hope you get something that helps you from this. It is all my opinions based on many years in this industry and seeing a lot. I was very successful advertising my own agency and learned a lot. I am happy to answer any questions I can. PM or ask away here! Again PLEASE, be careful and be safe!
submitted by jennersteve2 to afterdarkads_com [link] [comments]

Transcript of discussion between an ASIC designer and several proof-of-work designers from #monero-pow channel on Freenode this morning

[08:07:01] lukminer contains precompiled cn/r math sequences for some blocks: https://lukminer.org/2019/03/09/oh-kay-v4r-here-we-come/
[08:07:11] try that with RandomX :P
[08:09:00] tevador: are you ready for some RandomX feedback? it looks like the CNv4 is slowly stabilizing, hashrate comes down...
[08:09:07] how does it even make sense to precompile it?
[08:09:14] mine 1% faster for 2 minutes?
[08:09:35] naturally we think the entire asic-resistance strategy is doomed to fail :) but that's a high-level thing, who knows. people may think it's great.
[08:09:49] about RandomX: looks like the cache size was chosen to make it GPU-hard
[08:09:56] looking forward to more docs
[08:11:38] after initial skimming, I would think it's possible to make a 10x asic for RandomX. But at least for us, we will only make an ASIC if there is not a total ASIC hostility there in the first place. That's better for the secret miners then.
[08:13:12] What I propose is this: we are working on an Ethash ASIC right now, and once we have that working, we would invite tevador or whoever wants to come to HK/Shenzhen and we walk you guys through how we would make a RandomX ASIC. You can then process this input in any way you like. Something like that.
[08:13:49] unless asics (or other accelerators) re-emerge on XMR faster than expected, it looks like there is a little bit of time before RandomX rollout
[08:14:22] 10x in what measure? $/hash or watt/hash?
[08:14:46] watt/hash
[08:15:19] so you can make 10 times more efficient double precisio FPU?
[08:16:02] like I said let's try to be productive. You are having me here, let's work together!
[08:16:15] continue with RandomX, publish more docs. that's always helpful.
[08:16:37] I'm trying to understand how it's possible at all. Why AMD/Intel are so inefficient at running FP calculations?
[08:18:05] midipoet ([email protected]/web/irccloud.com/x-vszshqqxwybvtsjm) has joined #monero-pow
[08:18:17] hardware development works the other way round. We start with 1) math then 2) optimization priority 3) hw/sw boundary 4) IP selection 5) physical implementation
[08:22:32] This still doesn't explain at which point you get 10x
[08:23:07] Weren't you the ones claiming "We can accelerate ProgPoW by a factor of 3x to 8x." ? I find it hard to believe too.
[08:30:20] sure
[08:30:26] so my idea: first we finish our current chip
[08:30:35] from simulation to silicon :)
[08:30:40] we love this stuff... we do it anyway
[08:30:59] now we have a communication channel, and we don't call each other names immediately anymore: big progress!
[08:31:06] you know, we russians have a saying "it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about ravines"
[08:31:12] So I need a bit more details
[08:31:16] ha ha. good!
[08:31:31] that's why I want to avoid to just make claims
[08:31:34] let's work
[08:31:40] RandomX comes in Sep/Oct, right?
[08:31:45] Maybe
[08:32:20] We need to audit it first
[08:32:31] ok
[08:32:59] we don't make chips to prove sw devs that their assumptions about hardware are wrong. especially not if these guys then promptly hardfork and move to the next wrong assumption :)
[08:33:10] from the outside, this only means that hw & sw are devaluing each other
[08:33:24] neither of us should do this
[08:33:47] we are making chips that can hopefully accelerate more crypto ops in the future
[08:33:52] signing, verifying, proving, etc.
[08:34:02] PoW is just a feature like others
[08:34:18] sech1: is it easy for you to come to Hong Kong? (visa-wise)
[08:34:20] or difficult?
[08:34:33] or are you there sometimes?
[08:34:41] It's kind of far away
[08:35:13] we are looking forward to more RandomX docs. that's the first step.
[08:35:31] I want to avoid that we have some meme "Linzhi says they can accelerate XYZ by factor x" .... "ha ha ha"
[08:35:37] right? we don't want that :)
[08:35:39] doc is almost finished
[08:35:40] What docs do you need? It's described pretty good
[08:35:41] so I better say nothing now
[08:35:50] we focus on our Ethash chip
[08:36:05] then based on that, we are happy to walk interested people through the design and what else it can do
[08:36:22] that's a better approach from my view than making claims that are laughed away (rightfully so, because no silicon...)
[08:36:37] ethash ASIC is basically a glorified memory controller
[08:36:39] sech1: tevador said something more is coming (he just did it again)
[08:37:03] yes, some parts of RandomX are not described well
[08:37:10] like dataset access logic
[08:37:37] RandomX looks like progpow for CPU
[08:37:54] yes
[08:38:03] it is designed to reflect CPU
[08:38:34] so any ASIC for it = CPU in essence
[08:39:04] of course there are still some things in regular CPU that can be thrown away for RandomX
[08:40:20] uncore parts are not used, but those will use very little power
[08:40:37] except for memory controller
[08:41:09] I'm just surprised sometimes, ok? let me ask: have you designed or taped out an asic before? isn't it risky to make assumptions about things that are largely unknown?
[08:41:23] I would worry
[08:41:31] that I get something wrong...
[08:41:44] but I also worry like crazy that CNv4 will blow up, where you guys seem to be relaxed
[08:42:06] I didn't want to bring up anything RandomX because CNv4 is such a nailbiter... :)
[08:42:15] how do you guys know you don't have asics in a week or two?
[08:42:38] we don't have experience with ASIC design, but RandomX is simply designed to exactly fit CPU capabilities, which is the best you can do anyways
[08:43:09] similar as ProgPoW did with GPUs
[08:43:14] some people say they want to do asic-resistance only until the vast majority of coins has been issued
[08:43:21] that's at least reasonable
[08:43:43] yeah but progpow totally will not work as advertised :)
[08:44:08] yeah, I've seen that comment about progpow a few times already
[08:44:11] which is no surprise if you know it's just a random sales story to sell a few more GPUs
[08:44:13] RandomX is not permanent, we are expecting to switch to ASIC friendly in a few years if possible
[08:44:18] yes
[08:44:21] that makes sense
[08:44:40] linzhi-sonia: how so? will it break or will it be asic-able with decent performance gains?
[08:44:41] are you happy with CNv4 so far?
[08:45:10] ah, long story. progpow is a masterpiece of deception, let's not get into it here.
[08:45:21] if you know chip marketing it makes more sense
[08:45:24] linzhi-sonia: So far? lol! a bit early to tell, don't you think?
[08:45:35] the diff is coming down
[08:45:41] first few hours looked scary
[08:45:43] I remain skeptical: I only see ASICs being reasonable if they are already as ubiquitous as smartphones
[08:45:46] yes, so far so good
[08:46:01] we kbew the diff would not come down ubtil affter block 75
[08:46:10] yes
[08:46:22] but first few hours it looks like only 5% hashrate left
[08:46:27] looked
[08:46:29] now it's better
[08:46:51] the next worry is: when will "unexplainable" hashrate come back?
[08:47:00] you hope 2-3 months? more?
[08:47:05] so give it another couple of days. will probably overshoot to the downside, and then rise a bit as miners get updated and return
[08:47:22] 3 months minimum turnaround, yes
[08:47:28] nah
[08:47:36] don't underestimate asicmakers :)
[08:47:54] you guys don't get #1 priority on chip fabs
[08:47:56] 3 months = 90 days. do you know what is happening in those 90 days exactly? I'm pretty sure you don't. same thing as before.
