What Is The Bitcoin Mempool & Why It Matters??

One 2017 image that sums up the damage that has been done to Bitcoin by full blocks and congested mempool (hint: over $10b value transferred to altcoins by May 2017 already)

One 2017 image that sums up the damage that has been done to Bitcoin by full blocks and congested mempool (hint: over $10b value transferred to altcoins by May 2017 already) submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

How much tx now in mempool? A collection of different sources. Submit your values. /r/Bitcoin

How much tx now in mempool? A collection of different sources. Submit your values. /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Newcomers FAQ - Please read!

Welcome to the /Bitcoin Sticky FAQ

You've probably been hearing a lot about Bitcoin recently and are wondering what's the big deal? Most of your questions should be answered by the resources below but if you have additional questions feel free to ask them in the comments.
It all started with the release of the release of Satoshi Nakamoto's whitepaper however that will probably go over the head of most readers so we recommend the following videos for a good starting point for understanding how bitcoin works and a little about its long term potential:
Some other great resources include Lopp.net, the Princeton crypto series and James D'Angelo's Bitcoin 101 Blackboard series.
Some excellent writing on Bitcoin's value proposition and future can be found at the Satoshi Nakamoto Institute.
Some Bitcoin statistics can be found here and here. Developer resources can be found here. Peer-reviewed research papers can be found here.
Potential upcoming protocol improvements and scaling resources here and here.
The number of times Bitcoin was declared dead by the media can be found here (LOL!)

Key properties of Bitcoin

Where can I buy bitcoins?

Bitcoin.org and BuyBitcoinWorldwide.com are helpful sites for beginners. You can buy or sell any amount of bitcoin (even just a few dollars worth) and there are several easy methods to purchase bitcoin with cash, credit card or bank transfer. Some of the more popular resources are below, also check out the bitcoinity exchange resources for a larger list of options for purchases.
Here is a listing of local ATMs. If you would like your paycheck automatically converted to bitcoin use Bitwage.
Note: Bitcoins are valued at whatever market price people are willing to pay for them in balancing act of supply vs demand. Unlike traditional markets, bitcoin markets operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Preev is a useful site that that shows how much various denominations of bitcoin are worth in different currencies. Alternatively you can just Google "1 bitcoin in (your local currency)".

Securing your bitcoins

With bitcoin you can "Be your own bank" and personally secure your bitcoins OR you can use third party companies aka "Bitcoin banks" which will hold the bitcoins for you.
Note: For increased security, use Two Factor Authentication (2FA) everywhere it is offered, including email!
2FA requires a second confirmation code to access your account making it much harder for thieves to gain access. Google Authenticator and Authy are the two most popular 2FA services, download links are below. Make sure you create backups of your 2FA codes.
Google Auth Authy OTP Auth
Android Android N/A
iOS iOS iOS

Watch out for scams

As mentioned above, Bitcoin is decentralized, which by definition means there is no official website or Twitter handle or spokesperson or CEO. However, all money attracts thieves. This combination unfortunately results in scammers running official sounding names or pretending to be an authority on YouTube or social media. Many scammers throughout the years have claimed to be the inventor of Bitcoin. Websites like bitcoin(dot)com and the btc subreddit are active scams. Almost all altcoins (shitcoins) are marketed heavily with big promises but are really just designed to separate you from your bitcoin. So be careful: any resource, including all linked in this document, may in the future turn evil. Don't trust, verify. Also as they say in our community "Not your keys, not your coins".

Where can I spend bitcoins?

Check out spendabit or bitcoin directory for millions of merchant options. Also you can spend bitcoin anywhere visa is accepted with bitcoin debit cards such as the CashApp card. Some other useful site are listed below.
Store Product
Gyft Gift cards for hundreds of retailers including Amazon, Target, Walmart, Starbucks, Whole Foods, CVS, Lowes, Home Depot, iTunes, Best Buy, Sears, Kohls, eBay, GameStop, etc.
Spendabit, Overstock and The Bitcoin Directory Retail shopping with millions of results
ShakePay Generate one time use Visa cards in seconds
NewEgg and Dell For all your electronics needs
Bitwa.la, Coinbills, Piixpay, Bitbill.eu, Bylls, Coins.ph, Bitrefill, LivingRoomofSatoshi, Coinsfer, and more Bill payment
Menufy, Takeaway and Thuisbezorgd NL Takeout delivered to your door
Expedia, Cheapair, Destinia, Abitsky, SkyTours, the Travel category on Gyft and 9flats For when you need to get away
Cryptostorm, Mullvad, and PIA VPN services
Namecheap, Porkbun Domain name registration
Stampnik Discounted USPS Priority, Express, First-Class mail postage
Coinmap and AirBitz are helpful to find local businesses accepting bitcoins. A good resource for UK residents is at wheretospendbitcoins.co.uk.
There are also lots of charities which accept bitcoin donations.

Merchant Resources

There are several benefits to accepting bitcoin as a payment option if you are a merchant;
If you are interested in accepting bitcoin as a payment method, there are several options available;

Can I mine bitcoin?

Mining bitcoins can be a fun learning experience, but be aware that you will most likely operate at a loss. Newcomers are often advised to stay away from mining unless they are only interested in it as a hobby similar to folding at home. If you want to learn more about mining you can read more here. Still have mining questions? The crew at /BitcoinMining would be happy to help you out.
If you want to contribute to the bitcoin network by hosting the blockchain and propagating transactions you can run a full node using this setup guide. If you would prefer to keep it simple there are several good options. You can view the global node distribution here.

Earning bitcoins

Just like any other form of money, you can also earn bitcoins by being paid to do a job.
Site Description
WorkingForBitcoins, Bitwage, Cryptogrind, Coinality, Bitgigs, /Jobs4Bitcoins, BitforTip, Rein Project Freelancing
Lolli Earn bitcoin when you shop online!
OpenBazaar, Purse.io, Bitify, /Bitmarket, 21 Market Marketplaces
/GirlsGoneBitcoin NSFW Adult services
A-ads, Coinzilla.io Advertising
You can also earn bitcoins by participating as a market maker on JoinMarket by allowing users to perform CoinJoin transactions with your bitcoins for a small fee (requires you to already have some bitcoins.

Bitcoin-Related Projects

The following is a short list of ongoing projects that might be worth taking a look at if you are interested in current development in the bitcoin space.
Project Description
Lightning Network Second layer scaling
Blockstream, Rootstock and Drivechain Sidechains
Hivemind and Augur Prediction markets
Tierion and Factom Records & Titles on the blockchain
BitMarkets, DropZone, Beaver and Open Bazaar Decentralized markets
JoinMarket and Wasabi Wallet CoinJoin implementation
Coinffeine and Bisq Decentralized bitcoin exchanges
Keybase Identity & Reputation management
Abra Global P2P money transmitter network
Bitcore Open source Bitcoin javascript library

Bitcoin Units

One Bitcoin is quite large (hundreds of £/$/€) so people often deal in smaller units. The most common subunits are listed below:
Unit Symbol Value Info
bitcoin BTC 1 bitcoin one bitcoin is equal to 100 million satoshis
millibitcoin mBTC 1,000 per bitcoin used as default unit in recent Electrum wallet releases
bit bit 1,000,000 per bitcoin colloquial "slang" term for microbitcoin (μBTC)
satoshi sat 100,000,000 per bitcoin smallest unit in bitcoin, named after the inventor
For example, assuming an arbitrary exchange rate of $10000 for one Bitcoin, a $10 meal would equal:
For more information check out the Bitcoin units wiki.
Still have questions? Feel free to ask in the comments below or stick around for our weekly Mentor Monday thread. If you decide to post a question in /Bitcoin, please use the search bar to see if it has been answered before, and remember to follow the community rules outlined on the sidebar to receive a better response. The mods are busy helping manage our community so please do not message them unless you notice problems with the functionality of the subreddit.
Note: This is a community created FAQ. If you notice anything missing from the FAQ or that requires clarification you can edit it here and it will be included in the next revision pending approval.
Welcome to the Bitcoin community and the new decentralized economy!
submitted by BitcoinFan7 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Analysis of good and bad advice for investing in Bitcoin

A common advice platitude that is carelessly thrown about in /Bitcoin is something to the effect of "Bitcoin is a speculative asset; no one can know how it will play out and it could go to zero. You should never invest more than you can afford to lose"
I find this to be a particularly meaningless and nonsensical statement. First the assertion that Bitcoin is a speculative asset should immediately disqualify the person from giving advice. Not only does this statement reveal that the person making it does not know if Bitcoin is going to increase in value, it also implies that no one else can know this as well. This is a profoundly arrogant claim and is of no use. Contrast this to this article written by Pierre Rochard back in February of 2013. At the time of this article Bitcoin was worth $22/coin and was widely viewed as toy money and ridiculed as a joke. Pierre's article assesses the monetary policy of this "toy money" and concludes that it has a superior monetary policy to the US Federal Reserve and will therefore necessarily grow to overtake the US dollar and end the fed. Bitcoin has increased in value over 500x since Rochard's article was published.
If you hear someone giving advice and they say that "no one can know if Bitcoin will succeed" they are revealing their profound ignorance of monetary economics and their arrogance that no one else could possibly know something they fail to understand. Conversely we have people who have looked at Bitcoin when it was considered a joke and correctly concluded it would grow to take over the global economy and kill every central bank in the process. It should be obvious who is more qualified to speak on the matter and who should be ignored.
The last part of the advice is rather curious and reveals a glaring and very dangerous status quo bias. What is meant by "Do not invest more than you can afford to lose"? More importantly, if you choose not to invest in Bitcoin you are necessarily invested in something else. The investment in something else--USD perhaps, is dismissed as if that investment cannot lose. No one ever says "Do not invest more in the US Dollar than you can afford to lose", but perhaps they should. Considering the fact that the USD has been rapidly losing market share to a new currency competitor with a monetary policy unlike anything humanity has ever seen, perhaps this would be the best possible advice as it suggest there is a risk most people are unaware of.
My personal advice to people is this- If you do not understand monetary economics you have no business investing in a currency because you have no idea what you are doing. Most people would agree with this if I state this with regard to Bitcoin, but it is also true for holding significant amounts of US Dollars. Currencies can and do fail; currencies perceived as stable and "strong" collapse when they encounter competition from a currency with a superior monetary policy. If you do not understand this, you should educate yourself perhaps starting with people who correctly predicted Bitcoin's rise when it was worth $22/coin.
submitted by ztsmart to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?

This is a follow-up on https://old.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hqzp14/technical_the_path_to_taproot_activation/
Taproot! Everybody wants it!! But... you might ask yourself: sure, everybody else wants it, but why would I, sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, want it? Surely I can be better than everybody else because I swapped XXX fiat for Bitcoin unlike all those nocoiners?
And it is important for you to know the reasons why you, o sovereign Bitcoiner, would want Taproot activated. After all, your nodes (or the nodes your wallets use, which if you are SPV, you hopefully can pester to your wallet vendoimplementor about) need to be upgraded in order for Taproot activation to actually succeed instead of becoming a hot sticky mess.
First, let's consider some principles of Bitcoin.
I'm sure most of us here would agree that the above are very important principles of Bitcoin and that these are principles we would not be willing to remove. If anything, we would want those principles strengthened (especially the last one, financial privacy, which current Bitcoin is only sporadically strong with: you can get privacy, it just requires effort to do so).
So, how does Taproot affect those principles?

