Review and Prospect of Crypto Economy-Development and Evolution of Consensus Mechanism (2)
https://preview.redd.it/a51zsja94db51.png?width=567&format=png&auto=webp&s=99e8080c9e9b1fb5e11cbd70f915f9cb37188f81 Foreword The consensus mechanism is one of the important elements of the blockchain and the core rule of the normal operation of the distributed ledger. It is mainly used to solve the trust problem between people and determine who is responsible for generating new blocks and maintaining the effective unification of the system in the blockchain system. Thus, it has become an everlasting research hot topic in blockchain. This article starts with the concept and role of the consensus mechanism. First, it enables the reader to have a preliminary understanding of the consensus mechanism as a whole; then starting with the two armies and the Byzantine general problem, the evolution of the consensus mechanism is introduced in the order of the time when the consensus mechanism is proposed; Then, it briefly introduces the current mainstream consensus mechanism from three aspects of concept, working principle and representative project, and compares the advantages and disadvantages of the mainstream consensus mechanism; finally, it gives suggestions on how to choose a consensus mechanism for blockchain projects and pointed out the possibility of the future development of the consensus mechanism. Contents First, concept and function of the consensus mechanism 1.1 Concept: The core rules for the normal operation of distributed ledgers 1.2 Role: Solve the trust problem and decide the generation and maintenance of new blocks 1.2.1 Used to solve the trust problem between people 1.2.2 Used to decide who is responsible for generating new blocks and maintaining effective unity in the blockchain system 1.3 Mainstream model of consensus algorithm Second, the origin of the consensus mechanism 2.1 The two armies and the Byzantine generals 2.1.1 The two armies problem 2.1.2 The Byzantine generals problem 2.2 Development history of consensus mechanism 2.2.1 Classification of consensus mechanism 2.2.2 Development frontier of consensus mechanism Third, Common Consensus System Fourth, Selection of consensus mechanism and summary of current situation 4.1 How to choose a consensus mechanism that suits you 4.1.1 Determine whether the final result is important 4.1.2 Determine how fast the application process needs to be 4.1.2 Determining the degree to which the application requires for decentralization 4.1.3 Determine whether the system can be terminated 4.1.4 Select a suitable consensus algorithm after weighing the advantages and disadvantages 4.2 Future development of consensus mechanism Last lecture review: Chapter 1 Concept and Function of Consensus Mechanism plus Chapter 2 Origin of Consensus Mechanism Chapter 3 Common Consensus Mechanisms (Part 1) Figure 6 Summary of relatively mainstream consensus mechanisms 📷 https://preview.redd.it/9r7q3xra4db51.png?width=567&format=png&auto=webp&s=bae5554a596feaac948fae22dffafee98c4318a7 Source: Hasib Anwar, "Consensus Algorithms: The Root Of The Blockchain Technology" The picture above shows 14 relatively mainstream consensus mechanisms summarized by a geek Hasib Anwar, including PoW (Proof of Work), PoS (Proof of Stake), DPoS (Delegated Proof of Stake), LPoS (Lease Proof of Stake), PoET ( Proof of Elapsed Time), PBFT (Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance), SBFT (Simple Byzantine Fault Tolerance), DBFT (Delegated Byzantine Fault Tolerance), DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph), Proof-of-Activity (Proof of Activity), Proof-of- Importance (Proof of Importance), Proof-of-Capacity (Proof of Capacity), Proof-of-Burn ( Proof of Burn), Proof-of-Weight (Proof of Weight). Next, we will mainly introduce and analyze the top ten consensus mechanisms of the current blockchain. 》POW -Concept: Work proof mechanism. That is, the proof of work means that it takes a certain amount of computer time to confirm the work. -Principle: Figure 7 PoW work proof principle 📷 https://preview.redd.it/xupacdfc4db51.png?width=554&format=png&auto=webp&s=3b6994641f5890804d93dfed9ecfd29308c8e0cc The PoW represented by Bitcoin uses the SHA-256 algorithm function, which is a 256-bit hash algorithm in the password hash function family: Proof of work output = SHA256 (SHA256 (block header)); if (output of proof of work if (output of proof of work >= target value), change the random number, recursive i logic, continue to compare with the target value. New difficulty value = old difficulty value* (time spent by last 2016 blocks /20160 minutes) Target value = maximum target value / difficulty value The maximum target value is a fixed number. If the last 2016 blocks took less than 20160 minutes, then this coefficient will be small, and the target value will be adjusted bigger, if not, the target value will be adjusted smaller. Bitcoin mining difficulty and block generation speed will be inversely proportional to the appropriate adjustment of block generation speed. -Representative applications: BTC, etc. 》POS -Concept: Proof of stake. That is, a mechanism for reaching consensus based on the holding currency. The longer the currency is held, the greater the probability of getting a reward. -Principle: PoS implementation algorithm formula: hash(block_header) = Coin age calculation formula: coinage = number of coins * remaining usage time of coins Among them, coinage means coin age, which means that the older the coin age, the easier it is to get answers. The calculation of the coin age is obtained by multiplying the coins owned by the miner by the remaining usage time of each coin, which also means that the more coins you have, the easier it is to get answers. In this way, pos solves the problem of wasting resources in pow, and miners cannot own 51% coins from the entire network, so it also solves the problem of 51% attacks. -Representative applications: ETH, etc. 》DPoS -Concept: Delegated proof of stake. That is, currency holding investors select super nodes by voting to operate the entire network , similar to the people's congress system. -Principle: The DPOS algorithm is divided into two parts. Elect a group of block producers and schedule production. Election: Only permanent nodes with the right to be elected can be elected, and ultimately only the top N witnesses can be elected. These N individuals must obtain more than 50% of the votes to be successfully elected. In addition, this list will be re-elected at regular intervals. Scheduled production: Under normal circumstances, block producers take turns to generate a block every 3 seconds. Assuming that no producer misses his order, then the chain they produce is bound to be the longest chain. When a witness produces a block, a block needs to be generated every 2s. If the specified time is exceeded, the current witness will lose the right to produce and the right will be transferred to the next witness. Then the witness is not only unpaid, but also may lose his identity. -Representative applications: EOS, etc. 》DPoW -Concept: Delayed proof of work. A new-generation consensus mechanism based on PoB and DPoS. Miners use their own computing power, through the hash algorithm, and finally prove their work, get the corresponding wood, wood is not tradable. After the wood has accumulated to a certain amount, you can go to the burning site to burn the wood. This can achieve a balance between computing power and mining rights. -Principle: In the DPoW-based blockchain, miners are no longer rewarded tokens, but "wood" that can be burned, burning wood. Miners use their own computing power, through the hash algorithm, and finally prove their work, get the corresponding wood, wood is not tradable. After the wood has accumulated to a certain amount, you can go to the burning site to burn the wood. Through a set of algorithms, people who burn more wood or BP or a group of BP can obtain the right to generate blocks in the next event segment, and get rewards (tokens) after successful block generation. Since more than one person may burn wood in a time period, the probability of producing blocks in the next time period is determined by the amount of wood burned by oneself. The more it is burned, the higher the probability of obtaining block rights in the next period. Two node types: notary node and normal node. The 64 notary nodes are elected by the stakeholders of the dPoW blockchain, and the notarized confirmed blocks can be added from the dPoW blockchain to the attached PoW blockchain. Once a block is added, the hash value of the block will be added to the Bitcoin transaction signed by 33 notary nodes, and a hash will be created to the dPow block record of the Bitcoin blockchain. This record has been notarized by most notary nodes in the network. In order to avoid wars on mining between notary nodes, and thereby reduce the efficiency of the network, Komodo designed a mining method that uses a polling mechanism. This method has two operating modes. In the "No Notary" (No Notary) mode, all network nodes can participate in mining, which is similar to the traditional PoW consensus mechanism. In the "Notaries Active" mode, network notaries use a significantly reduced network difficulty rate to mine. In the "Notary Public Activation" mode, each notary public is allowed to mine a block with its current difficulty, while other notary public nodes must use 10 times the difficulty of mining, and all normal nodes use 100 times the difficulty of the notary public node. Figure 8 DPoW operation process without a notary node 📷 https://preview.redd.it/3yuzpemd4db51.png?width=500&format=png&auto=webp&s=f3bc2a1c97b13cb861414d3eb23a312b42ea6547 -Representative applications: CelesOS, Komodo, etc. CelesOS Research Institute丨DPoW consensus mechanism-combustible mining and voting 》PBFT -Concept: Practical Byzantine fault tolerance algorithm. That is, the complexity of the algorithm is reduced from exponential to polynomial level, making the Byzantine fault-tolerant algorithm feasible in practical system applications. -Principle: Figure 9 PBFT algorithm principle 📷 https://preview.redd.it/8as7rgre4db51.png?width=567&format=png&auto=webp&s=372be730af428f991375146efedd5315926af1ca First, the client sends a request to the master node to call the service operation, and then the master node broadcasts other copies of the request. All copies execute the request and send the result back to the client. The client needs to wait for f+1 different replica nodes to return the same result as the final result of the entire operation. Two qualifications: 1. All nodes must be deterministic. That is to say, the results of the operation must be the same under the same conditions and parameters. 2. All nodes must start from the same status. Under these two limited qualifications, even if there are failed replica nodes, the PBFT algorithm agrees on the total order of execution of all non-failed replica nodes, thereby ensuring security. -Representative applications: Tendermint Consensus, etc. Next Lecture: Chapter 3 Common Consensus Mechanisms (Part 2) + Chapter 4 Consensus Mechanism Selection and Status Summary CelesOS As the first DPOW financial blockchain operating system, CelesOS adopts consensus mechanism 3.0 to break through the "impossible triangle", which can provide high TPS while also allowing for decentralization. Committed to creating a financial blockchain operating system that embraces supervision, providing services for financial institutions and the development of applications on the supervision chain, and formulating a role and consensus ecological supervision layer agreement for supervision. The CelesOS team is dedicated to building a bridge between blockchain and regulatory agencies/financial industry. We believe that only blockchain technology that cooperates with regulators will have a real future. We believe in and contribute to achieving this goal. 📷Website https://www.celesos.com/ 📷Telegram https://t.me/celeschain 📷Twitter https://twitter.com/CelesChain 📷Reddit https://www.reddit.com/useCelesOS 📷Medium https://medium.com/@celesos 📷Facebook https://www.facebook.com/CelesOS1 📷Youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1Xsd8wU957D-R8RQVZPfGA
