Quark is a decentralized digital monetary system. It facilitates sending Quarks to Friends, Family Members Online Payments free of charges and charge-backs. Military Grade Encryption. No Bank or Government Control. Quark coins are based on the original idea of Bitcoin but improved, more secure, faster transaction times and zero fees. With improvements to design and security. There is also a greater coin supply with higher block rewards for miners. Quark is fully Open Source.
Bitcoin XT Miners could use some instructions for DDoS protection
If XT gets 75% hash power there is a 2 week wait before mining bigger blocks. During those two weeks, an attacker wishing to disrupt the fork could try to DDoS 1/3 of XT nodes to make the hash power go from 75% to under 50%, which could possibly disrupt the fork. It would be great if XT came with some instructions for miners to protect their nodes from DDoS to defend against this.
CLTV/CSV/etc. deployment considerations due to XT/Not-BitcoinXT miners | Peter Todd | Aug 19 2015
Peter Todd on Aug 19 2015: Deployment of the proposed CLTV, CSV, etc. soft-forks has been recently complicated by the existence of XT(1) and Not-Bitcoin-XT(2) miners. Both mine blocks with nVersion=0x20000007, which would falsely trigger the previously suggested implementation using the IsSuperMajority() mechanism and nVersion=4 blocks. Additionally while the XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT software claims to support Wuille/Todd/Maxwell's nVersion soft-fork mechanism(3) a key component of it - fork deadlines(3) - is not implemented. XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT behavior Both implementations produce blocks with nVersion=0x20000007, or in binary: 0b001...111 Neither implementation supports a fork deadline; both Not-Bitcoin-XT and XT will produce blocks with those bits set indefinitely under any circumstance, with the proviso that while XT has a hashing power majority, blocks it produces might not be part of the Bitcoin blockchain after Jan 11th 2016. (though this can flap back and forth if reorgs happen) Curiously the BIP101 draft was changed(4) at the last minute from using the nVersion bits compliant 0x20000004 block nVersion, to using two more bits unnecessarily. The rational for doing this is unknown; the git commit message associated with the change suggested "compatibility concerns", but what the concerns actually were isn't specified. Equally even though implementing the fork deadline would be very each in the XT implementation, this was not done. (the XT codebase has had almost no peer review) Options for CLTV/CSV/etc. deployment 1) Plain IsSuperMajority() with nVersion=4 This option can be ruled out immediately due to the high risk of premature triggering, without genuine 95% miner support. 2) nVersion mask, with IsSuperMajority() In this option the nVersion bits set by XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT miners would be masked away, prior to applying standard IsSuperMajority() logic:
block.nVersion & ~0x20000007
This means that CLTV/CSV/etc. miners running Bitcoin Core would create blocks with nVersion=8, 0b1000. From the perspective of the CLTV/CSV/etc. IsSuperMajority() test, XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT miners would be advertising blocks that do not trigger the soft-fork. For the perpose of soft-fork warnings, the highest known version can remain nVersion=8, which is triggered by both XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT blocks as well as a future nVersion bits implementation. Equally, XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT soft-fork warnings will be triggered, by having an unknown bit set. When nVersion bits is implemented by the Bitcoin protocol, the plan of setting the high bits to 0b001 still works. The three lowest bits will be unusable for some time, but will be eventually recoverable as XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT mining ceases. Equally, further IsSuperMajority() softforks can be accomplished with the same masking technique. This option does complicate the XT-coin protocol implementation in the future. But that's their problem, and anyway, the maintainers (Hearn/Andresen) has strenuously argued(5) against the use of soft-forks and/or appear to be in favor of a more centralized mandatory update schedule.(6) 3) Full nVersion bits implementation The most complex option would be to deploy via full nVersion bits implementation using flag bit #4 to trigger the fork. Compliant miners would advertise 0x20000008 initially, followed by 0x20000000 once the fork had triggered. The lowest three bits would be unusable for forks for some time, although they could be eventually recovered as XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT mining ceases. The main disadvantage of this option is high initial complexity - the reason why IsSuperMajority() was suggested for CLTV/CSV in the first place. That said, much of the code required has been implemented in XT for the BIP101 hard-fork logic, although as mentioned above, the code has had very little peer review. References 1) https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt 2) https://github.com/xtbit/notbitcoinxt 3) "Version bits proposal",
Pieter Wuille, May 26th 2015, Bitcoin-development mailing list, [http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008282.html,](http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008282.html,)
"Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Unlimited are aligned in the belief that consensus-level changes should be activated only after ratification by the miners. 'Take-it-or-leave-it' bundles, and hard-fork deadlines, are adding unnecessary stress and politicking." - Peter Rizun
BCH wasn't décentralised. 80% of node were ABC, bu and xt had no choice but follow Amaury the dictator. Brainwashed follower are now ready to fork the algo of BCH away from us (miner). We are the why and how bch happened in the first place! We want Bitcoin smart contract, a store of value and cash.