Taproot and Your /Coins

Most HODLers probably HODL their coins in singlesig addresses. Sadly, switching to Taproot would do very little for you (it gives a mild discount at spend time, at the cost of a mild increase in fee at receive time (paid by whoever sends to you, so if it's a self-send from a P2PKH or bech32 address, you pay for this); mostly a wash).
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash, so the Taproot output spends 12 bytes more; spending from a P2WPKH requires revealing a 32-byte public key later, which is not needed with Taproot, and Taproot signatures are about 9 bytes smaller than P2WPKH signatures, but the 32 bytes plus 9 bytes is divided by 4 because of the witness discount, so it saves about 11 bytes; mostly a wash, it increases blockweight by about 1 virtual byte, 4 weight for each Taproot-output-input, compared to P2WPKH-output-input).
However, as your HODLings grow in value, you might start wondering if multisignature k-of-n setups might be better for the security of your savings. And it is in multisignature that Taproot starts to give benefits!
Taproot switches to using Schnorr signing scheme. Schnorr makes key aggregation -- constructing a single public key from multiple public keys -- almost as trivial as adding numbers together. "Almost" because it involves some fairly advanced math instead of simple boring number adding, but hey when was the last time you added up your grocery list prices by hand huh?
With current P2SH and P2WSH multisignature schemes, if you have a 2-of-3 setup, then to spend, you need to provide two different signatures from two different public keys. With Taproot, you can create, using special moon math, a single public key that represents your 2-of-3 setup. Then you just put two of your devices together, have them communicate to each other (this can be done airgapped, in theory, by sending QR codes: the software to do this is not even being built yet, but that's because Taproot hasn't activated yet!), and they will make a single signature to authorize any spend from your 2-of-3 address. That's 73 witness bytes -- 18.25 virtual bytes -- of signatures you save!
And if you decide that your current setup with 1-of-1 P2PKH / P2WPKH addresses is just fine as-is: well, that's the whole point of a softfork: backwards-compatibility; you can receive from Taproot users just fine, and once your wallet is updated for Taproot-sending support, you can send to Taproot users just fine as well!
(P2WPKH and P2WSH -- SegWit v0 -- addresses start with bc1q; Taproot -- SegWit v1 --- addresses start with bc1p, in case you wanted to know the difference; in bech32 q is 0, p is 1)
Now how about HODLers who keep all, or some, of their coins on custodial services? Well, any custodial service worth its salt would be doing at least 2-of-3, or probably something even bigger, like 11-of-15. So your custodial service, if it switched to using Taproot internally, could save a lot more (imagine an 11-of-15 getting reduced from 11 signatures to just 1!), which --- we can only hope! --- should translate to lower fees and better customer service from your custodial service!
So I think we can say, very accurately, that the Bitcoin principle --- that YOU are in control of your money --- can only be helped by Taproot (if you are doing multisignature), and, because P2PKH and P2WPKH remain validly-usable addresses in a Taproot future, will not be harmed by Taproot. Its benefit to this principle might be small (it mostly only benefits multisignature users) but since it has no drawbacks with this (i.e. singlesig users can continue to use P2WPKH and P2PKH still) this is still a nice, tidy win!
(even singlesig users get a minor benefit, in that multisig users will now reduce their blockchain space footprint, so that fees can be kept low for everybody; so for example even if you have your single set of private keys engraved on titanium plates sealed in an airtight box stored in a safe buried in a desert protected by angry nomads riding giant sandworms because you're the frickin' Kwisatz Haderach, you still gain some benefit from Taproot)
And here's the important part: if P2PKH/P2WPKH is working perfectly fine with you and you decide to never use Taproot yourself, Taproot will not affect you detrimentally. First do no harm!

Taproot and Your Contracts

No one is an island, no one lives alone. Give and you shall receive. You know: by trading with other people, you can gain expertise in some obscure little necessity of the world (and greatly increase your productivity in that little field), and then trade the products of your expertise for necessities other people have created, all of you thereby gaining gains from trade.
So, contracts, which are basically enforceable agreements that facilitate trading with people who you do not personally know and therefore might not trust.
Let's start with a simple example. You want to buy some gewgaws from somebody. But you don't know them personally. The seller wants the money, you want their gewgaws, but because of the lack of trust (you don't know them!! what if they're scammers??) neither of you can benefit from gains from trade.
However, suppose both of you know of some entity that both of you trust. That entity can act as a trusted escrow. The entity provides you security: this enables the trade, allowing both of you to get gains from trade.
In Bitcoin-land, this can be implemented as a 2-of-3 multisignature. The three signatories in the multisgnature would be you, the gewgaw seller, and the escrow. You put the payment for the gewgaws into this 2-of-3 multisignature address.
Now, suppose it turns out neither of you are scammers (whaaaat!). You receive the gewgaws just fine and you're willing to pay up for them. Then you and the gewgaw seller just sign a transaction --- you and the gewgaw seller are 2, sufficient to trigger the 2-of-3 --- that spends from the 2-of-3 address to a singlesig the gewgaw seller wants (or whatever address the gewgaw seller wants).
But suppose some problem arises. The seller gave you gawgews instead of gewgaws. Or you decided to keep the gewgaws but not sign the transaction to release the funds to the seller. In either case, the escrow is notified, and if it can sign with you to refund the funds back to you (if the seller was a scammer) or it can sign with the seller to forward the funds to the seller (if you were a scammer).
Taproot helps with this: like mentioned above, it allows multisignature setups to produce only one signature, reducing blockchain space usage, and thus making contracts --- which require multiple people, by definition, you don't make contracts with yourself --- is made cheaper (which we hope enables more of these setups to happen for more gains from trade for everyone, also, moon and lambos).
(technology-wise, it's easier to make an n-of-n than a k-of-n, making a k-of-n would require a complex setup involving a long ritual with many communication rounds between the n participants, but an n-of-n can be done trivially with some moon math. You can, however, make what is effectively a 2-of-3 by using a three-branch SCRIPT: either 2-of-2 of you and seller, OR 2-of-2 of you and escrow, OR 2-of-2 of escrow and seller. Fortunately, Taproot adds a facility to embed a SCRIPT inside a public key, so you can have a 2-of-2 Taprooted address (between you and seller) with a SCRIPT branch that can instead be spent with 2-of-2 (you + escrow) OR 2-of-2 (seller + escrow), which implements the three-branched SCRIPT above. If neither of you are scammers (hopefully the common case) then you both sign using your keys and never have to contact the escrow, since you are just using the escrow public key without coordinating with them (because n-of-n is trivial but k-of-n requires setup with communication rounds), so in the "best case" where both of you are honest traders, you also get a privacy boost, in that the escrow never learns you have been trading on gewgaws, I mean ewww, gawgews are much better than gewgaws and therefore I now judge you for being a gewgaw enthusiast, you filthy gewgawer).

Taproot and Your Contracts, Part 2: Cryptographic Boogaloo

Now suppose you want to buy some data instead of things. For example, maybe you have some closed-source software in trial mode installed, and want to pay the developer for the full version. You want to pay for an activation code.
This can be done, today, by using an HTLC. The developer tells you the hash of the activation code. You pay to an HTLC, paying out to the developer if it reveals the preimage (the activation code), or refunding the money back to you after a pre-agreed timeout. If the developer claims the funds, it has to reveal the preimage, which is the activation code, and you can now activate your software. If the developer does not claim the funds by the timeout, you get refunded.
And you can do that, with HTLCs, today.
Of course, HTLCs do have problems:
Fortunately, with Schnorr (which is enabled by Taproot), we can now use the Scriptless Script constuction by Andrew Poelstra. This Scriptless Script allows a new construction, the PTLC or Pointlocked Timelocked Contract. Instead of hashes and preimages, just replace "hash" with "point" and "preimage" with "scalar".
Or as you might know them: "point" is really "public key" and "scalar" is really a "private key". What a PTLC does is that, given a particular public key, the pointlocked branch can be spent only if the spender reveals the private key of the given public key to you.
Another nice thing with PTLCs is that they are deniable. What appears onchain is just a single 2-of-2 signature between you and the developemanufacturer. It's like a magic trick. This signature has no special watermarks, it's a perfectly normal signature (the pledge). However, from this signature, plus some datta given to you by the developemanufacturer (known as the adaptor signature) you can derive the private key of a particular public key you both agree on (the turn). Anyone scraping the blockchain will just see signatures that look just like every other signature, and as long as nobody manages to hack you and get a copy of the adaptor signature or the private key, they cannot get the private key behind the public key (point) that the pointlocked branch needs (the prestige).
(Just to be clear, the public key you are getting the private key from, is distinct from the public key that the developemanufacturer will use for its funds. The activation key is different from the developer's onchain Bitcoin key, and it is the activation key whose private key you will be learning, not the developer's/manufacturer's onchain Bitcoin key).
So:
Taproot lets PTLCs exist onchain because they enable Schnorr, which is a requirement of PTLCs / Scriptless Script.
(technology-wise, take note that Scriptless Script works only for the "pointlocked" branch of the contract; you need normal Script, or a pre-signed nLockTimed transaction, for the "timelocked" branch. Since Taproot can embed a script, you can have the Taproot pubkey be a 2-of-2 to implement the Scriptless Script "pointlocked" branch, then have a hidden script that lets you recover the funds with an OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY after the timeout if the seller does not claim the funds.)

Quantum Quibbles!

Now if you were really paying attention, you might have noticed this parenthetical:
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash...)
So wait, Taproot uses raw 32-byte public keys, and not public key hashes? Isn't that more quantum-vulnerable??
Well, in theory yes. In practice, they probably are not.
It's not that hashes can be broken by quantum computes --- they're still not. Instead, you have to look at how you spend from a P2WPKH/P2PKH pay-to-public-key-hash.
When you spend from a P2PKH / P2WPKH, you have to reveal the public key. Then Bitcoin hashes it and checks if this matches with the public-key-hash, and only then actually validates the signature for that public key.
So an unconfirmed transaction, floating in the mempools of nodes globally, will show, in plain sight for everyone to see, your public key.
(public keys should be public, that's why they're called public keys, LOL)
And if quantum computers are fast enough to be of concern, then they are probably fast enough that, in the several minutes to several hours from broadcast to confirmation, they have already cracked the public key that is openly broadcast with your transaction. The owner of the quantum computer can now replace your unconfirmed transaction with one that pays the funds to itself. Even if you did not opt-in RBF, miners are still incentivized to support RBF on RBF-disabled transactions.
So the extra hash is not as significant a protection against quantum computers as you might think. Instead, the extra hash-and-compare needed is just extra validation effort.
Further, if you have ever, in the past, spent from the address, then there exists already a transaction indelibly stored on the blockchain, openly displaying the public key from which quantum computers can derive the private key. So those are still vulnerable to quantum computers.
For the most part, the cryptographers behind Taproot (and Bitcoin Core) are of the opinion that quantum computers capable of cracking Bitcoin pubkeys are unlikely to appear within a decade or two.
So:
For now, the homomorphic and linear properties of elliptic curve cryptography provide a lot of benefits --- particularly the linearity property is what enables Scriptless Script and simple multisignature (i.e. multisignatures that are just 1 signature onchain). So it might be a good idea to take advantage of them now while we are still fairly safe against quantum computers. It seems likely that quantum-safe signature schemes are nonlinear (thus losing these advantages).

Summary

I Wanna Be The Taprooter!

So, do you want to help activate Taproot? Here's what you, mister sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, can do!

But I Hate Taproot!!

That's fine!

Discussions About Taproot Activation

submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Don't blindly follow a narrative, its bad for you and its bad for crypto in general