Antminer T19 May Not Affect Bitcoin Hash Rate but Keeps Bitmain Ahead
The Antminer T19 by Bitmain may not have a big impact on the Bitcoin network, and it comes out amid the firm’s internal and post-halving uncertainty. Earlier this week, Chinese mining-hardware juggernaut Bitmain unveiled its new product, an application-specific integrated circuit called Antminer T19. The Bitcoin (BTC) mining unit is the latest to join the new generation of ASICs — state-of-the-art devices designed to mitigate increased mining difficulty by maximizing the terahashes-per-second output. The Antminer T19 announcement comes amid the post-halving uncertainty and follows the company’s recent problems with its S17 units. So, can this new machine help Bitmain to reinforce its somewhat hobbled position in the mining sector? T19: The cheaper S19 According to the official announcement, the Antminer T19 features a mining speed of 84 TH/s and a power efficiency of 37.5 joules per TH. The chips used in the new device are the same as those equipped in the Antminer S19 and S19 Pro, though it uses the new APW12 version of the power supply system that allows the device to start up faster. Bitmain usually markets its Antminer T devices as the most cost-effective ones, while the S-series models are presented as the top of the line in terms of productivity for their respective generation, Johnson Xu — the head of research and analytics at Tokensight — explained to Cointelegraph. According to data from F2Pool, one of the largest Bitcoin mining pools, Antminer T19s can generate $3.97 of profit each day, while Antminer S19s and Antminer S19 Pros can earn $4.86 and $6.24, respectively, based on an average electricity cost of $0.05 per kilowatt-hour. Antminer T19s, which consume 3,150 watts, are being sold for $1,749 per unit. Antminer S19 machines, on the other hand, cost $1,785 and consume 3,250 watts. Antminer S19 Pro devices, the most efficient of three, are considerably more expensive and go for $2,407. The reason Bitmain is producing another model for the 19 series is due to what is known as "binning" chips, Marc Fresa — the founder of mining firmware company Asic.to — explained to Cointelegraph: “When chips are designed they are meant to achieve specific performance levels. Chips that fail to hit their target numbers, such as not achieving the power standards or their thermal output, are often ‘Binned.’ Instead of throwing these chips in the garbage bin, these chips are resold into another unit with a lower performance level. In the case of Bitmain S19 chips that don’t make the cutoff are then sold in the T19 for cheaper since they do not perform as well as the counterpart.” The rollout of a new model “has nothing to do with the fact that machines are not selling well,” Fresa went on to argue, citing the post-halving uncertainty: “The biggest reason machines probably are not selling as well as manufacturers would like is because we are on a bit of a tipping point; The halving just happened, the price can go anyway and the difficulty is continuing to drop.” Product diversification is a common strategy for mining hardware producers, given that customers tend to aim for different specifications, Kristy-Leigh Minehan, a consultant and the former chief technology officer of Genesis Mining, told Cointelegraph: “ASICs don’t really allow for one model as consumers expect a certain performance level from a machine, and unfortunately silicon is not a perfect process — many times you’ll get a batch that performs better or worse than projected due to the nature of the materials. Thus, you end up with 5–10 different model numbers.” It is not yet clear how efficient the 19-series devices are because they have not shipped at scale, as Leo Zhang, the founder of Anicca Research, summed up in a conversation with Cointelegraph. The first batch of S19 units reportedly shipped out around May 12, while the T19 shipments will start between June 21 and June 30. It is also worth noting that, at this time, Bitmain only sells up to two T19 miners per user “to prevent hoarding.” Hardware problems and competitors The latest generation of Bitmain ASICs follows the release of the S17 units, which have received mostly mixed-to-negative reviews in the community. In early May, Arseniy Grusha, the co-founder of crypto consulting and mining firm Wattum, created a Telegram group for consumers unsatisfied with the S17 units they purchased from Bitmain. As Grusha explained to Cointelegraph at the time, out of the 420 Antminer S17+ devices his company bought, roughly 30%, or around 130 machines, turned out to be bad units. Similarly, Samson Mow, the chief strategy officer of blockchain infrastructure firm Blockstream, tweeted earlier in April that Bitmain customers have a 20%–30% failure rate with Antminer S17 and T17 units. “The Antminer 17 series is generally considered not great,” added Zhang. He additionally noted that Chinese hardware company and competitor Micro BT has been stepping on Bitmain’s toes lately with the release of its highly productive M30 series, which prompted Bitmain to step up its efforts: “Whatsminer gained significant market share in the past two years. According to their COO, in 2019 MicroBT sold ~35% of the network hashrate. Needless to say Bitmain is under a lot of pressure both from competitors and internal politics. They have been working on the 19 series for a while. The specs and price look very attractive.” Minehan confirmed that MicroBT has been gaining traction on the market, but refrained from saying that Bitmain is losing market share as a result: “I think MicroBT is offering option and bringing in new participants, and giving farms a choice. Most farms will have both Bitmain and MicroBT side by side, rather than exclusively host one manufacturer.” “I would say that MicroBT has taken up the existing market share that Canaan has left,” she added, referring to another China-based mining player that recently reported a net loss of $5.6 million in the first quarter of 2020 and cut the price of its mining hardware by up to 50%. Indeed, some large-scale operations seem to be diversifying their equipment with MicroBT units. Earlier this week, United States mining firm Marathon Patent Group announced that it had installed 700 Whatsminer M30S+ ASICs produced by MicroBT. However, it is also reportedly waiting for a delivery of 1,160 Antminer S19 Pro units produced by Bitmain, meaning that it also remains loyal to the current market leader. Will the hash rate be affected? Bitcoin’s hash rate plummeted 30% soon after the halving occurred as much of the older generation equipment became unprofitable due to the increased mining difficulty. That spurred miners to reshuffle, upgrading their current rigs and selling older machines to places where electricity is cheaper — meaning that some of them had to temporarily unplug. The situation has stabilized since, with the hash rate fluctuating around 100 TH/s for the past few days. Some experts attribute that to the start of the wet season in Sichuan, a southwest Chinese province where miners take advantage of low hydroelectricity prices between May and October. The arrival of the new generation of ASICs is expected to drive the hash rate even higher, at least once upgraded units become widely available. So, will the newly revealed T19 model make any impact on the state of the network? Experts agree that it won’t affect the hash rate to a major degree, as it’s a lower output model compared with the S19 series and MicroBT’s M30 series. Minehan said she doesn’t expect the T19 model “to have a huge impact that’s an immediate cause of concern,” as “most likely this is a run of <3500 units of a particular bin quality.” Similarly, Mark D’Aria, the CEO of crypto consulting firm Bitpro, told Cointelegraph: “There isn’t a strong reason to expect the new model to significantly affect the hashrate. It might be a slightly more compelling option to a miner with extraordinarily inexpensive electricity, but otherwise they likely would have just purchased an S19 instead.” Bitmain continues to hold leadership despite internal struggle At the end of the day, manufacturers are always in an arms race, and mining machines are simply commodity products, Zhang argued in a conversation with Cointelegraph: “Besides price, performance, and failure rate, there are not many factors that can help a manufacturer differentiate from the others. The relentless competition led to where we are today.” According to Zhang, as the iteration rate naturally slows down in the future, there will be more facilities using “creative thermal design such as immersion cooling,” hoping to maximize the mining efficiency beyond just using most powerful machines. As for now, Bitmain remains the leader of the mining race, despite having to deal with the largely defunct 17 series and an intensifying power struggle between its two co-founders, Jihan Wu and Micree Zhan, which recently resulted in reports of a street brawl. “Due to its recent internal issues, Bitmain is facing challenges to keep its strong position in the future thus they started to look at other things to expand its industry influences,” Xu told Cointelegraph. He added that Bitmain “will still dominate the industry position in the near future due to its network effect,” although its current problems might allow competitors such as MicroBT to catch up. Earlier this week, the power struggle inside Bitmain intensified even further as Micree Zhan, an ousted executive of the mining titan, reportedly led a group of private guards to overtake the company’s office in Beijing. Meanwhile, Bitmain continues to expand its operations. Last week, the mining company revealed it was extending its “Ant Training Academy” certification program to North America, with the first courses set to launch in the fall. As such, Bitmain seems to be doubling down on the U.S.-based mining sector, which has been growing recently. The Beijing-based company already operates what it classifies as “the world’s largest” mining facility in Rockdale, Texas, which has a planned capacity of 50 megawatts that can later be expanded to 300 megawatts.