"Bitcoin Unlimited ... makes it more convenient for miners and nodes to adjust the blocksize cap settings through a GUI menu, so users don't have to mod the Core code themselves (like some do now). There would be no reliance on Core (or XT) to determine 'from on high' what the options are." - ZB
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1312371.msg13429654#msg13429654 Bitcoin Unlimited's main change at present is simply that, for better or worse, it makes it more convenient for miners and nodes to adjust the blocksize cap settings. This is done through a GUI menu, meaning users don't have to mod the Core code themselves like some do now. Planned improvements to BU include options that automatically mimic the blocksize settings of some Core BIPs, as well as blocksize proposals recommended by other luminaries. The idea is that users would converge on a consensus Schelling point through various communication channels because of the overwhelming economic incentive to do so. The situation in a BU world would be no different than now except that there would be no reliance on Core (or XT) to determine from on high what the options are. BU rejects the idea that it is the job of Core (or XT, or BU) developers to govern policy on consensus or restrict the conveniently available policy options on blocksize. BU supporters believe that to have it otherwise [would be like] the tail wagging the dog: the finding of market-favored consensus is not aided, but rather hindered, by attempts to spoon-feed consensus parameters to the users. (This is putting it gently:
Having a controversial parameter set at a specific number by default would be spoon-feeding;
Not even having the option to change it is more like force-feeding.)
"Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Unlimited are aligned in the belief that consensus-level changes should be activated only after ratification by the miners. 'Take-it-or-leave-it' bundles, and hard-fork deadlines, are adding unnecessary stress and politicking." - Peter Rizun
/r/BitcoinAll supports XT/Unlimited/SV clients and recommends all hobby miners (like myself) to use pools that run this software (Bitcoin.com, SV POOL). Say no to Amaury Coin/Yang Coin. Believe in Satoshi's Vision. Run Bitcoin.
"Not Bitcoin-XT" is trying to not let a miner vote take place.
On the bitcointalk forum, a new client called "Not Bitcoin-XT" was recently announced. From the post:
Running this version and/or mining with XT block versions will make it impossible for the Bitcoin XT network to detect the correct switchover and cause a premature fork of anyone foolish enough to support BIP101 without wide consensus from the technical community.
They are literally trying to get nodes on the network which pretend to support the bigger block size patch, but actually don't. If enough miners ran this software, it would falsely trigger the 75%/95% acceptance thresholds. Fortunately, most miners are known entities and would not be caught dead running software like this. The rest of the users just add to the Bitcoin XT node count, ironically making Bitcoin XT appear to have even more support.
PSA: Merchant and exchange support is more important than miner support at this point. Tell your favorite Bitcoin merchant about XT.