I mostly lurk around here but I see a pattern repeating over and over again here and in multiple communities so I have to post. I'm just posting this here because I appreciate the fact that this sub is a place of free speech and maybe something productive can come out from this post, while bitcoin is just fucking censorship, memes and moon/lambo posts. If you don't agree, write in the comments why, instead of downvoting. You don't have to upvote either, but when you downvote you are killing the opportunity to have discussion. If you downvote or comment that I'm wrong without providing any counterpoints you are no better than the BTC maxis you despise.
In various communities I see a narrative being used to bring people in and making them follow something without thinking for themselves. In crypto I see this mostly in BTC vs BCH tribalistic arguments:
- BTC community: "Everything that is not BTC is shitcoin." or more recently as stated by adam on twitter, "Everything that is not BTC is a ponzi scheme, even ETH.", "what is ETH supply?", and even that they are doing this for "altruistic" reasons, to "protect" the newcomers. Very convenient for them that they are protecting the newcomers by having them buy their bags
- BCH community: "BTC maxis are dumb", "just increase block size and you will have truly p2p electronic cash", "It is just that simple, there are no trade offs", "if you don't agree with me you are a BTC maxi", "BCH is satoshi's vision for p2p electronic cash"
It is not exclusive to crypto but also politics, and you see this over and over again on twitter and on reddit.
My point is, that narratives are created so people don't have to think, they just choose a narrative that is easy to follow and makes sense for them, and stick with it. And people keep repeating these narratives to bring other people in, maybe by ignorance, because they truly believe it without questioning, or maybe by self interest, because they want to shill you their bags.
Because this is BCH community, and because bitcoin is censored, so I can't post there about the problems in the BTC narrative (some of which are IMO correctly identified by BCH community), I will stick with the narrative I see in the BCH community.
The culprit of this post was firstly this post by user u/scotty321 "The BTC Paradox: “A 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own node!” “Okay, then what?” “Poor people won’t be able to use the network!”". You will see many posts of this kind being made by u/Egon_1 also. Then you have also this comment in that thread by u/fuck_____________1 saying that people that want to run their own nodes are retarded and that there is no reason to want to do that. "Just trust block explorer websites". And the post and comment were highly upvoted. Really? You really think that there is no problem in having just a few nodes on the network? And that the only thing that secures the network are miners?
As stated by user u/co1nsurf3r in that thread:
While I don't think that everybody needs to run a node, a full node does publish blocks it considers valid to other nodes. This does not amount to much if you only consider a single node in the network, but many "honest" full nodes in the network will reduce the probability of a valid block being withheld from the network by a collusion of "hostile" node operators.
But surely this will not get attention here, and will be downvoted by those people that promote the narrative that there is no trade off in increasing the blocksize and the people that don't see it are retarded or are btc maxis.
The only narrative I stick to and have been for many years now is that cryptocurrency takes power from the government and gives power to the individual, so you are not restricted to your economy as you can participate in the global economy. There is also the narrative of banking the bankless, which I hope will come true, but it is not a use case we are seeing right now.
Some people would argue that removing power from gov's is a bad thing, but you can't deny the fact that gov's can't control crypto (at least we would want them not to).
But, if you really want the individuals to remain in control of their money and transact with anyone in the world, the network needs to be very resistant to any kind of attacks. How can you have p2p electronic cash if your network just has a handful couple of nodes and the chinese gov can locate them and just block communication to them? I'm not saying that this is BCH case, I'm just refuting the fact that there is no value in running your own node. If you are relying on block explorers, the gov can just block the communication to the block explorer websites. Then what? Who will you trust to get chain information? The nodes needs to be decentralized so if you take one node down, many more can appear so it is hard to censor and you don't have few points of failure.
Right now BTC is focusing on that use case of being difficult to censor. But with that comes the problem that is very expensive to transact on the network, which breaks the purpose of anyone being able to participate. Obviously I do think that is also a major problem, and lightning network is awful right now and probably still years away of being usable, if it ever will. The best solution is up for debate, but thinking that you just have to increase the blocksize and there is no trade off is just naive or misleading. BCH is doing a good thing in trying to come with a solution that is inclusive and promotes cheap and fast transactions, but also don't forget centralization is a major concern and nothing to just shrug off.
Saying that "a 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own" and that because of that "Poor people won’t be able to use the network" is a misrepresentation designed to promote a narrative. Because 1MB is not to allow "poor" people to run their node, it is to facilitate as many people to run a node to promote decentralization and avoid censorship.
Also an elephant in the room that you will not see being discussed in either BTC or BCH communities is that mining pools are heavily centralized. And I'm not talking about miners being mostly in china, but also that big pools control a lot of hashing power both in BTC and BCH, and that is terrible for the purpose of crypto.
Other projects are trying to solve that. Will they be successful? I don't know, I hope so, because I don't buy into any narrative. There are many challenges and I want to see crypto succeed as a whole. As always guys, DYOR and always question if you are not blindly following a narrative. I'm sure I will be called BTC maxi but maybe some people will find value in this. Don't trust guys that are always posting silly "gocha's" against the other "tribe".
EDIT: User u/ShadowOfHarbringer has pointed me to some threads that this has been discussed in the past and I will just put my take on them here for visibility, as I will be using this thread as a reference in future discussions I engage:
When there was only 2 nodes in the network, adding a third node increased redundancy and resiliency of the network as a whole in a significant way. When there is thousands of nodes in the network, adding yet another node only marginally increase the redundancy and resiliency of the network. So the question then becomes a matter of personal judgement of how much that added redundancy and resiliency is worth. For the absolutist, it is absolutely worth it and everyone on this planet should do their part.
What is the magical number of nodes that makes it counterproductive to add new nodes? Did he do any math? Does BCH achieve this holy grail safe number of nodes? Guess what, nobody knows at what number of nodes is starts to be marginally irrelevant to add new nodes. Even BTC today could still not have enough nodes to be safe. If you can't know for sure that you are safe, it is better to try to be safer than sorry. Thousands of nodes is still not enough, as I said, it is much cheaper to run a full node as it is to mine. If it costs millions in hash power to do a 51% attack on the block generation it means nothing if it costs less than $10k to run more nodes than there are in total in the network and cause havoc and slowing people from using the network. Or using bot farms to DDoS the 1000s of nodes in the network. Not all attacks are monetarily motivated. When you have governments with billions of dollars at their disposal and something that could threat their power they could do anything they could to stop people from using it, and the cheapest it is to do so the better
You should run a full node if you're a big business with e.g. >$100k/month in volume, or if you run a service that requires high fraud resistance and validation certainty for payments sent your way (e.g. an exchange). For most other users of Bitcoin, there's no good reason to run a full node unless you reel like it.
Shouldn't individuals benefit from fraud resistance too? Why just businesses?
Personally, I think it's a good idea to make sure that people can easily run a full node because they feel like it, and that it's desirable to keep full node resource requirements reasonable for an enthusiast/hobbyist whenever possible. This might seem to be at odds with the concept of making a worldwide digital cash system in which all transactions are validated by everybody, but after having done the math and some of the code myself, I believe that we should be able to have our cake and eat it too.
This is recurrent argument, but also no math provided, "just trust me I did the math"
The biggest reason individuals may want to run their own node is to increase their privacy. SPV wallets rely on others (nodes or ElectronX servers) who may learn their addresses.
It is a reason and valid one but not the biggest reason
If you do it for fun and experimental it good. If you do it for extra privacy it's ok. If you do it to help the network don't. You are just slowing down miners and exchanges.
Yes it will slow down the network, but that shows how people just don't get the the trade off they are doing
I will just copy/paste what Satoshi Nakamoto said in his own words. "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server."
Another "it is all or nothing argument" and quoting satoshi to try and prove their point. Just because every user doesn't need to be also a full node doesn't mean that there aren't serious risks for having few nodes
For this to have any importance in practice, all of the miners, all of the exchanges, all of the explorers and all of the economic nodes should go rogue all at once. Collude to change consensus. If you have a node you can detect this. It doesn't do much, because such a scenario is impossible in practice.
Not true because as I said, you can DDoS the current nodes or run more malicious nodes than that there currently are, because is cheap to do so
Non-mining nodes don't contribute to adding data to the blockchain ledger, but they do play a part in propagating transactions that aren't yet in blocks (the mempool). Bitcoin client implementations can have different validations for transactions they see outside of blocks and transactions they see inside of blocks; this allows for "soft forks" to add new types of transactions without completely breaking older clients (while a transaction is in the mempool, a node receiving a transaction that's a new/unknown type could drop it as not a valid transaction (not propagate it to its peers), but if that same transaction ends up in a block and that node receives the block, they accept the block (and the transaction in it) as valid (and therefore don't get left behind on the blockchain and become a fork). The participation in the mempool is a sort of "herd immunity" protection for the network, and it was a key talking point for the "User Activated Soft Fork" (UASF) around the time the Segregated Witness feature was trying to be added in. If a certain percentage of nodes updated their software to not propagate certain types of transactions (or not communicate with certain types of nodes), then they can control what gets into a block (someone wanting to get that sort of transaction into a block would need to communicate directly to a mining node, or communicate only through nodes that weren't blocking that sort of transaction) if a certain threshold of nodes adheres to those same validation rules. It's less specific than the influence on the blockchain data that mining nodes have, but it's definitely not nothing.
The first reasonable comment in that thread but is deep down there with only 1 upvote
The addition of non-mining nodes does not add to the efficiency of the network, but actually takes away from it because of the latency issue.
That is true and is actually a trade off you are making, sacrificing security to have scalability
The addition of non-mining nodes has little to no effect on security, since you only need to destroy mining ones to take down the network
It is true that if you destroy mining nodes you take down the network from producing new blocks (temporarily), even if you have a lot of non mining nodes. But, it still better than if you take down the mining nodes who are also the only full nodes. If the miners are not the only full nodes, at least you still have full nodes with the blockchain data so new miners can download it and join. If all the miners are also the full nodes and you take them down, where will you get all the past blockchain data to start mining again? Just pray that the miners that were taken down come back online at some point in the future?
The real limiting factor is ISP's: Imagine a situation where one service provider defrauds 4000 different nodes. Did the excessive amount of nodes help at all, when they have all been defrauded by the same service provider? If there are only 30 ISP's in the world, how many nodes do we REALLY need?
You cant defraud if the connection is encrypted. Use TOR for example, it is hard for ISP's to know what you are doing.
Satoshi specifically said in the white paper that after a certain point, number of nodes needed plateaus, meaning after a certain point, adding more nodes is actually counterintuitive, which we also demonstrated. (the latency issue). So, we have adequately demonstrated why running non-mining nodes does not add additional value or security to the network.
Again, what is the number of nodes that makes it counterproductive? Did he do any math?
There's also the matter of economically significant nodes and the role they play in consensus. Sure, nobody cares about your average joe's "full node" where he is "keeping his own ledger to keep the miners honest", as it has no significance to the economy and the miners couldn't give a damn about it. However, if say some major exchanges got together to protest a miner activated fork, they would have some protest power against that fork because many people use their service. Of course, there still needs to be miners running on said "protest fork" to keep the chain running, but miners do follow the money and if they got caught mining a fork that none of the major exchanges were trading, they could be coaxed over to said "protest fork".
In consensus, what matters about nodes is only the number, economical power of the node doesn't mean nothing, the protocol doesn't see the net worth of the individual or organization running that node.
Running a full node that is not mining and not involved is spending or receiving payments is of very little use. It helps to make sure network traffic is broadcast, and is another copy of the blockchain, but that is all (and is probably not needed in a healthy coin with many other nodes)
He gets it right (broadcasting transaction and keeping a copy of the blockchain) but he dismisses the importance of it
submitted by r0bo7 to btc [link] [comments]

Syscoin Platform’s Great Reddit Scaling Bake-off Proposal

Syscoin Platform’s Great Reddit Scaling Bake-off Proposal

https://preview.redd.it/rqt2dldyg8e51.jpg?width=1044&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=777ae9d4fbbb54c3540682b72700fc4ba3de0a44
We are excited to participate and present Syscoin Platform's ideal characteristics and capabilities towards a well-rounded Reddit Community Points solution!
Our scaling solution for Reddit Community Points involves 2-way peg interoperability with Ethereum. This will provide a scalable token layer built specifically for speed and high volumes of simple value transfers at a very low cost, while providing sovereign ownership and onchain finality.
Token transfers scale by taking advantage of a globally sorting mempool that provides for probabilistically secure assumptions of “as good as settled”. The opportunity here for token receivers is to have an app-layer interactivity on the speed/security tradeoff (99.9999% assurance within 10 seconds). We call this Z-DAG, and it achieves high-throughput across a mesh network topology presently composed of about 2,000 geographically dispersed full-nodes. Similar to Bitcoin, however, these nodes are incentivized to run full-nodes for the benefit of network security, through a bonded validator scheme. These nodes do not participate in the consensus of transactions or block validation any differently than other nodes and therefore do not degrade the security model of Bitcoin’s validate first then trust, across every node. Each token transfer settles on-chain. The protocol follows Bitcoin core policies so it has adequate code coverage and protocol hardening to be qualified as production quality software. It shares a significant portion of Bitcoin’s own hashpower through merged-mining.
This platform as a whole can serve token microtransactions, larger settlements, and store-of-value in an ideal fashion, providing probabilistic scalability whilst remaining decentralized according to Bitcoin design. It is accessible to ERC-20 via a permissionless and trust-minimized bridge that works in both directions. The bridge and token platform are currently available on the Syscoin mainnet. This has been gaining recent attention for use by loyalty point programs and stablecoins such as Binance USD.

Solutions

Syscoin Foundation identified a few paths for Reddit to leverage this infrastructure, each with trade-offs. The first provides the most cost-savings and scaling benefits at some sacrifice of token autonomy. The second offers more preservation of autonomy with a more narrow scope of cost savings than the first option, but savings even so. The third introduces more complexity than the previous two yet provides the most overall benefits. We consider the third as most viable as it enables Reddit to benefit even while retaining existing smart contract functionality. We will focus on the third option, and include the first two for good measure.
  1. Distribution, burns and user-to-user transfers of Reddit Points are entirely carried out on the Syscoin network. This full-on approach to utilizing the Syscoin network provides the most scalability and transaction cost benefits of these scenarios. The tradeoff here is distribution and subscription handling likely migrating away from smart contracts into the application layer.
  2. The Reddit Community Points ecosystem can continue to use existing smart contracts as they are used today on the Ethereum mainchain. Users migrate a portion of their tokens to Syscoin, the scaling network, to gain much lower fees, scalability, and a proven base layer, without sacrificing sovereign ownership. They would use Syscoin for user-to-user transfers. Tips redeemable in ten seconds or less, a high-throughput relay network, and onchain settlement at a block target of 60 seconds.
  3. Integration between Matic Network and Syscoin Platform - similar to Syscoin’s current integration with Ethereum - will provide Reddit Community Points with EVM scalability (including the Memberships ERC777 operator) on the Matic side, and performant simple value transfers, robust decentralized security, and sovereign store-of-value on the Syscoin side. It’s “the best of both worlds”. The trade-off is more complex interoperability.