Got this weird DM on reddit idk what this guy is up to have any of you ever heard of this https://tradeoptiongains.com Site? u/mikerobin25 Mikerobin2501:52 AM Hello there IDEKMyUsername09:34 AM Howdy Mikerobin2509:47 AM How's it going? IDEKMyUsername12:13 PM Not bad. What's up Mikerobin2512:36 PM I'm doing quite alright, How about you? IDEKMyUsername12:53 PM Not bad Mikerobin2501:39 PM Well, I don't mean to intrude but are you familiar with the term "cryptocurrency", Bitcoin to be precise? IDEKMyUsername03:10 PM Yes Aye Mikerobin2503:25 PM Well, I'm at the moment engaging in an outreach aimed at expanding the clientele of my platform and enlightening the populace on the monetary potential of bitcoin trading and mining. Would you be interested in this? IDEKMyUsername03:26 PM Uh yeah sure I can look into it. What does it include? Mikerobin2503:28 PM Are you familiar with the term "Bitcoin trading"? IDEKMyUsername03:29 PM Yeah somewhat Like selling and buying it? Mikerobin2503:33 PM Well, Bitcoin trading is the process of making profits by buying Bitcoin at a low cost and selling it when the price goes up, This method is referred to as Dollar Cost Averaging(DCA). The Bitcoin trade is volatile, and price move by a significant margin. This activity is done on trading platforms. Are you following? IDEKMyUsername04:07 PM Yep gotcha so far Sorry had to pickup a call Mikerobin2506:51 PM No problem mate. Every platform has an investment procedure and ROI method. Unlike other platforms that engage in day trading (profiting from the volatility of bitcoin which is inefficient), My platform is registered with S9 ant miners that mine the bitcoin you invest to increase exponentially and that’s how you earn profits. Have you heard of the term "Bitcoin mining"? IDEKMyUsername06:52 PM Yes I have Mikerobin2506:57 PM Good. For clarification, Bitcoin mining primarily involves generating and earning off the confirmation of blocks of transaction on the network such as the Blockchain network. This is made possible with the use of special and sophisticated devices called the Bit main devices, Such as the AntMiner S9 and ASIC hardware. These devices are extremely expensive to maintain and require a lot of electricity generation and technical expertise which makes it rarely an option for private individuals who are interested in going into Bitcoin mining. But my platform has been able to provide for this disability. Are you following? IDEKMyUsername06:57 PM I feel ya Yes Mikerobin2507:01 PM Moving on, My platform operates a full S9 Antminer farm. The Antminer s9 has a hash rate of 12.93TH/s which is -+ 7%, Which could generate a ROI of 0.5 BTC within an investment period depending on the investment capital. Note: ROI stands for return of investment while hash rates a measure of how many times the network can attempt to complete this puzzle every second. This means that hash rate is a good indicator of the Bitcoin network's health. Do i still have your attention? IDEKMyUsername07:02 PM Yes Mikerobin2507:05 PM Finally, All investments are made and monitored by the client (you) on the platform's website as you earn profits daily and you can contact me a "Broker" on the platform whenever you need assistance or more information. https://tradeoptiongains.com IDEKMyUsername07:05 PM Hm U have a history of wise investments? I mean don't really know you so not like your a "professional" of any means Mikerobin2507:06 PM Certainly We've been running for a span of 4 years now with optimum services provided IDEKMyUsername07:38 PM oh wow gimmie some more deets? how much money would I expect if i put a quick g bar in? IDEKMyUsername07:53 PM hm? Mikerobin2507:54 PM An investment of $1000 amounts up to the standard ROI stated above which is 50% of 1 bitcoin. Apologies for the late reply, Was attending to a client of mine. IDEKMyUsername07:55 PM so invest of about $1000 would give ruffly 5? nah ur good fam like how I go about that tho u know cause isn't bitcoin like kind of high right now? Mikerobin2507:57 PM Yeah though it would have been more profitable if you had started earlier when it was cheaper but you should be expecting more returns due to the halving coming up. https://www.bitcoinblockhalf.com/ IDEKMyUsername07:58 PM how high you think its going to get? Mikerobin2507:59 PM Its a highly speculative asset but from my experience and following it's previous halving events, Probably 15-18k. IDEKMyUsername08:01 PM oh jeez thats like as big as the big boom right? how you know its gonna do that? and what if it doesn't lol? do I just l;ose it all Mikerobin2508:05 PM Exactly. If it doesn't, It would remain at its breaking point of 9k or peak point of 10k but i highly doubt it doesn't pump(rise) based on past halving events. You can simply get started by creating your personal account on the platform by which you can start by purchasing bitcoin and you can do this by clicking on the "Register" icon to get started. IDEKMyUsername08:05 PM hmmm idk Kinda need some more security u know what I mean? Mikerobin2508:08 PM I understand. Loses are only made when you sell off, You money remains intact whether it rises or falls as long as you don't sell but your ROI is fully attained on your account on the platform. IDEKMyUsername08:09 PM o Mikerobin2508:10 PM Indeed Mikerobin2508:20 PM Any more questions? IDEKMyUsername08:20 PM uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no Mikerobin2508:22 PM Okay then, I'm available here if you're interested and need my assistance Enjoy the rest of your day. IDEKMyUsername08:25 PM o ok Yesterday Mikerobin2501:48 PM https://www.fxstreet.com/cryptocurrencies/news/breaking-bitcoin-price-takes-down-9-000-as-10-000-beckons-202004300334 https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/bitcoin-price-gold-oil-2020-best-performing-assets-a9492641.html IDEKMyUsername01:51 PM O I bought it Mikerobin2501:51 PM Pardon? IDEKMyUsername01:52 PM I bought one Mikerobin2501:52 PM On what platform? IDEKMyUsername01:54 PM I'm idk the one u sent me Um* Mikerobin2501:55 PM Really? When did you do this and why wasn't i informed? Today IDEKMyUsername10:19 AM Oh like last last night I thought it was expected U sent me the link and everything ;( Mikerobin2510:22 AM You would have informed me so i can enlighten you more on the procedure. Are you aware that it's a mining platform and you earn profits as an investor? IDEKMyUsername10:23 AM Yah so what would profit be ya reckon? For let's say $1000 over liek a year Mikerobin2510:24 AM What name did you use in registering the account? IDEKMyUsername10:24 AM Uh I'd have to look it up But how much profit did u say it would be about? Mikerobin2510:27 AM 0.5 BTC a month depending on your investment capital that is, I would need the name of your account to register it under my personal database so i can provide you with information and assistance when needed. IDEKMyUsername10:28 AM O damn that's some big bucks right there .5 btc like what 4g? 4 times 11 that's $44,000 a month Mikerobin2510:30 AM How much did you invest and what is the name of your account? Your profit is calculated in respect of your investment capital IDEKMyUsername10:31 AM Like 11grand Mikerobin2510:31 AM And the name? IDEKMyUsername10:31 AM Mmmm How do I find it? Is there a way on the site Mikerobin2510:31 AM What name did you use in creating the account? Didn't you register? IDEKMyUsername10:32 AM Oh like my irl name I thought u meant like a username Mikerobin2510:32 AM Username is what i mean IDEKMyUsername10:33 AM It's gonna be under Jeffery Henderson Jeffery L. Henderson Mikerobin2510:35 AM Okay, Give me a second to record it and ascertain your expected profit. IDEKMyUsername10:35 AM Sick Did u find my account? Mikerobin2510:41 AM I can't find your records on the platform, Maybe a technical difficulty. Could you please sign in and send me a screenshot of your funds deposited through discord please? IDEKMyUsername10:41 AM So tell me mike Where's the cash? Mikerobin2510:41 AM Pardon? IDEKMyUsername10:41 AM You lost it, oh you misplaced it. Now mike you know I don't like to be lied to right? Mikerobin2510:43 AM Since i can't find your account on the platform, I guess that's the ending of our conversation. Good day. IDEKMyUsername10:43 AM So why THE FUCK ARE YOU LIEING TO ME Mikerobin2510:44 AM Prove that you have an account on the platform by sending a screenshot IDEKMyUsername10:44 AM I cannot I did it on Computer Mikerobin2510:45 AM The sign in through your phone, Do i seem like a fool to you? I have a lot of clients to attend to and i don't have time for games IDEKMyUsername10:45 AM I ain't the I one that took another man's money and now can't find it You don't have other clients Let's not play games here How do I get my money out of this depreciating asset? You better help me get my money out of this or were going to have a major issue Mike... IDEKMyUsername11:16 AM U serious rn bro? Ur gonna scam me out of my 💰 ? A day will come when you think yourself safe and happy,. But suddenly your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth. and you'll know the debt is paid IDEKMyUsername08:01 PM Br You still my 11 grand Stole What's your name Tell me Or I'll find you
The One Thing EVERYONE Must Know About the Dev Funding Plan: IT'S COMPLETELY FREE.
