Ethereum Rig: Build the Ultimate Mining Setup

Proposal: The Sia Foundation

Vision Statement

A common sentiment is brewing online; a shared desire for the internet that might have been. After decades of corporate encroachment, you don't need to be a power user to realize that something has gone very wrong.
In the early days of the internet, the future was bright. In that future, when you sent an instant message, it traveled directly to the recipient. When you needed to pay a friend, you announced a transfer of value to their public key. When an app was missing a feature you wanted, you opened up the source code and implemented it. When you took a picture on your phone, it was immediately encrypted and backed up to storage that you controlled. In that future, people would laugh at the idea of having to authenticate themselves to some corporation before doing these things.
What did we get instead? Rather than a network of human-sized communities, we have a handful of enormous commons, each controlled by a faceless corporate entity. Hey user, want to send a message? You can, but we'll store a copy of it indefinitely, unencrypted, for our preference-learning algorithms to pore over; how else could we slap targeted ads on every piece of content you see? Want to pay a friend? You can—in our Monopoly money. Want a new feature? Submit a request to our Support Center and we'll totally maybe think about it. Want to backup a photo? You can—inside our walled garden, which only we (and the NSA, of course) can access. Just be careful what you share, because merely locking you out of your account and deleting all your data is far from the worst thing we could do.
You rationalize this: "MEGACORP would never do such a thing; it would be bad for business." But we all know, at some level, that this state of affairs, this inversion of power, is not merely "unfortunate" or "suboptimal" – No. It is degrading. Even if MEGACORP were purely benevolent, it is degrading that we must ask its permission to talk to our friends; that we must rely on it to safeguard our treasured memories; that our digital lives are completely beholden to those who seek only to extract value from us.
At the root of this issue is the centralization of data. MEGACORP can surveil you—because your emails and video chats flow through their servers. And MEGACORP can control you—because they hold your data hostage. But centralization is a solution to a technical problem: How can we make the user's data accessible from anywhere in the world, on any device? For a long time, no alternative solution to this problem was forthcoming.
Today, thanks to a confluence of established techniques and recent innovations, we have solved the accessibility problem without resorting to centralization. Hashing, encryption, and erasure encoding got us most of the way, but one barrier remained: incentives. How do you incentivize an anonymous stranger to store your data? Earlier protocols like BitTorrent worked around this limitation by relying on altruism, tit-for-tat requirements, or "points" – in other words, nothing you could pay your electric bill with. Finally, in 2009, a solution appeared: Bitcoin. Not long after, Sia was born.
Cryptography has unleashed the latent power of the internet by enabling interactions between mutually-distrustful parties. Sia harnesses this power to turn the cloud storage market into a proper marketplace, where buyers and sellers can transact directly, with no intermediaries, anywhere in the world. No more silos or walled gardens: your data is encrypted, so it can't be spied on, and it's stored on many servers, so no single entity can hold it hostage. Thanks to projects like Sia, the internet is being re-decentralized.
Sia began its life as a startup, which means it has always been subjected to two competing forces: the ideals of its founders, and the profit motive inherent to all businesses. Its founders have taken great pains to never compromise on the former, but this often threatened the company's financial viability. With the establishment of the Sia Foundation, this tension is resolved. The Foundation, freed of the obligation to generate profit, is a pure embodiment of the ideals from which Sia originally sprung.
The goals and responsibilities of the Foundation are numerous: to maintain core Sia protocols and consensus code; to support developers building on top of Sia and its protocols; to promote Sia and facilitate partnerships in other spheres and communities; to ensure that users can easily acquire and safely store siacoins; to develop network scalability solutions; to implement hardforks and lead the community through them; and much more. In a broader sense, its mission is to commoditize data storage, making it cheap, ubiquitous, and accessible to all, without compromising privacy or performance.
Sia is a perfect example of how we can achieve better living through cryptography. We now begin a new chapter in Sia's history. May our stewardship lead it into a bright future.
 

Overview

Today, we are proposing the creation of the Sia Foundation: a new non-profit entity that builds and supports distributed cloud storage infrastructure, with a specific focus on the Sia storage platform. What follows is an informal overview of the Sia Foundation, covering two major topics: how the Foundation will be funded, and what its funds will be used for.

Organizational Structure

The Sia Foundation will be structured as a non-profit entity incorporated in the United States, likely a 501(c)(3) organization or similar. The actions of the Foundation will be constrained by its charter, which formalizes the specific obligations and overall mission outlined in this document. The charter will be updated on an annual basis to reflect the current goals of the Sia community.
The organization will be operated by a board of directors, initially comprising Luke Champine as President and Eddie Wang as Chairman. Luke Champine will be leaving his position at Nebulous to work at the Foundation full-time, and will seek to divest his shares of Nebulous stock along with other potential conflicts of interest. Neither Luke nor Eddie personally own any siafunds or significant quantities of siacoin.

Funding

The primary source of funding for the Foundation will come from a new block subsidy. Following a hardfork, 30 KS per block will be allocated to the "Foundation Fund," continuing in perpetuity. The existing 30 KS per block miner reward is not affected. Additionally, one year's worth of block subsidies (approximately 1.57 GS) will be allocated to the Fund immediately upon activation of the hardfork.
As detailed below, the Foundation will provably burn any coins that it cannot meaningfully spend. As such, the 30 KS subsidy should be viewed as a maximum. This allows the Foundation to grow alongside Sia without requiring additional hardforks.
The Foundation will not be funded to any degree by the possession or sale of siafunds. Siafunds were originally introduced as a means of incentivizing growth, and we still believe in their effectiveness: a siafund holder wants to increase the amount of storage on Sia as much as possible. While the Foundation obviously wants Sia to succeed, its driving force should be its charter. Deriving significant revenue from siafunds would jeopardize the Foundation's impartiality and focus. Ultimately, we want the Foundation to act in the best interests of Sia, not in growing its own budget.

Responsibilities

The Foundation inherits a great number of responsibilities from Nebulous. Each quarter, the Foundation will publish the progress it has made over the past quarter, and list the responsibilities it intends to prioritize over the coming quarter. This will be accompanied by a financial report, detailing each area of expenditure over the past quarter, and forecasting expenditures for the coming quarter. Below, we summarize some of the myriad responsibilities towards which the Foundation is expected to allocate its resources.

Maintain and enhance core Sia software

Arguably, this is the most important responsibility of the Foundation. At the heart of Sia is its consensus algorithm: regardless of other differences, all Sia software must agree upon the content and rules of the blockchain. It is therefore crucial that the algorithm be stewarded by an entity that is accountable to the community, transparent in its decision-making, and has no profit motive or other conflicts of interest.
Accordingly, Sia’s consensus functionality will no longer be directly maintained by Nebulous. Instead, the Foundation will release and maintain an implementation of a "minimal Sia full node," comprising the Sia consensus algorithm and P2P networking code. The source code will be available in a public repository, and signed binaries will be published for each release.
Other parties may use this code to provide alternative full node software. For example, Nebulous may extend the minimal full node with wallet, renter, and host functionality. The source code of any such implementation may be submitted to the Foundation for review. If the code passes review, the Foundation will provide "endorsement signatures" for the commit hash used and for binaries compiled internally by the Foundation. Specifically, these signatures assert that the Foundation believes the software contains no consensus-breaking changes or other modifications to imported Foundation code. Endorsement signatures and Foundation-compiled binaries may be displayed and distributed by the receiving party, along with an appropriate disclaimer.
A minimal full node is not terribly useful on its own; the wallet, renter, host, and other extensions are what make Sia a proper developer platform. Currently, the only implementations of these extensions are maintained by Nebulous. The Foundation will contract Nebulous to ensure that these extensions continue to receive updates and enhancements. Later on, the Foundation intends to develop its own implementations of these extensions and others. As with the minimal node software, these extensions will be open source and available in public repositories for use by any Sia node software.
With the consensus code now managed by the Foundation, the task of implementing and orchestrating hardforks becomes its responsibility as well. When the Foundation determines that a hardfork is necessary (whether through internal discussion or via community petition), a formal proposal will be drafted and submitted for public review, during which arguments for and against the proposal may be submitted to a public repository. During this time, the hardfork code will be implemented, either by Foundation employees or by external contributors working closely with the Foundation. Once the implementation is finished, final arguments will be heard. The Foundation board will then vote whether to accept or reject the proposal, and announce their decision along with appropriate justification. Assuming the proposal was accepted, the Foundation will announce the block height at which the hardfork will activate, and will subsequently release source code and signed binaries that incorporate the hardfork code.
Regardless of the Foundation's decision, it is the community that ultimately determines whether a fork is accepted or rejected – nothing can change that. Foundation node software will never automatically update, so all forks must be explicitly adopted by users. Furthermore, the Foundation will provide replay and wipeout protection for its hard forks, protecting other chains from unintended or malicious reorgs. Similarly, the Foundation will ensure that any file contracts formed prior to a fork activation will continue to be honored on both chains until they expire.
Finally, the Foundation also intends to pursue scalability solutions for the Sia blockchain. In particular, work has already begun on an implementation of Utreexo, which will greatly reduce the space requirements of fully-validating nodes (allowing a full node to be run on a smartphone) while increasing throughput and decreasing initial sync time. A hardfork implementing Utreexo will be submitted to the community as per the process detailed above.
As this is the most important responsibility of the Foundation, it will receive a significant portion of the Foundation’s budget, primarily in the form of developer salaries and contracting agreements.

Support community services

We intend to allocate 25% of the Foundation Fund towards the community. This allocation will be held and disbursed in the form of siacoins, and will pay for grants, bounties, hackathons, and other community-driven endeavours.
Any community-run service, such as a Skynet portal, explorer or web wallet, may apply to have its costs covered by the Foundation. Upon approval, the Foundation will reimburse expenses incurred by the service, subject to the exact terms agreed to. The intent of these grants is not to provide a source of income, but rather to make such services "break even" for their operators, so that members of the community can enrich the Sia ecosystem without worrying about the impact on their own finances.