Syscoin + Matic Integration

Matic and Blockchain Foundry Inc, the public company formed by the founders of Syscoin, recently entered a partnership for joint research and business development initiatives. This is ideal for all parties as Matic Network and Syscoin Platform provide complementary utility. Syscoin offers characteristics for sovereign ownership and security based on Bitcoin’s time-tested model, and shares a significant portion of Bitcoin’s own hashpower. Syscoin’s focus is on secure and scalable simple value transfers, trust-minimized interoperability, and opt-in regulatory compliance for tokenized assets rather than scalability for smart contract execution. On the other hand, Matic Network can provide scalable EVM for smart contract execution. Reddit Community Points can benefit from both.
Syscoin + Matic integration is actively being explored by both teams, as it is helpful to Reddit, Ethereum, and the industry as a whole.

Proving Performance & Cost Savings

Our POC focuses on 100,000 on-chain settlements of token transfers on the Syscoin Core blockchain. Transfers and burns perform equally with Syscoin. For POCs related to smart contracts (subscriptions, etc), refer to the Matic Network proposal.
On-chain settlement of 100k transactions was accomplished within roughly twelve minutes, well-exceeding Reddit’s expectation of five days. This was performed using six full-nodes operating on compute-optimized AWS c4.2xlarge instances which were geographically distributed (Virginia, London, Sao Paulo Brazil, Oregon, Singapore, Germany). A higher quantity of settlements could be reached within the same time-frame with more broadcasting nodes involved, or using hosts with more resources for faster execution of the process.
Addresses used: 100,014
The demonstration was executed using this tool. The results can be seen in the following blocks:
612722: https://sys1.bcfn.ca/block/6d47796d043bb4c508d29123e6ae81b051f5e0aaef849f253c8f3a6942a022ce
612723: https://sys1.bcfn.ca/block/8e2077f743461b90f80b4bef502f564933a8e04de97972901f3d65cfadcf1faf
612724: https://sys1.bcfn.ca/block/205436d25b1b499fce44c29567c5c807beaca915b83cc9f3c35b0d76dbb11f6e
612725: https://sys1.bcfn.ca/block/776d1b1a0f90f655a6bbdf559ff5072459cbdc5682d7615ff4b78c00babdc237
612726: https://sys1.bcfn.ca/block/de4df0994253742a1ac8ac9eec8d2a8c8b0a6d72c53d6f3caa29bb6c171b0a6b
612727: https://sys1.bcfn.ca/block/e5e167c52a9decb313fbaadf49a5e34cb490f8084f642a850385476d4ef10d70
612728: https://sys1.bcfn.ca/block/ab64d989edc71890e7b5b8491c20e9a27520dc45a5f7c776d3dae79057f59fe7
612729: https://sys1.bcfn.ca/block/5e8b7ecd0e36f99d07e4ea6e135fc952bf7ec30164ab6f4d1e98b0f2d405df6d
612730: https://sys1.bcfn.ca/block/d395df3d31dde60bbb0bece6bd5b358297da878f0beb96be389e5f0e043580a3
It is important to note that this POC is not focused on Z-DAG. The performance of Z-DAG has been benchmarked within realistic network conditions: Whiteblock’s audit is publicly available. Network latency tests showed an average TPS around 15k with burst capacity up to 61k. Zero-latency control group exhibited ~150k TPS. Mainnet testing of the Z-DAG network is achievable and will require further coordination and additional resources.
Even further optimizations are expected in the upcoming Syscoin Core release which will implement a UTXO model for our token layer bringing further efficiency as well as open the door to additional scaling technology currently under research by our team and academic partners. At present our token layer is account-based, similar to Ethereum. Opt-in compliance structures will also be introduced soon which will offer some positive performance characteristics as well. It makes the most sense to implement these optimizations before performing another benchmark for Z-DAG, especially on the mainnet considering the resources required to stress-test this network.

Cost Savings

Total cost for these 100k transactions: $0.63 USD
See the live fee comparison for savings estimation between transactions on Ethereum and Syscoin. Below is a snapshot at time of writing:
ETH price: $318.55 ETH gas price: 55.00 Gwei ($0.37)
Syscoin price: $0.11
Snapshot of live fee comparison chart
Z-DAG provides a more efficient fee-market. A typical Z-DAG transaction costs 0.0000582 SYS. Tokens can be safely redeemed/re-spent within seconds or allowed to settle on-chain beforehand. The costs should remain about this low for microtransactions.
Syscoin will achieve further reduction of fees and even greater scalability with offchain payment channels for assets, with Z-DAG as a resilience fallback. New payment channel technology is one of the topics under research by the Syscoin development team with our academic partners at TU Delft. In line with the calculation in the Lightning Networks white paper, payment channels using assets with Syscoin Core will bring theoretical capacity for each person on Earth (7.8 billion) to have five on-chain transactions per year, per person, without requiring anyone to enter a fee market (aka “wait for a block”). This exceeds the minimum LN expectation of two transactions per person, per year; one to exist on-chain and one to settle aggregated value.

Tools, Infrastructure & Documentation

Syscoin Bridge

Mainnet Demonstration of Syscoin Bridge with the Basic Attention Token ERC-20
A two-way blockchain interoperability system that uses Simple Payment Verification to enable:
  • Any Standard ERC-20 token to be moved from Ethereum to the Syscoin blockchain as a Syscoin Platform Token (SPT), and back to Ethereum
  • Any SPT to be moved from Syscoin to the Ethereum blockchain as an ERC-20 token, and back to Syscoin

Benefits

  • Permissionless
  • No counterparties involved
  • No trading mechanisms involved
  • No third-party liquidity providers required
  • Cross-chain Fractional Supply - 2-way peg - Token supply maintained globally
  • ERC-20s gain vastly improved transactionality with the Syscoin Token Platform, along with the security of bitcoin-core-compliant PoW.
  • SPTs gain access to all the tooling, applications and capabilities of Ethereum for ERC-20, including smart contracts.
https://preview.redd.it/l8t2m8ldh8e51.png?width=1180&format=png&auto=webp&s=b0a955a0181746dc79aff718bd0bf607d3c3aa23
https://preview.redd.it/26htnxzfh8e51.png?width=1180&format=png&auto=webp&s=d0383d3c2ee836c9f60b57eca35542e9545f741d

Source code

https://github.com/syscoin/?q=sysethereum
Main Subprojects

API

Tools to simplify using Syscoin Bridge as a service with dapps and wallets will be released some time after implementation of Syscoin Core 4.2. These will be based upon the same processes which are automated in the current live Sysethereum Dapp that is functioning with the Syscoin mainnet.

Documentation

Syscoin Bridge & How it Works (description and process flow)
Superblock Validation Battles
HOWTO: Provision the Bridge for your ERC-20
HOWTO: Setup an Agent
Developer & User Diligence

Trade-off

The Syscoin Ethereum Bridge is secured by Agent nodes participating in a decentralized and incentivized model that involves roles of Superblock challengers and submitters. This model is open to participation. The benefits here are trust-minimization, permissionless-ness, and potentially less legal/regulatory red-tape than interop mechanisms that involve liquidity providers and/or trading mechanisms.
The trade-off is that due to the decentralized nature there are cross-chain settlement times of one hour to cross from Ethereum to Syscoin, and three hours to cross from Syscoin to Ethereum. We are exploring ways to reduce this time while maintaining decentralization via zkp. Even so, an “instant bridge” experience could be provided by means of a third-party liquidity mechanism. That option exists but is not required for bridge functionality today. Typically bridges are used with batch value, not with high frequencies of smaller values, and generally it is advantageous to keep some value on both chains for maximum availability of utility. Even so, the cross-chain settlement time is good to mention here.

Cost

Ethereum -> Syscoin: Matic or Ethereum transaction fee for bridge contract interaction, negligible Syscoin transaction fee for minting tokens
Syscoin -> Ethereum: Negligible Syscoin transaction fee for burning tokens, 0.01% transaction fee paid to Bridge Agent in the form of the ERC-20, Matic or Ethereum transaction fee for contract interaction.

Z-DAG

Zero-Confirmation Directed Acyclic Graph is an instant settlement protocol that is used as a complementary system to proof-of-work (PoW) in the confirmation of Syscoin service transactions. In essence, a Z-DAG is simply a directed acyclic graph (DAG) where validating nodes verify the sequential ordering of transactions that are received in their memory pools. Z-DAG is used by the validating nodes across the network to ensure that there is absolute consensus on the ordering of transactions and no balances are overflowed (no double-spends).

Benefits

  • Unique fee-market that is more efficient for microtransaction redemption and settlement
  • Uses decentralized means to enable tokens with value transfer scalability that is comparable or exceeds that of credit card networks
  • Provides high throughput and secure fulfillment even if blocks are full
  • Probabilistic and interactive
  • 99.9999% security assurance within 10 seconds
  • Can serve payment channels as a resilience fallback that is faster and lower-cost than falling-back directly to a blockchain
  • Each Z-DAG transaction also settles onchain through Syscoin Core at 60-second block target using SHA-256 Proof of Work consensus
https://preview.redd.it/pgbx84jih8e51.png?width=1614&format=png&auto=webp&s=5f631d42a33dc698365eb8dd184b6d442def6640

Source code

https://github.com/syscoin/syscoin

API

Syscoin-js provides tooling for all Syscoin Core RPCs including interactivity with Z-DAG.

Documentation

Z-DAG White Paper
Useful read: An in-depth Z-DAG discussion between Syscoin Core developer Jag Sidhu and Brave Software Research Engineer Gonçalo Pestana

Trade-off

Z-DAG enables the ideal speed/security tradeoff to be determined per use-case in the application layer. It minimizes the sacrifice required to accept and redeem fast transfers/payments while providing more-than-ample security for microtransactions. This is supported on the premise that a Reddit user receiving points does need security yet generally doesn’t want nor need to wait for the same level of security as a nation-state settling an international trade debt. In any case, each Z-DAG transaction settles onchain at a block target of 60 seconds.

Syscoin Specs

Syscoin 3.0 White Paper
(4.0 white paper is pending. For improved scalability and less blockchain bloat, some features of v3 no longer exist in current v4: Specifically Marketplace Offers, Aliases, Escrow, Certificates, Pruning, Encrypted Messaging)
  • 16MB block bandwidth per minute assuming segwit witness carrying transactions, and transactions ~200 bytes on average
  • SHA256 merge mined with Bitcoin
  • UTXO asset layer, with base Syscoin layer sharing identical security policies as Bitcoin Core
  • Z-DAG on asset layer, bridge to Ethereum on asset layer
  • On-chain scaling with prospect of enabling enterprise grade reliable trustless payment processing with on/offchain hybrid solution
  • Focus only on Simple Value Transfers. MVP of blockchain consensus footprint is balances and ownership of them. Everything else can reduce data availability in exchange for scale (Ethereum 2.0 model). We leave that to other designs, we focus on transfers.
  • Future integrations of MAST/Taproot to get more complex value transfers without trading off trustlessness or decentralization.
  • Zero-knowledge Proofs are a cryptographic new frontier. We are dabbling here to generalize the concept of bridging and also verify the state of a chain efficiently. We also apply it in our Digital Identity projects at Blockchain Foundry (a publicly traded company which develops Syscoin softwares for clients). We are also looking to integrate privacy preserving payment channels for off-chain payments through zkSNARK hub & spoke design which does not suffer from the HTLC attack vectors evident on LN. Much of the issues plaguing Lightning Network can be resolved using a zkSNARK design whilst also providing the ability to do a multi-asset payment channel system. Currently we found a showstopper attack (American Call Option) on LN if we were to use multiple-assets. This would not exist in a system such as this.

Wallets

Web3 and mobile wallets are under active development by Blockchain Foundry Inc as WebAssembly applications and expected for release not long after mainnet deployment of Syscoin Core 4.2. Both of these will be multi-coin wallets that support Syscoin, SPTs, Ethereum, and ERC-20 tokens. The Web3 wallet will provide functionality similar to Metamask.
Syscoin Platform and tokens are already integrated with Blockbook. Custom hardware wallet support currently exists via ElectrumSys. First-class HW wallet integration through apps such as Ledger Live will exist after 4.2.
Current supported wallets
Syscoin Spark Desktop
Syscoin-Qt

Explorers

Mainnet: https://sys1.bcfn.ca (Blockbook)
Testnet: https://explorer-testnet.blockchainfoundry.co

Thank you for close consideration of our proposal. We look forward to feedback, and to working with the Reddit community to implement an ideal solution using Syscoin Platform!

submitted by sidhujag to ethereum [link] [comments]

[ Bitcoin ] Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?