While we celebrate the first block, keep in mind that miners are profit-minded, and tend to only follow whichever way promises the highest purchasing power. We might not gain in hashpower very quickly - I expect XT blocks to only roll in slowly in the coming weeks and months, as everyone holds their breath and stays on the fence for a while. On the other hand, merchant acceptance is economic power, and the more support we get from them, the closer we get to the point where the rest of the ecosystem - miners and merchants alike - rush over here in an avalanche. But how do we get there? If a merchant accepts Bitcoin and runs a node to do that (merchants who don't run a node presumably uses Bitpay, Coinbase etc.; let those know too!), they are probably future-minded: People just like you and me, people who want Bitcoin to get bigger and be in the hands of more people. If we tell them about the 3.5tps, they'll listen. If we tell them about the insistence of the other side to force a "fee market" today, they'll listen. If we tell them about the whole mess created by the other side to censor freedom of choice, they'll listen. They might not make a decision immediately, but it's important that they know. Learn as much as you can, and spread the news!
Want a block size limit increase, and bitcoin-classic or XT miner adoption? Beg harder.
Our best hope to get miners to run bitcoin-classic or XT, is to beg super-hard for it. If we're really courteous, and ask very nicely, the miners might deign to give us a blocksize increase. If they don't, I mean, that's cool, ya know, the community would really appreciate it, but you know, I guess that's life. Miners have to listen to us, of course. If they don't, the bitcoin price drops, and they have to say they'll support a block size increase. And whew, then everything's okay! The price goes up a bit again, and they did make a promise, which of course they can't break. We should also ask them if they would keep their mining profits in bitcoin, instead of converting them to fiat. That would be just great. I mean, they bought super expensive mining rigs that the rest of us can't afford, so they must believe that the bitcoin price will rise. Why would bitcoin miners ever convert to fiat, don't they trust that people will keep using it forever? They can't just be in it for the money, they have to be in it for the bitcoins. SLASH S
"Bitcoin Unlimited ... makes it more convenient for miners and nodes to adjust the blocksize cap settings through a GUI menu, so users don't have to mod the Core code themselves (like some do now). There would be no reliance on Core (or XT) to determine 'from on high' what the options are. /r/btc
Maybe it's time to discuss bitcoin's history again. Credit to u/singularity87 for the original post over 3 years ago. People should get the full story of bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs. bitcoin, the main sub for the bitcoin community is held and run by a person who goes by the pseudonym u/theymos. Theymos not only controls bitcoin, but also bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.com. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person. For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem (at least not an obvious one anyway) until around mid 2015. This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. Blockstream was made up of/hired many (but not all) of the main bitcoin developers. (To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid 2015 but did not become publicly active until then). A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency. There were a lot of unknowns but people seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were apparently about to release some new software called "sidechains" that could offer some benefits to the network. Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go to btc and do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain. Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network. Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problem bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past. A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making. Various developers put forth various other proposals, including Gavin Andresen who put forth a more conservative increase that would then continue to increase over time inline with technological improvements. Some of the employees of blockstream also put forth some proposals, but all were so conservative, it would take bitcoin many decades before it could reach a scale of VISA. Even though there was significant support from the community behind Gavin's simple proposal of increasing the limit it was becoming clear certain members of the bitcoin community who were part of Blockstream were starting to become increasingly vitriolic and divisive. Gavin then teamed up with one of the other main bitcoin developers Mike Hearn and released a coded (i.e. working) version of the bitcoin software that would only activate if it was supported by a significant majority of the network. What happened next was where things really started to get weird. After this free and open source software was released, Theymos, the person who controls all the main communication channels for the bitcoin community implemented a new moderation policy that disallowed