[08:48:13] we don't do any secret chips btw
[08:48:21] 3 months assumes they had a complete design ready to go, and added the last minute change in 1 day
[08:48:24] do you know who is behind the hashrate that is now bricked?
[08:48:27] innosilicon?
[08:48:34] hyc: no no, and no. :)
[08:48:44] hyc: have you designed or taped out a chip before?
[08:48:51] yes, many years ago
[08:49:10] then you should know that 90 days is not a fixed number
[08:49:35] sure, but like I said, other makers have greater demand
[08:49:35] especially not if you can prepare, if you just have to modify something, or you have more programmability in the chip than some people assume
[08:50:07] we are chipmakers, we would never dare to do what you guys are doing with CNv4 :) but maybe that just means you are cooler!
[08:50:07] and yes, programmability makes some aspect of turnaround easier
[08:50:10] all fine
[08:50:10] I hope it works!
[08:50:28] do you know who is behind the hashrate that is now bricked?
[08:50:29] inno?
[08:50:41] we suspect so, but have no evidence
[08:50:44] maybe we can try to find them, but we cannot spend too much time on this
[08:50:53] it's probably not so much of a secret
[08:51:01] why should it be, right?
[08:51:10] devs want this cat-and-mouse game? devs get it...
[08:51:35] there was one leak saying it's innosilicon
[08:51:36] so you think 3 months, ok
[08:51:43] inno is cool
[08:51:46] good team
[08:51:49] IP design house
[08:51:54] in Wuhan
[08:52:06] they send their people to conferences with fake biz cards :)
[08:52:19] pretending to be other companies?
[08:52:26] sure
[08:52:28] ha ha
[08:52:39] so when we see them, we look at whatever card they carry and laugh :)
[08:52:52] they are perfectly suited for secret mining games
[08:52:59] they made at most $6 million in 2 months of mining, so I wonder if it was worth it
[08:53:10] yeah. no way to know
[08:53:15] but it's good that you calculate!
[08:53:24] this is all about cost/benefit
[08:53:25] then you also understand - imagine the value of XMR goes up 5x, 10x
[08:53:34] that whole "asic resistance" thing will come down like a house of cards
[08:53:41] I would imagine they sell immediately
[08:53:53] the investor may fully understand the risk
[08:53:57] the buyer
[08:54:13] it's not healthy, but that's another discussion
[08:54:23] so mid-June
[08:54:27] let's see
[08:54:49] I would be susprised if CNv4 ASICs show up at all
[08:54:56] surprised*
[08:54:56] why?
[08:55:05] is only an economic question
[08:55:12] yeah should be interesting. FPGAs will be near their limits as well
[08:55:16] unless XMR goes up a lot
[08:55:19] no, not *only*. it's also a technology question
[08:55:44] you believe CNv4 is "asic resistant"? which feature?
[08:55:53] it's not
[08:55:59] cnv4 = Rabdomx ?
[08:56:03] no
[08:56:07] cnv4=cryptinight/r
[08:56:11] ah
[08:56:18] CNv4 is the one we have now, I think
[08:56:21] since yesterday
[08:56:30] it's plenty enough resistant for current XMR price
[08:56:45] that may be, yes!
[08:56:55] I look at daily payouts. XMR = ca. 100k USD / day
[08:57:03] it can hold until October, but it's not asic resistant
[08:57:23] well, last 24h only 22,442 USD :)
[08:57:32] I think 80 h/s per watt ASICs are possible for CNv4
[08:57:38] linzhi-sonia where do you produce your chips? TSMC?
[08:57:44] I'm cruious how you would expect to build a randomX ASIC that outperforms ARM cores for efficiency, or Intel cores for raw speed
[08:57:48] curious
[08:58:01] yes, tsmc
[08:58:21] Our team did the world's first bitcoin asic, Avalon
[08:58:25] and upcoming 2nd gen Ryzens (64-core EPYC) will be a blast at RandomX
[08:58:28] designed and manufactured
[08:58:53] still being marketed?
[08:59:03] linzhi-sonia: do you understand what xmr wants to achieve, community-wise?
[08:59:14] Avalon? as part of Canaan Creative, yes I think so.
[08:59:25] there's not much interesting oing on in SHA256
[08:59:29] Inge-: I would think so, but please speak
[08:59:32] hyc: yes
[09:00:28] linzhi-sonia: i am curious to hear your thoughts. I am fairly new to this space myself...
[09:00:51] oh
[09:00:56] we are grandpas, and grandmas
[09:01:36] yet I have no problem understanding why ASICS are currently reviled.
[09:01:48] xmr's main differentiators to, let's say btc, are anonymity and fungibility
[09:01:58] I find the client terribly slow btw
[09:02:21] and I think the asic-forking since last may is wrong, doesn't create value and doesn't help with the project objectives
[09:02:25] which "the client" ?
[09:02:52] Monero GUI client maybe
[09:03:12] MacOS, yes
[09:03:28] What exactly is slow?
[09:03:30] linzhi-sonia: I run my own node, and use the CLI and Monerujo. Have not had issues.
[09:03:49] staying in sync
[09:03:49] linzhi-sonia: decentralization is also a key principle
[09:03:56] one that Bitcoin has failed to maintain
[09:04:39] hmm
[09:05:00] looks fairly decentralized to me. decentralization is the result of 3 goals imo: resilient, trustless, permissionless
[09:05:28] don't ask a hardware maker about physical decentralization. that's too ideological. we focus on logical decentralization.
[09:06:11] physical decentralization is important. with bulk of bitnoin mining centered on Chinese hydroelectric dams
[09:06:19] have you thought about including block data in the PoW?
[09:06:41] yes, of course.
[09:07:39] is that already in an algo?
[09:08:10] hyc: about "centered on chinese hydro" - what is your source? the best paper I know is this: https://coinshares.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Mining-Whitepaper-Final.pdf
[09:09:01] linzhi-sonia: do you mine on your ASICs before you sell them?
[09:09:13] besides testing of course
[09:09:45] that paper puts Chinese btc miners at 60% max
[09:10:05] tevador: I think everybody learned that that is not healthy long-term!
[09:10:16] because it gives the chipmaker a cost advantage over its own customers
[09:10:33] and cost advantage leads to centralization (physical and logical)
[09:10:51] you guys should know who finances progpow and why :)
[09:11:05] but let's not get into this, ha ha. want to keep the channel civilized. right OhGodAGirl ? :)
[09:11:34] tevador: so the answer is no! 100% and definitely no
[09:11:54] that "self-mining" disease was one of the problems we have now with asics, and their bad reputation (rightfully so)
[09:13:08] I plan to write a nice short 2-page paper or so on our chip design process. maybe it's interesting to some people here.
[09:13:15] basically the 5 steps I mentioned before, from math to physical
[09:13:32] linzhi-sonia: the paper you linked puts 48% of bitcoin mining in Sichuan. the total in China is much more than 60%
[09:13:38] need to run it by a few people to fix bugs, will post it here when published
[09:14:06] hyc: ok! I am just sharing the "best" document I know today. it definitely may be wrong and there may be a better one now.
[09:14:18] hyc: if you see some reports, please share
[09:14:51] hey I am really curious about this: where is a PoW algo that puts block data into the PoW?
[09:15:02] the previous paper I read is from here http://hackingdistributed.com/2018/01/15/decentralization-bitcoin-ethereum/
[09:15:38] hyc: you said that already exists? (block data in PoW)
[09:15:45] it would make verification harder
[09:15:49] linzhi-sonia: https://the-eye.eu/public/Books/campdivision.com/PDF/Computers%20General/Privacy/bitcoin/meh/hashimoto.pdf
[09:15:51] but for chips it would be interesting
[09:15:52] we discussed the possibility about a year ago https://www.reddit.com/Monero/comments/8bshrx/what_we_need_to_know_about_proof_of_work_pow/
[09:16:05] oh good links! thanks! need to read...
[09:16:06] I think that paper by dryja was original
[09:17:53] since we have a nice flow - second question I'm very curious about: has anyone thought about in-protocol rewards for other functions?
[09:18:55] we've discussed micropayments for wallets to use remote nodes