Ensure easy acquisition and storage of siacoins

Most users will acquire their siacoins via an exchange. The Foundation will provide support to Sia-compatible exchanges, and pursue relevant integrations at its discretion, such as Coinbase's new Rosetta standard. The Foundation may also release DEX software that enables trading cryptocurrencies without the need for a third party. (The Foundation itself will never operate as a money transmitter.)
Increasingly, users are storing their cryptocurrency on hardware wallets. The Foundation will maintain the existing Ledger Nano S integration, and pursue further integrations at its discretion.
Of course, all hardware wallets must be paired with software running on a computer or smartphone, so the Foundation will also develop and/or maintain client-side wallet software, including both full-node wallets and "lite" wallets. Community-operated wallet services, i.e. web wallets, may be funded via grants.
Like core software maintenance, this responsibility will be funded in the form of developer salaries and contracting agreements.

Protect the ecosystem

When it comes to cryptocurrency security, patching software vulnerabilities is table stakes; there are significant legal and social threats that we must be mindful of as well. As such, the Foundation will earmark a portion of its fund to defend the community from legal action. The Foundation will also safeguard the network from 51% attacks and other threats to network security by implementing softforks and/or hardforks where necessary.
The Foundation also intends to assist in the development of a new FOSS software license, and to solicit legal memos on various Sia-related matters, such as hosting in the United States and the EU.
In a broader sense, the establishment of the Foundation makes the ecosystem more robust by transferring core development to a more neutral entity. Thanks to its funding structure, the Foundation will be immune to various forms of pressure that for-profit companies are susceptible to.

Drive adoption of Sia

Although the overriding goal of the Foundation is to make Sia the best platform it can be, all that work will be in vain if no one uses the platform. There are a number of ways the Foundation can promote Sia and get it into the hands of potential users and developers.
In-person conferences are understandably far less popular now, but the Foundation can sponsor and/or participate in virtual conferences. (In-person conferences may be held in the future, permitting circumstances.) Similarly, the Foundation will provide prizes for hackathons, which may be organized by community members, Nebulous, or the Foundation itself. Lastly, partnerships with other companies in the cryptocurrency space—or the cloud storage space—are a great way to increase awareness of Sia. To handle these responsibilities, one of the early priorities of the Foundation will be to hire a marketing director.

Fund Management

The Foundation Fund will be controlled by a multisig address. Each member of the Foundation's board will control one of the signing keys, with the signature threshold to be determined once the final composition of the board is known. (This threshold may also be increased or decreased if the number of board members changes.) Additionally, one timelocked signing key will be controlled by David Vorick. This key will act as a “dead man’s switch,” to be used in the event of an emergency that prevents Foundation board members from reaching the signature threshold. The timelock ensures that this key cannot be used unless the Foundation fails to sign a transaction for several months.
On the 1st of each month, the Foundation will use its keys to transfer all siacoins in the Fund to two new addresses. The first address will be controlled by a high-security hot wallet, and will receive approximately one month's worth of Foundation expenditures. The second address, receiving the remaining siacoins, will be a modified version of the source address: specifically, it will increase the timelock on David Vorick's signing key by one month. Any other changes to the set of signing keys, such as the arrival or departure of board members, will be incorporated into this address as well.
The Foundation Fund is allocated in SC, but many of the Foundation's expenditures must be paid in USD or other fiat currency. Accordingly, the Foundation will convert, at its discretion, a portion of its monthly withdrawals to fiat currency. We expect this conversion to be primarily facilitated by private "OTC" sales to accredited investors. The Foundation currently has no plans to speculate in cryptocurrency or other assets.
Finally, it is important that the Foundation adds value to the Sia platform well in excess of the inflation introduced by the block subsidy. For this reason, the Foundation intends to provably burn, on a quarterly basis, any coins that it cannot allocate towards any justifiable expense. In other words, coins will be burned whenever doing so provides greater value to the platform than any other use. Furthermore, the Foundation will cap its SC treasury at 5% of the total supply, and will cap its USD treasury at 4 years’ worth of predicted expenses.
 
Addendum: Hardfork Timeline
We would like to see this proposal finalized and accepted by the community no later than September 30th. A new version of siad, implementing the hardfork, will be released no later than October 15th. The hardfork will activate at block 293220, which is expected to occur around 12pm EST on January 1st, 2021.
 
Addendum: Inflation specifics
The total supply of siacoins as of January 1st, 2021 will be approximately 45.243 GS. The initial subsidy of 1.57 GS thus increases the supply by 3.47%, and the total annual inflation in 2021 will be at most 10.4% (if zero coins are burned). In 2022, total annual inflation will be at most 6.28%, and will steadily decrease in subsequent years.
 

Conclusion

We see the establishment of the Foundation as an important step in the maturation of the Sia project. It provides the ecosystem with a sustainable source of funding that can be exclusively directed towards achieving Sia's ambitious goals. Compared to other projects with far deeper pockets, Sia has always punched above its weight; once we're on equal footing, there's no telling what we'll be able to achieve.
Nevertheless, we do not propose this change lightly, and have taken pains to ensure that the Foundation will act in accordance with the ideals that this community shares. It will operate transparently, keep inflation to a minimum, and respect the user's fundamental role in decentralized systems. We hope that everyone in the community will consider this proposal carefully, and look forward to a productive discussion.
submitted by lukechampine to siacoin [link] [comments]

Technical: The Path to Taproot Activation

Taproot! Everybody wants to have it, somebody wants to make it, nobody knows how to get it!
(If you are asking why everybody wants it, see: Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?)
(Pedants: I mostly elide over lockin times)
Briefly, Taproot is that neat new thing that gets us:
So yes, let's activate taproot!

The SegWit Wars

The biggest problem with activating Taproot is PTSD from the previous softfork, SegWit. Pieter Wuille, one of the authors of the current Taproot proposal, has consistently held the position that he will not discuss activation, and will accept whatever activation process is imposed on Taproot. Other developers have expressed similar opinions.
So what happened with SegWit activation that was so traumatic? SegWit used the BIP9 activation method. Let's dive into BIP9!

BIP9 Miner-Activated Soft Fork

Basically, BIP9 has a bunch of parameters:
Now there are other parameters (name, starttime) but they are not anywhere near as important as the above two.
A number that is not a parameter, is 95%. Basically, activation of a BIP9 softfork is considered as actually succeeding if at least 95% of blocks in the last 2 weeks had the specified bit in the nVersion set. If less than 95% had this bit set before the timeout, then the upgrade fails and never goes into the network. This is not a parameter: it is a constant defined by BIP9, and developers using BIP9 activation cannot change this.
So, first some simple questions and their answers:

The Great Battles of the SegWit Wars

SegWit not only fixed transaction malleability, it also created a practical softforkable blocksize increase that also rebalanced weights so that the cost of spending a UTXO is about the same as the cost of creating UTXOs (and spending UTXOs is "better" since it limits the size of the UTXO set that every fullnode has to maintain).
So SegWit was written, the activation was decided to be BIP9, and then.... miner signalling stalled at below 75%.
Thus were the Great SegWit Wars started.

BIP9 Feature Hostage

If you are a miner with at least 5% global hashpower, you can hold a BIP9-activated softfork hostage.
You might even secretly want the softfork to actually push through. But you might want to extract concession from the users and the developers. Like removing the halvening. Or raising or even removing the block size caps (which helps larger miners more than smaller miners, making it easier to become a bigger fish that eats all the smaller fishes). Or whatever.
With BIP9, you can hold the softfork hostage. You just hold out and refuse to signal. You tell everyone you will signal, if and only if certain concessions are given to you.
This ability by miners to hold a feature hostage was enabled because of the miner-exit allowed by the timeout on BIP9. Prior to that, miners were considered little more than expendable security guards, paid for the risk they take to secure the network, but not special in the grand scheme of Bitcoin.

Covert ASICBoost

ASICBoost was a novel way of optimizing SHA256 mining, by taking advantage of the structure of the 80-byte header that is hashed in order to perform proof-of-work. The details of ASICBoost are out-of-scope here but you can read about it elsewhere
Here is a short summary of the two types of ASICBoost, relevant to the activation discussion.
Now, "overt" means "obvious", while "covert" means hidden. Overt ASICBoost is obvious because nVersion bits that are not currently in use for BIP9 activations are usually 0 by default, so setting those bits to 1 makes it obvious that you are doing something weird (namely, Overt ASICBoost). Covert ASICBoost is non-obvious because the order of transactions in a block are up to the miner anyway, so the miner rearranging the transactions in order to get lower power consumption is not going to be detected.
Unfortunately, while Overt ASICBoost was compatible with SegWit, Covert ASICBoost was not. This is because, pre-SegWit, only the block header Merkle tree committed to the transaction ordering. However, with SegWit, another Merkle tree exists, which commits to transaction ordering as well. Covert ASICBoost would require more computation to manipulate two Merkle trees, obviating the power benefits of Covert ASICBoost anyway.
Now, miners want to use ASICBoost (indeed, about 60->70% of current miners probably use the Overt ASICBoost nowadays; if you have a Bitcoin fullnode running you will see the logs with lots of "60 of last 100 blocks had unexpected versions" which is exactly what you would see with the nVersion manipulation that Overt ASICBoost does). But remember: ASICBoost was, at around the time, a novel improvement. Not all miners had ASICBoost hardware. Those who did, did not want it known that they had ASICBoost hardware, and wanted to do Covert ASICBoost!
But Covert ASICBoost is incompatible with SegWit, because SegWit actually has two Merkle trees of transaction data, and Covert ASICBoost works by fudging around with transaction ordering in a block, and recomputing two Merkle Trees is more expensive than recomputing just one (and loses the ASICBoost advantage).
Of course, those miners that wanted Covert ASICBoost did not want to openly admit that they had ASICBoost hardware, they wanted to keep their advantage secret because miners are strongly competitive in a very tight market. And doing ASICBoost Covertly was just the ticket, but they could not work post-SegWit.
Fortunately, due to the BIP9 activation process, they could hold SegWit hostage while covertly taking advantage of Covert ASICBoost!