Topic originally posted in Bitcoin by almkglor [link]
This is a follow-up on https://old.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hqzp14/technical_the_path_to_taproot_activation/
Taproot! Everybody wants it!! But... you might ask yourself: sure, everybody else wants it, but why would I, sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, want it? Surely I can be better than everybody else because I swapped XXX fiat for Bitcoin unlike all those nocoiners?
And it is important for you to know the reasons why you, o sovereign Bitcoiner, would want Taproot activated. After all, your nodes (or the nodes your wallets use, which if you are SPV, you hopefully can pester to your wallet vendoimplementor about) need to be upgraded in order for Taproot activation to actually succeed instead of becoming a hot sticky mess.
First, let's consider some principles of Bitcoin.
I'm sure most of us here would agree that the above are very important principles of Bitcoin and that these are principles we would not be willing to remove. If anything, we would want those principles strengthened (especially the last one, financial privacy, which current Bitcoin is only sporadically strong with: you can get privacy, it just requires effort to do so).
So, how does Taproot affect those principles?

Taproot and Your /Coins

Most HODLers probably HODL their coins in singlesig addresses. Sadly, switching to Taproot would do very little for you (it gives a mild discount at spend time, at the cost of a mild increase in fee at receive time (paid by whoever sends to you, so if it's a self-send from a P2PKH or bech32 address, you pay for this); mostly a wash).
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash, so the Taproot output spends 12 bytes more; spending from a P2WPKH requires revealing a 32-byte public key later, which is not needed with Taproot, and Taproot signatures are about 9 bytes smaller than P2WPKH signatures, but the 32 bytes plus 9 bytes is divided by 4 because of the witness discount, so it saves about 11 bytes; mostly a wash, it increases blockweight by about 1 virtual byte, 4 weight for each Taproot-output-input, compared to P2WPKH-output-input).
However, as your HODLings grow in value, you might start wondering if multisignature k-of-n setups might be better for the security of your savings. And it is in multisignature that Taproot starts to give benefits!
Taproot switches to using Schnorr signing scheme. Schnorr makes key aggregation -- constructing a single public key from multiple public keys -- almost as trivial as adding numbers together. "Almost" because it involves some fairly advanced math instead of simple boring number adding, but hey when was the last time you added up your grocery list prices by hand huh?
With current P2SH and P2WSH multisignature schemes, if you have a 2-of-3 setup, then to spend, you need to provide two different signatures from two different public keys. With Taproot, you can create, using special moon math, a single public key that represents your 2-of-3 setup. Then you just put two of your devices together, have them communicate to each other (this can be done airgapped, in theory, by sending QR codes: the software to do this is not even being built yet, but that's because Taproot hasn't activated yet!), and they will make a single signature to authorize any spend from your 2-of-3 address. That's 73 witness bytes -- 18.25 virtual bytes -- of signatures you save!
And if you decide that your current setup with 1-of-1 P2PKH / P2WPKH addresses is just fine as-is: well, that's the whole point of a softfork: backwards-compatibility; you can receive from Taproot users just fine, and once your wallet is updated for Taproot-sending support, you can send to Taproot users just fine as well!
(P2WPKH and P2WSH -- SegWit v0 -- addresses start with bc1q; Taproot -- SegWit v1 --- addresses start with bc1p, in case you wanted to know the difference; in bech32 q is 0, p is 1)
Now how about HODLers who keep all, or some, of their coins on custodial services? Well, any custodial service worth its salt would be doing at least 2-of-3, or probably something even bigger, like 11-of-15. So your custodial service, if it switched to using Taproot internally, could save a lot more (imagine an 11-of-15 getting reduced from 11 signatures to just 1!), which --- we can only hope! --- should translate to lower fees and better customer service from your custodial service!
So I think we can say, very accurately, that the Bitcoin principle --- that YOU are in control of your money --- can only be helped by Taproot (if you are doing multisignature), and, because P2PKH and P2WPKH remain validly-usable addresses in a Taproot future, will not be harmed by Taproot. Its benefit to this principle might be small (it mostly only benefits multisignature users) but since it has no drawbacks with this (i.e. singlesig users can continue to use P2WPKH and P2PKH still) this is still a nice, tidy win!
(even singlesig users get a minor benefit, in that multisig users will now reduce their blockchain space footprint, so that fees can be kept low for everybody; so for example even if you have your single set of private keys engraved on titanium plates sealed in an airtight box stored in a safe buried in a desert protected by angry nomads riding giant sandworms because you're the frickin' Kwisatz Haderach, you still gain some benefit from Taproot)
And here's the important part: if P2PKH/P2WPKH is working perfectly fine with you and you decide to never use Taproot yourself, Taproot will not affect you detrimentally. First do no harm!

Taproot and Your Contracts

No one is an island, no one lives alone. Give and you shall receive. You know: by trading with other people, you can gain expertise in some obscure little necessity of the world (and greatly increase your productivity in that little field), and then trade the products of your expertise for necessities other people have created, all of you thereby gaining gains from trade.
So, contracts, which are basically enforceable agreements that facilitate trading with people who you do not personally know and therefore might not trust.
Let's start with a simple example. You want to buy some gewgaws from somebody. But you don't know them personally. The seller wants the money, you want their gewgaws, but because of the lack of trust (you don't know them!! what if they're scammers??) neither of you can benefit from gains from trade.
However, suppose both of you know of some entity that both of you trust. That entity can act as a trusted escrow. The entity provides you security: this enables the trade, allowing both of you to get gains from trade.
In Bitcoin-land, this can be implemented as a 2-of-3 multisignature. The three signatories in the multisgnature would be you, the gewgaw seller, and the escrow. You put the payment for the gewgaws into this 2-of-3 multisignature address.
Now, suppose it turns out neither of you are scammers (whaaaat!). You receive the gewgaws just fine and you're willing to pay up for them. Then you and the gewgaw seller just sign a transaction --- you and the gewgaw seller are 2, sufficient to trigger the 2-of-3 --- that spends from the 2-of-3 address to a singlesig the gewgaw seller wants (or whatever address the gewgaw seller wants).
But suppose some problem arises. The seller gave you gawgews instead of gewgaws. Or you decided to keep the gewgaws but not sign the transaction to release the funds to the seller. In either case, the escrow is notified, and if it can sign with you to refund the funds back to you (if the seller was a scammer) or it can sign with the seller to forward the funds to the seller (if you were a scammer).
Taproot helps with this: like mentioned above, it allows multisignature setups to produce only one signature, reducing blockchain space usage, and thus making contracts --- which require multiple people, by definition, you don't make contracts with yourself --- is made cheaper (which we hope enables more of these setups to happen for more gains from trade for everyone, also, moon and lambos).
(technology-wise, it's easier to make an n-of-n than a k-of-n, making a k-of-n would require a complex setup involving a long ritual with many communication rounds between the n participants, but an n-of-n can be done trivially with some moon math. You can, however, make what is effectively a 2-of-3 by using a three-branch SCRIPT: either 2-of-2 of you and seller, OR 2-of-2 of you and escrow, OR 2-of-2 of escrow and seller. Fortunately, Taproot adds a facility to embed a SCRIPT inside a public key, so you can have a 2-of-2 Taprooted address (between you and seller) with a SCRIPT branch that can instead be spent with 2-of-2 (you + escrow) OR 2-of-2 (seller + escrow), which implements the three-branched SCRIPT above. If neither of you are scammers (hopefully the common case) then you both sign using your keys and never have to contact the escrow, since you are just using the escrow public key without coordinating with them (because n-of-n is trivial but k-of-n requires setup with communication rounds), so in the "best case" where both of you are honest traders, you also get a privacy boost, in that the escrow never learns you have been trading on gewgaws, I mean ewww, gawgews are much better than gewgaws and therefore I now judge you for being a gewgaw enthusiast, you filthy gewgawer).

Taproot and Your Contracts, Part 2: Cryptographic Boogaloo

Now suppose you want to buy some data instead of things. For example, maybe you have some closed-source software in trial mode installed, and want to pay the developer for the full version. You want to pay for an activation code.
This can be done, today, by using an HTLC. The developer tells you the hash of the activation code. You pay to an HTLC, paying out to the developer if it reveals the preimage (the activation code), or refunding the money back to you after a pre-agreed timeout. If the developer claims the funds, it has to reveal the preimage, which is the activation code, and you can now activate your software. If the developer does not claim the funds by the timeout, you get refunded.
And you can do that, with HTLCs, today.
Of course, HTLCs do have problems:
Fortunately, with Schnorr (which is enabled by Taproot), we can now use the Scriptless Script constuction by Andrew Poelstra. This Scriptless Script allows a new construction, the PTLC or Pointlocked Timelocked Contract. Instead of hashes and preimages, just replace "hash" with "point" and "preimage" with "scalar".
Or as you might know them: "point" is really "public key" and "scalar" is really a "private key". What a PTLC does is that, given a particular public key, the pointlocked branch can be spent only if the spender reveals the private key of the given private key to you.
Another nice thing with PTLCs is that they are deniable. What appears onchain is just a single 2-of-2 signature between you and the developemanufacturer. It's like a magic trick. This signature has no special watermarks, it's a perfectly normal signature (the pledge). However, from this signature, plus some datta given to you by the developemanufacturer (known as the adaptor signature) you can derive the private key of a particular public key you both agree on (the turn). Anyone scraping the blockchain will just see signatures that look just like every other signature, and as long as nobody manages to hack you and get a copy of the adaptor signature or the private key, they cannot get the private key behind the public key (point) that the pointlocked branch needs (the prestige).
(Just to be clear, the public key you are getting the private key from, is distinct from the public key that the developemanufacturer will use for its funds. The activation key is different from the developer's onchain Bitcoin key, and it is the activation key whose private key you will be learning, not the developer's/manufacturer's onchain Bitcoin key).
So:
Taproot lets PTLCs exist onchain because they enable Schnorr, which is a requirement of PTLCs / Scriptless Script.
(technology-wise, take note that Scriptless Script works only for the "pointlocked" branch of the contract; you need normal Script, or a pre-signed nLockTimed transaction, for the "timelocked" branch. Since Taproot can embed a script, you can have the Taproot pubkey be a 2-of-2 to implement the Scriptless Script "pointlocked" branch, then have a hidden script that lets you recover the funds with an OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY after the timeout if the seller does not claim the funds.)

Quantum Quibbles!

Now if you were really paying attention, you might have noticed this parenthetical:
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash...)
So wait, Taproot uses raw 32-byte public keys, and not public key hashes? Isn't that more quantum-vulnerable??
Well, in theory yes. In practice, they probably are not.
It's not that hashes can be broken by quantum computes --- they're still not. Instead, you have to look at how you spend from a P2WPKH/P2PKH pay-to-public-key-hash.
When you spend from a P2PKH / P2WPKH, you have to reveal the public key. Then Bitcoin hashes it and checks if this matches with the public-key-hash, and only then actually validates the signature for that public key.
So an unconfirmed transaction, floating in the mempools of nodes globally, will show, in plain sight for everyone to see, your public key.
(public keys should be public, that's why they're called public keys, LOL)
And if quantum computers are fast enough to be of concern, then they are probably fast enough that, in the several minutes to several hours from broadcast to confirmation, they have already cracked the public key that is openly broadcast with your transaction. The owner of the quantum computer can now replace your unconfirmed transaction with one that pays the funds to itself. Even if you did not opt-in RBF, miners are still incentivized to support RBF on RBF-disabled transactions.
So the extra hash is not as significant a protection against quantum computers as you might think. Instead, the extra hash-and-compare needed is just extra validation effort.
Further, if you have ever, in the past, spent from the address, then there exists already a transaction indelibly stored on the blockchain, openly displaying the public key from which quantum computers can derive the private key. So those are still vulnerable to quantum computers.
For the most part, the cryptographers behind Taproot (and Bitcoin Core) are of the opinion that quantum computers capable of cracking Bitcoin pubkeys are unlikely to appear within a decade or two.
So:
For now, the homomorphic and linear properties of elliptic curve cryptography provide a lot of benefits --- particularly the linearity property is what enables Scriptless Script and simple multisignature (i.e. multisignatures that are just 1 signature onchain). So it might be a good idea to take advantage of them now while we are still fairly safe against quantum computers. It seems likely that quantum-safe signature schemes are nonlinear (thus losing these advantages).