[09:18:55] you know there is a lot of work in other coins about STARK provers, zero-knowledge, etc. many of those things very compute intense, or need to be outsourced to a service (zether). For chipmakers, in-protocol rewards create an economic incentive to accelerate those things.
[09:19:50] whenever there is an in-protocol reward, you may get the power of ASICs doing something you actually want to happen
[09:19:52] it would be nice if there was some economic reward for running a fullnode, but no one has come up with much more than that afaik
[09:19:54] instead of fighting them off
[09:20:29] you need to use asics, not fight them. that's an obvious thing to say for an asicmaker...
[09:20:41] in-protocol rewards can be very powerful
[09:20:50] like I said before - unless the ASICs are so useful they're embedded in every smartphone, I dont see them being a positive for decentralization
[09:21:17] if they're a separate product, the average consumer is not going to buy them
[09:21:20] now I was talking about speedup of verifying, signing, proving, etc.
[09:21:23] they won't even know what they are
[09:22:07] if anybody wants to talk about or design in-protocol rewards, please come talk to us
[09:22:08] the average consumer also doesn't use general purpose hardware to secure blockchains either
[09:22:14] not just for PoW, in fact *NOT* for PoW
[09:22:32] it requires sw/hw co-design
[09:23:10] we are in long-term discussions/collaboration over this with Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash. just talk right now.
[09:23:16] this was recently published though suggesting more uptake though I guess https://btcmanager.com/college-students-are-the-second-biggest-miners-of-cryptocurrency/
[09:23:29] I find it pretty hard to believe their numbers
[09:24:03] well
[09:24:09] sorry, original article: https://www.pcmag.com/news/366952/college-kids-are-using-campus-electricity-to-mine-crypto
[09:24:11] just talk, no? rumors
[09:24:18] college students are already more educated than the average consumer
[09:24:29] we are not seeing many such customers anymore
[09:24:30] it's data from cisco monitoring network traffic
[09:24:33] and they're always looking for free money
[09:24:48] of course anyone with "free" electricity is inclined to do it
[09:24:57] but look at the rates, cannot make much money
[09:26:06] Ethereum is a bloated collection of bugs wrapped in a UI. I suppose they need all the help they can get
[09:26:29] Bitcoin Cash ... just another get rich quick scheme
[09:26:38] hmm :)
[09:26:51] I'll give it back to you, ok? ha ha. arrogance comes before the fall...
[09:27:17] maye we should have a little fun with CNv4 mining :)
[09:27:25] ;)
[09:27:38] come on. anyone who has watched their track record... $75M lost in ETH at DAO hack
[09:27:50] every smart contract that comes along is just waiting for another hack
[09:27:58] I just wanted to throw out the "in-protocol reward" thing, maybe someone sees the idea and wants to cowork. maybe not. maybe it's a stupid idea.
[09:29:18] linzhi-sonia: any thoughts on CN-GPU?
[09:29:55] CN-GPU has one positive aspect - it wastes chip area to implement all 18 hash algorithms
[09:30:19] you will always hear roughly the same feedback from me:
[09:30:52] "This algorithm very different, it heavy use floating point operations to hurt FPGAs and general purpose CPUs"
[09:30:56] the problem is, if it's profitable for people to buy ASIC miners and mine, it's always more profitable for the manufacturer to not sell and mine themselves
[09:31:02] "hurt"
[09:31:07] what is the point of this?
[09:31:15] it totally doesn't work
[09:31:24] you are hurting noone, just demonstrating lack of ability to think
[09:31:41] what is better: algo designed for chip, or chip designed for algo?
[09:31:43] fireice does it on daily basis, CN-GPU is a joke
[09:31:53] tevador: that's not really true, especially in a market with such large price fluctuations as cryptocurrency
[09:32:12] it's far less risky to sell miners than mine with them and pray that price doesn't crash for next six months
[09:32:14] I think it's great that crypto has a nice group of asicmakers now, hw & sw will cowork well
[09:32:36] jwinterm yes, that's why they premine them and sell after
[09:32:41] PoW is about being thermodynamically and cryptographically provable
[09:32:45] premining with them is taking on that risk
[09:32:49] not "fork when we think there are asics"
[09:32:51] business is about risk minimization
[09:32:54] that's just fear-driven
[09:33:05] Inge-: that's roughly the feedback
[09:33:24] I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I think it's not so simple as saying "it always happens"
[09:34:00] jwinterm: it has certainly happened on BTC. and also on XMR.
[09:34:19] ironically, please think about it: these kinds of algos indeed prove the limits of the chips they were designed for. but they don't prove that you cannot implement the same algo differently! cannot!
[09:34:26] Risk minimization is not starting a business at all.
[09:34:34] proof-of-gpu-limit. proof-of-cpu-limit.
[09:34:37] imagine you have a money printing machine, would you sell it?
[09:34:39] proves nothing for an ASIC :)
[09:35:05] linzhi-sonia: thanks. I dont think anyone believes you can't make a more efficient cn-gpu asic than a gpu - but that it would not be orders of magnitude faster...
[09:35:24] ok
[09:35:44] like I say. these algos are, that's really ironic, designed to prove the limitatios of a particular chip in mind of the designer
[09:35:50] exactly the wrong way round :)
[09:36:16] like the cache size in RandomX :)
[09:36:18] beautiful
[09:36:29] someone looked at GPU designs
[09:37:31] linzhi-sonia can you elaborate? Cache size in RandomX was selected to fit CPU cache
[09:37:52] yes
[09:38:03] too large for GPU
[09:38:11] as I said, we are designing the algorithm to exactly fit CPU capabilities, I do not claim an ASIC cannot be more efficient
[09:38:16] ok!
[09:38:29] when will you do the audit?
[09:38:35] will the results be published in a document or so?
[09:38:37] I claim that single-chip ASIC is not viable, though
[09:39:06] you guys are brave, noone disputes that. 3 anti-asic hardforks now!
[09:39:18] 4th one coming
[09:39:31] 3 forks were done not only for this
[09:39:38] they had scheduled updates in the first place
[09:48:10] Monero is the #1 anti-asic fighter
[09:48:25] Monero is #1 for a lot of reasons ;)
[09:48:40] It's the coin with the most hycs.
[09:48:55] mooooo
[09:59:06] sneaky integer overflow, bug squished
[10:38:00] p0nziph0ne ([email protected]/vpn/privateinternetaccess/p0nziph0ne) has joined #monero-pow
[11:10:53] The convo here is wild
[11:12:29] it's like geo-politics at the intersection of software and hardware manufacturing for thermoeconomic value.
[11:13:05] ..and on a Sunday.
[11:15:43] midipoet: hw and sw should work together and stop silly games to devalue each other. to outsiders this is totally not attractive.
[11:16:07] I appreciate the positive energy here to try to listen, learn, understand.
[11:16:10] that's a start
[11:16:48] <-- p0nziph0ne ([email protected]/vpn/privateinternetaccess/p0nziph0ne) has quit (Quit: Leaving)
[11:16:54] we won't do silly mining against xmr "community" wishes, but not because we couldn'd do it, but because it's the wrong direction in the long run, for both sides
[11:18:57] linzhi-sonia: I agree to some extent. Though, in reality, there will always be divergence between social worlds. Not every body has the same vision of the future. Reaching societal consensus on reality tomorrow is not always easy
[11:20:25] absolutely. especially at a time when there is so much profit to be made from divisiveness.
[11:20:37] someone will want to make that profit, for sure
[11:24:32] Yes. Money distorts.
[11:24:47] Or wealth...one of the two
[11:26:35] Too much physical money will distort rays of light passing close to it indeed.
submitted by jwinterm to Monero [link] [comments]