sigh I get so tired of having to stop working to put out a post explaining issues. If anyone else wants to join in I could use help. (actually I've seen Jonald F. do this before too, so thanks JF!) Things are bad when even developers don't understand what's going on. So I'll try to clearly explain an important point on the Dev Funding Plan (DFP from now on) for the community: it's completely free. Yet we still get panicked posts saying Please Save Us from the TAX!!! Somebody Help! You may be for or against the DFP, but either way please at least understand what you're forming an opinion on. Let's start from the beginning. We know Bitcoin works on blocks and block coin rewards. The block reward, which started at 50 coins per block, and cuts in half approximately every 4 years, serves two purposes: it's a fair way to bring coins into circulation, but more importantly it provides security for the network. For simplicity, please think of "security" as being measured in power bars. When the network first started, with just Satoshi and Hal Finney, there was 1 power bar. This power bar was made up of the electricity their combined computer hardware used to find blocks. They were the first miners. Bitcoin uses a difficulty level to adjust how hard or easy it is to find blocks. This level is important for a key reason: we want the inflation rate of coins (how fast they come into circulation) to stay about the same, regardless how many miners (computing power) suddenly comes online. If the difficulty is set at super easy, but suddenly a super computer comes online that computer can gobble up thousands of coins in minutes if not seconds, creating massive rapid inflation. So the first thing to understand is that due to the Difficulty Level Adjustment the rate of coins coming into circulation will always stay about the same, regardless how many miners join or leave the network. Getting back to power bars. So the point of Bitcoin is there is no center, no fixed authority. The problem is we still need a decision made about which chain is valid. This is where proof-of-work comes in. Satoshi's fairly brilliant solution to a consensus decision, with no leader, was to simply look for the longest chain (technically the chain with most hashing work). The reasoning was: as there are far more ordinary people than there are governments and dictators a Bitcoin supported by the all the world's people should always be able to muster more hashrate than even rich governments. So Bitcoin began and people saw the brilliance: even with a weak power bar level of 1 (a couple computers), Bitcoin was safe from 51% attacks and attacking govs competing for control of the chain because a super low hashrate meant Bitcoin wasn't popular and govs wouldn't bother paying attention. By the time Bitcoin was big enough for govs to worry about attacking it should also have so many participants the power bar level would be far higher, providing strong defense. Let's say the ideal power bar level is 50,000. At this level no government on earth has enough resources to beat the grassroots network. We hear people brag about how much security BTC has. However, the marketcap for all of BTC is about $160B. Countries like the U.S. and China have GDP measured in many trillions; a trillion is 1,000 billion. Does 160B really seem untouchable? For numeric comparison the main U.S. federal food assistance program cost the government $70B in 2016, representing about 2% of the budget. So the entirety of the BTC market cap is about twice the size of one welfare program, representing 2% of the overall budget. Where should we place the current security power bars if we want guaranteed safety from a determined U.S. gov? If 50,000 is guaranteed safe we're far from it. I'd say BTC is more like 5,000. That's still pretty decent. Of course, BCH split from BTC... and didn't carry over all the miners and accompanying security. That's not an immediate concern because if BTC isn't on government's radar yet BCH sure isn't. However, that doesn't mean BCH doesn't need security from hostile forces. It's still a valuable network and needs defenses. Where would we put power bars for BCH? If BTC is 5,000 and BCH only has 3% of that hashrate then BCH has just 150. That's it. How the Developer Funding Plan Works Back to the DFP. What this says is as a community we agree to break off a piece of the block reward and instead of giving 100% to miners we give a small percent to developers. If each block is 10 coins and the price is $300 then winning a block means winning $3,000. Of course that's not all profit because miners have electricity and other expenses to pay before calculating profit. So if we reduce the portion of the miner reward by 10% so they get just 9 coins per block yet the price stays the same what happens? It means miners receive $2,700 for the same effort. We've just made it more expensive to mine BCH from the point of view of miners. What would any miner then rationally do? Seek profitability elsewhere if available. Suddenly BTC SHA256 hashing looks slightly more attractive so they'll go there. Hashrate leaves BCH and goes to BTC, but the key important point is BOTH chains have a difficulty adjustment algorithm which adjusts to account for rising or lowering miners overall, which keeps the coin inflation rate steady. This means BTC total hashrate rises (more miners compete for BTC) and its Difficulty Level rises accordingly, so the same rate of BTC pumps out; on BCH total hashrate falls (less miners compete for BCH) and its Difficulty falls, so the same rate of BCH pumps out. Inflation remains about the same on both coins so the price of both coins doesn't change any, beyond what it normally does based on news/events etc. So what difference is there? The difference is total network security. Hashrate totals have changed. BTC gains more miner securing hashrate while BCH loses it. So BTC goes from 5,000 to say 5,100 power bars. BCH goes from about 150 to 140. Does any of that matter in the grand scheme of things? Not in the slightest. Part of the reason is due to our emergency circumstances with BCH we had to rework our security model. Our primary defense is an idea I came up with, which BitcoinABC implemented, saying it's not sheer hashpower that dictates what chain we follow. We won't replace a chain we're working on if a new one suddenly appears if it means changing more than 10 blocks deep of history. This prevents all the threatening hashrate hanging over our heads from mining a secret chain and creating havoc unleashing it causing 10+ confimed txs to be undone, while exchanges, gambling sites etc. have long since paid out real world money. Switching $6M worth of block rewards from mining to devs just means we lose a bit of hashrate security, while we gain those funds for development. Nothing more. Nobody holding BCH pays in the form of inflation or any other way. It costs literally NOTHING BECAUSE The block reward is ALREADY ALLOCATED. It will EITHER go 100% to mining security if we do nothing, or go to both miners and devs if the plan is put into effect. Hopefully this helps. :) TL;DR: we switch security which we don't really need, for developer funding which we do.
arriving at consensus AND distributing coins via burning Bitcoin instead of electricity/equipment to create permissionless, unfakeable, green, and trust minimized basis over every aspect of sidechain control.
creating Bitcoin peg from altcoin chain to mainchain (the hard direction) by allocating small percentage of Bitcoin intended for burning to reimbursing withdrawals, effectively making it a childchain/sidechain (no oracles or federated multisigs)
This is not an altcoin thread. I'm not making anything. The design discussed options for existing altcoins and new ways to built on top of Bitcoin inheriting some of its security guarantees. 2 parts: First, the design allows any altcoins to switch to securing themselves via Bitcoin instead of their own PoW or PoS with significant benefits to both altcoins and Bitcoin (and environment lol). Second, I explain how to create Bitcoin-pegged assets to turn altcoins into a Bitcoin sidechain equivalent. Let me know if this is of interest or if it exists, feel free to use or do anything with this, hopefully I can help.
how to create continuous sunk costs, permissionless entry, high cost of attacks?
how to do it without needing to build up a new source of hardware capital or energy costs?
how to peg another chain's token value w/o incentivized collusion risk of federation or oracles?
how to make sidechain use fully optional for all Bitcoin parties?
how to allow programmable Bitcoins w/ unlimited permissionless expressiveness w/o forcing mainchain into additional risks?
Solution to first few points:
Continuous Proof of Bitcoin Burn (CPoBB) to distribute supply control and sidechain consensus control to independent parties
Distributes an altcoin for permissionless access and sidechain-only sybil protection.