any discussion of this new software. Specifically, if people were to discuss this software, their comments would be deleted and ultimately they would be banned temporarily or permanently. This caused chaos within the community as there was very clear support for this software at the time and it seemed our best hope for finally solving the problem and moving on. Instead a censorship campaign was started. At first it 'all' they were doing was banning and removing discussions but after a while it turned into actively manipulating the discussion. For example, if a thread was created where there was positive sentiment for increasing the transaction capacity or being negative about the moderation policies or negative about the actions of certain bitcoin developers, the mods of bitcoin would selectively change the sorting order of threads to 'controversial' so that the most support opinions would be sorted to the bottom of the thread and the most vitriolic would be sorted to the top of the thread. This was initially very transparent as it was possible to see that the most downvoted comments were at the top and some of the most upvoted were at the bottom. So they then implemented hiding the voting scores next to the users name. This made impossible to work out the sentiment of the community and when combined with selectively setting the sorting order to controversial it was possible control what information users were seeing. Also, due to the very very large number of removed comments and users it was becoming obvious the scale of censorship going on. To hide this they implemented code in their CSS for the sub that completely hid comments that they had removed so that the censorship itself was hidden. Anyone in support of scaling bitcoin were removed from the main communication channels. Theymos even proudly announced that he didn't care if he had to remove 90% of the users. He also later acknowledged that he knew he had the ability to block support of this software using the control he had over the communication channels. While this was all going on, Blockstream and it's employees started lobbying the community by paying for conferences about scaling bitcoin, but with the very very strange rule that no decisions could be made and no complete solutions could be proposed. These conferences were likely strategically (and successfully) created to stunt support for the scaling software Gavin and Mike had released by forcing the community to take a "lets wait and see what comes from the conferences" kind of approach. Since no final solutions were allowed at these conferences, they only served to hinder and splinter the communities efforts to find a solution. As the software Gavin and Mike released called BitcoinXT gained support it started to be attacked. Users of the software were attack by DDOS. Employees of Blockstream were recommending attacks against the software, such as faking support for it, to only then drop support at the last moment to put the network in disarray. Blockstream employees were also publicly talking about suing Gavin and Mike from various different angles simply for releasing this open source software that no one was forced to run. In the end Mike Hearn decided to leave due to the way many members of the bitcoin community had treated him. This was due to the massive disinformation campaign against him on bitcoin. One of the many tactics that are used against anyone who does not support Blockstream and the bitcoin developers who work for them is that you will be targeted in a smear campaign. This has happened to a number of individuals and companies who showed support for scaling bitcoin. Theymos has threatened companies that he will ban any discussion of them on the communication channels he controls (i.e. all the main ones) for simply running software that he disagrees with (i.e. any software that scales bitcoin). As time passed, more and more proposals were offered, all against the backdrop of ever increasing censorship in the main bitcoin communication channels. It finally come down the smallest and most conservative solution. This solution was much smaller than even the employees of Blockstream had proposed months earlier. As usual there was enormous attacks from all sides and the most vocal opponents were the employees of Blockstream. These attacks still are ongoing today. As this software started to gain support, Blockstream organised more meetings, especially with the biggest bitcoin miners and made a pact with them. They promised that they would release code that would offer an on-chain scaling solution hardfork within about 4 months, but if the miners wanted this they would have to commit to running their software and only their software. The miners agreed and the ended up not running the most conservative proposal possible. This was in February last year. There is no hardfork proposal in sight from the people who agreed to this pact and bitcoin is still stuck with the exact same transaction limit it has had since the limit was put in place about 6 years ago. Gavin has also been publicly smeared by the developers at Blockstream and a plot was made against him to have him removed from the development team. Gavin has now been, for all intents an purposes, expelled from bitcoin development. This has meant that all control of bitcoin