The total computing power now dedicated to securing the bitcoin blockchain has set yet another record.

According to data from mining services operator BTC.com, the average bitcoin mining hash rate over the last two weeks has reached 71.43 quintillion hashes per second (EH/s), up from 64.49EH/s on July 23. The threshold was breached as bitcoin adjusted its mining difficulty at block height 586,672 on Monday 2:52 UTC – that is a 6.94EH/s, or 10.78 percent jump since mid July.
Bitcoin mining difficulty is a measure of how hard it is to compete for mining rewards on bitcoin. Just how difficult the bitcoin software makes it to generate new blocks adjusts every 2,016 blocks – approximately every 14 days – to ensure the block production time remains about 10 minutes at the next cycle.
Assume this additional 6.9EH/s (or 6.9 million tera hashes per second, TH/s) computing power has all come from powerful ASIC miners, such as Bitmain’s AntMiner S17 or MicroBT’s WhatsMiner M20S, both of which boast a mining rate of around 55TH/s and recently hit the market.
That means more than 100,000 top-of-line ASIC miners could have been switched on within the past two weeks. Further, given these products have been sold for at least $2,000 each, this equates to some $200 million in revenue pocketed for major miner makers.
The continued interest in bitcoin mining comes at a time when the cryptocurrency’s price appears to be en route to challenging all-time highs, however distantly, and amid the arrival of the rainy season in China, which leads to cheaper hydropower electricity costs in the country’s southwest provinces – a region that is reported to account for 50 percent of the global mining activity,
Miners in China estimated earlier this year that bitcoin’s hash rate in the summer would break the level of 70EH/s. To be clear, at several single points of time, bitcoin’s hash rate had already crossed that level in June and even reached 80EH/s around Aug. 1.
However, today marks the first time that the two-week average computing power has been able to remain above the 70EH/s threshold. As such, bitcoin’s mining difficulty has also set a new record of nearly 10 trillion.