In case of sidechain block-producer censorship, Bitcoin's independent data availability makes sidechain nodes trivially aware
PoW altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:
cost of capital and energy -> cost of burnt bitcoin
finality of their PoW -> finality of Bitcoin's PoW
impact on environment -> 0 impact on environment
unforgeable costliness of work -> unforgeable costliness of burn
contract logic can include conditions dependent on real Bitcoins as it's Bitcoin-aware
PoS altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:
permissioned by coin holders entry -> permissionless entry by anyone with access to Bitcoin
no incentive to give up control or sell coins -> incentive to sell coins to cover the cost of burnt bitcoin
incentivized guaranteed centralization of control over time by staking -> PoW guarantees with same 0 environmental impact
nothing at stake -> recovering sunk costs at stake
contract logic can include conditions dependent on real Bitcoins as it's Bitcoin-aware
We already have a permissionless, compact, public, high-cost-backed finality base layer to build on top - Bitcoin! It will handle sorting, data availability, finality, and has something of value to use instead of capital or energy that's outside the sidechain - the Bitcoin coins. The sunk costs of PoW can be simulated by burning Bitcoin, similar to concept known as Proof of Burn where Bitcoin are sent to unspendable address. Unlike ICO's, no contributors can take out the Bitcoins and get rewards for free. Unlike PoS, entry into supply lies outside the alt-chain and thus doesn't depend on permission of alt-chain stake-coin holders. It's hard to find a more bandwidth or state size protective blockchain to use other than Bitcoin as well so altcoins can be Bitcoin-aware at little marginal difficulty - 10 years of history fully validates in under a day.
What are typical issues with Proof of Burn?
limited burn time window prevents permissionless entry in the future. how many years did it take for most heavily mined projects to become known and well reviewed? many. thus entry into control of supply that's vital to control of chain cannot be dependent on the earliest stage of the project. (counterparty)
"land grabs" - by having limited supply without continuous emission or inflation we encourage holding vs spending.
These issues can be fixed by having Proof of Burn be permanently accessible and continuous: Continuous Proof of Bitcoin Burn CPoBB
This should be required for any design for it to stay permissionless. Optional is constant fixed emission rate for altcoins not trying to be money if goal is to maximize accessibility. Since it's not depending on brand new PoW for security, they don't have to depend on massive early rewards giving disproportionate fraction of supply at earliest stage either. If 10 coins are created every block, after n blocks, at rate of 10 coins per block, % emission per block is = (100/n)%, an always decreasing number. Sidechain coin doesn't need to be scarce money, and could maximize distribution of control by encouraging further distribution. If no burners exist in a block, altcoin block reward is simply added to next block reward making emission predictable. Sidechain block content should be committed in burn transaction via a root of the merkle tree of its transactions. Sidechain state will depend on Bitcoin for finality and block time between commitment broadcasts. However, the throughput can be of any size per block, unlimited number of such sidechains can exist with their own rules and validation costs are handled only by nodes that choose to be aware of a specific sidechain by running its consensus compatible software. Important design decision is how can protocol determine the "true" side-block and how to distribute incentives. Simplest solution is to always :
Agree on the valid sidechain block matching the merkle root commitment for the largest amount of Bitcoin burnt, earliest inclusion in the bitcoin block as the tie breaker
Distribute block reward during the next side-block proportional to current amounts burnt
Bitcoin fee market serves as deterrent for spam submissions of blocks to validate
sidechain block reward is set always at 10 altcoins per block Bitcoin block contains the following content embedded and part of its transactions: tx11: burns 0.01 BTC & OP_RETURN tx56: burns 0.05 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 1> ... tx78: burns 1 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 2> ... tx124: burns 0.2 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of INVALID sidechain block version 3> ...
Validity is deterministic by rules in client side node software (e.g. signature validation) so all nodes can independently see version 3 is invalid and thus burner of tx124 gets no reward allocated. The largest valid burn is from tx78 so version 2 is used for the blockchain in sidechain. The total valid burn is 1.06 BTC, so 10 altcoins to be distributed in the next block are 0.094, 0.472, 9.434 to owners of first 3 transactions, respectively. Censorship attack would require continuous costs in Bitcoin on the attacker and can be waited out. Censorship would also be limited to on-sidechain specific transactions as emission distribution to others CPoB contributors wouldn't be affected as blocks without matching coin distributions on sidechain wouldn't be valid. Additionally, sidechains can allow a limited number of sidechain transactions to happen via embedding transaction data inside Bitcoin transactions (e.g. OP_RETURN) as a way to use Bitcoin for data availability layer in case sidechain transactions are being censored on their network. Since all sidechain nodes are Bitcoin aware, it would be trivial to include. Sidechain blocks cannot be reverted without reverting Bitcoin blocks or hard forking the protocol used to derive sidechain state. If protocol is forked, the value of sidechain coins on each fork of sidechain state becomes important but Proof of Burn natively guarantees trust minimized and permissionless distribution of the coins, something inferior methods like obscure early distributions, trusted pre-mines, and trusted ICO's cannot do. More bitcoins being burnt is parallel to more hash rate entering PoW, with each miner or burner getting smaller amount of altcoins on average making it unprofitable to burn or mine and forcing some to exit. At equilibrium costs of equipment and electricity approaches value gained from selling coins just as at equilibrium costs of burnt coins approaches value of altcoins rewarded. In both cases it incentivizes further distribution to markets to cover the costs making burners and miners dependent on users via markets. In both cases it's also possible to mine without permission and mine at a loss temporarily to gain some altcoins without permission if you want to. Altcoins benefit by inheriting many of bitcoin security guarantees, bitcoin parties have to do nothing if they don't want to, but will see their coins grow more scarce through burning. The contributions to the fee market will contribute to higher Bitcoin miner rewards even after block reward is gone.
What is the ideal goal of the sidechains? Ideally to have a token that has the bi-directionally pegged value to Bitcoin and tradeable ~1:1 for Bitcoin that gives Bitcoin users an option of a different rule set without compromising the base chain nor forcing base chain participants to do anything different. Issues with value pegs:
federation based pegs allow collusion to steal bitcoins stored in multi-party controlled accounts
even if multisig participants are switched or weighted in some trust minimized manner, there's always incentive to collude and steal more
smart contract pegs (plasma, rollups) on base chain would require bitcoin nodes and miners to validate sidechain transactions and has to provide block content for availability (e.g. call data in rollups), making them not optional.
bitcoin nodes shouldn't be sidechain aware so impossible to peg the value
Let's get rid of the idea of needing Bitcoin collateral to back pegged coins 1:1 as that's never secure, independent, or scalable at same security level. As drive-chain design suggested the peg doesn't have to be fast, can take months, just needs to exist so other methods can be used to speed it up like atomic swaps by volunteers taking on the risk for a fee. In continuous proof of burn we have another source of Bitcoins, the burnt Bitcoins. Sidechain protocols can require some minor percentage (e.g. 20%) of burner tx value coins via another output to go to reimburse those withdrawing side-Bitcoins to Bitcoin chain until they are filled. If withdrawal queue is empty that % is burnt instead. Selection of who receives reimbursement is deterministic per burner. Percentage must be kept small as it's assumed it's possible to get up to that much discount on altcoin emissions. Let's use a really simple example case where each burner pays 20% of burner tx amount to cover withdrawal in exact order requested with no attempts at other matching, capped at half amount requested per payout. Example:
withdrawal queue: request1: 0.2 sBTC request2: 1.0 sBTC request3: 0.5 sBTC same block burners: tx burns 0.8 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.1 BTC is sent to request2 tx burns 0.4 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1 tx burns 0.08 BTC, 0.02 BTC is sent to request 1 tx burns 1.2 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.2 BTC is sent to request2 withdrawal queue: request1: filled with 0.32 BTC instead of 0.2 sBTC, removed from queue request2: partially-filled with 0.3 BTC out of 1.0 sBTC, 0.7 BTC remaining for next queue request3: still 0.5 sBTC
Withdrawal requests can either take long time to get to filled due to cap per burn or get overfilled as seen in "request1" example, hard to predict. Overfilling is not a big deal since we're not dealing with a finite source. The risk a user that chooses to use the sidechain pegged coin takes on is based on the rate at which they can expect to get paid based on value of altcoin emission that generally matches Bitcoin burn rate. If sidechain loses interest and nobody is burning enough bitcoin, the funds might be lost so the scale of risk has to be measured. If Bitcoins burnt per day is 0.5 BTC total and you hope to deposit or withdraw 5000 BTC, it might take a long time or never happen to withdraw it. But for amounts comparable or under 0.5 BTC/day average burnt with 5 side-BTC on sidechain outstanding total the risks are more reasonable. Deposits onto the sidechain are far easier - by burning Bitcoin in a separate known unspendable deposit address for that sidechain and sidechain protocol issuing matching amount of side-Bitcoin. Withdrawn bitcoins are treated as burnt bitcoins for sake of dividing block rewards as long as they followed the deterministic rules for their burn to count as valid and percentage used for withdrawals is kept small to avoid approaching free altcoin emissions by paying for your own withdrawals and ensuring significant unforgeable losses. Ideally more matching is used so large withdrawals don't completely block everyone else and small withdrawals don't completely block large withdrawals. Better methods should deterministically randomize assigned withdrawals via previous Bitcoin block hash, prioritized by request time (earliest arrivals should get paid earlier), and amount of peg outstanding vs burn amount (smaller burns should prioritize smaller outstanding balances). Fee market on bitcoin discourages doing withdrawals of too small amounts and encourages batching by burners. The second method is less reliable but already known that uses over-collateralized loans that create a oracle-pegged token that can be pegged to the bitcoin value. It was already used by its inventors in 2014 on bitshares (e.g. bitCNY, bitUSD, bitBTC) and similarly by MakerDAO in 2018. The upside is a trust minimized distribution of CPoB coins can be used to distribute trust over selection of price feed oracles far better than pre-mined single trusted party based distributions used in MakerDAO (100% pre-mined) and to a bit lesser degree on bitshares (~50% mined, ~50% premined before dpos). The downside is 2 fold: first the supply of BTC pegged coin would depend on people opening an equivalent of a leveraged long position on the altcoin/BTC pair, which is hard to convince people to do as seen by very poor liquidity of bitBTC in the past. Second downside is oracles can still collude to mess with price feeds, and while their influence might be limited via capped price changes per unit time and might compromise their continuous revenue stream from fees, the leverage benefits might outweight the losses. The use of continous proof of burn to peg withdrawals is superior method as it is simply a minor byproduct of "mining" for altcoins and doesn't depend on traders positions. At the moment I'm not aware of any market-pegged coins on trust minimized platforms or implemented in trust minimized way (e.g. premined mkr on premined eth = 2 sets of trusted third parties each of which with full control over the design). _______________________________________
Brief issues with current altchains options:
PoW: New PoW altcoins suffer high risk of attacks. Additional PoW chains require high energy and capital costs to create permissionless entry and trust minimized miners that are forever dependent on markets to hold them accountable. Using same algorithm or equipment as another chain or merge-mining puts you at a disadvantage by allowing some miners to attack and still cover sunk costs on another chain. Using a different algorithm/equipment requires building up the value of sunk costs to protect against attacks with significant energy and capital costs. Drive-chains also require miners to allow it by having to be sidechain aware and thus incur additional costs on them and validating nodes if the sidechain rewards are of value and importance.