UASF: BIP148 and BIP8

When the incompatibility between Covert ASICBoost and SegWit was realized, still, activation of SegWit stalled, and miners were still not openly claiming that ASICBoost was related to non-activation of SegWit.
Eventually, a new proposal was created: BIP148. With this rule, 3 months before the end of the SegWit timeout, nodes would reject blocks that did not signal SegWit. Thus, 3 months before SegWit timeout, BIP148 would force activation of SegWit.
This proposal was not accepted by Bitcoin Core, due to the shortening of the timeout (it effectively times out 3 months before the initial SegWit timeout). Instead, a fork of Bitcoin Core was created which added the patch to comply with BIP148. This was claimed as a User Activated Soft Fork, UASF, since users could freely download the alternate fork rather than sticking with the developers of Bitcoin Core.
Now, BIP148 effectively is just a BIP9 activation, except at its (earlier) timeout, the new rules would be activated anyway (instead of the BIP9-mandated behavior that the upgrade is cancelled at the end of the timeout).
BIP148 was actually inspired by the BIP8 proposal (the link here is a historical version; BIP8 has been updated recently, precisely in preparation for Taproot activation). BIP8 is basically BIP9, but at the end of timeout, the softfork is activated anyway rather than cancelled.
This removed the ability of miners to hold the softfork hostage. At best, they can delay the activation, but not stop it entirely by holding out as in BIP9.
Of course, this implies risk that not all miners have upgraded before activation, leading to possible losses for SPV users, as well as again re-pressuring miners to signal activation, possibly without the miners actually upgrading their software to properly impose the new softfork rules.

BIP91, SegWit2X, and The Aftermath

BIP148 inspired countermeasures, possibly from the Covert ASiCBoost miners, possibly from concerned users who wanted to offer concessions to miners. To this day, the common name for BIP148 - UASF - remains an emotionally-charged rallying cry for parts of the Bitcoin community.
One of these was SegWit2X. This was brokered in a deal between some Bitcoin personalities at a conference in New York, and thus part of the so-called "New York Agreement" or NYA, another emotionally-charged acronym.
The text of the NYA was basically:
  1. Set up a new activation threshold at 80% signalled at bit 4 (vs bit 1 for SegWit).
    • When this 80% signalling was reached, miners would require that bit 1 for SegWit be signalled to achive the 95% activation needed for SegWit.
  2. If the bit 4 signalling reached 80%, increase the block weight limit from the SegWit 4000000 to the SegWit2X 8000000, 6 months after bit 1 activation.
The first item above was coded in BIP91.
Unfortunately, if you read the BIP91, independently of NYA, you might come to the conclusion that BIP91 was only about lowering the threshold to 80%. In particular, BIP91 never mentions anything about the second point above, it never mentions that bit 4 80% threshold would also signal for a later hardfork increase in weight limit.
Because of this, even though there are claims that NYA (SegWit2X) reached 80% dominance, a close reading of BIP91 shows that the 80% dominance was only for SegWit activation, without necessarily a later 2x capacity hardfork (SegWit2X).
This ambiguity of bit 4 (NYA says it includes a 2x capacity hardfork, BIP91 says it does not) has continued to be a thorn in blocksize debates later. Economically speaking, Bitcoin futures between SegWit and SegWit2X showed strong economic dominance in favor of SegWit (SegWit2X futures were traded at a fraction in value of SegWit futures: I personally made a tidy but small amount of money betting against SegWit2X in the futures market), so suggesting that NYA achieved 80% dominance even in mining is laughable, but the NYA text that ties bit 4 to SegWit2X still exists.
Historically, BIP91 triggered which caused SegWit to activate before the BIP148 shorter timeout. BIP148 proponents continue to hold this day that it was the BIP148 shorter timeout and no-compromises-activate-on-August-1 that made miners flock to BIP91 as a face-saving tactic that actually removed the second clause of NYA. NYA supporters keep pointing to the bit 4 text in the NYA and the historical activation of BIP91 as a failed promise by Bitcoin developers.

Taproot Activation Proposals

There are two primary proposals I can see for Taproot activation:
  1. BIP8.
  2. Modern Softfork Activation.
We have discussed BIP8: roughly, it has bit and timeout, if 95% of miners signal bit it activates, at the end of timeout it activates. (EDIT: BIP8 has had recent updates: at the end of timeout it can now activate or fail. For the most part, in the below text "BIP8", means BIP8-and-activate-at-timeout, and "BIP9" means BIP8-and-fail-at-timeout)
So let's take a look at Modern Softfork Activation!

Modern Softfork Activation

This is a more complex activation method, composed of BIP9 and BIP8 as supcomponents.
  1. First have a 12-month BIP9 (fail at timeout).
  2. If the above fails to activate, have a 6-month discussion period during which users and developers and miners discuss whether to continue to step 3.
  3. Have a 24-month BIP8 (activate at timeout).
The total above is 42 months, if you are counting: 3.5 years worst-case activation.
The logic here is that if there are no problems, BIP9 will work just fine anyway. And if there are problems, the 6-month period should weed it out. Finally, miners cannot hold the feature hostage since the 24-month BIP8 period will exist anyway.

PSA: Being Resilient to Upgrades

Software is very birttle.
Anyone who has been using software for a long time has experienced something like this:
  1. You hear a new version of your favorite software has a nice new feature.
  2. Excited, you install the new version.
  3. You find that the new version has subtle incompatibilities with your current workflow.
  4. You are sad and downgrade to the older version.
  5. You find out that the new version has changed your files in incompatible ways that the old version cannot work with anymore.
  6. You tearfully reinstall the newer version and figure out how to get your lost productivity now that you have to adapt to a new workflow
If you are a technically-competent user, you might codify your workflow into a bunch of programs. And then you upgrade one of the external pieces of software you are using, and find that it has a subtle incompatibility with your current workflow which is based on a bunch of simple programs you wrote yourself. And if those simple programs are used as the basis of some important production system, you hve just screwed up because you upgraded software on an important production system.
And well, one of the issues with new softfork activation is that if not enough people (users and miners) upgrade to the newest Bitcoin software, the security of the new softfork rules are at risk.
Upgrading software of any kind is always a risk, and the more software you build on top of the software-being-upgraded, the greater you risk your tower of software collapsing while you change its foundations.
So if you have some complex Bitcoin-manipulating system with Bitcoin somewhere at the foundations, consider running two Bitcoin nodes:
  1. One is a "stable-version" Bitcoin node. Once it has synced, set it up to connect=x.x.x.x to the second node below (so that your ISP bandwidth is only spent on the second node). Use this node to run all your software: it's a stable version that you don't change for long periods of time. Enable txiindex, disable pruning, whatever your software needs.
  2. The other is an "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin Node. Keep its stoarge down with pruning (initially sync it off the "stable-version" node). You can't use blocksonly if your "stable-version" node needs to send transactions, but otherwise this "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node can be kept as a low-resource node, so you can run both nodes in the same machine.
When a new Bitcoin version comes up, you just upgrade the "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node. This protects you if a future softfork activates, you will only receive valid Bitcoin blocks and transactions. Since this node has nothing running on top of it, it is just a special peer of the "stable-version" node, any software incompatibilities with your system software do not exist.
Your "stable-version" Bitcoin node remains the same version until you are ready to actually upgrade this node and are prepared to rewrite most of the software you have running on top of it due to version compatibility problems.
When upgrading the "always-up-to-date", you can bring it down safely and then start it later. Your "stable-version" wil keep running, disconnected from the network, but otherwise still available for whatever queries. You do need some system to stop the "always-up-to-date" node if for any reason the "stable-version" goes down (otherwisee if the "always-up-to-date" advances its pruning window past what your "stable-version" has, the "stable-version" cannot sync afterwards), but if you are technically competent enough that you need to do this, you are technically competent enough to write such a trivial monitor program (EDIT: gmax notes you can adjust the pruning window by RPC commands to help with this as well).
This recommendation is from gmaxwell on IRC, by the way.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Your Pre Market Brief for 08/27/2020

Your Pre Market Brief for Thursday August 27th 2020

You can subscribe to the daily 4:00 AM Pre Market Brief on The Twitter Link Here . Alerts in the tweets will direct you to the daily 4:00 AM Pre Market Brief in this sub.
Morning Research and Trading Prep Tool Kit
The Ultimate Quick Resource For the Amateur Trader.
Published 3:00 AM EST / Updated as of 3:30 AM EST
-----------------------------------------------
Stock Futures:
Wednesday 08/25/2020 News and Markets Recap:
Thursday August 27th 2020 Economic Calendar (All times are Eastern)

TODAY: GDP AND UNEMPLOYMENT!!!!

ALSO PENDING HOME SALES
Overnight News Heading into Thursday August 27th 2020
(News Yet to be Traded 8:00 PM - 4:00 AM EST)
End of Day and After Hours News Heading into Thursday August 27th 2020
(News Traded 4:00 PM - 8:00 PM EST)
Offering News
Note: Seeking A url's and Reddit do not get along.
Upcoming Earnings:
-----------------------------------------------
Morning Research and Trading Prep Tool Kit
Other Useful Resources:
The Ultimate Quick Resource For the Amateur Trader.
Subscribe to This Brief and the daily 4:00 AM Pre Market Brief on The Twitter Link Here . Alerts in the tweets will direct you to the daily brief in this sub
It is up to you to judge the accuracy and veracity of the above before trading. I take no responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this thread.
submitted by Cicero1982 to pennystocks [link] [comments]

[OWL WATCH] Waiting for "IOTA TIME" 27;

Disclaimer: This is my editing, so there could be always some misunderstandings and exaggerations, plus many convos are from 'spec channel', so take it with a grain of salt, pls.
+ I added some recent convos afterward.
--------------------------------------------------​
📷
Luigi Vigneri [IF]어제 오후 8:26
Giving the opportunity to everybody to set up/run nodes is one of IOTA's priority. A minimum amount of resources is obviously required to prevent easy attacks, but we are making sure that being active part of the IOTA network can be possible without crazy investments.
we are building our solution in such a way that the protocol is fair and lightweight.

📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:24
IOTA is not "free to use" but it's - fee-less
you have tokens? you can send them around for free
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:25
you have no tokens? you have to pay to use the network
📷
lekanovic어제 오후 11:25
I think it is a smart way to avoid the spamming network problem
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:26
owning tokens is essentially like owning a share of the actual network
and the throughput it can process
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:26****​
if you don't need all of that yourself, you can rent it out to people and earn money
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:27
mana = tokens * time since you own them
simplified
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:27
the longer you hold your tokens and the more you have, the more mana you have
but every now and then you have to move them to "realize" that mana
📷
lekanovic어제 오후 11:28
Is there any other project that is using a Mana solution to the network fee problem ?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:28
nah
the problem with current protocol is that they are leader based
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:29
you need absolute consensus on who the current leaders are and what their influence in the network is
that's how blockchains works
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:29
if two block producers produce 2 blocks at the same time, then you have to choose which one wins
and where everybody attaches their next block to
IOTA works differently and doesn't need to choose a single leader
we therefore have a much bigger flexibility of designing our sybil protection mechanisms
in a way, mana is also supposed to solve the problem of "rewarding" the infrastructure instead of the validators
in blockchain only the miners get all the money
running a node and even if it's one that is used by a lot of people will only cost
you won't get anything back
no fees, nothing
the miners get it all
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:31
in IOTA, the node operators receive the mana
which gives them a share of the network throughput
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:32
because in blockchain you need to decide whose txs become part of the blocks
and it's not really based on networking protocols like AIMD
📷
lekanovic어제 오후 11:33
And the more Mana your node have, the more trust your node has and you have more to say in the FPC, is that correct?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:33
yeah
a node that has processed a lot of txs of its users will have more mana than other nodes
and therefore a bigger say in deciding conflicts
its a direct measure of "trust" by its users
📷
lekanovic어제 오후 11:34
And choosing committee for dRNG would be done on L1 protocol level?
Everything regarding Mana will be L1 level, right?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:35
Yeah
Mana is layer1, but will also be used as weight in L2 solutions like smart contracts
📷
lekanovic어제 오후 11:35
And you are not dependant on using SC to implement this
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:35
No, you don't need smart contracts
That's all the base layer
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:37
'Time' actually takes into account things like decay
So it doesn't just increase forever
It's close to "Demurrage" in monetary theory
📷
lekanovic어제 오후 11:36
For projects to be able to connect to Polkadot or Cosmos, you need to get the state of the ledger.
Will it be possible to get the Tangle state?
If this would be possible, then I think it would be SUPER good for IOTA
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:38
Yeah but polkadot is not connecting other dlts
Just inhouse stuff
📷
Hyperware어제 오후 11:39
Is there still a cap on mana so that the rich don't get richer?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:39
Yes mana is capped
📷
TangleAccountant어제 오후 11:39
u/Hans Moog [IF] My first thought is that the evolution of this renting system will lead to several big mana renting companies that pool together tons of token holders mana. That way businesses looking to rent mana just need to deal with a reliable mana renting company for years instead of a new individual every couple of months (because life happens and you don't know if that individual will need to sell their IOTAs due to personal reasons). Any thoughts on this?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:41
u/TangleAccountant yes that is likely - but also not a bad thing - token holders will have a place to get their monthly payout and the companies that want to use the tangle without having tokens have a place to pay
📷
TangleAccountant어제 오후 11:42
Oh I completely agree. That's really cool. I'll take a stab at creating one of those companies in the US.
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:42
And everybody who wants to run a node themselves or has tokens and wants use the tangle for free can do so
But "leachers" that would want to use the network for free won't be able to do so
I mean ultimately there will always be "fees", as there is no "free lunch".
You have a certain amount of resources that a network can process and you have a certain demand.
And that will naturally result in fees based on supply / demand
what you can do however is to build a system where the actual users of that system that legitimately want to use it can do so for free,
just because they already "invest" enough by having tokens
or running infrastructure
they are already contributing to the well-being of the network through these two aspects alone
it would be stupid to ask those guys for additional fees
and mana essentially tries to be such a measure of honesty among the users
📷
Hyperware어제 오후 11:47
It's interesting from an investment perspective that having tokens/mana is like owning a portion of the network.
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:48
Yeah, you are owning a certain % of the throughput and whatever the price will ultimately be to execute on this network - you will earn proportionally
but you have to keep in mind that we are trying to build the most efficient DLT that you could possibly ever build
📷
semibaron어제 오후 11:48
The whole mana (tokens) = share of network throuput sounds very much like EOS tbh
Just that EOS uses DPoS
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:50
yeah i mean there is really not too many new things under the sun - you can just tweak a few things here and there, when it comes to distributing resources
DPoS is simply not very nice from a centralization aspect
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:50
at least not the way EOS does it
delegating weights is 1 thing
but assuming that the weight will always be in a way that 21 "identities" run the whole network is bad
in the current world you see a centralization of power
but ultimately we want to build a future where the wealth is more evenly distributed
and the same goes for voting power
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:52
blockchain needs leader selection
it only works with such a centralizing component
IOTA doesn't need that
it's delusional to say that IOTA wouldn't have any such centralization
but maybe we get better than just a handselected nodes 📷
📷
Phantom3D어제 오후 11:52
How would this affect a regular hodler without a node. Should i keep my tokens elsewere to generate mana and put the tokens to use?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:53
you can do whatever you want with your mana
just make an account at a node you regularly use and use it to build up a reputation with that node
to be able to use your funds for free
or run a node yourself
or rent it out to companies if you just hodl
📷
semibaron어제 오후 11:54
Will there be a build-in function into the node software / wallet to delegate ("sell") my mana?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:55
u/semibaron not from the start - that would happen on a 2nd layer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
📷
dom어제 오후 9:49
suddenly be incentive to hold iota?
to generate Mana
📷
Hyperware오늘 오전 4:21
The only thing I can really do, is believe that the IF have smart answers and are still building the best solutions they can for the sake of the vision
📷
dom오늘 오전 4:43
100% - which is why we're spending so much effort to communicate it more clearly now
we'll do an AMA on this topic very soon
📷
M [s2]오늘 오전 4:54
u/dom​ please accept my question for the AMA: will IOTA remain a permissionless system and if so, how?
📷
dom오늘 오전 4:57
of course it remains permissionless
📷
dom오늘 오전 5:20
what is permissioned about it?
is ETH or Bitcoin permissioned because you have to pay a transaction fee in their native token?
📷
Gerrit오늘 오전 5:24
How did your industry partners think about the mana solution and the fact they need to hold the token to ensure network throughput?
📷
dom오늘 오전 5:26
u/Gerrit considering how the infrastructure, legal and regulatory frameworks are improving around the adoption and usage of crypto-currencies within large companies, I really think that we are introducing this concept exactly at the right time. It should make enterprise partners comfortable in using the permissionless network without much of a hurdle. They can always launch their own network if they want to ...
📷
Gerrit오늘 오전 5:27
Launching their own network can’t be what you want
📷
dom오늘 오전 5:27
exactly
but that is what's happening with Ethereum and all the other networks
they don't hold Ether tokens either.
📷
Gerrit오늘 오전 5:32
Will be very exciting to see if ongoing regulation will „allow“ companies to invest and hold the tokens. With upcoming custody solutions that would be a fantastic play.
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:34
It's still possible to send transactions even without mana - mana is only used in times of congestion to give the people that have more mana more priority
there will still be sharding to keep the network free most of the time
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:35
but without a protection mechanism, somebody could just spam a lot of bullshit and you could break the network(수정됨)
you need some form of protection from this
📷
M [s2]오늘 오전 5:36
u/Hans Moog [IF] so when I have 0 Mana, I can still send transactions? This is actually the point where it got strange...
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:37
yes you can
unless the network is close to its processing capabilities / being attacked by spammers
then the nodes will favor the mana holders
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:37
but having mana is not a requirement for many years to come
currently even people having fpgas can't spam that many tps
and we will also have sharding implemented by then
📷
M [s2]오늘 오전 5:39
Thank you u/Hans Moog [IF] ! This is the actually important piece of info!
📷
Basha오늘 오전 5:38
ok, i thought it was communicated that you need at least 1 mana to process a transaction.
from the blogpost: "... a node with 0 mana can issue no transactions."
maybe they meant during the congestion**, but if that's the case maybe you should add that**
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:42
its under the point "Congestion control:"
yeah this only applies to spam attacks
network not overloaded = no mana needed
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:43
if congested => favor txs from people who have the most skin in the game
but sharding will try to keep the network non-congested most of the time - but there might be short periods of time where an attacker might bring the network close to its limits
and of course its going to take a while to add this, so we need a protection mechanism till sharding is supported(수정됨)
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 6:36
I don't have a particular problem with EOS or their amount of validators - the reason why I think blockchain is inferior has really nothing to do with the way you do sybil protection
and with validators I mean "voting nodes"
I mean even bitcoin has less mining pools
and you could compare mining pools to dpos in some sense
where people assign their weight (in that case hashing power) to the corresponding mining pools
so EOS is definitely not less decentralized than any other tech
but having more identities having weight in the decision process definitely makes it harder to corrupt a reasonable fraction of the system and makes it easier to shard
so its desirable to have this property(수정됨)