Market change

Amidst this uptick in mining interest, there have been notable changes in the mining market, where top manufacturers are racing to produce more powerful equipment.
For instance, in Bitmain’s 2018 initial public offering prospectus, the Beijing-based mining giant claimed it had a 70 percent market dominance. Now, it may be facing serious competition from rival players that some believe are capable of shipping more top-of-line products with better profitability.
Michael Zhong, a former mining analyst who now operates mining farms at a startup called Force Mine, told CoinDesk that based on his experience, the production capacity ranking among major Chinese miner makers for their flagship products have changed over the years.
Zhong explained that from 2017 to 2018, Bitmain had topped the list with its AntMiner S9 series miners, followed by Canaan’s Avalon 8 series machines. InnoSilicon, Ebang and former Bitmain design director’s MicroBT were all in the third position at the time.
But from January to June this year, the delivery capacity ranking has reshuffled, with now MicroBT’s WhatsMiner M20 series at the top, followed by Bitmain’s S17 series miners and then InnoSilicon, Canaan, and Ebang, Zhong added.
According to F2pool’s miner profit tracker, Bitmain’s flagship AntMiner S17 Pro ranks third in terms of mining profitability, following BitFury’s Tardis and MicroBT’s WhatsMiner M20S. The cost for WhatsMiner M20S is around $3,000, while that of AntMiner S17 Pro is around $4,000 each, based on the information advertised on the two firms’ websites.
Although orders for these flagship machines have queued up until November and December this year, MicroBT’s founder Zuoxing Yang told CoinDesk previously that the bottleneck of production capacity is the availability of chips from suppliers.
For example, MicroBT uses 10-nm chips for its M20 series, which are relatively more affordable with a higher level of availability compared to more advanced 7-nm chips used by Bitmain for its AntMiner S17 series equipment.
While Bitmain has always been relying on chips supplied by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), MicroBT has switched from TSMC to Samsung earlier this year for its flagship products.
Both TSMC and Samsung have estimated in their most recent Q2 earnings calls that the demand for cryptocurrency mining chips will come back in the third and the fourth quarter this year.
Operating miners image courtesy to Hashage
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-computing-power-sets-new-record-as-over-100k-miners-go-online?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=coindesk&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=Organic%20
submitted by Muxa84 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

A technical dive into CTOR

Over the last several days I've been looking into detail at numerous aspects of the now infamous CTOR change to that is scheduled for the November hard fork. I'd like to offer a concrete overview of what exactly CTOR is, what the code looks like, how well it works, what the algorithms are, and outlook. If anyone finds the change to be mysterious or unclear, then hopefully this will help them out.
This document is placed into public domain.

What is TTOR? CTOR? AOR?

Currently in Bitcoin Cash, there are many possible ways to order the transactions in a block. There is only a partial ordering requirement in that transactions must be ordered causally -- if a transaction spends an output from another transaction in the same block, then the spending transaction must come after. This is known as the Topological Transaction Ordering Rule (TTOR) since it can be mathematically described as a topological ordering of the graph of transactions held inside the block.
The November 2018 hard fork will change to a Canonical Transaction Ordering Rule (CTOR). This CTOR will enforce that for a given set of transactions in a block, there is only one valid order (hence "canonical"). Any future blocks that deviate from this ordering rule will be deemed invalid. The specific canonical ordering that has been chosen for November is a dictionary ordering (lexicographic) based on the transaction ID. You can see an example of it in this testnet block (explorer here, provided this testnet is still alive). Note that the txids are all in dictionary order, except for the coinbase transaction which always comes first. The precise canonical ordering rule can be described as "coinbase first, then ascending lexicographic order based on txid".
(If you want to have your bitcoin node join this testnet, see the instructions here. Hopefully we can get a public faucet and ElectrumX server running soon, so light wallet users can play with the testnet too.)
Another ordering rule that has been suggested is removing restrictions on ordering (except that the coinbase must come first) -- this is known as the Any Ordering Rule (AOR). There are no serious proposals to switch to AOR but it will be important in the discussions below.

Two changes: removing the old order (TTOR->AOR), and installing a new order (AOR->CTOR)

The proposed November upgrade combines two changes in one step:
  1. Removing the old causal rule: now, a spending transaction can come before the output that it spends from the same block.
  2. Adding a new rule that fixes the ordering of all transactions in the block.
In this document I am going to distinguish these two steps (TTOR->AOR, AOR->CTOR) as I believe it helps to clarify the way different components are affected by the change.

Code changes in Bitcoin ABC

In Bitcoin ABC, several thousand lines of code have been changed from version 0.17.1 to version 0.18.1 (the current version at time of writing). The differences can be viewed here, on github. The vast majority of these changes appear to be various refactorings, code style changes, and so on. The relevant bits of code that deal with the November hard fork activation can be found by searching for "MagneticAnomaly"; the variable magneticanomalyactivationtime sets the time at which the new rules will activate.
The main changes relating to transaction ordering are found in the file src/validation.cpp:
There are other changes as well:

Algorithms

Serial block processing (one thread)

One of the most important steps in validating blocks is updating the unspent transaction outputs (UTXO) set. It is during this process that double spends are detected and invalidated.
The standard way to process a block in bitcoin is to loop through transactions one-by-one, removing spent outputs and then adding new outputs. This straightforward approach requires exact topological order and fails otherwise (therefore it automatically verifies TTOR). In pseudocode:
for tx in transactions: remove_utxos(tx.inputs) add_utxos(tx.outputs) 
Note that modern implementations do not apply these changes immediately, rather, the adds/removes are saved into a commit. After validation is completed, the commit is applied to the UTXO database in batch.
By breaking this into two loops, it becomes possible to update the UTXO set in a way that doesn't care about ordering. This is known as the outputs-then-inputs (OTI) algorithm.
for tx in transactions: add_utxos(tx.outputs) for tx in transactions: remove_utxos(tx.inputs) 
Benchmarks by Jonathan Toomim with Bitcoin ABC, and by myself with ElectrumX, show that the performance penalty of OTI's two loops (as opposed to the one loop version) is negligible.

Concurrent block processing

The UTXO updates actually form a significant fraction of the time needed for block processing. It would be helpful if they could be parallelized.
There are some concurrent algorithms for block validation that require quasi-topological order to function correctly. For example, multiple workers could process the standard loop shown above, starting at the beginning. A worker temporarily pauses if the utxo does not exist yet, since it's possible that another worker will soon create that utxo.
There are issues with such order-sensitive concurrent block processing algorithms:
In contrast, the OTI algorithm's loops are fully parallelizable: the worker threads can operate in an independent manner and touch transactions in any order. Until recently, OTI was thought to be unable to verify TTOR, so one reason to remove TTOR was that it would allow changing to parallel OTI. It turns out however that this is not true: Jonathan Toomim has shown that TTOR enforcement is easily added by recording new UTXOs' indices within-block, and then comparing indices during the remove phase.
In any case, it appears to me that any concurrent validation algorithm would need such additional code to verify that TTOR is being exactly respected; thus for concurrent validation TTOR is a hindrance at best.

Advanced parallel techniques

With Bitcoin Cash blocks scaling to large sizes, it may one day be necessary to scale onto advanced server architectures involving sharding. A lot of discussion has been made over this possibility, but really it is too early to start optimizing for sharding. I would note that at this scale, TTOR is not going to be helpful, and CTOR may or may not lead to performance optimizations.

Block propagation (graphene)

A major bottleneck that exists in Bitcoin Cash today is block propagation. During the stress test, it was noticed that the largest blocks (~20 MB) could take minutes to propagate across the network. This is a serious concern since propagation delays mean increased orphan rates, which in turn complicate the economics and incentives of mining.
'Graphene' is a set reconciliation technique using bloom filters and invertible bloom lookup tables. It drastically reduces the amount of bandwidth required to communicate a block. Unfortunately, the core graphene mechanism does not provide ordering information, and so if many orderings are possible then ordering information needs to be appended. For large blocks, this ordering information makes up the majority of the graphene message.
To reduce the size of ordering information while keeping TTOR, miners could optionally decide to order their transactions in a canonical ordering (Gavin's order, for example) and the graphene protocol could be hard coded so that this kind of special order is transmitted in one byte. This would add a significant technical burden on mining software (to create blocks in such a specific unusual order) as well as graphene (which must detect this order, and be able to reconstruct it). It is not clear to me whether it would be possible to efficiently parallelize sorting algortithms that reconstruct these orderings.
The adoption of CTOR gives an easy solution to all this: there is only one ordering, so no extra ordering information needs to be appended. The ordering is recovered with a comparison sort, which parallelizes better than a topological sort. This should simplify the graphene codebase and it removes the need to start considering supporting various optional ordering encodings.