Summary

I Wanna Be The Taprooter!

So, do you want to help activate Taproot? Here's what you, mister sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, can do!

But I Hate Taproot!!

That's fine!

Discussions About Taproot Activation

almkglor your post has been copied because one or more comments in this topic have been removed. This copy will preserve unmoderated topic. If you would like to opt-out, please send a message using [this link].
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
submitted by anticensor_bot to u/anticensor_bot [link] [comments]

Want to ₿ part of the revolution? Let’s start today by Tipping Satoshi!

Hello fellow Bitcoiners! It would seem that since the implementation of cash settled futures (right at the ATH) coupled with the banks being large investors in most, if not all, of the major bitcoin exchanges that they have been in control of the USD price of bitcoin for the past few years. Their ability to rehypothecate and commingle bitcoin seems to have no end (see Catlin Long’s Forbes articles about financialization) since no matter how often or how well it’s repeated, even so eloquently put by the great Andreas, “Not your keys, not your coins” there will always be a percentage of so called bitcoin “owners” that leave their Satoshi’s on these exchanges. Sadly this seems to allow them to continue their fiat OTC market / public spot price exchange games.
And while I certainly believe that their control of the price is temporary and that the math will eventually determine its true value, I believe that there are a few things that we can do in order to push this forward in breaking the price free from the fiat currency master manipulators:
1) Don’t trust your wallets and “Roll Your Own” P2PKH addresses using dice. I say P2PKH as you can simply sign a bitcoin message with one of these addresses with a standardized signing message in your wallet and then verify that you are in fact of the private keys to these address by signing a bitcoin message and validating the signature via your own bitcoin node.
2) Tip Satoshi! That’s right, tip Satoshi! Wait, how can we do that? Well, one would assume that the very first receiving address (the address receiving the first coinbase transaction ( 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa ) would have had to of been Satoshi’s then we can simply send Satoshi some satoshi’s! By doing so you would be doing one of the following
a. burning that bitcoin thus reducing the supply, or
b. You would actually be tipping the creator(s) of bitcoin!
After looking into this address, it would appear that the idea of sending Satoshi satoshis is not a new idea as there are tons of transactions that have been sent to him since the genesis block. In fact as I type this there is not only my transaction but another one pending in the mempool.
submitted by BitcoinCanSaveUsAll to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Random idea: USL, but for Bitcoin addresses

This is my rough idea for a Bitcoin change that would allow for a bit more fraud protection. I might write up a BIP later if I get around to actually nailing it down.
For those unaware, the Universal Scammer List (USL) is a page dedicated to keeping track of the usernames of scammers on Reddit. Basically, if you want to conduct a transaction with someone on Reddit, you should first check if they're listed as a known scammer.
My idea is to do the same with Bitcoin addresses. A decentralised database of blacklisted addresses would be kept by anyone running a full node. Any funds in the blacklisted addresses are deemed worthless.
For example, address A gets listed for hacking into an exchange and stealing coins. Any funds held by address A would be deemed worthless. If they send 10 BTC to address B, then the network would remember that address B has 10 BTC that is worthless. If address B originally had 5 BTC and was sent 10 BTC by address A, they would have 15 BTC, but the bottom 10 BTC would be deemed worthless. If address B sends 2 BTC to address C, then C receives 2 good BTC and B is left with 3 good BTC and 10 blacklisted BTC, but if B sends another 4 BTC to address D, then D would receive 3 good BTC and 1 worthless BTC, and the network would now remember that D has 1 worthless Bitcoin. Therefore, before accepting the transaction as payment for something, they would have to check to make sure that they are not receiving worthless blacklisted coins.
Miners could also choose to selectively refuse to mine transactions involving blacklisted BTC because any miners' fees collected from such a transaction would be blacklisted as well. This could mean someone trying to send blacklisted BTC is essentially broadcasting a transaction with a 0 sat/byte fee rate, meaning their transaction would probably be stuck in the Mempool for quite a long time, if not forever if miners refuse to mine it.
Whenever someone wants an address blacklisted, they would announce it to the public via any mechanism, and anyone keeping a full node can decide whether or not to blacklist the address. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with the blacklisting is free to accept the coins at face value or mine them into a block. If you don't agree with the evidence presented, then you are free to not blacklist them. Therefore, contested coins would only be accepted as valid payment by those who think the coins should have never been blacklisted in the first place.
This system would not be meant to help every single person who gets scammed with Bitcoin, but it would discourage large scale wholesale Bitcoin fraud. It would be ridiculous to expect all full-node maintainers to become arbitrators of all disputes, and consensus would never be reached on half of the transactions being processed. Node operators would also ideally not have to remember as many transactions involving blacklisted coins because miners would refuse to mine them (transaction fees collected would be in blacklisted coins), meaning they'd be stuck in the Mempool for long periods of time, reducing the speed at which they can be moved around, if at all. So the ledger of blacklisted coins would not have to be updated extremely often. Blacklisting would only happen for really big scams involving tens or hundreds of Bitcoin, like if an exchange got hacked or something.
Scams have effectively less than an hour to be discovered. 10 minutes for the deposit into the address in question, and more, depending on how many block confirmations something must have before others will accept it for transactions sell goods for it. Therefore, if a merchant requires 3 block confirmations, then they would give 40 minutes for the address to be blacklisted. If the buyer's address is blacklisted before the transaction to the merchant gets 3 block confirmations, the merchant would realise they've been sent blacklisted coins and not ship the goods. 40 minutes isn't a lot of time, but it's better than nothing.
This has the additional effect of encouraging people to wait for more confirmations. For low-value transactions, the risk is nominal because even if you were sent worthless coins, you're probably only out the price of a coffee. But if you're selling a house, you might want to wait for even more block confirmations.
Money sent around too much could be deemed "too late to blacklist" if there is a risk that it would result in too many innocent people's Bitcoin getting blacklisted.
This system doesn't refund the Bitcoin of victims, so poor security practices would still be punished by a loss of coins, but criminals would not be rewarded for their efforts either. The lack of reward (or the risk of a lack of reward) would hopefully make people less inclined to try and pull off the type of big scams that are giving Bitcoin a bad reputation!
submitted by NateNate60 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Mysterious Entity that Caused the Bitcoin Network fees to Jump 146% in May

The Mysterious Entity that Caused the Bitcoin Network fees to Jump 146% in May
May 25, 2020
SHARE0
Bitcoin price has yet again taken a dive to $8,800, recording a drop of 4%.
Meanwhile, Network Demand Score which is a metric incorporating network velocity, transaction value, fees, and miner’s rolling inventory, climbed to 6/6 following the bitcoin halving meaning the network is growing stronger which could also be a sign that “we’re in a longer-term bull market.”
Since March 12th, just before the massive sell-off, this score has remained above a 3/6 reflecting growing strength in network activity and instilling confidence in the ongoing uptrend for the bitcoin price.
3 Reasons why fees skyrocketed
One component of this indicator, bitcoin on-chain fees has been surging like crazy.
Last week, Bitcoin average transaction fee climbed to $7, last seen in February 2018. This has the miner revenues from fees rising to the levels not seen for more than 2 years. But this week, it also dropped 55% to $3.13.
The increase in transaction fees, which is increasingly becoming more important for Bitcoin network security, has been because of the unconfirmed transactions piling on in mempool.
A decline in hash rate following halving caused fewer blocks to be found and will continue until the next difficulty adjustment has been one of the reasons behind this jump in fees.
The other reason is the large fluctuations in bitcoin price which has traders sending coins between exchanges.
Ather reason is a “mysterious entity which has been consolidating outputs at the highest fee rates, driving up fees for everyone,” pointed out Serrrgej Kotliar, CEO Bitrefill.
Who is this “Crazy1o1”?
Over the weekend Kotliar shared how, for the past 14 days, this mysterious entity has consolidated a lower-bound of 720 thousand outputs, 5 MB per day, more than BitMEX.
Since May 1st, this entity named “Crazy1o1” has spent around 804k UTXOs and has paid more than 104BTC in mining fees during this time, noted Laurent.
“On some days, these fees are equivalent to 10-12% of all the fees received by miners,” he said.
Laurent along with others suspect this entity to be the cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase.
Earlier this month, it was also found that crypto derivatives exchange BitMEX is making the bitcoin network expensive for everyone and its own users are paying 6.8% of total daily transaction fees.
Prepare for the next bull market
All of this a “decent fire drill for what might happen if we see another bull market,” said Kotliar. Grubles from Blockstream said,
“ON-CHAIN FEES AND BTC PRICE MOVEMENTS CHART. YOU CAN SEE THAT BIG MOVEMENTS RESULT IN PEOPLE RUSHING TO TRANSACT (ALMOST CERTAINLY TO/FROM EXCHANGES), PUSHING FEES UP FOR OTHER NON-TRADER USERS WHO NEED UNCENSORABLE / IRREVERSIBLE TRANSACTIONS.”
The fees reached its all-time high at over $55 during the peak of the bull market in December 2017. As such in the next bull market, a 5x growth in on-chain transactions should be expected.
But given that batching, one of the many ways the network has been scaled is here, it will prevent the pressure on the network from getting worse than 2017. But exchanges will need to be prepared for this.
submitted by kealenz to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

The Mysterious Entity that Caused the Bitcoin Network fees to Jump 146% in May

Bitcoin price has yet again taken a dive to $8,800, recording a drop of 4%.
Meanwhile, Network Demand Score which is a metric incorporating network velocity, transaction value, fees, and miner’s rolling inventory, climbed to 6/6 following the bitcoin halving meaning the network is growing stronger which could also be a sign that “we’re in a longer-term bull market.”
Since March 12th, just before the massive sell-off, this score has remained above a 3/6 reflecting growing strength in network activity and instilling confidence in the ongoing uptrend for the bitcoin price.
3 Reasons why fees skyrocketed
One component of this indicator, bitcoin on-chain fees has been surging like crazy.
Last week, Bitcoin average transaction fee climbed to $7, last seen in February 2018. This has the miner revenues from fees rising to the levels not seen for more than 2 years. But this week, it also dropped 55% to $3.13.
The increase in transaction fees, which is increasingly becoming more important for Bitcoin network security, has been because of the unconfirmed transactions piling on in mempool.
A decline in hash rate following halving caused fewer blocks to be found and will continue until the next difficulty adjustment has been one of the reasons behind this jump in fees.
The other reason is the large fluctuations in bitcoin price which has traders sending coins between exchanges.
Ather reason is a “mysterious entity which has been consolidating outputs at the highest fee rates, driving up fees for everyone,” pointed out Serrrgej Kotliar, CEO Bitrefill.
Who is this “Crazy1o1”?
Over the weekend Kotliar shared how, for the past 14 days, this mysterious entity has consolidated a lower-bound of 720 thousand outputs, 5 MB per day, more than BitMEX.
Since May 1st, this entity named “Crazy1o1” has spent around 804k UTXOs and has paid more than 104BTC in mining fees during this time, noted Laurent.
“On some days, these fees are equivalent to 10-12% of all the fees received by miners,” he said.
Laurent along with others suspect this entity to be the cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase.
Earlier this month, it was also found that crypto derivatives exchange BitMEX is making the bitcoin network expensive for everyone and its own users are paying 6.8% of total daily transaction fees.
Prepare for the next bull market
All of this a “decent fire drill for what might happen if we see another bull market,” said Kotliar. Grubles from Blockstream said,
“ON-CHAIN FEES AND BTC PRICE MOVEMENTS CHART. YOU CAN SEE THAT BIG MOVEMENTS RESULT IN PEOPLE RUSHING TO TRANSACT (ALMOST CERTAINLY TO/FROM EXCHANGES), PUSHING FEES UP FOR OTHER NON-TRADER USERS WHO NEED UNCENSORABLE / IRREVERSIBLE TRANSACTIONS.”
The fees reached its all-time high at over $55 during the peak of the bull market in December 2017. As such in the next bull market, a 5x growth in on-chain transactions should be expected.
But given that batching, one of the many ways the network has been scaled is here, it will prevent the pressure on the network from getting worse than 2017. But exchanges will need to be prepared for this.
submitted by kealenz to btc [link] [comments]

PREDICTION: 1BTC > $50K USD by ~ Q4 2020.

The fiat banking system is falling apart. The USD is going to hyperinflate. There will be cascading global credit and currency crises.
Amidst the chaos, there will be a rapid flight to hard money. We are nearing the tipping point.
I'm calling it here: 1BTC will be > $50,000 USD by ~ Q4 2020. Come back and laugh at me if I'm right or wrong.
But you've got to admit: we are at the breaking point. This is precisely the kind of chaos Satoshi predicted. Coronavirus is just the lit match to the gasoline-soaked ad-infinitum piles of fiat.