-------------------------------------------------

📷
Antonio Nardella [IF]오늘 오전 3:36
https://twitter.com/cmcanalytics/status/1310866311929647104?s=19
u/C3PO [92% Cooless] They could also add more git repos instead of the wallet one, and we would probably be #1 there too..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I'm sorry, maybe I'm fueling some confusion through posting this mana-thing too soon,
but, instead of erasing this posting, I'm adding recent convos.
Certain things about mana seem to be not clear, yet.
It would be better to wait for some official clarification.
But, I hope the community gives its full support to IF, 'cause
there could be always some bumps along the untouched, unchartered way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Addition;

Billy Sanders [IF]오늘 오후 1:36

It's still possible to send transactions even without mana - mana is only used in times of congestion to give the people that have more mana more priority
u/Hans Moog [IF] Im sorry Hans, but this is false in the current congestion control algorithm. No mana = no transactions. To be honest, we havent really tried to make it work so that you can sent transactions with no mana during ties with no congestion, but I dont see how you can enable this and still maintain the sybil protection required. u/Luigi Vigneri [IF] What do you think?📷

Dave [EF]오늘 오후 2:19

Suggestion: Sidebar, then get back to us with the verdict.(수정됨)📷2📷

dom오늘 오후 2:27

No Mana no tx will definitely not be the case(수정됨)📷5📷7***[오후 2:28]***Billy probably means the previous rate control paper as it was written by Luigi. I'll clarify with them📷

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오후 2:29

When was this decided u/Billy Sanders [IF] and by whom? Was this discussed at last resum when I wasnt there? The last info that I had was that the congestion control should only kick in when there is congestion?!?***[오후 2:29]***📷 📷 📷📷

Navin Ramachandran [IF]오늘 오후 2:30

Let's sidebar this discussion and return when we have agreement. Dave has the right idea

submitted by btlkhs to Iota [link] [comments]

[OWL WATCH] Waiting for "IOTA TIME" 20; Hans's re-defined directions for DLT

Disclaimer: This is my editing, so there could be some misunderstandings...
--------------------------------------------
wellwho오늘 오후 4:50
u/Ben Royce****how far is society2 from having something clickable powered by IOTA?
Ben Royce오늘 오후 4:51
demo of basic tech late sep/ early oct. MVP early 2021
---------------------------------------------------
HusQy
Colored coins are the most misunderstood upcoming feature of the IOTA protocol. A lot of people see them just as a competitor to ERC-20 tokens on ETH and therefore a way of tokenizing things on IOTA, but they are much more important because they enable "consensus on data".
Bob
All this stuff already works on neblio but decentralized and scaling to 3500 tps
HusQy
Neblio has 8 mb blocks with 30 seconds blocktime. This is a throughput of 8 mb / 30 seconds = 267 kb per second. Transactions are 401+ bytes which means that throughput is 267 kb / 401 bytes = 665 TPS. IOTA is faster, feeless and will get even faster with the next update ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HusQy
Which DLT would be more secure? One that is collaboratively validated by the economic actors of the world (coporations, companies, foundations, states, people) or one that is validated by an anonymous group of wealthy crypto holders?
HusQy
The problem with current DLTs is that we use protection mechanisms like Proof of Work and Proof of Stake that are inherently hard to shard. The more shards you have, the more you have to distribute your hashing power and your stake and the less secure the system becomes.
HusQy
Real world identities (i.e. all the big economic actors) however could shard into as many shards as necessary without making the system less secure. Todays DLTs waste trust in the same way as PoW wastes energy.
HusQy
Is a secure money worth anything if you can't trust the economic actors that you would buy stuff from? If you buy a car from Volkswagen and they just beat you up and throw you out of the shop after you payed then a secure money won't be useful either :P
HusQy
**I believe that if you want to make DLT work and be successful then we need to ultimately incorporate things like trust in entities into the technology.**Examples likes wirecard show that trusting a single company is problematic but trusting the economy as a whole should be at ...
**... least as secure as todays DLTs.**And as soon as you add sharding it will be orders of magnitude more secure. DLT has failed to deliver because people have tried to build a system in vacuum that completely ignores things that already exist and that you can leverage on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HusQy
Blockchain is a bit like people sitting in a room, trying to communicate through BINGO sheets. While they talk, they write down some of the things that have been said and as soon as one screams BINGO! he hands around his sheet to inform everybody about what has been said.
HusQy
If you think that this is the most efficient form of communication for people sitting in the same room and the answer to scalability is to make bigger BINGO sheets or to allow people to solve the puzzle faster then you will most probably never understand what IOTA is working on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HusQy
**Blockchain does not work with too many equally weighted validators.****If 400 validators produce a validating statement (block) at the same time then only one can survive as part of a longest chain.**IOTA is all about collaborative validation.
**Another problem of blockchain is that every transaction gets sent twice through the network. Once from the nodes to the miners and a 2nd time from the miners as part of a block.**Blockchain will therefore always only be able to use 50% of the network throughput.
And****the last problem is that you can not arbitrarily decrease the time between blocks as it breaks down if the time between blocks gets smaller than the average network delay. The idle time between blocks is precious time that could be used for processing transactions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HusQy
I am not talking about a system with a fixed number of validators but one that is completely open and permissionless where any new company can just spin up a node and take part in the network.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HusQy
Proof of Work and Proof of Stake are both centralizing sybil-protection mechanism. I don't think that Satoshi wanted 14 mining pools to run the network.
And "economic clustering" was always the "end game" of IOTA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HusQy
**Using Proof of Stake is not trustless. Proof of Stake means you trust the richest people and hope that they approve your transactions. The rich are getting richer (through your fees) and you are getting more and more dependant on them.**Is that your vision of the future?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

HusQy
Please read again exactly what I wrote. I have not spoken of introducing governance by large companies, nor have I said that IOTA should be permissioned. We aim for a network with millions or even billions of nodes.

HusQy
That can't work at all with a permissioned ledger - who should then drop off all these devices or authorize them to participate in the network? My key message was the following: Proof of Work and Proof of Stake will always be if you split them up via sharding ...

HusQy
... less secure because you simply need fewer coins or less hash power to have the majority of the votes in a shard. This is not the case with trust in society and the economy. When all companies in the world jointly secure a DLT ...

HusQy
... then these companies could install any number of servers in any number of shards without compromising security, because "trust" does not become less just because they operate several servers. First of all, that is a fact and nothing else.

HusQy
Proof of Work and Proof of Stake are contrary to the assumption of many not "trustless" but follow the maxim: "In the greed of miners we trust!" The basic assumption that the miners do not destroy the system that generates income for them is fundamental here for the ...

HusQy
... security of every DLT. I think a similar assumption would still be correct for the economy as a whole: The companies of the world (and not just the big ones) would not destroy the system with which their customers pay them. In this respect, a system would be ...

HusQy
... which is validated by society and the economy as a whole probably just as "safely" as a system which is validated by a few anonymous miners. Why a small elite of miners should be better validators than any human and ...

HusQy
... To be honest, companies in this world do not open up to me. As already written in my other thread, safe money does not bring you anything if you have to assume that Volkswagen will beat you up and throw you out of the store after you ...

HusQy
... paid for a car. The thoughts I discussed say nothing about the immediate future of IOTA (we use for Coordicide mana) but rather speak of a world where DLT has already become an integral part of our lives and we ...

HusQy
... a corresponding number of companies, non-profit organizations and people have used DLT and where such a system could be implemented. The point here is not to create a governance solution that in any way influences the development of technology ...

HusQy
... or have to give nodes their OK first, but about developing a system that enables people to freely choose the validators they trust. For example, you can also declare your grandma to be a validator when you install your node or your ...

HusQy
... local supermarket. Economic relationships in the real world usually form a close-knit network and it doesn't really matter who you follow as long as the majority is honest. I also don't understand your criticism of censorship, because something like that in IOTA ...

HusQy
... is almost impossible. Each transaction confirms two other transactions which is growing exponentially. If someone wanted to ignore a transaction, he would have to ignore an exponential number of other transactions after a very short time. In contrast to blockchain ...

HusQy
... validators in IOTA do not decide what is included in the ledger, but only decide which of several double spends should be confirmed. Honest transactions are confirmed simply by having other transactions reference them ...

HusQy
... and the "validators" are not even asked. As for the "dust problem", this is indeed something that is a bigger problem for IOTA than for other DLTs because we have no fees, but it is also not an unsolvable problem. Bitcoin initially has a ...

HusQy
Solved similar problem by declaring outputs with a minimum amount of 5430 satoshis as invalid ( github.com/Bitcoin/Bitcoi…). A similar solution where an address must contain a minimum amount is also conceivable for IOTA and we are discussing ...

HusQy
... several possibilities (including compressing dust using cryptographic methods). Contrary to your assumption, checking such a minimum amount is not slow but just as fast as checking a normal transaction. And mine ...

HusQy
... In my opinion this is no problem at all for IOTA's use case. The important thing is that you can send small amounts, but after IOTA is feeless it is also okay to expect the recipients to regularly send their payments on a ...

HusQy
... merge address. The wallets already do this automatically (sweeping) and for machines it is no problem to automate this process. So far this was not a problem because the TPS were limited but with the increased TPS throughput of ...

HusQy
... Chrysalis it becomes relevant and appropriate solutions are discussed and then implemented accordingly. I think that was the most important thing first and if you have further questions just write :)

HusQy
And to be very clear! I really appreciate you and your questions and don't see this as an attack at all! People who see such questions as inappropriate criticism should really ask whether they are still objective. I have little time at the moment because ...

HusQy
... my girlfriend is on tour and has to take care of our daughter, but as soon as she is back we can discuss these things in a video. I think that the concept of including the "real world" in the concepts of DLT is really exciting and ...

HusQy
... that would certainly be exciting to discuss in a joint video. But again, that's more of a vision than a specific plan for the immediate future. This would not work with blockchain anyway but IOTA would be compatible so why not think about such things.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

HusQy
All good my big one :P But actually not that much has changed. There has always been the concept of "economic clustering" which is basically based on similar ideas. We are just now able to implement things like this for the first time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HusQy
Exactly. It would mean that addresses "cost" something but I would rather pay a few cents than fees for each transaction. And you can "take" this minimum amount with you every time you change to a new address.