Reversibility and technical debt

Can the change to CTOR be undone at a later time? Yes and no.
For block validators / block explorers that look over historical blocks, the removal of TTOR will permanently rule out usage of the standard serial processing algorithm. This is not really a problem (aside from the one-time annoyance), since OTI appears to be just as efficient in serial, and it parallelizes well.
For anything that deals with new blocks (like graphene, network protocol, block builders for mining, new block validation), it is not a problem to change the ordering at a later date (to AOR / TTOR or back to CTOR again, or something else). These changes would add no long term technical debt, since they only involve new blocks. For past-block validation it can be retroactively declared that old blocks (older than a few months) have no ordering requirement.

Summary and outlook

Taking a broader view, graphene is not the magic bullet for network propagation. Even with the CTOR-improved graphene, we might not see vastly better performance right away. There is also work needed in the network layer to simply move the messages faster between nodes. In the last stress test, we also saw limitations on mempool performance (tx acceptance and relaying). I hope both of these fronts see optimizations before the next stress test, so that a fresh set of bottlenecks can be revealed.
submitted by markblundeberg to btc [link] [comments]

Logs of yesterday's dev meeting

 Dev meeting?  Would say so, yes  The people are still exhausted from the payment ID meeting :)  Guess we could ping some people  vtnerd, moneromooo, hyc, gingeropolous, TheCharlatan, sarang, suraeNoether, jtgrassie  Anyone up for a meeting?  Yep I'm here  Here  o/  Perhaps we should just start and people will eventually hop in?   oof   sorry guys, I'm working on the new FFS and I forgot all about this. Got a couple of new volunteers.   This literally might be able to launch tomorrow.  I know that. It's called "flow" :)  I could run if you're out of time?   go for it dEBRUYNE   you guys are going to like this new FFS. We're like 99% done.  Hi  rehrar: someone else do the milestone thing already?  All right, jtgrassie, perhaps you'd to start w/ briefly describing your most recent PR? https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/5091   oneiric, xiphon did everything   like....everything  As far as I can see, it allows the user to push his transaction over I2P, thereby masking the origin IP of the sendeuser  great  And it hooks into vtnerd's PR right?  Sure. It basically just builds on vtnerds Tor stuff.  sorry dEBRUYNE  Really not much added.  I have it running and tested.  From the perspective of the user, what needs to be configured exactly?  Nice  Assuming the PR is included in the release binaries  I'm using knacccs i2p-zero duirng testing but will of course work with any i2p setup   sorry dEBRUYNE <= Np  Looks a little like dams breaking, now that we have some dark clouds over Kovri and people take matters into their own hands ...  User needs to run i2p, expose a socks service and and inbound tunnel.  Basically same as Tor  Okay, so should be reasonable as long as we write proper documentation for it (e.g. an elaborate guide)  rbrunner, yes, knaccc credit for jumping on i2p-zero really  dEBRUYNE: documentation monero side is kindof done. i2p side is very much implementation specific.  I suppose we could write some guides for the most popular implementations?  e.g. i2p-zero aims to be zero conf, but i2pd or Kovri would be differnet.  I see, great  vtnerd___: Do you want to add anything?  could amend the current kovri guide for monero use from --exclusive-peer to the new proxy support  Now I have i2p-zero running and tested with the #5091, I plan to jump back over to helping knaccc on getting that polished.  I added support for socks proxy in the basic wallets  ^ excellent  Yes vtnerd___ I havent tested it yet but looks sweet.  So connections to `monerod` over Toi2p are possible within wallet cli and wallet rpc  Awesome  This also implies auth+encryption even if ssl is not in use (when using an onion or i2p address)  All right  moneromooo: are you here? If so, could you perhaps share what you've been working on?  I am.  I revived the SSL PR, more stuff on multi sender txes, an implementation of ArticMine's new block size algorithm.  I presume a multi sender tx works similar to multisig insofar as the senders have to exchange data before the transaction can be performed right?  Yes.  There are 2 SSL PRs. What's the diff?  Theoretically this would also allow the sender to provide an output right? Which would be kind of similar to Bitcoin's P2EP  The second one adds some things like selecting a cert by fingerprint.  Yes.  (for the first sentence)  All right, awesome  For anyone reading, this breaks the assumption of the inputs belonging to a single sender, which makes analysis more difficult  Nice side-effect.  Much work coming for the various wallets to support that  rbrunner: Anything you'd like to share in the meeting btw?  Yes, just a little info  I have started to seriously investigate what it would mean to integrate Monero into OpenBazaar  I have already talked with 2 of their devs, was very interesting  In maybe 2 or 3 weeks I intend to write a report  Too early to tell much more :)  Soon^tm I guess :)  Yep  Currently wrestling with Go debugging  whole new world  moneromooo: Has pony recently shared any insights regarding the upcoming 0.14 release btw?  No.  All right  I would love to see the tor & i2p PR's merged sooner rather than later so we can get more testing done.  ^ +1  Isn't that famous early code freeze already on the horizon?  fluffypony, luigi1111 ^  I suppose I could provide a little update regarding the GUI btw  As always, lots of bug fixes and improvements :-P  selsta has recently added a feature to support multi accounts  dsc_ has revamped the wizard and will now start working on implementing the different modes and a white theme  dsc_ is working fulltime on the GUI already?  yes  :)   dsc_ is bae  In light of the recent payment ID discussion, we've also, by default, disabled the option to add a payment ID unless the user explicitely activates the option on the settings page  rehrar ^  nice   I spoke about this yesterday at the coffee chat, this is not a good decision.  How does it handle integrated addresses? The same way?  rehrar ?   For the next many months, we are still stuck with PAyment IDs in the ecosystem. Making it harder for people to access them will make Monero suck so hard to use for the average person for many months.  i agree with rehrar   Remove the option of Payment IDs when we remove Payment IDs  rehrar: The new GUI release won't be live until probably mid march though  Which is a few weeks in advance of the scheduled protocol upgrade   Payment ID removal comes in October   right, but Payment IDs are not removed in March  Did we not have loose consensus on removing the old, unencrypted payment IDs in march?   they are removed in October  We had discussed a deprecation in March  and a ban in October   ok, then if we are going to do that, we have to commit to it and contact the exchanges like Binance that use them and get rid of them in the next few months  (of unencrypted)   Binance is huge, and if they still use them, then people will be very upset that they can't deposit or use Payment IDs easily   I'm just speaking from a UX perspective.  I thought it was unencrypted in April and possibly encrypted in October  Yes I do agree  Timeline and notes: https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/299  impossible to remove them for march, many exchanges still use them  We can defer it to the 0.15 release if needed  Well, that wasn't the impression for them log that I just read today  This was all discussed in the earlier meeting linked above   We have to force the ecosystem off of Payment IDs before we remove them from the UI, is all I'm saying  Remove != make difficult to use  ... or make them more difficult there, right?  ping sgp_   sarang, I understand, and I agreed with you during that meeting. But then I started thinking of it as a UX person, which I am.   And that huge massive problem leapt out at me  i think making them difficult to generate is a good idea but making them difficult to consume and use is a bad idea  well, maybe not a good idea, but a better idea   ^  If we defer the decision to depriciate long payment IDs to october, won't we have the same issue then?  The UI can gave an expandable payment ID field like MyMonero and we can still call it deprecated   It is foolhardy to remove an option that the ecosystem uses. So I suggest we keep the Payment ID in the UI until October when they are completely banned.   no dEBRYUNE, because they will be banned via consensus  sgp_ imo it may be a misdirection of dev resources to add that since things are proceeding in the short term rather than long term  but this is a relatively minor point  Nothing matters til exchanges change  All right   The issue is that consensus will still have them in April, and exchanges won't upgrade because they are still allowed. Thus they must still be in the UI.  endogenic these changes are already merged in the GUI to hide it like you do  ok   But when they are banned, exchanges are forced to upgrade or stop using Monero, so we can remove them safely because they won't be in use  rehrar: that's a strong assumption   sarang that they will upgrade?  yes   if they don't, then they can't use Monero  If exchanges require pid, users need a way to set a pid. Making it hard for the user in the interim is just going to be a nightmare.   we have decided to take our "stand" in October  A way that is not too hard, then  To be clear, we still intend to deprecate long encrypted payment IDs in April right? But no enforcement until October   the term "deprecated" doesn't mean much if it's still allowed, and used in popular places   yes, as far as I understand it   jtgrassie, exactly  True I suppose  dEBRUYNE: we need to be more specific when talking about deprecation   the person who suffers is the user  There are two proposals for GUI deprecation:  1. Hide it in the send screen with a simple option to expand (currently merged iirc)  2. Hide it completely in the send screen unless users enable the field in advanced settings (PR'd but not merged yet iirc)  What are the arguments for 2?   Both are poor options, but 1 is better than 2 by a long shot   Well the people who need to be made to "suffer" are the exchanges. And I don't see a way to make exchanges "suffer" other than by having their suffering customers complain to them constantly that they need to update.  ^  CLI has something similar where users need to set a manual payment ID transfer mode. Not sure if it's merged yet   the way to make the exchanges suffer is when we ban PIDs. They either upgrade or don't use Monero.  exact;y  Agree with rerahr here  have exchanges been provided with clear, practical, sufficient technical upgrade plans for supporting what they're doing with PIDs but with subaddrs?    Both are poor options, but 1 is better than 2 by a long shot <= I wouldn't call 1. a poor option. Have you actually checked how it looks?  Because it states "Payment ID" and a user has to click on the + to expand the field  endogenic: yes the email when out. Blog post coming soon, but contains the same info as the email  also the exhcnages' users are often using wallets that don't support subaddresses  ok great   as well, it should be noted that the timeline for exchanges to upgrade is September, not October when the fork is.  Which wallets are that?  Rehrar: I don't see option 1. causing any issues/confusion  i guess it doesnt matter too much if withdrawing as a personal user the main address should suffice   Because September is when the new versions will be coming out without PIDs in the UI  If there's opposition to 2, 1 is fine. We can still call it deprecated which is the optics we need anyway   exchange users are often just using other exchanges lol. No wallets involved.   dsc_ dEBRUYNE, ok, I trust you guys here then  rbrunner: i was thinking mymonero last i heard  Ok  pigeons: rbrunner yes receiving on subaddresses won't be supported yet  sending to them has been possible though  and yes as learnandlurkin says often they withdraw to other systems like exhcnages that also dont yet support subaddresses  I really can't come up with any good argument for 2. right now  endogenic: seems not much of an issue then. Exchanges will typically support withdrawals to both subaddresses and plain addresses (especially if we are going to force them to use subaddresses)  For deposits, MyMonero works properly if the user sends to a subaddress  Actually the second solution was already merged: https://github.com/monero-project/monero-gui/pull/1866  Maybe not enough eyes watching :)   The important thing is to have done something to justify having a big "DEPRECATED IN APRIL" stamp on PIDs to spook exchanges in the interim  This was for solution 1: https://github.com/monero-project/monero-gui/pull/1855   The Monero Community Workgroup will start making noise everywhere we can to exchanges, and everywhere else that will listen. Try to get on those garbage news sites also.   So everyone knows that deprecated in April, and banned in September  Hey, for solution 1, write "Payment ID (optional, deprecated)" or similar there  rbrunner: noted  rehrar: probably wait until the blog post, but it should only be a few days   Maybe a Reddit sticky post would be useful?   With the blog post   If people are over freaking out about the hashrate  or terabyte blockchain :)  sigh  Any questions for the MRL side?  Is someone checking ArticMine's block size changes for weird behaviour in some cases etc ?  How would such testing work? Private blockchain?  I'm waiting on cost information from ArticMine to complete the model  Or just simulations?  Also, smooth suggested a mean rather than median for the 100000 block op. It would indeed be much nicer if it doesn't make the change worse.  You mean computationally or what?  Nicer ? Yes.  no sorting needed for mean  I'll add a separate sim for that  Well, just nicer. Forger the much.  Forger the Much sounds like the formal name of a Lord of the Rings character  :)  To close the payment ID discussion, in essence, we agree that we shouldn't make it difficult for the user to add a payment ID right (until 0.15 is released)  ?  I don't. I did make it harder.  In the CLI, somewhat other story, I would say  than the GUI  People there are used to juggle with options and CL parameters  rehrar: I recommend opening another issue to reverse 1866 and we can gather feedback on it there  Sounds good, to me at least   Dudes, if I do a Jitsi stream right now to show the new FFS in action, would you guys be interested in watching it?  I'd watch it, if the meeting is formally done  sure  yeah, can I start one and record it?   I'll give it in like fifteen minutes   I'll let you all know, stand by  I have a question on tx_extra if no one else has anything to talk about  People have said you can put arbitrary data in there in whatever format you want as long as you're willing to pay for it. However, do you need to mine the transaction for it to be included? I didn't think nodes would block transactions with arbitrary tx_extra data  It'll be in nodes' txpool when you relay it. A wallet could see it before it's mined.  moneromooo: will it be mined though?  by others  Is it valid ?  assume it's otherwise valid  Does it have a high enough fee ?  assume it does yes  I ran into conflicting information here: https://monero.stackexchange.com/a/3627/42  Then it will probably be mined.  I once had the idea to put "my" MMS messages in there, looked at the code, and found no hard blocks for tx_extra data  That answer looks incorrect.  It is incorrect  If it will be mined, then that meets my assumption. There seems to be some misconception that people will not mine transactions with arbitrary tx_extra. I can add some comments there  And please don't spam it, and don't put fingerprintable stuff in it. It's meant to be here for *useful* stuff that's "uniform" enough.  It will be mined, whether a wallet *displays* the tx_extra is a different question.  I don't think any wallet currently displays that  it soes if its a pid  I think  Yeah, of course :)  Great, that answers my question 
submitted by dEBRUYNE_1 to Monero [link] [comments]