PoS: PoS is permissioned (requires permission from internal party to use network or contribute to consensus on permitted scale), allows perpetual control without accountability to others, and incentivizes centralization of control over time. Without continuous source of sunk costs there's no reason to give up control. By having consensus entirely dependent on internal state network, unlike PoW but like private databases, cannot guarantee independent permissionless entry and thus cannot claim trust minimization. Has no built in distribution methods so depends on safe start (snapshot of trust minimized distributions or PoW period) followed by losing that on switch to PoS or starting off dependent on a single trusted party such as case in all significant pre-mines and ICO's.
Proof of Capacity: PoC is just shifting costs further to capital over PoW to achieve same guarantees.
PoW/PoS: Still require additional PoW chain creation. Strong dependence on PoS can render PoW irrelevant and thus inherit the worst properties of both protocols.
Tokens inherit all trust dependencies of parent blockchain and thus depend on the above.
Embedded consensus (counterparty, veriblock?, omni): Lacks mechanism for distribution, requires all tx data to be inside scarce Bitcoin block space so high cost to users instead of compensated miners. If you want to build a very expressive scripting language, might very hard & expensive to fit into Bitcoin tx vs CPoBB external content of unlimited size in a committed hash. Same as CPoBB is Bitcoin-aware so can respond to Bitcoin being sent but without source of Bitcoins like burning no way to do any trust minimized Bitcoin-pegs it can control fully.
Few extra notes from my talks with people:
fees must be high to be included in next block (and helps pay and bribe bitcoin miners), RBF use is encouraged to cancel late transactions
what if not enough burners, just passive nodes? you can burn smallest amount of bitcoin yourself when you have a transaction you want to go through
using commit hashes on bitcoin to lock altcoin state isn't new (e.g. kmd) but usually those rely on some federation or permissioned proof of stake mechanism with no real costs. this is combination of both.
this is not exactly like counterparty's embedded consensus as block data and transactions are outside Bitcoin, but consensus is derived with help of embedded on Bitcoin data.
deterministic randomness (e.g. via that block's hash) could be used to assign winning sidechain block weighted by amount burned to allow occasional blocks formed by others curbing success rate of censorship by highest burner
wants to transition away from using proof of burn via tunable proofs and native proof of work (whitepaper)
a dominant premine (trust maximized) relative to emission that defeats the purpose of distributing control over incentives (figure 3 in tokenpaper suggests premine still ~30%-70% by year 2050)
variable emission rate "adaptive mint and burn" makes supply unpredictable (and possibly gameable)
additional rewards that aren't trust minimized like "app mining" and "user incentives" possibly gameable with premine
election of a leader includes their own PoW to be elected even at start (5% cap), why lol?
blockstack also suggested use of randomness that depends on that block so Bitcoin miners that already spent energy mining that block can't just re-do it to get picked at no cost
if can burn bitcoins directly via op_return tx would help to use 1 less output and be provably prunable for utxo set (not sure if that's relayed as standard)
Main questions to you:
why not? (other than blocktime)
can this be done without an altcoin? (Not sure and don't think so w/o compromising unforgeable costliness and thus trust minimization. At least it's not using an altcoin that's clearly centralized.)
how to make it less detectable by Bitcoin miners? ( BMM could use some techniques described here: https://twitter.com/SomsenRuben/status/1210040270328254464 ) ( Perhaps since sidechain nodes receive proposed blocks independently and can figure out their hash, the commit message ( sidechain id + block commit + miner address) can be hashed one more time before its placed on Bitcoin, making miners unaware until after Bitcoin block is found that this is that sidechain's burn. Sidechain block producers would have to delay sidechain block propagation until after Bitcoin block is propagated, 10 minutes blocktime helps here. Hiding the fact that Bitcoin is burnt until after the fact is another possibly important matter. )
Should reward be split between all valid blocks or just winner gets all? (Blockstacks approach does not reward blocks marked by different from leader chaintip. That seems dangerous since sidechain tx sorting would be difficult to match and could take significant time to be compensated for perfectly valid work and coins burned. It doesn't seem as necessary in burning since we're not expending costs based on only one previous block version, the costs are independent of block assembly. Tradeoff is between making it easier for independent "mining" of sidechain and making it easier to validate for full nodes on sidechain)
I interlaced everything between Vitalik and Tuur to make it easier to read.
1/ People often ask me why I’m so “against” Ethereum. Why do I go out of my way to point out flaws or make analogies that put it in a bad light?
2/ First, ETH’s architecture & culture is opposite that of Bitcoin, and yet claims to offer same solutions: decentralization, immutability, SoV, asset issuance, smart contracts, … Second, ETH is considered a crypto ‘blue chip’, thus colors perception of uninformed newcomers.
Agree! I personally find Ethereum culture far saner, though I am a bit biased :)
3/ I've followed Ethereum since 2014 & feel a responsibility to share my concerns. IMO contrary to its marketing, ETH is at best a science experiment. It’s now valued at $13B, which I think is still too high.
Not an argument
4/ I agree with Ethereum developer Vlad Zamfir that it’s not money, not safe, and not scalable. https://twitter.com/VladZamfistatus/838006311598030848 … @VladZamfir Eth isn't money, so there is no monetary policy. There is currently fixed block issuance with an exponential difficulty increase (the bomb).
I'm pretty sure Vlad would say the exact same thing about Bitcoin
5/ To me the first red flag came up when in our weekly hangout we asked the ETH founders about to how they were going to scale the network. (We’re now 4.5 years later, and sharding is still a pipe dream.)
The core principles have been known for years, the core design for nearly a year, and details for months, with implementations on the way. So sharding is definitely not at the pipe dream stage at this point.
6/ Despite strong optimism that on-chain scaling of Ethereum was around the corner (just another engineering job), this promise hasn’t been delivered on to date.
Sure, sharding is not yet finished. Though more incremental stuff has been going well, eg. uncle rates are at near record lows despite very high chain usage.
7/ Recently, a team of reputable developers decided to peer review a widely anticipated Casper / sharding white paper, concluding that it does not live up to its own claims.
Unmerciful peer review of Vlad Zamfir & co's white paper to scale Ethereum: "the authors do NOT prove that the CBC Casper family of protocols is Byzantine fault tolerant in either practice or theory".
8/ On the 2nd layer front, devs are now trying to scale Ethereum via scale via state channels (ETH’s version of Lightning), but it is unclear whether main-chain issued ERC20 type tokens will be portable to this environment.
Umm... you can definitely use Raiden with arbitrary ERC20s. That's why the interface currently uses WETH (the ERC20-fied version of ether) and not ETH
9/ Compare this to how the Bitcoin Lightning Network project evolved:
elizabeth stark @starkness: For lnd: First public code released: January 2016 Alpha: January 2017 Beta: March 2018…
10/ Bitcoin’s Lightning Network is now live, and is growing at rapid clip.