HusQy
All good my big one :P But actually not that much has changed. There has always been the concept of "economic clustering" which is basically based on similar ideas. We are just now able to implement things like this for the first time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relax오늘 오전 1:17
Btw. Hans (sorry for interrupting this convo) but what make people say that IOTA is going the permissioned way because of your latest tweets? I don't get why some people are now forecasting that... Is it because of missing specs or do they just don't get the whole idea?

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:20
its bullshit u/Relaxan identity based system would still be open and permissionless where everybody can choose the actors that they deem trustworthy themselves but thats anyway just sth that would be applicable with more adoption
[오전 1:20]
for now we use mana as a predecessor to an actual reputation system

Sissors오늘 오전 1:31
If everybody has to choose actors they deem trustworthy, is it still permissionless? Probably will become a bit a semantic discussion, but still

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:34
Of course its permissionless you can follow your grandma if you want to :p

Sissors오늘 오전 1:36
Well sure you can, but you will need to follow something which has a majority of the voting power in the network. Nice that you follow your grandma, but if others dont, her opinion (or well her nodes opinion) is completely irrelevant

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:37
You would ideally follow the people that are trustworthy rather than your local drug dealers yeah

Sissors오늘 오전 1:38
And tbh, sure if you do it like that is easy. If you just make the users responsible for only connection to trustworthy nodes

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:38
And if your grandma follows her supermarket and some other people she deems trustworthy then thats fine as well
[오전 1:38]
+ you dont have just 1 actor that you follow

Sissors오늘 오전 1:38
No, you got a large list, since yo uwant to follow those which actually matter. So you jsut download a standard list from the internet

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:39
You can do that
[오전 1:39]
Is bitcoin permissionless? Should we both try to become miners?
[오전 1:41]
I mean miners that actually matter and not find a block every 10 trillion years 📷
[오전 1:42]
If you would want to become a validator then you would need to build up trust among other people - but anybody can still run a node and issue transactions unlike in hashgraph where you are not able to run your own nodes(수정됨)
[오전 1:48]
Proof of Stake is also not trustless - it just has a builtin mechanism that downloads the trusted people from the blockchain itself (the richest dudes)

Sissors오늘 오전 1:52
I think most agree it would be perfect if every person had one vote. Which is pr oblematic to implement of course. But I really wonder if the solution is to just let users decide who to trust. At the very least I expect a quite centralized network

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:53
of course even a trust based system would to a certain degree be centralized as not every person is equally trustworthy as for example a big cooperation
[오전 1:53]
but I think its gonna be less centralized than PoS or PoW
[오전 1:53]
but anyway its sth for "after coordicide"
[오전 1:54]
there are not enough trusted entities that are using DLT, yet to make such a system work reasonably well
[오전 1:54]
I think the reason why blockchain has not really started to look into these kind of concepts is because blockchain doesnt work with too many equally weighted validators
[오전 1:56]
I believe that DLT is only going to take over the world if it is actually "better" than existing systems and with better I mean cheaper, more secure and faster and PoS and PoW will have a very hard time to deliver that
[오전 1:56]
especially if you consider that its not only going to settle value transfers

Relax오늘 오전 1:57
I like this clear statements, it makes it really clear that DLT is still in its infancy

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:57
currently bank transfers are order of magnitude cheaper than BTC or ETH transactions

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:57
and we you think that people will adopt it just because its crypto then I think we are mistaken
[오전 1:57]
The tech needs to actually solve a problem
[오전 1:57]
and tbh. currently people use PayPal and other companies to settle their payments
[오전 1:58]
having a group of the top 500 companies run such a service together is already much better(수정됨)
[오전 1:58]
especially if its fast and feeless
[오전 2:02]
and the more people use it, the more decentralized it actually becomes
[오전 2:02]
because you have more trustworthy entities to choose of

Evaldas [IF]오늘 오전 2:08
"in the greed of miners we trust"


submitted by btlkhs to Iota [link] [comments]

What is bitcoin farming? Is it worth it in 2020?

Are you looking forward to investing in cryptocurrency? Well, one of the first cryptocurrency that comes to your mind is Bitcoin. The pioneering cryptocurrency has paved the way for some remarkable transformations in the world of financial technology. Bitcoin works on a Blockchain platform that enables peer-to-peer interaction, and there is no interference from the third-party. In addition to the revolution which Bitcoin created, it lead to the surge of many cryptocurrencies. Presently, around 500 cryptocurrencies are floating in the market.
Before going ahead to explore about Bitocin farms and bitcoin farming, let’s have a glance at some eye-popping stats:
· By the end of 2019, around 42 million Bitcoin wallets have been set up globally.
· Around 5% of Americans hold Bitcoin
· There are around 7.1 million active Bitcoin users
· One of the best cryptocurrency exchanges, Coinbase has more than 13 million users
The volume of Bitcoin trading from peer-to-peer exchange LocalBitcoin shows that countries like Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, and many African companies are jumping into the pool of cryptocurrency trading. With Bitcoin being an all-time favorite of many investors, other cryptocurrencies like Litecoin, Ethereum, Ripple, and many others have generated a fair amount of popularity.
What does it mean for us?
Any individual who wishes to invest in Bitcoin must have a fair knowledge about Bitcoin and Bitcoin farming. In simple words, Bitcoin farming is all about extracting value from Bitcoin. Bitcoin miners, similar to framers, work on a complex algorithm and extract value from it.
In simple words, Bitcoin farmers or miners, as we know them, work on computational problems, they ensure that the system is secure, and using this, they solve complex problems. The ones who can solve these complex problems get a reward in the form of Bitcoin.
All these transactions and records are stored on the Bitcoin ledger, making it tamper-free and hacks- proof. There are two ways via which you can start exploring more about Bitcoin, you can either star working as Bitcoin farmer or miner, and work in computation problems or you can start investing in it by choosing the best cryptocurrency exchange platforms.
Investing in cryptocurrencies is the best move that you can make. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will surely make a strong presence in the future, and this is the right time to start investing in it.
You can opt from the different Bitcoin exchange platform. Some of the best cryptocurrency exchanges you can consider are Coinbase, Binance, CashApp, Bisq, and many others. You can choose from either of these and start your investment in Bitcoin.
If you wish to invest in Bitcoin, then you can also consider buying using Bitcoin ATM. You can buy and sell Bitcoin from Bitcoin ATM using cash or debit card. There are some Bitcoin ATM that allows you to sell and purchase Bitcoin.
Conclusion
This was the basic information about Bitcoin farming and Bitcoin trading. If you are futuristic and wish to invest in it, this is the right time to start your investment journey. Ensure that you thoroughly assess the market and study the market trend, based on it; you can start working on it.
For more interesting information, connect with Blockchain Council today.
submitted by Blockchain_org to BlockchainStartups [link] [comments]

Why EpiK’s super-large knowledge graph can stand at the “Center position” of AI

Why EpiK’s super-large knowledge graph can stand at the “Center position” of AI
What is the knowledge graph? Simply put, it is a graph-based data structure consisting of nodes and edges. Each node represents an “entity”, and each edge is a “relationship” between an entity and an entity.
Everyone pays more attention to the relationship between Marvel characters. The following picture is an example of the knowledge graph.

credit for google
So what is the relationship between knowledge graph and AI? To realize AI, knowledge of language, common sense, and industry knowledge is needed. But this knowledge is not all structured which AI cannot understand. The knowledge graph needs to be structured through certain logic, and then uploaded, stored, and applied in a form suitable for AI cognition. Therefore, the knowledge graph is the future of AI and EpiK is trying to broaden AI cognition through a large knowledge graph.
The knowledge graph is not a discipline, but more like a project. If you use an idiom to express the relationship between the two, it can be said that “if there is no skin, there is nowhere to put the hair.” Knowledge graph is the source of AI application. As the title, the center place of EpiK’s super-large knowledge graph is not an exaggeration.
Deeply understand the difficulties and pain points of the knowledge graph
In 2012, Google formally proposed the concept of knowledge graph. At that time, the main purpose of researchers was to optimize search engine technology. With the continuous popularization of AI applications, knowledge graphs have become the most important task of AI applications from a temporary gimmick. .
There is a vast river of human knowledge. At the same time, human society is constantly developing and new knowledge is constantly emerging. For this reason, the construction of a knowledge map is not a matter of overnight, nor is it what a company or an organization can accomplish. To this end, a stable system and a large number of experts and labor are needed to participate in the joint construction.
At the same time, the application of knowledge graphs to AI intelligent machines requires machines to be able to read the knowledge graphs. For this reason, knowledge graphs are also required to transform unstructured data, which also requires a lot of labor.
The Great Wall has become a spectacle because of its danger, its creativity, and its courage and spirit to overcome all kinds of dangers. Therefore, the wisdom of Chinese working people is admired by the world.
The construction of the knowledge graph also requires the power of all human beings to complete it together. Compared with the construction of the Great Wall, with strong technical capabilities, the relative choice is larger, and the realization space is more objective. The emergence of blockchain has made the knowledge map a more reliable guarantee for the realization of human eternal knowledge base.
Standing on the shoulders of giants, EpiK rides the wind and waves with the knowledge graph
Decentralized storage technology (IPFS), decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), and token economy model (Token Economy), EpiK troika is coming.
From Bitcoin, IPFS, DAO, blockchain applications continue to refresh human cognition, while also allowing more people to participate in the torrent of new technologies. Standing on the shoulders of giants, EpiK made a comprehensive attack on the knowledge graph, and the troika went all out.
As mentioned above, the knowledge graph is a labor-intensive work that requires a large number of experts to upload knowledge. At the same time, the knowledge graph is a kind of structured data. When encountering unstructured data, people need to modify or transform it.
The EpiK protocol uses Experts DAO. This is a decentralized governance mechanism used to manage domain experts, voting campaigns, and Bounty distribution. The expert alliance is a decentralized management agency responsible for managing knowledge experts and voters and bounty hunters. Once DAO is operational, it will liberate huge productivity for the construction of the global super-large knowledge graph.
According to Eric Yao, head of EpiK China, the core of decentralized storage lies in sharing. As the comprehensive and intelligent infrastructure of the fourth industrial revolution, the super-large-scale knowledge graph formed by the collection of human knowledge in various fields is suitable for the use of decentralized storage technology to build and share.
Value is the ultimate pursuit of organizational development. The token economy model is an important way to encourage participants to continue to build and share. In terms of reward distribution, EPK (EpiK token) is mainly issued in block rewards. For the rewards in each block, 90% will be rewarded to miners who store and maintain knowledge data, and the remaining 10% will be rewarded to expert alliance members in proportion to their contribution.
Currently, the EpiK testnet pre-mining activity has been open for 24 hours, and more than 1,700 people have applied for access to the testnet, which illustrates the tremendous power of the token and also promotes the construction of the knowledge graph.
In the future, whoever controls the knowledge graph data will occupy the commanding heights of AI applications. EpiK is struggling to move forward on the road to build a huge knowledge graph.
submitted by EpiK_Protocol to u/EpiK_Protocol [link] [comments]