WHAT IF . . . ?

Well, I hate to tell of some secret plans. But I will ONLY share with the true bitcoin believers here on bch. (The core folks will never trade their btc for bch, no matter what. No matter how much evidence is shown to them. Even if they know what is going to happen, they still will not sell their btc for bch even if they see it going to zero, this is why I share this with the BCH supporters, let me say, this is my "theory"). Follow me on my "What If" journey.
At some point, (I believe before the end of the year, but after the hardfork drama is over) On a coordinated, specified day, Jihan and CSW and Ver and, and , and, and, etc. will convert all their btc holdings to bch. When (not IF) but when this happens, you need to be holding BCH. The current daily BCH volume, total on all the exchanges is not even 2000 BTC, so it wont take much to push BCH price way up. Bitmain has 22,000 coins, plus do we know how much CSW, Ver, + + + have? I believe that they have created this fork drama to force the BCH/BTC price down for now. (Maybe they are even selling a little at certain times to help the price drop, they have definitely stopped buying.) Then at a pre-determined time, they will do a coordinated buy to spike the bch price making a fortune for them and BCH HODLrs.
BUT making a fortune is NOT their goal, they are already crypto rich. This is NOT a pump and dump scheme. Their Goal is to cause the flippening. Imagine if they can take BCH from 0.05 to 0.50 in one day and then let the market drive it higher, it could possibly destroy BTC, returning the true bitcoin back to proper market dominance.
IMAGINE the scenario:
Current and prior to 4 NOVEMBER.
Jihan, ABC, CSW, Coingeek Continue the BCH split drama, sell a little BCH to force the price down slowly, keeping the mining profitability relatively equal between BCH and BTC. Pushing the price down to 0.05 BCH/BTC. (Core folks feel they have won)
4 NOVEMBER, 2018 2am UTC, Core has a difficulty adjustment, 2016 blocks/2 weeks to go before the next difficulty adjustment.
5 NOVEMBER, 2018 - 8am UTC - Monday
Jihan, ABC, Ver, Unlimited, CSW, nchain, coingeetk, etc etc, all announce that there are many good things in the works with BCH and that everyone has agreed to test/evaluate all of the contentious changes, pushing the dates to decide to implement such changes to May 2019. There will not be any split on Nov 15, Only the changes that have unanimous consensus/support.
BCH Community is now united and very excited for the future (Much more than normal)
5 NOVEMBER, 12PM UTC
1,000 BTC is dumped to market buy BCH. BCH spikes from 0.05 to 0.20. Mining profitability is 3-4x on BCH and significant hash MOVES to BCH. So much so btc is only confirming 2-3 blocks/hour.
5 NOVEMBER, 2PM UTC
People start selling their BTC, people start moving their BTC to an exchange to sell. BTC mempool is at 15MB and growing and BTC has only mined 4 blocks in two hours. BCH/BTC hashrate is 30/70.
Most big bitcoin players just think this is a pump and dump seen all the time, they do nothing waiting for the BCH price to drop. Financial whales have no technical clue what is going on, they start to short BCH because RSI is just to high, and bcash is just a scam, stupid pump and dump, they think.
5 NOVEMBER, 6PM UTC
BCH is now 0.30/BTC.
BCH is now 5-6x more profitable to mine, miners that have never thought about mining BCH, are now trying to figure out how to switch to BCH.
Hashrate is now 35/65 BCH/BTC
Mempool is now 40 MB. BTC has only mined 10 blocks in 4 hours.
There starts to be a little panic in the stomach of core. If this continues, we have to wait another 1850 blocks before a difficulty adjustment. Normally that would take 12 days, but if everything stays the same, it will take 3 weeks. Oh Nooooo.
Another 1000 BTC is dumped to sell at market price for BCH
6 NOVEMBER, 12AM UTC
BCH is now 0.50/BTC
BCH is now 10x more profitable to mine
Hashrate is now 70/30 BCH/BTC
Mempool is now 100 MB, fees are at $1000 to get tx confirmed.
Panic selling is now hitting.
Core is only confirming 3 blocks in two hours. 1825 blocks to get to next diff adjustment, 50 days away if things remain constant
6 NOVEMBER, 8AM UTC
Core is in full panic mode, No clear plan how to reverse these events.
This looks to be 1000x worse than December 2017, mempool is 200MB, 1 block/hr. Hashrate is 80/20 BCH/BTC. Core starts discussing an emergency difficulty adjustment software update.
BCH is now 0.75/BTC All Whales trying to short BCH have been exterminated.
BTC holders are in full panic mode, all their BTC is in the mempool. $1000 fee does not get tx confirmed in core.
6 NOVEMBER, 12PM UTC
BCH is now 1.33/BTC Or BTC is 0.75 BCH
BCH Whales are now shorting BTC
Hashrate is now 85/15 BCH/BTC
Core is averaging 1 block every 75 minutes.
Mempool is 300MB.
Core announces new software release with emergency difficulty adjustment will be out in hours.
6 NOVEMBER, 6PM UTC
BTC is now only 0.5 BCH
Mainstream Media is starting to blame core for not fixing Dec 2017 problem and BCH is true Bitcoin
Hashrate is now 90/10 BCH/BTC
Core emergency difficulty adjustment is implemented
Core is averaging 4 block every hour.
Mempool is 350MB.
200 BTC has recently been lost on the Lightning network
7 NOVEMBER, 12AM UTC
BTC is now only 0.2 BCH, there is almost zero buying interest in BTC due to the mempool disaster.
Mempool is still 300MB
BCH has mined 3 consecutive 32MB blocks.
7 NOVEMBER, 8AM UTC
BTC is now only 0.05 BCH
Core has announced they are increasing their block size to 4MB to “Fix” the mempool problem. Even the general public laughs at Core efforts now, I have BCH, Thank You!
So, like the stress test, lets have a BUY test. Lets all accumulate as much BTC as we can until 5 November. At 5 November 12 noon UTC, lets all place market BUY orders with all of our BTC holdings. Would that be fun or what?
Seriously, all of this is possible and there is NOTHING Core can do to stop a scenario like the above from happening. And it is all Cores fault, because of the stubborn fixation on 1mb blocks and Lightning. Core can not scale.

submitted by steve_m0 to btc [link] [comments]