Jameson Lopp @lopp: Lightning Network: January 2018 vs December 2018
Sure, though as far as I understand there's still a low probability of finding routes for nontrivial amounts, and there's capital lockup griefing vectors, and privacy issues.... FWIW I personally never thought lightning is unworkable, it's just a design that inherently runs into ten thousand small issues that will likely take a very long time to get past.
11/ In 2017, more Ethereum scaling buzz was created, this time the panacea was “Plasma”.
12/ However, upon closer examination it was the recycling of some stale ideas, and the project went nowhere:
Peter Todd @peterktodd These ideas were all considered in the Treechains design process, and ultimately rejected as insecure.
Just because Peter Todd rejected something as "insecure" doesn't mean that it is. In general, the ethereum research community is quite convinced that the fundamental Plasma design is fine, and as far as I understand there are formal proofs on the way. The only insecurity that can't be avoided is mass exit vulns, and channel-based systems have those too.
13/ The elephant in the room is the transition to proof-of-stake, an “environmentally friendly” way to secure the chain. (If this was the plan all along, why create a proof-of-work chain first?)
@TuurDemeester "Changing from proof of work to proof of stake changes the economics of the system, all the rules change and it will impact everything."
Umm... we created a proof of work chain first because we did not have a satisfactory proof of stake algo initially?
14/ For the uninitiated, here’s a good write-up that highlights some of the fundamental design problems of proof-of-stake. Like I said, this is science experiment territory.
Yes, we know about weak subjectivity, see https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity/. It's really not that bad, especially given that users need to update their clients once in a while anyway, oh and by the way even if the weak subjectivity assumption is broken an attacker still needs to gather up that pile of old keys making up 51% of the stake. And also to defend against that there's Universal Hash Time.
16/ Keep in mind that Proof of Stake (PoS) is not a new concept at all. Proof-of-Work actually was one of the big innovations that made Bitcoin possible, after PoS was deemed impractical because of censorship vulnerability.
Oh I definitely agree that proof of work was superior for bootstrap, and I liked it back then especially because it actually managed to be reasonably egalitarian around 2009-2012 before ASICs fully took over. But at the present time it doesn't really have that nice attribute.
17/ Over the years, this has become a pattern in Ethereum’s culture: recycling old ideas while not properly referring to past research and having poor peer review standards. This is not how science progresses.Tuur Demeester added,
I try to credit people whenever I can; half my blog and ethresear.ch posts have a "special thanks" section right at the top. Sometimes we end up re-inventing stuff, and sometimes we end up hearing about stuff, forgetting it, and later re-inventing it; that's life as an autodidact. And if you feel you've been unfairly not credited for something, always feel free to comment, people have done this and I've edited.
18/ One of my big concerns is that sophistry and marketing hype is a serious part of Ethereum’s success so far, and that overly inflated expectations have lead to an inflated market cap.
Ok, go on.
19/ Let’s illustrate with an example.
20/ A few days ago, I shared a critical tweet that made the argument that Ethereum’s value proposition is in essence utopian.
@TuurDemeester Ethereum-ism sounds a bit like Marxism to me:
What works today (PoW) is 'just a phase', the ideal & unproven future is to come: Proof-of-Stake.…
22/ My first point, about Ethereum developers rejecting Proof-of-Work, has been illustrated many times over By Vitalik and others. (See earlier in this tweetstorm for more about how PoS is unproven.)
Vitalik Non-giver of Ether @VitalikButerin: I don't believe in proof of work!
See above for links as to why I think proof of stake is great.
23/ My second point addresses Ethereum’s romance with the vague and dangerous notion of ‘social consensus’, where disruptive hard-forks are used to ‘upgrade’ or ‘optimize’ the system, which inevitably leads to increased centralization. More here:
See my rebuttal to Tuur's rebuttal :)
24/ My third point addresses PoS’ promise of perpetual income to ETHizens. Vitalik is no stranger to embracing free lunch ideas, e.g. during his 2014 ETH announcement speech, where he described a coin with a 20% inflation tax as having “no cost” to users.
Yeah, I haven't really emphasized perpetual income to stakers as a selling point in years. I actually favor rewards being as low as possible while still being high enough for security.
25/ In his response to my tweet, Vitalik adopted my format to “play the same game” in criticizing Bitcoin. My criticisms weren't addressed, and his response was riddled with errors. Yet his followers gave it +1,000 upvotes!
Vitalik Non-giver of Ether @VitalikButerin: - What works today (L1) is just a phase, ideal and unproven future (usable L2) is to come - Utopian concept of progress: we're already so confident we're finished we ain't needin no hard forks…
Ok, let's hear about what the errors are...
26/ Rebuttal: - BTC layer 1 is not “just a phase”, it always will be its definitive bedrock for transaction settlement. - Soft forking digital protocols has been the norm for over 3 decades—hard-forks are the deviation! - Satoshi never suggested hyperbitcoinization as a goal.
Sure, but (i) the use of layer 1 for consumer payments is definitely, in bitcoin ideology, "just a phase", (ii) I don't think you can make analogies between consensus protocols and other kinds of protocols, and between soft forking consensus protocols and protocol changes in other protocols, that easily, (iii) plenty of people do believe that hyperbitcoinization as a goal. Oh by the way: https://twitter.com/tuurdemeestestatus/545993119599460353
27/ This kind of sophistry is exhausting and completely counter-productive, but it can be very convincing for an uninformed retail public.
Ok, go on.
28/ Let me share a few more inconvenient truths.
29/ In order to “guarantee” the transition to PoS’ utopia of perpetual income (staking coins earns interest), a “difficulty bomb” was embedded in the protocol, which supposedly would force miners to accept the transition.
The intended goal of the difficulty bomb was to prevent the protocol from ossifying, by ensuring that it has to hard fork eventually to reset the difficulty bomb, at which point the status quo bias in favor of not changing other protocol rules at the same time would be weaker. Though forcing a switch to PoS was definitely a key goal.
30/ Of course, nothing came of this, because anything in the ETH protocol can be hard-forked away. Another broken promise.
33/ The modular approach to Bitcoin seems to be much better at compartmentalizing risk, and thus reducing attack surfaces. I’ve written about modular scaling here...
To be fair, risk is reduced because Bitcoin does less.
34/ Another huge issue that Ethereum has is with scaling. By putting “everything on the blockchain” (which stores everything forever) and dubbing it “the world computer”, you are going to end up with a very slow and clogged up system.
We never advocated "putting everything on the blockchain". The phrase "world computer" was never meant to be interpreted as "everyone's personal desktop", but rather as a common platform specifically for the parts of applications that require consensus on shared state. As evidence of this, notice how Whisper and Swarm were part of the vision as complements to Ethereum right from the start.
35/ By now the Ethereum bloat is so bad that cheaply running an individual node is practically impossible for a lay person. ETH developers are also imploring people to not deploy more smart contract apps on its blockchain.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: But... deploying d-apps on the "Ethereum Virtual Machine" is exactly what everyone was encouraged to do for the past 4 years. Looks like on-chain scaling wasn't such a great idea after all.
Umm.... I just spun up a node from scratch last week. On a consumer laptop.
36/ As a result, and despite the claims that running a node in “warp” mode is easy and as good as a full node, Ethereum is becoming increasingly centralized.
37/ Another hollow claim: in 2016, Ethereum was promoted as being censorship resistant…
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Pre TheDAO #Ethereum presentation: "uncensorable, code is law, bottom up". http://ow.ly/qW49302Pp92
Yes, the DAO fork did violate the notion of absolute immutability. However, the "forking the DAO will lead to doom and gloom" crowd was very wrong in one key way: it did NOT work as a precedent justifying all sorts of further state interventions. The community clearly drew a line in the sand by firmly rejecting EIP 867, and EIP 999 seems to now also be going nowhere. So it seems like there's some evidence that the social contract of "moderately but not infinitely strong immutability" actually can be stable.
38/ Yet later that year, after only 6% of ETH holders had cast a vote, ETH core devs decided to endorse a hard-fork that clawed back the funds from a smart contract that held 4.5% of all ETH in circulation. More here: ...
Hudson Jameson @hudsonjameson: The "semi-closed" Ethereum 1.x meeting from last Friday was an experiment. The All Core Dev meeting this Friday will be recorded as usual.
Suppose I were to tomorrow sign up to work directly for Kim Jong Un. What concretely would happen to the Ethereum protocol? I suspect very little; I am mostly involved in the Serenity work, and the other researchers have proven very capable of both pushing the spec forward even without me and catching any mistakes with my work. So I don't think any argument involving me applies. And we ended up deciding not to do more semi-closed meetings.