the year 2020 in Bitcoin Cash so far: a detailed history

the year 2020 in Bitcoin Cash so far: a detailed history
What follows at the bottom is a four page long chronological overview of what happened in BCH in 2020 so far. To make it more digestable and fun to read I start with my narrating of the story.
My attempt was to remain as objective as possible and "let the facts speak for themselve" with everything sourced. I also link to many read.cash articles, the decision of which are the important ones to include is certainly not easy, I count on the rest of the community if I overlooked anything important.

summary & my narrating of the story:
The year started out relatively calm, with cashfusion in "the news" and an older ongoing controversy between Amaury and Roger Ver being worked out. Starting Jan 22nd all debate broke loose with the announcement of “Infrastructure Funding Plan for Bitcoin Cash” by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP. To illustrate this point 2 days later coinspice ran the title " Roger Ver Praises Vigorous Debate, [...]" and 6 days, less than a week, later Chris Pacia made a read.cash post titled "The 253rd "Thoughts on developer funding" Article" which might have been only a slight exaggeration or he might have been counting. Part of the reason of the tsunami was the lack of worked out details. By the time of Pacia's post a lot had changed: Both BU, Bitcoin Verde and a group of miners had made announcements not to go along with "the plan".
On feb 1st, the second version of the IFP was announced by Jiang Zhuoer in a post “BCH miner donation plan update”. Two weeks later on Feb 15th, the third iteration was announced by Bitcoin ABC which was to be activated by hashrate voting and on the same day Flipstarter was introduced, a sign of the search for alternative solutions. After a few more days and a few more people coming out more against the IFP (including Jonald Fyookball, Mark Lundeberg & Josh Ellithorpe), BCHN was announced on feb 20th with a formal release a week later. Also feb 27th, the DAA was brought back into the conversation by Jonathan Toomim with his " The BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm is broken. Here's how to fix it." video. By early march the IFP was effectively dead with its author Jiang Zhuoer vowing to vote against it. This became clear to everyone when ABC, a day later sudddenly shifted gears towards non-protocol, donation based funding: the IFP was dead. End march ABCs 2020 Business Plan was announced as a way to raise $3.3 million. Mid april to mid may was the high time for voluntary funding with four node implementations and General Protocols, a BCH DeFi Startup successfully raising funds.
By May 15th, the 6th HF network upgrade things had pretty much cooled down. The upgraded included nothing controversial and even saw an unexpected doubling in the unconfirmed transaction chain. June 15th a month later things started to heat up again with the BCHN announcement to remove the "poison pill" or "automatic replay protection". 8th Jul Jonathan Toomim posted "BCH protocol upgrade proposal: Use ASERT as the new DAA" which promised the solution to the long dragging DAA problem. Jul 23th however an unexpected twist occurred when Amaury Séchet posted "Announcing the Grasberg DAA" an incompatible, alternative solution. This, again, sparked a ton of debate and discussion. Grasberg lasted just two weeks from Jul 23th to Aug 6th when ABC announced its plans for the november 2020 upgrade but it had successfully united the opposition in the meanwhile. ABCs plan for november included dropping grasberg in favour of aserti3–2d and introducing IFPv4. Now we're here August 8th, the IFP which was declared dead after just over a month (Jan 22-Mar 5) is now back in full force. The rest of the history is still being written but if p2p electronic cash is to succeed in any big regard it's very thinkable that these events will get into history books.

Important resources: coinspice IFP timeline & Compiled list of BCH Miner Dev Fund posts, articles, discussions

History
Jan 13th : “Do CoinJoins Really Require Equal Transaction Amounts for Privacy? Part One: CashFusion” article by BitcoinMagazine [source]
Jan 13th : “Clearing the Way for Cooperation” Read.cash article by Amaury Séchet [source] on the controversy with Roger Ver about the amount of donations over the years
Jan 22nd : “Infrastructure Funding Plan for Bitcoin Cash” IFPv1 announced by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] IFPv1: 12.5% of BCH coinbase rewards which will last for 6 months through a Hong Kong-based corporation & to be activated on May 15th
Jan 22nd : ”Bitcoin Cash Developers React to Infrastructure Fund Announcement: Cautiously Optimistic” coinspice article including Amaury Séchet, Antony Zegers, Jonald Fyookball & Josh Ellithorpe [source]
Jan 23rd : Jiang Zhuoer reddit AMA [source] [coinspice article]
Jan 23rd : Vitalik weighs in with his take on twitter [source]
Jan 23rd :” On the infrastructure funding plan for Bitcoin Cash” article by Amaury Séchet [source] [coinspice article] in which he proposed to place control of the IFP key in his hands together with Jonald Fyookball and Antony Zegers. . A group of 7 to 12 miners, developers, and businessmen in total would get an advisory function.
Jan 24th : “Bitcoin.com's Clarifications on the Miner Development Fund“ which emphasizes, among other things, the temporary and reversible nature of the proposal [source] [coinspice article]
Jan 24th : “Little Known (But Important!) Facts About the Mining Plan” Read.cash article by Jonald Fyookball in which he defended the IFP and stressed its necessity and temporary nature.
Jan 25th : massive amounts of public debate as documented by coinspice [coinspice article] with Justin Bons, Tobias Ruck and Antony Zegers explaining their take on it.
Jan 26th : public debate continues: “Assessment and proposal re: the Bitcoin Cash infrastructure funding situation” Read.cash article by imaginary_username [source] which was noteworthy in part because the post earned over Earns $1,000+ in BCH [coinspice article] and “The Best Of Intentions: The Dev Tax Is Intended to Benefit Investors But Will Corrupt Us Instead” by Peter Rizun [source]
Jan 27th : “We are a group of miners opposing the BTC.TOP proposal, here's why” article on Read.cash [source] [reddit announcement]
Jan 27th : Bitcoin Unlimited's BUIP 143: Refuse the Coinbase Tax [source][reddit announcement]
Jan 28th : “Bitcoin Verde's Response to the Miner Sponsored Development Fund” read.cash article by Josh Green in which he explains “Bitcoin Verde will not be implementing any node validation that enforces new coinbase rules.” [source]
Jan 28th : “Update on Developer Funding” read.cash article from Bitcoin.com [source] in which they state “As it stands now, Bitcoin.com will not go through with supporting any plan unless there is more agreement in the ecosystem such that the risk of a chain split is negligible.” And that “any funding proposal must be temporary and reversible.” This announcement from bitcoin.com and their mining pool lead the anonymous opposition miners to stand down. [source]
Jan 28th : The 253rd "Thoughts on developer funding" Article – by Chris Pacia, to tackle the “serious misconceptions in the community about how software development works”. He ends on a note of support for the IFP because of lack of realistic alternatives. [source]
Feb 1st: “BCH miner donation plan update” IFPv2 announced by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] Which changes the donation mechanism so miners directly send part of their coinbase to the projects they wants to donate to. It would be activated with hashrate voting over a 3-month period with a 2/3 in favour requirement. The proposal also introduces a pilot period and a no donation option, Jiang Zhuoer also says he regards 12.% as too much.
Feb 7th: Group of BCH miners led by AsicSeer voice scepticism about the IFP during a reddit AMA [source]
Feb 15th: “On the Miner Infrastructure Funding Plan” article by Bitcoin ABC [source] In which they announce they will implement IFPv3 in their upcoming 0.21.0 release. This version has amount reduced to 5% of block reward and will go in effect with BIP 9 hashratevoting and a whitelist with different projects.
Feb 15th : “Introducing Flipstarter” [source]
Feb 16th :” Bitcoin.com’s stance on the recent block reward diversion proposals” video by Roger Ver on the Bitcoin.com Official Channel. [source] > Ver called Zhuoer’s IFP “clever” but ultimately “problematic.” [coinspice article]
Feb 16th :” BCH miner donation plan update again” read.cash article by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] In which he briefly outlines the details of IFPv3
Feb 17th : “Latest Thoughts On Infrastructure Mining Plan” post by Jonald Fyookball [source]
Feb 17th : “Regarding the Bitcoin Cash Infrastructure Funding Plan, I am certain now that it should be scrapped immediately.” tweet by Mark Lundeberg [source]
Feb 19th : “Thoughts on the IFP - A Dev Perspective“ read.cash article by Josh Ellithorpe [source]
Feb 20th : “Bitcoin Cash Node” post announcing the new node implementation [source]
Feb 20th : First “Bitcoin Cash Developer Meeting” After IFP Proposal [source]
Feb 24th : “Flipstarter 500k, 6 independent campaigns” post announcing the goal to “fund the BCH ecosystem with 6 independent campaigns and an overall 500,000 USD target” [source]
Feb 27th : BCHN Formally Released [source]
Feb 27th : “The BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm is broken. Here's how to fix it.” Video by Jonathan Toomim [source]
Mar 3th :” Bitcoin Cash Node 2020: plans for May upgrade and beyond” post by BCHN [source]
Mar 4th :”Author of the Bitcoin Cash IFP [Jiang Zhuoer] Vows to Vote Against It, Using Personal Hash in Opposition” [source]
Mar 5th :Bitcoin ABC announces their 2020 Business Plan Fundraising for later in march [source]
Mar 15th : “EatBCH campaign funded! Next: node campaigns.” campaign funded after 11 hours [source]
Mar 30th : Bitcoin ABC 2020 Business Plan [source] $3.3 Million Fundraiser [source]
Apr 17th : Five flipstarter node campaign launched. [source]
Apr 26th : BCHN flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
Apr 27th : VERDE flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
May 4th : KNUTH flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
May 7th : “BCH DeFi Startup General Protocols Raises Over $1 mil“ [source]
May 8th : BCHD flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
May 9th : Deadline for node campaigns, ABC flipstarter campaign not funded. [source]
May 14th : “With IFP Defeated, Bitcoin ABC, ViaBTC & CoinEX CEO Publicly Consider a Bitcoin Cash Foundation” [source]
May 15th : deadline for ABC fundraiser campaign, ends at 55% completed. [source]
May 15th : 6th HF network upgrade -> new opcode op_Reversebytes, increased of the chained transaction limit from 25 to 50, and the improved counting of signature operations using the new “Sigchecks” implementation [source] with the “Controversial Funding Plan Rejected by Miners” [source]
May 25th : “Announcing the SLP Foundation” [source]
Jun 15st : “BCHN lead maintainer report 2020-06-15” announcement to remove the Automatic Replay Protection (a.k.a. the Poison Pill) from BCHN in november [source]
Jun 16st : “So [BCHN] is going to fork off from BCH at the next upgrade. Same old story. […]” tweeted Vin Armani [source]
Jun 21st : “Why Automatic Replay Protection Exists” post by Shammah Chancellor [source]
Jul 7th : “The Popular Stablecoin Tether Is Now Circulating on the Bitcoin Cash Network” [source]
Jul 8th : “BCH protocol upgrade proposal: Use ASERT as the new DAA” post by Jonathan Toomim [source]
Jul 18th : “$6M Worth of Tether on the Bitcoin Cash Chain Highlights the Benefits of SLP Tokens” [source]
Jul 23th : “Announcing the Grasberg DAA” post by Amaury Séchet[source]
Jul 24th : “Thoughts on Grasberg DAA” post by Mark Lundeberg [source]
Jul 29th : CashFusion security audit has been completed [source]
Jul 31st : Electron Cash 4.1.0 release with CashFusion support [source]
4th year, august 2020 – 2021
Aug 1st : “Bitcoin Cash: Scaling the Globe“ Online conference for ForkDay Celebration [source]
Aug 2nd : >“Is there going to be a fork between ABC and BCHN?” > “IMO it is very likely. If not in November, then next May.” – Amaury Séchet
Aug 3rd : “Dark secrets of the Grasberg DAA” post by Jonathan Toomim [source]
Aug 3rd : “Joint Statement On aserti3-2d Algorithm“ post by General Protocols, including Cryptophyl, Read.cash, Software Verde & SpinBCH [source]
Aug 3rd : Knuth announces they will be implementing aserti3-2d as DAA for november. [source]
Aug 3rd : Amaury rage quit from the developer call [source]
Aug 4th : “But why do people care about compensating for historical drift? Seems like a tiny problem and if it's causing this much social discord it seems not even worth bothering to try to fix.” Tweet by Vitalik [source]
Aug 5th : “Bitcoin Cash (BCH) November 2020 Upgrade statement” signed by BCHD, electron cash, VERDE, BU members, BCHN developers, Jonathan Toomim, Mark B. Lundeberg and many others [source]
Aug 5th : “BCHN FAQ on November 2020 Bitcoin Cash network upgrade” [source]
Aug 6th : “Bitcoin ABC’s plan for the November 2020 upgrade” [source] the announcement that they will drop Grasberg in favour of aserti3–2d (ASERT) and will also include FPv4 in which 8% of the blockreward goes to ABC as development funding.
Aug 7th : “Joint Statement from BCH Miners regarding Bitcoin ABC and the November 2020 BCH Upgrade.” Read.cash article by asicseer [source] stating “Over recent months, most miners and pools have switched to BCHN, and presently operate a majority of BCH hashrate.”
Aug 7th : “Simple Ledger Protocol's Joint Statement Regarding Bitcoin ABC on BCH's November 2020 Upgrade” read.cash post by the SLP-Foundation [source]
submitted by Mr-Zwets to btc [link] [comments]