Read More Below:
Bitcoin as a Store of Value, Unit of Account, and Medium of Exchange
Hyperbitcoinization
Speculative Attack

*Note: This is NOT financial advice. Just a prediction from a random Internet Stranger. Do you own research. Stack Sats. Review your OpSEC. Get a HW Wallet.

EDIT: Yes. I am still stacking sats. I am still trading USD for BTC. Even when there is blood in the streets. Even when it is my own.
submitted by Kinolva to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Mysterious Entity that Caused the Bitcoin Network fees to Jump 146% in May

Bitcoin price has yet again taken a dive to $8,800, recording a drop of 4%.
Meanwhile, Network Demand Score which is a metric incorporating network velocity, transaction value, fees, and miner’s rolling inventory, climbed to 6/6 following the bitcoin halving meaning the network is growing stronger which could also be a sign that “we’re in a longer-term bull market.”
Since March 12th, just before the massive sell-off, this score has remained above a 3/6 reflecting growing strength in network activity and instilling confidence in the ongoing uptrend for the bitcoin price.
3 Reasons why fees skyrocketed
One component of this indicator, bitcoin on-chain fees has been surging like crazy.
Last week, Bitcoin average transaction fee climbed to $7, last seen in February 2018. This has the miner revenues from fees rising to the levels not seen for more than 2 years. But this week, it also dropped 55% to $3.13.
The increase in transaction fees, which is increasingly becoming more important for Bitcoin network security, has been because of the unconfirmed transactions piling on in mempool.
A decline in hash rate following halving caused fewer blocks to be found and will continue until the next difficulty adjustment has been one of the reasons behind this jump in fees.
The other reason is the large fluctuations in bitcoin price which has traders sending coins between exchanges.
Ather reason is a “mysterious entity which has been consolidating outputs at the highest fee rates, driving up fees for everyone,” pointed out Serrrgej Kotliar, CEO Bitrefill.
Who is this “Crazy1o1”?
Over the weekend Kotliar shared how, for the past 14 days, this mysterious entity has consolidated a lower-bound of 720 thousand outputs, 5 MB per day, more than BitMEX.
Since May 1st, this entity named “Crazy1o1” has spent around 804k UTXOs and has paid more than 104BTC in mining fees during this time, noted Laurent.
“On some days, these fees are equivalent to 10-12% of all the fees received by miners,” he said.
Laurent along with others suspect this entity to be the cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase.
Earlier this month, it was also found that crypto derivatives exchange BitMEX is making the bitcoin network expensive for everyone and its own users are paying 6.8% of total daily transaction fees.
Prepare for the next bull market
All of this a “decent fire drill for what might happen if we see another bull market,” said Kotliar. Grubles from Blockstream said,
“ON-CHAIN FEES AND BTC PRICE MOVEMENTS CHART. YOU CAN SEE THAT BIG MOVEMENTS RESULT IN PEOPLE RUSHING TO TRANSACT (ALMOST CERTAINLY TO/FROM EXCHANGES), PUSHING FEES UP FOR OTHER NON-TRADER USERS WHO NEED UNCENSORABLE / IRREVERSIBLE TRANSACTIONS.”
The fees reached its all-time high at over $55 during the peak of the bull market in December 2017. As such in the next bull market, a 5x growth in on-chain transactions should be expected.
But given that batching, one of the many ways the network has been scaled is here, it will prevent the pressure on the network from getting worse than 2017. But exchanges will need to be prepared for this.
submitted by kealenz to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Looking for Technical Information about Mining Pools

I'm doing research on how exactly bitcoins are mined, and I'm looking for detailed information about how mining pools work - i.e. what exactly is the pool server telling each participating miner to do.
It's so far my understanding that, when Bitcoins are mined, the following steps take place:
  1. Transactions from the mempool are selected for a new block; this may or may not be all the transactions in said mempool. A coinable transaction - which consists of the miner's wallet's address and other arbitrary data - that will help create new Bitcoin will also be added to the new block.
  2. All of said transactions are hashed together into a Merkle Root. The hashing algorithm is Double SHA-256.
  3. A block header is formed for the new block. Said block header consists of a Version, the Block Hash of the Previous Block in the Blockchain, said Merkle Root from earlier, a timestamp in UTC, the target, and a nonce - which is 32 bits long and can be any value from 0x00000000 to 0xFFFFFFFF (a total of 4,294,967,296 nonce values in total).
  4. The nonce value is set to 0x00000000, and said block header is double hashed to get the Block Hash of the current block; and if said Block Hash starts with a certain number of zeroes (depending on the difficulty), the miner sends the block to the Bitcoin Network, the block successfully added to the blockchain and the miner is awarded with newly created bitcoin.
  5. But if said Block Hash does not start with the required number of zeroes, said block will not be accepted by the network, and the miner Double Hashes the block again, but with a different nonce value; but if none of the 4,294,967,296 nonce values yields a Block Hash with the required number of zeroes, it will be impossible to add the block to the network - and in that case, the miner will either need to change the timestamp and try all 4,294,967,296 nonce values again, or the miner will need to start all over again and compose a new block with a different set of transactions (either a different coinable transaction, a different set of transactions from the mempool, or both).
Now, what I'm trying to figure out is what exactly each miner is doing differently in a mining pool, and if it is different depending on the pool.
One thing I've read is that a mining pool gives each participating miner a different set of transactions from the mempool.
I've also read that, because the most sophisticated miners can try all 4,294,967,296 nonce values in less than a fraction of a second, and since the timestamp can only be updated every second, the coinbase transaction is used as a "second nonce" (although, it is my understanding that, being part of a transaction, if this "extra nonce" is changed, all the transactions need to be double hashed into a new Merkle Root); and I may have read someplace that miners could also be given the same set of transactions from the mempool, but are each told to use a different set of "extra nonce" values for the coinbase transaction.
Is there anything else that pools tell miners to do differently? Is each pool different in the instructions it gives to the participating miners? Did I get anything wrong?
I want to make sure I have a full technical understanding of what mining pools are doing to mine bitcoin.
submitted by sparky77734 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I wrote an answer to this article regarding the IFP

https://read.cash/@SeanBallard/the-simplest-reason-against-the-ifp-77cf8e9e
My answer is not "for or against the IFP"-type, BUT an answer to the "legitimate value proposition" of what funds for dev team like ABC actually is neccessary for.
I paste my answer here as well:
"through a legitimate value proposition"
Let me pitch on what value proposition the node development teams offer:
  1. Maintenance/vigilance ie. if a new attack vector against the network is found, they go in and provide a fix quickly ie. they always have one or two devs on alert. This is what e.g. ABC has been doing since the beginning of BCH.
  2. They develop the next needed upgrade features for the network - everything from single features such as a specific smart contract OP code to meet an immidiate demand in the market to more complicated upgrades/rewrites such as a much needed rewrite of the mempool acceptance code (*).
  3. They make research into areas that need more exploring before deciding on a solution. For example - everybody agrees that 0-conf needs improvement to be able to serve fast casual payment with high security, but nobody is absolutely sure what approach is the best, yet. Avalanche (/Snowglobe) is just one proposal for a solution to improved 0-conf security.
(*): The rewrite of the mempool acceptance code will solve many things, such as "removing the max 25 chain tx limit" in a safe & scalable manner, better fee policies and general scalability such as much higher transaction throughout & faster validation. The price for this much needed rewriting of mempool acceptance code, besides the needed man-months to do it, is also that back-porting of improvements from Bitcoin Core is no longer applicable which means that BCH node development will have to carry the cost of maintanence to a much higher degree than before, going forward!
submitted by chainxor to btc [link] [comments]

Unable to move claimed BSV from ElectrumSV wallet (imported privkey)

Hi All,
First post on Reddit, but a long time reader and a bitcoin novice, despite having coins since ~2014!
I finally got around to claiming my BSV from my BCH. At the time of the fork I know what my balance of BCH was and therefore what I expect my BSV to be (1:1).
I can see this value in my ElectrumSV wallet after importing my private key for my BCH address. My BCH wallet is BitCoinABC and is fully in sync. However, when I try and send and BSV from my ElectrumSV wallet to a recipient, I get the 'Conflicts with one already in the server's mempool' error (\n\n258: txn-mempool-conflict).
I should say that I initially claimed these coins approx. 30 hours ago now and have successfully exchanged a small amount of BCH to BSV and sent it to the wallet that has the claimed coins in it. The small transfer is now also stuck in that wallet.
Research tells me I probably need to make a raw transaction to create a double spend, but this is beyond my current ability... either that or wait for the block height to catch up, which I would have thought may have have happened by now, looking at the block height differences between BCH & BSV?
So any help or pointers would be appreciated...
TIA


++EDIT++
Thanks to Deminero30 this has been resolved and the BSV recovered to a functional address!
submitted by staffnjb to bitcoincashSV [link] [comments]

Liquid CAD: Canadian dollar payments on the Liquid Sidechain

Hello fellow Canadian bitcoiners or bitcoinca! You will find below all the information related to the launch of Liquid CAD and Bull Bitcoin's Liquid Bitcoin integration. I'll be checking comments here to answer your questions! I'm also posting some comments on my announcement tweet here: https://twitter.com/francispouliot\_/status/1245758698120605697?s=20

Making the Canadian Dollar Bleed Into Bitcoin

Building the infrastructure for the Bitcoin Standard in Canada before the collapse of fiat currencies is the critical mission objective that drives innovation at Bull Bitcoin.
We are very excited to announce an important milestone in fulfilling this duty: the public release of Liquid CAD, our newest product designed to accelerate and facilitate the adoption of Bitcoin.
Liquid CAD is a non-custodial prepaid payment system denominated in Canadian dollars. Units of Liquid CAD (L-CAD) consist of vouchers issued on the Liquid Network as confidential bearer assets that can be transacted peer-to-peer using a Liquid wallet.
Users acquire Liquid CAD by withdrawing their account balance out of Bull Bitcoin, by purchasing Liquid CAD with Bitcoin on Bull Bitcoin, by using the Liquid CAD withdrawal method on other Bitcoin liquidity providers such as Aquanow or by accepting L-CAD as method of payment.
L-CAD assets can only be redeemed for Bitcoin. They cannot be redeemed for a fiat currency payment.
Liquid CAD is a unique project rethinking the concept of fiat-pegged assets, avoiding the banking business model of “fiatcoin” (aka stablecoins) in favor of a prepaid payments model entirely centred around Bitcoin on-ramp and off-ramp. Liquid CAD is not a currency, nor is it a security: it is a prepaid card.
Importantly, the business model of Liquid CAD is not to collect interest on funds in our custody, unlike fiatcoins, but rather to drive the sales of Bitcoin from which we derive our revenue and we benefit from Liquid CAD assets being cashed out and thus removed from our balance sheet. Bull Bitcoin does not get any revenue from interest.
Every time an L-CAD token is purchased by a user, the amount of dollars deposited on Bull Bitcoin is guaranteed to one day be used by someone to purchase Bitcoin. It’s a one-way street: once a unit of fiat is tokenized as L-CAD, it’s never going back to its off-chain fiat form and will ultimately result in a buy order on a Bitcoin trading platform.
The Liquid CAD logo is a drop of blood because our objective is to accelerate “fiat bleed”, a phenomenon best described by Pierre Rochard in his magnificent essay Speculative Attack:
“Bitcoin will not be eagerly adopted by the mainstream, it will be forced upon them. Forced, as in “compelled by economic reality”. People will be forced to pay with bitcoins, not because of ‘the technology’, but because no one will accept their worthless fiat for payments. Contrary to popular belief, good money drives out bad. This “driving out” has started as a small fiat bleed. It will rapidly escalate into Class IV hemorrhaging due to speculative attacks on weak fiat currencies. The end result will be hyperbitcoinization, i.e. “your money is no good here. Bitcoins are not just good money, they are the best money. The Bitcoin network has the best monetary policy and the best brand. We should therefore expect that bitcoins will drive out bad, weak currencies. My own prediction is that slow bleed has been accelerating and is only the first step. The second step will be speculative attacks that use bitcoins as a platform. The third and final step will be hyperbitcoinization.”
Different representations of Canadian dollars compete to be used as payment methods (cash, bank balances, PayPal balances, closed-loop prepaid cards, open-loop prepaid cards, etc.) and that the winner will be the one that has the best Bitcoin saleability, i.e. which can be most easily sold for Bitcoin at a moment’s notice.
We’re very proud to provide this alternative payment method to Canadians in a time where the banking system is falling deeper into crisis, especially as the Canadian dollar is demonstrating itself to be one of the most pointless and weakest currencies that nobody really wants to hold.
Finally, we’re very happy to be partnering with Aquanow, our recommended institutional liquidity provider for high-volume BTC-CAD trading. They will accept Liquid CAD deposits and withdrawals as being interchangeable with Canadian dollars. We hope that Liquid CAD will become the standard representation of Canadian dollar value among Canadian Bitcoin users.