Please read our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

This FAQ thread serves to inform both new and existing users about common Bitcoin issues, complaints, and comments that readers coming to this Bitcoin subreddit may have. This is a living and breathing document, which will change over time. If you have suggestions on how to change it, please comment below or message the mods.
What is /btc?
Bitcoin is commonly abbreviated as BTC, hence the name. The /btc reddit community was originally created as a community to discuss bitcoin. It quickly gained momentum in August 2015 when the bitcoin block size debate heightened. On the legacy /bitcoin subreddit it was discovered that moderators were heavily censoring discussions that were not inline with their own opinions.
Once realized, the subreddit subscribers began to openly question the censorship which led to thousands of redditors being banned from the /bitcoin subreddit. A large number of redditors switched to other subreddits such as /bitcoin_uncensored and /btc. For a run-down on the history of censorship, please read A (brief and incomplete) history of censorship in /bitcoin by John Blocke and /Bitcoin Censorship, Revisted by John Blocke. Update October 2017: As yet another example, /bitcoin censored 5,683 posts and comments just in the month of September 2017 alone. This shows the sheer magnitude of censorship that is happening. Read a synopsis of /bitcoin to get the full story and a complete understanding of why people are so upset with /bitcoin's censorship.
Why is censorship bad for Bitcoin?
As demonstrated above, censorship has become prevalent in almost all of the major Bitcoin communication channels. The impacts of censorship in Bitcoin are very real. "Censorship can really hinder a society if it is bad enough. Because media is such a large part of people’s lives today and it is the source of basically all information, if the information is not being given in full or truthfully then the society is left uneducated [...] Censorship is probably the number one way to lower people’s right to freedom of speech." By censoring certain topics and specific words, people in these Bitcoin communication channels are literally being brain washed into thinking a certain way, molding the reader in a way that they desire; this has a lasting impact especially on users who are new to Bitcoin. Censoring in Bitcoin is the direct opposite of what the spirit of Bitcoin is, and should be condemned anytime it occurs. Also, it's important to think critically, and have an open mind.
What is the goal of /btc?
This subreddit is a diverse community dedicated to the success of bitcoin. /btc honors the spirit and nature of Bitcoin being a place for open and free discussion about Bitcoin without the interference of moderators. Subscribers at anytime can look at and review the public moderator logs. This subreddit does have rules as mandated by reddit that we must follow plus a couple of rules of our own. Make sure to read the /btc wiki for more information and resources about this subreddit which includes information such as the benefits of Bitcoin, how to get started with Bitcoin, and more.
What is Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is a digital currency, also called a virtual currency, which can be transacted for a low-cost nearly instantly from anywhere in the world. Bitcoin also powers the blockchain, which is a public immutable and decentralized global ledger. Unlike traditional currencies such as dollars, bitcoins are issued and managed without the need for any central authority whatsoever. There is no government, company, or bank in charge of bitcoin. As such, it is more resistant to wild inflation and corrupt banks. With bitcoin, you can be your own bank. Read the Bitcoin whitepaper to further understand the schematics of how Bitcoin works. You can download a Bitcoin client to start fully using Bitcoin today; note that it takes time to sync full clients, which can take anywhere from 7 hours to over 24 hours for the initial blockchain download depending on your hardware and bandwidth.
How do I buy Bitcoin?
You can buy Bitcoin on an exchange or with a brokerage. If you're looking to buy Bitcoin with your credit card you can simply visit this buy Bitcoin link to get started quickly and safely. There are several others places to buy Bitcoin too; please check the sidebar under brokers, exchanges, and trading for other go-to service providers to begin buying and trading Bitcoin. Make sure to do your homework first before choosing an exchange to ensure you are choosing the right one for you.
How do I store my Bitcoin securely?
After the initial step of buying your first Bitcoin, you will need a Bitcoin wallet to secure your bitcoin. Knowing which Bitcoin wallet to choose is the second most important step in becoming a Bitcoin user. Since you are investing funds into Bitcoin, choosing the right Bitcoin wallet for you is a critical step that shouldn’t be taken lightly. Use this guide to help you choose the right wallet for you. Check the sidebar under Bitcoin wallets to get started and find a wallet that you can store your Bitcoin in.
Why is my transaction taking so long to process?
Bitcoin transactions typically confirm in ~10 minutes. A confirmation means that the Bitcoin transaction has been verified by the network through the process known as mining. Once a transaction is confirmed, it cannot be reversed or double spent. Transactions are included in blocks.
Over the past year, the Bitcoin network has hit its maximum capacity of 1MB of available transaction space (block size limit) causing fees to rise and block confirmations to slow. If you have sent out a Bitcoin transaction and it’s delayed, chances are the fee you used wasn’t enough to out-compete others causing it to be backlogged. The transaction won’t confirm until it clears the backlog. To help with this as a temporary solution, you can check fee estimator services to help you figure out the right fee to pay or use a transaction accelerator service to help get an already broadcast transaction mined and confirmed.
Why does my transaction cost so much, I thought Bitcoin was supposed to be cheap?
As described above, transaction fees have spiked in the past year mainly due to a limit on transaction space. This has created what is called a fee market, which has primarily been a premature artificially induced price increase on transaction fees due to the limited amount of block space available (supply vs. demand). The original plan was for fees to help secure the network when the block reward decreased and eventually stopped, but the plan was not to reach that point until some time in the future, around the year 2140.
What is the block size limit?
The original Bitcoin client didn’t have a block size cap, however was limited to 32MB due to the Bitcoin protocol message size constraint. However, in July 2010 Bitcoin’s creator Satoshi Nakamoto introduced a temporary 1MB limit as an anti-DDoS measure. The temporary measure from Satoshi Nakamoto was made clear three months later when Satoshi said the block size limit can be increased again by phasing it in when it’s needed (when the demand arises). When introducing Bitcoin on the cryptography mailing list in 2008, Satoshi said that scaling to Visa levels “would probably not seem like a big deal.”
How can the block size be increased to accommodate more transactions?
There have been many discussions and proposals to increase the block size over the past couple of years, so far without any success. The most recent way introduced by a group of developers has been through a new client called Bitcoin Unlimited (BU), which removes the temporary limit like the original client and lets the free market decide what block size is best, allowing for on-chain scaling. The BU plan is to accomplish this via a hard fork. Another recent alternative has been Segregated Witness (SegWit), which only allows a limited amount more of transactions through a signature optimization, removing signature data from conventional transactions and placing it into a new space, called the transaction witness. SegWit has been deployed as a soft fork (but not active), although it could also be implemented as a hard fork.
What is a hard fork?
A hard fork is when a block is broadcast under a new and different set of protocol rules which is accepted by nodes that have upgraded to support the new protocol. In this case, Bitcoin diverges from a single blockchain to two separate blockchains (a majority chain and a minority chain). Some argue that having two chains is problematic, but that is only the case if you believe that the minority chain will survive and have more market value than the majority chain. Read more about hard forks in our Hard Fork mega thread.
What is a soft fork?
A soft fork is when a block is broadcast under a new and different set of protocol rules, but the difference is that nodes don’t realize the rules have changed, and continue to accept blocks created by the newer nodes. Some argue that soft forks are bad because they trick old-unupdated nodes into believing transactions are valid, when they may not actually be valid.
Doesn't it hurt decentralization if we increase the block size?
Some argue that by lifting the limit on transaction space, that the cost of validating transactions on individual nodes will increase to the point where people will not be able to run nodes individually, giving way to centralization. This is a false dilemma because at this time there is no proven metric to quantify decentralization; although it has been shown that the current level of decentralization will remain with or without a block size increase. It's a logical fallacy to believe that decentralization only exists when you have people all over the world running full nodes. The reality is that only people with the income to sustain running a full node (even at 1MB) will be doing it. So whether it's 1MB, 2MB, or 4MB, the costs of doing business is negligible for the people who can already do it. If the block size limit is removed, this will also allow for more users worldwide to use and transact introducing the likelihood of having more individual node operators. Decentralization is not a metric, it's a direction. This is a good video describing the direction of how decentralization should look.
Additionally, the effects of increasing the block capacity beyond 1MB has been studied with results showing that up to 4MB is safe and will not hurt decentralization (Cornell paper, PDF). Other papers also show that no block size limit is safe (Peter Rizun, PDF). Lastly, through an informal survey among all top Bitcoin miners, many agreed that a block size increase between 2-4MB is acceptable.
What is the block size debate all about anyways?
The block size debate boils down to different sets of users who are trying to come to consensus on the best way to scale Bitcoin for growth and success. Scaling Bitcoin has actually been a topic of discussion since Bitcoin was first released in 2008; for example you can read how Satoshi Nakamoto was asked about scaling here and how he thought at the time it would be addressed. Fortunately Bitcoin has seen tremendous growth and by the year 2013, scaling Bitcoin had became a hot topic. For a run down on the history of scaling and how we got to where we are today, see the Block size limit debate history lesson post.
What is Bitcoin Cash?
This is a question we are seeing a lot of since Bitcoin hard forked on August 1, 2017. Bitcoin Cash (symbol: BCH) is just a newer version of Bitcoin that split in August in attempt to solve the scaling problems that have been plaguing Bitcoin for years. At it's core Bitcoin Cash is just a continuation of the Bitcoin project that allows for bigger blocks which will give way to more growth and adoption. You can read more about Bitcoin Cash in this mega thread or learn the difference between legacy Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash.
What is SegWit2x?
Called SegWit2X, the upgrade plan calls for a very specific fork (or a change to Bitcoin's rules), one that would make certain rules valid that weren't valid before. Specifically, Segwit2x would change the size of the blocks passed regularly around the network and stored in the blockchain from 1 MB to 2 MB to allow for more onchain capacity and growth.
The SegWit2X announcement explains the upgrade to 2MB was first discussed at the ‘Hong Kong Roundtable Agreement’, and had further solidified at the ‘New York Agreement’ (NYA) this year at the Consensus conference. Both agreements involved implementing SegWit first and a block size increase from 1MB to 2MB later.
"The November 2017 upgrade to 2MB blocks is a hard-fork, but necessary changes are trivial to perform," explains the Segwit2x working group’s announcement. The targeted hard fork date is set to trigger on block height 494784, which is estimated to happen on or around November 16, 2017.
Please read the SegWit2X readiness checklist for more details and information about compatible clients.
What now?
Bitcoin is a fluid ever changing system. If you want to keep up with Bitcoin, we suggest that you subscribe to /btc and stay in the loop here, as well as other places to get a healthy dose of perspective from different sources. Also, check the sidebar for additional resources. Have more questions? Submit a post and ask your peers for help!
submitted by BitcoinXio to btc [link] [comments]

Arrma Infraction with 500K Center Diff Oil BITCOINs Next Big MOVE Begins NOW! Up or Down!? Big Change: I Have Stopped Buying Bitcoin. Here Is My New Strategy! The BITCOIN Halving (HYPE) is OVER. Here's what to expect ... ✅ BITCOIN HALVING 2020 DONE ✅ Bitcoins Next Move?

The BitcoinCash difficulty chart provides the current BitcoinCash difficulty (BCH diff) target as well as a historical data graph visualizing BitcoinCash mining difficulty chart values with BCH 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 Bitcoin Average mining difficulty per day Chart. Transactions Block Size Sent from addresses Difficulty Hashrate Price in USD Mining Profitability Sent in USD Avg. Transaction Fee Median Transaction Fee Block Time Market Capitalization Avg. Transaction Value Median Transaction Value Tweets GTrends Active Addresses Top100ToTotal Fee in Reward FUN FACT: Due to a longstanding bug in the Bitcoin source code, the time spent mining the first block in each difficulty epoch actually has no effect on the next difficulty calculation.Even if this block somehow took an entire year to mine, it would not cause the next difficulty to drop, believe it or not! The calculations on this site take this bug into account to help produce the most ... Next Bitcoin Difficulty Change - Next Bitcoin Difficulty Increase. It is also possible that with over blocks to the next difficulty recalculation, Mining Rig Profitability. Fidor Geschäftskonto Ohne Schufa Aug. An easy to use crypto-currency finance utility used to calculate a Bitcoin miner's potential profits in ETH and multiple. Bitcoin Core should also work on most other Unix-like systems but is not as frequently tested on them. It is not recommended to use Bitcoin Core on unsupported systems. From Bitcoin Core 0.20.0 onwards, macOS versions earlier than 10.12 are no longer supported.

[index] [33418] [14167] [19283] [35030] [29183] [16721] [31113] [25364] [9090] [6788]

Arrma Infraction with 500K Center Diff Oil

Bitcoin Continues To Make New 2019 highs My New Plan Fidelity Expanding Lighting Network Growing Roger Ver Responds To Craig Wright Litecoin Partnership Follow us on Twitter: https ... Now that the Bitcoin Halving Hyper Train has pulled in and is complete, we can finally have a clear(er) view of what is on the horizon of the future. Today ... Check out the Cryptocurrency Technical Analysis Academy here: https://bit.ly/2EMS6nY Use the coupon code "September2020" to get $40 off of the Cryptocurrency... finally!!! bitcoin is starting to move towards $11,000 price level. what is the next for bitcoin? find that out in this video. ⏰ time stamps ⏰ 0:00 falling w... Autoplay When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next. Up next Arrma infraction 8s center diff installation gear change and running - Duration: 25:53.

#