40/ Another red flag to me is the apparent lack of relevant expertise in the ETH development community. (Check the responses…)
I personally am confident in the talents of our core researchers, and our community of academic partners. Most recently the latter group includes people from Starkware, Stanford CBR, IC3, and other groups.
I have no idea who described Lucius Meredith's work as being important for the Serenity roadmap.... oh and by the way, RChain is NOT an "Ethereum scaling company"
42/ Perhaps the recently added Gandalf of Ethereum, with his “Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians” [sic] can save the day, but imo that seems unlikely...
Honestly, I don't see why Ethereum Gandalf needs to save the day, because I don't see what is in danger and needs to be saved...
43/ This is becoming a long tweetstorm, so let’s wrap up with a few closing comments.
44/ Do I have a conflict of interest? ETH is a publicly available asset with no real barriers to entry, so I could easily get a stake. Also, having met Vitalik & other ETH founders several times in 2013-’14, it would have been doable for me to become part of the in-crowd.
Agree there. And BTW I generally think financial conflicts of interest are somewhat overrated; social conflicts/tribal biases are the bigger problem much of the time. Though those two kinds of misalignments do frequently overlap and reinforce each other so they're difficult to fully disentangle.
45/ Actually, I was initially excited about Ethereum’s smart contract work - this was before one of its many pivots.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Ethereum is probably the first programming language I will teach myself - who wouldn't want the ability to program smart BTC contracts?
Ethereum was never about "smart BTC contracts"..... even "Ethereum as a Mastercoin-style meta-protocol" was intended to be built on top of Primecoin.
46/ Also, I have done my share of soul searching about whether I could be suffering from survivor’s bias.
47/ Here’s why Ethereum is dubious to me: rather than creating an open source project & testnet to work on these interesting computer science problems, its founders instead did a securities offering, involving many thousands of clueless retail investors.
48/ Investing in the Ethereum ICO was akin to buying shares in a startup that had “invent time travel” as part of its business plan. Imo it was a reckless security offering, and it set the tone for the terrible capital misallocation of the 2017 ICO boom.
Nothing in the ethereum roadmap requires time-travel-like technical advancements or anything remotely close to that. Proof: we basically have all the fundamental technical advancements we need at this point.
49/ In my view, Ethereum is the Yahoo of our day - an unscalable “blue chip” cryptocurrency:
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: 1/ The DotCom bubble shows that the market isn't very good at valuing early stage technology. I'll use Google vs. Yahoo to illustrate.
If you are reading this article, the chances are you already know what are ETH and BTC. You might even own some of them. But do you know that, ETH and BTC belong to two independent ecosystems? The two ecosystems are completely different with no connectivity. Just like two countries located in different parts of the world. To go from one to another, you need to take an airplane. Sounds easy right? You just need to build an airplane to cross these two chains. Wrong. Comparing to centralized exchange (CEX), there are so much more technical barriers for decentralized exchange (DEX) to overcome. How’s that? In general, when you trade on a CEX, your tokens are not actually exchanged to the counterparty. It’s simply an alteration of numbers by the CEX. You still get the tokens you want but the problem is, the whole process is done behind the scenes along with the risk of being manipulated and the risk of losing your tokens. However, when trading on a DEX with cross-chain technology,
you own and control your wallet,
full transparency and on-chain,
higher security as tokens are actually exchanged.
The biggest challenge for DEX to resolve cross-chain issue is particularly “how to actually exchange one token from ecosystem A to ecosystem B”. At DINNGO, we resolve all the technical difficulties and design an intuitive user experience. Most people do not understand cross-chain technology or do not appreciate the value of it. Therefore, a good design can improve visual feedback and further simplify the experience. After dismissing the geeky interface, an average user can easily learn the true value and the ethos of the blockchain. Below we share our path of designing the new cross-chain solution — Portus.
Starting with research
1. Become the pioneer
Simplicity has always been the fundamental principle of DINNGO’s design. We want to make it easy for people to get into blockchain. So easy that even grandmom know how to use. We want to provide an experience that is effortless to onboard, visually pleasant and easy to use. When we started developing cross-chain function, we first studied every bitcoin wallet in the market and conducted product analysis to come up with a cross-chain wallet solution. Then we moved on to competitive product analysis to review all other products on the market that are also trying to find cross-chain solutions in blockchain industry. This is the time when we realized that we are the pioneer in the market. For example, one of the cross-chain solutions is Atomic Swap, which provides a one way or two ways fixed price swapping service. With Atomic Swap, the price is inalterable, which means you can not set up the price you want, and it does not provide visualize charts or order book. (Competitor Product Research) Very few DEXs that support cross-chain features provide charts and even so, they only show you the charts of a fixed price swapping history without order book features. Most of them are crypto-pegged tokens, namely they are backed by the native coin in reserve and issue the pegged tokens on their chain. It is not actually decentralized. Believe it or not, until this day, no one has ever built a solution to achieve interoperability in the present market. What you can expect from Portus cross-chain trading:
After a thorough analysis, we decided to choose private key approach for bitcoin wallet integration as our Minimum Viable Product (MVP). Here is why: Majority of bitcoin wallets are designed to sign UTxO (Unspent Transaction Output) from P2PKH (Pay to Public Key Hash), P2WPKH (Pay to Witness Public Key Hash), P2SH (Pay to Script Hash) or P2WSH (Pay 2 Witness Script Hash). Considering the implementation of atomic swap will complicate the process of trading bitcoin, we decided to design a simple interface for users to manage their bitcoin wallets as our MVP. With the private key approach, we can increase the flexibility and capability of processing different scripts. In a nutshell, users are able to maintain ownership and security of their funds while using an unprecedentedly new technology.
Mapping out different user scenarios
1. Simplify users main purpose
Users only explore the matters that they care. How do we know what they are trying to get? Or maybe they are just looking? The point is, we need to let users know what they can do with the product. So how do we achieve that? We focus on conversion rate and user behaviors. We build mental models for different types of users to understand their thought process. Through research → assumption → interview → prototype → analysis → design, we consolidate all the information to have a clear picture of user experience. We design the processes and conversation to guide users. During the development, we always review our interface to see if there is any unintended implication. We ask ourselves:
How do we guide users altering their inputs to meet their needs.
How do we let users know that they have already registered an account with us?
How do we let users know that they are logged in?
How do we let users know that their wallet is not connected?
How do we let users know the type of wallet they are currently using?
2. Categorize user journey map
We built user journey map from users perspective, from start to finish. By mapping out user behaviors and expectations at each stage, we are able to have a bird’s eye view of users as well as the close-up perspective. With that information, we can design a better user experience thus enhancing journey completion rate. Below is an example of user journey maps in different stages:
User Journey Map of first time visit users: Onboarding → Sign up → Connect Wallet → Trade
User Journey Map of users trading on Ethereum network: Log in → Connect Ethereum Wallet → Trade
User Journey Map of users trading through cross-chain solution: Log in → Connect Ethereum Wallet → Connect Bitcoin Wallet → cross-chain trading
After finalizing the experience prioritization, we decided to onboard users to connect ethereum wallets first and then bitcoin wallet later since DINNGO Exchange is built on top of Ethereum Network and around 94% of cryptocurrencies are ERC-20 token. Besides, the bitcoin wallet integration has a high dependency on the onboarding interface designed to connect Ethereum wallets. Since our Ethereum wallet integration is designed with an iterative approach, it is flexible enough to make further modification. According to our user observation and quantitative data, it reveals that our current UI layout has delivered an efficient onboarding process for users. Therefore, we made just a little modification to maintain the original usability and to soften the learning curve. (Goal completion rate and frequency)
2. Usability programme
After considering numerous user flow and scenarios, we arrange necessary and precise visual hints everywhere guiding the users to the next step. For example, after users connecting to our Ethereum wallet, they will see a Bitcoin icon next to Ethereum icon as a reminder of connecting Bitcoin wallet. See some details of our design below:
All wallet integration interface has only one single radio button. Just need one click. This way we decrease the number of clicks and make user journey much easier.
Loading animation inside buttons. Animation can reduce users’ perception of time, keeping users engaged before the process is fully loaded. We want users to feel like things are responsive and the action is processing while they wait.
Error messages when entering incorrect password/private key/number. There are two types of error messages — systematic errors and validation errors. An effective error message is best to be placed near the field, especially to the right or beneath the field.
We are very pleased to share how we design Portus. Upon achieving market adoption, we will add more features. If you have any suggestions for a better user experience, please do not hesitate to share with us. 【 About Us 】
Which are your Top 5 favourite coins out of the Top 100? An analysis.
I am putting together my investment portfolio for 2018 and made a complete summary of the current Top 100. Interestingly, I noticed that all coins can be categorized into 12 markets. Which markets do you think will play the biggest role in the coming year? Here is a complete overview of all coins in an excel sheet including name, market, TPS, risk profile, time since launch (negative numbers mean that they are launching that many months in the future) and market cap. You can also sort by all of these fields of course. Co