Liquid Bitcoin (L-BTC) integration

In addition to Liquid CAD, Bull Bitcoin is also announcing that Liquid Bitcoin (L-BTC) payments are now supported interchangeably with Bitcoin transactions for all Bull Bitcoin services. This means that our users can buy, sell and spend L-BTC instead of BTC.
Canadian Bitcoin traders can purchase L-BTC from BullBitcoin.com and fund their international trading accounts with L-BTC using ultra fast and cheap confidential transactions. They can also cash-out their Bitcoin balance as L-BTC from these platforms and sell those L-BTC for fiat on Bylls.com, avoiding risky and expensive international wire transfers to unknown and untrusted foreign banks.
The transactional benefits of L-BTC are very potent:
Disclaimer: Liquid Bitcoin (L-BTC) is not the same as Bitcoin (BTC). L-BTC Liquid Network assets are IOUs for Bitcoin held in a multisignature contract by the Liquid Network federation. The custody of the underlying Bitcoin is managed by a decentralized network of 15 members which process transactions and withdrawals from the multisignature contract according to the Liquid Federation protocol rules.

Liquid CAD detailed overview

Peer-to-peer prepaid payments by Bull Bitcoin

Liquid CAD is a non-custodial prepaid payment system denominated in Canadian dollars. Units of Liquid CAD (L-CAD) consist of vouchers issued on the Liquid Network as confidential bearer assets that can be transacted peer-to-peer using a Liquid wallet. Users acquire Liquid CAD by withdrawing their account balance out of the Bull Bitcoin, by purchasing Liquid CAD with Bitcoin on Bull Bitcoin, by using the Liquid CAD withdrawal method on other Bitcoin liquidity providers such as Aquanow or by accepting L-CAD as method of payment.

A new payment method in Canada

Liquid CAD can be used by anyone to send and receive payments denominated in Canadian dollars. Because of the permissionless nature of the Liquid Network, Bull Bitcoin cannot prevent Liquid CAD from being traded on secondary markets. Merchants, individuals and institutions must accept that only Bull Bitcoin can guarantee redemption of the L-CAD and that this redemption will be exclusively paid out in Bitcoin. Accepting Liquid CAD as payment is, in effect, the same as accepting gift cards as payment. However, Bitcoin being the most liquid commodity on the market, it can be transformed into any other currency easily for example using services such a Bylls which allow Canadians to pay all their utility bills, send bank transfers to third parties or sell Bitcoin to their bank account.

Making Canadian dollars bleed into Bitcoin

The purpose of Liquid CAD is to facilitate the transfer fiat in the context of the purchase and sale of Bitcoin and providing innovative new services that help Bitcoin users hedge the value of Canadian dollars against Bitcoin in the context of their commercial transactions. Our goal is to create a payment method that is specifically targeting Bitcoin users that wish to liquidate Canadian dollar payments for Bitcoin. Our mission is to accelerate the phenomenon known as “fiat bleed” whereby Canadians will gradually abandon inferior money (such as the Canadian dollar) for the superior Bitcoin alternative. Every Liquid CAD issued will ultimately be exchanged into Bitcoin. We are excited for the day Liquid CAD will be made obsolete by the inevitable hyperbitcoinization of the Canadian economy.

Regulation: is Liquid CAD a stablecoin?

Liquid CAD is not a general-purpose “stablecoin”. It is a closed-loop Bitcoin prepaid card. It can exclusively be redeemed for Bitcoin on the Bull Bitcoin platform (or at affiliated merchants). Bull Bitcoin is the only counterparty, and it cannot be redeemed for a canadian dollar payment. It is substantively the same as Canadian Tire money. Unlike stablecoins, Bull Bitcoin makes money with L-CAD by driving the sales of Bitcoin on its platform, and doesn’t collect interest on the deposits of Liquid CAD users.
The purchase of Liquid CAD with Canadian dollars is regulated in the Province of Quebec as a prepaid card under the Consumer Protection Act and the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act Consumer Protection Act which define a prepaid card as “a certificate, card or other medium of exchange that is paid in advance and allows the consumer to acquire goods or services from one or more merchants”.
The purchase of Bitcoin using Liquid CAD is regulated in Canada by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (S.C. 2000, c. 17).

Counterparty risk

Like all other closed-loop prepaid instruments, Liquid CAD has counterparty risk. The owners are trusting that they will eventually be able to use Liquid CAD as a payment method on the Bull Bitcoin platform to fund their account and purchase Bitcoin. When a Bull Bitcoin user withdraws his Bull Bitcoin account balance as an L-CAD token, the Canadian dollars he used to fund this balance remains in our possession in the same manner as regular Bull Bitcoin vouchers. These funds are used to execute Bitcoin purchases when L-CAD owners decide to redeem their L-CAD for Bitcoin. In essence, each L-CAD is “backed” by the Canadian dollar deposit of the user that withdraws it from the platform in the first place.

Benefits of using and accepting Liquid CAD for payments

Irreversible, non-custodial and no bank required

Liquid CAD payments cannot be charged back, cancelled, delayed or frozen. There is no intermediary between the sender and the recipient. It is a bearer asset: whoever owns the keys owns the coins. It is a perfect way to accept payments or transact securely without depending on banks and payment processors. Canadians can use Liquid CAD to purchase Bitcoin and then use Bylls.com to pay billers, personal payees or simply sell Bitcoin to their bank account.

Fast transaction and cheap fees

Liquid Network transactions are sent and received instantly and require 1 minute for settlement. Transaction fees paid using Liquid Bitcoin can be as low as 300 satoshis per transaction (a few cents). In order to benefit from these cheap fees, make sure to download the latest version of the Elements software and ensure that the minimum transaction fee is set at 100 satoshis per kilobye. It only takes a few minutes to set up a free Liquid Network wallet, such a Green Wallet by blockstream.

Confidential transactions

Unlike Bitcoin, transactions between the sender and the recipient are encrypted. It is impossible for third parties observing Liquid CAD transactions on a block explorer to determine the amount of the transaction. In addition, it’s also impossible to even know you are using Liquid CAD, since the data identifying the asset itself is also encrypted!

What are the use-cases of Liquid CAD?

Buying and selling Bitcoin

The primary use-case of Liquid CAD is to make it easier to buy and sell Bitcoin on the Bull Bitcoin platform. By withdrawing their balance from Bull Bitcoin, users are reducing some (but not all) of the custody risk associated with keeping fiat currency on an exchange. For example, use Liquid CAD to create your own non-custodial dollar-cost-averaging schedule!

Onboarding new Bitcoin users

New users can be overwhelmed by the experience of dealing with banks to buy Bitcoin (and the heavier KYC process of account funding). You may be tempted to buy Bitcoin for them, but that will impose a lot of burdens on you. It’s much easier to set them up with a Green wallet, send them Liquid CAD and show them how to use Bull Bitcoin! They decide when is the right time for them to invest, with a lower KYC burden.

Hedging Bitcoin price

You may believe the price of Bitcoin will go down in the short term, but you still want to hold Bitcoin in the long term. Normally you have two options: short the Bitcoin price (very risky!) or sell your Bitcoin and receive Canadian dollars in your bank account (inconvenient!). By selling your Bitcoin for Liquid CAD, you can lock in the value of Bitcoin right now and buy them back later without needing to use your bank account or taking risks with leverage.

Accepting payments

As a merchant, you want to receive the settlement of payments in Bitcoin. But this imposes a burden on your customers, which have to deal with the Bitcoin price volatility when they are paying you. Ask your clients to pay you with Liquid CAD, and you can get the settlement with Bitcoin on your own terms.

Payroll and suppliers

What if your staff or suppliers want to get paid in Bitcoin? It can be very difficult, because this means you are effectively buying Bitcoin on their behalf. Instead, you can pay them in Liquid CAD and let them deal with the process of choosing the exchange rate and using their own wallet. Let them deal with the tax burden, exchange rates and Bitcoin wallet security.

List of Bull Bitcoin Liquid Network features

Withdraw account balance as L-CAD

This is conceptually the same as “buying” Liquid CAD with your account balance. We call it “Withdrawing L-CAD” because on the Bull Bitcoin platform, we consider L-CAD and CAD to be interchangeable and fungible.

Fund account balance with L-CAD

To redeem Liquid CAD for Bitcoin, users need to first fund their account by selecting the “Deposit L-CAD” payment method. Bull Bitcoin users must always fund their account first before buying Bitcoin, and then purchase Bitcoin with their account balances. Reminder: account balances cannot be withdraw as fiat payments, but can later be withdrawn again as L-CAD.

Sell Bitcoin for L-CAD

You can sell Bitcoin and receive Liquid CAD payments instead of a bill payment, personal payee payment or bank payment. As soon as the Bitcoin transaction is confirmed, the Liquid CAD transaction is sent to the address you provided.

Liquid Bitcoin (L-BTC) and Bitcoin interchangeability

For every service which involves a Bitcoin payment, the user can substitute traditional Bitcoin payments for Liquid Bitcoin payments. This includes:
***********************************
Original medium post: https://medium.com/@francispouliot/liquid-cad-canadian-dollar-payments-on-the-liquid-sidechain-f7e3309f8a5f
Official landing page: lcad.bullbitcoin.com
Application page: bullbitcoin.com/l-cad
submitted by FrancisPouliot to BitcoinCA [link] [comments]

2x Mempool Attack or Savior from Bitcoin Cash EDA? SCHEITERT BITCOIN WIEDER AN DER SKALIERUNG? Coinbase Criticized For Spamming Bitcoin Mempool, CEO Responds Coinbase Criticized For Spamming Bitcoin Mempool, CEO Responds Bitcoin Transactions Explained

In order to acquire any, bitcoin must be earned by delivering value to those that hold the currency. Even for those not yet circulating, every single bitcoin must be earned by contributing value. The same is not true of the current monetary system. In the current structure, dollars can either be earned by delivering value to others within the economy, or conversely, if the Fed decides to hand ... As you can see in the above image, miners or mining pools (Bitcoin.com, BitFury, BitClub, etc.) get an additional reward on top of the standard 12.5 BTC block reward.. And that’s why it stands to reason that a miner will pick to mine the blocks in the mempool with higher transaction fees. Mempool Explained. Last Updated: 1st November 2018. Typically associated with the cryptocurrency Bitcoin, when a transaction has been conducted over a network, it is transmitted and held in what is known as the Mempool (Memory pool) until a cryptocurrency miner picks it up and includes it in the next block.. The Mempool consists of pending transactions that have occurred over a cryptocurrency ... A Bitcoin node will have a series of checks before letting a transaction into the Mempool, which may include:. Verifying if an originating and outbound address is stated; Verifying if the size is less than the maximum block size; Verifying if the value and total amount are within correct ranges What is the Bitcoin Mempool? When a new transaction is submitted to the Bitcoin network, it first must get verified by each node in the network. After the transaction becomes verified, it is added to the node’s “mempool”, or list of pending transactions. When a new block is created, a miner fills the block with transactions from the mempool and mines the block, making the transaction a ...

[index] [9208] [4036] [21587] [4381] [12463] [35469] [26607] [48793] [17029] [5327]

2x Mempool Attack or Savior from Bitcoin Cash EDA?

Throughout the past week, Coinbase, the global cryptocurrency market’s largest brokerage and wallet platform valued at $1.6billion, has been heavily criticized for the absence of Segregated ... Coinbase Criticized For Spamming Bitcoin Mempool, CEO Responds Throughout the past week, Coinbase, the global cryptocurrency market’s largest brokerage and wallet platform valued at $1.6 billion ... A somewhat technical explanation of how Bitcoin works. Want more? Check out my new in-depth course on the latest in Bitcoin, Blockchain, and a survey of the ... SCHEITERT BITCOIN WIEDER AN DER SKALIERUNG? Leider steht eine meiner Bitcoin Transaktionen bereits seit über 8 Stunden im Mempool...mal wieder. Dieses Bild kennen wir leider aus dem BULLRUN 2017 ... Bitcoin Gold mining on Claymore.s.BTG.AMD.GPU.Miner.v12.6 . https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B17gJ4FsdIv3eVN5d0pLa1FFMGc

#