development is in the hands of the developers working at Blockstream. There is a new proposal that offers a market based approach to scaling bitcoin. This essentially lets the market decide. Of course, as usual there has been attacks against it, and verbal attacks from the employees of Blockstream. This has the biggest chance of gaining wide support and solving the problem for good. To give you an idea of Blockstream; It has hired most of the main and active bitcoin developers and is now synonymous with the "Core" bitcoin development team. They AFAIK no products at all. They have received around $75m in funding. Every single thing they do is supported by theymos. They have started implementing an entirely new economic system for bitcoin against the will of it's users and have blocked any and all attempts to scaling the network in line with the original vision. Although this comment is ridiculously long, it really only covers the tip of the iceberg. You could write a book on the last two years of bitcoin. The things that have been going on have been mind blowing. One last thing that I think is worth talking about is the u/bashco's claim of vote manipulation. The users that the video talks about have very very large numbers of downvotes mostly due to them having a very very high chance of being astroturfers. Around about the same time last year when Blockstream came active on the scene every single bitcoin troll disappeared, and I mean literally every single one. In the years before that there were a large number of active anti-bitcoin trolls. They even have an active sub buttcoin. Up until last year you could go down to the bottom of pretty much any thread in bitcoin and see many of the usual trolls who were heavily downvoted for saying something along the lines of "bitcoin is shit", "You guys and your tulips" etc. But suddenly last year they all disappeared. Instead a new type of bitcoin user appeared. Someone who said they were fully in support of bitcoin but they just so happened to support every single thing Blockstream and its employees said and did. They had the exact same tone as the trolls who had disappeared. Their way to talking to people was aggressive, they'd call people names, they had a relatively poor understanding of how bitcoin fundamentally worked. They were extremely argumentative. These users are the majority of the list of that video. When the 10's of thousands of users were censored and expelled from bitcoin they ended up congregating in btc. The strange thing was that the users listed in that video also moved over to btc and spend all day everyday posting troll-like comments and misinformation. Naturally they get heavily downvoted by the real users in btc. They spend their time constantly causing as much drama as possible. At every opportunity they scream about "censorship" in btc while they are happy about the censorship in bitcoin. These people are astroturfers. What someone somewhere worked out, is that all you have to do to take down a community is say that you are on their side. It is an astoundingly effective form of psychological attack.
5 steps to set up mining OS 3 steps to set up Windows Node How to manage your mining rigs farm Benchmark Profit switch and mining calculator Overclock & undervolt with ClockTune More about AMD RX 5700 XT Generate bitcoin with Bitcoin miner pro 2018 V 3.2 generate has been published after epic three weeks beta testing, which ended with great success. This tool will NOT let you down. All features are included and described in notes.txt file which you will get with installation file. Generate bitcoin with Bitcoin miner p Browse through our glossary of cryptocurrency and blockchain related terms. Learn more and understand both common phrases, technical words and acronyms. Bitcoin Classic is getting significant increase in support and is currently with about 1/4 of the size of the number of Core nodes, followed by Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Unlimited that have been recently loosing support most likely in favor of the Classic implementation. Miner. A miner is a person that does mining work. In Bitcoin's early days, it was possible to mine for Bitcoins on a personal computer. These days, however, it is not possible without operating dedicated clusters of compute farms, with the number of nodes often in the thousands.
Bitcoin XT Node on Google Compute Engine in 5 Minutes
Welcome to Microsoft Bitcoin Miner CC. This miner is the most powerful fast mining software that allows each user to mine more bitcoin is minutes with high specs on the computer. Download link ... Coinmine is also working to build full Bitcoin lightning nodes into these miners by the end of 2019 and support multiple Bitcoin lightning applications, which is honestly very cool. Bitcoin Miner Hub - Powerful and Quiet - Duration: 17:37. How Much? 4,769 views. 17:37. How To Setup Gekko Science 2Pac USB Mining Bitcoin Algorithm SHA 256 - Duration: 9:29. The blog to start mining Bitcoin https://bit.ly/2OikZ0D www.fiverr.com www.Clickbank.com www.upwork.com What is Cloud Mining and how does it work? Cloud Mining gives instant access to a mining ... Ethereum mining Hashrate & Power consumption on RX 5700 XT RX VEGA 56 RX VEGA 64 RTX 2080 RTX 2080 Ti GTX 1080 Ti 1080 1070 1060 1050 Ti 980 Ti 980 970 960 RX 580 RX570 ...