No, we don’t need to hire world-class developers - my response to ABC’s George Donnelly’s recent medium post

George Donnelly of ABC recently posted an article titled “Why We Need to Hire World-Class People Now” on Medium.
The ideas presented in the article are in line with ideas I’ve heard Amaury share before; I disagreed with them when Amaury first shared them, and I disagree with them again now that George is restating them as a curated Amaury point-of-view.
Here is the link to George’s post on Medium:
https://medium.com/bitcoin-abc/why-we-need-to-hire-world-class-people-now-17653f1f16dc
Below is my response:
No, we don’t need to hire world-class people.
What we actually need is to attract world-class skill, rather than hire.
What we need is to attract world-class startups with skilled technical founders and skilled developers.
What we need is to attract world-class applications and services with skilled mission-critical operation-teams who will ultimately cooperate and form a hive ready to respond to any immediate or long term threat or need.
What we need is to attract loyal users who demand quality services which will demand world-class skills.
What we need is to build and attract an eco-system which fosters this.
What we don’t need is another team of “world’s best developers” with a loyalty to a single group of decision makers: another Blockstream.
What we don’t need is another set of non-democratic leaders who are willing to enforce their proposals through back-dating spec updates in order to finance themselves while destroying the soundness of the very thing they’re supposedly here to build and protect.
I agree with the general idea about needing skill, but I absolutely disagree with having to “hire” such skill to a centralized entity, as we already saw that ABC which just barely made it to a reference client level (or miners’ preference) and they immediately became corrupt -in my opinion- through the introduction of the IFP.
We saw that with Blockstream, nChain, and now with ABC and we will absolutely see it with any entity that feels comfortable in their “leadership” position: absolute power corrupts absolutely.
You want skill? Funding? Community support? Eco-system? You must work to pull these things to you, not push them unto what you think Bitcoin is.
Because the second you push something which disagrees with what Bitcoin is, Bitcoin swiftly moves and pushes you right out the revolving door.
submitted by wisequote to btc [link] [comments]

Deep fundamental reasons behind all conflicts with Tezos Foundation

Let's first take a look at two core ideas behind Tezos protocol:
  1. In Bitcoin protocol, there are those who create blocks (miners) and users. Those are two fundamentally different groups. As a result of that they do have fundamentally different interests. When those interests are aligned, it's all work very well. However, sometimes those interests might get misaligned. Miners might want one set of changes in the protocol while users might want another set of changes. Tezos procotol solves this problem via proof of stake's baking mechanism by allowing users of XTZ to become block creators (like miners in Bitcoin protocol). Users/holders of XTZ and block creators are now fundamentally the same group and therefore there is no interest misalignment. Moreover, as a consequence of choosing proof of stake over proof of work, almost anyone can become a baker at low cost. Of course, there is a minimum requirement but it can be easily reduced through voting if price XTZ goes too high;
  2. Although per (1) problem of misalignment between users and miners solved, Tezos protocol make one step further. Namely, there is self-amending mechanisms in protocol. Through of the set of voting rounds, attached bounties (via dillution), there is a deterministic path to resolve disputes in upgrading Tezos protocol. Nobody knows the future, nobody knows how protocol should look like after 5-10-20 years. That's why it's very important to have self-amending procedure. Without deterministic path to protocol upgrade, you will have fork-wars like in Bitcoin. As a result of these fork-wars, you now have Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV. Also, with built-in bounties via dillution, Tezos protocol guarantees funding for its further development;
There is third core idea behind Tezos protocol. Namely, formal verification friendly, low-level and explicit smart contract language - Michelson. While it's very important feature, it's not relevant for this discussion.
Now imagine you are going back in time when Tezos protocol isn't implemented yet, only draft whitepaper. How would you bring it to life if you were original author?
If there were no crypto-currencies, then all you have to do is to take time and implement minimum viable product (MVP) on your own. May be you might do it with co-founder but it's not really necessary for releasing the first version of protocol in absence of any competition.
However, the field was already crowded and time works against you. It would be necessary for project's survival to be as fast as possible in such dynamic field. You need to raise funds to hire dozen of strong programmers to implement Tezos protocol and on top of that to fund development of ecosystem in Tezos network. Namely, wallets, higher-level languages on top of low-level Michelson, education materials for future smart contract writers, new projects similar to 0x, Maker, Compound, Cryptokitties etc.
Now, I would like you to make a pause and think what is Tezos protocol. It tries to align incentives of parties using game-theoretic constructs! And now, I would like you to make second pause and think what crypto-currencies are all about in broader sense. Crypto-currencies are about eliminating centralization and unnecessary middle-mans. One of the biggest middle-mans is governments and their legal system.
People who are in the space for long time should know how much crypto-currencies influenced by Austrian School of Economics (read Hayek's book "Denationalization Of Money" (1976) and early Satoshi Nakamoto's posts).
With that in mind (spirit behind Tezos and crypto-currencies in general), how would you fund development of Tezos protocol and later its initial ecosystem?
The correct answer is to setup decentralized autonomus organization (DAO). Initial DAO on Ethereum protocol since you don't have any Tezos protocol implementations (remember, we are still back in time!).
This DAO will be used to develop Tezos protocol itself and leverage power of smart contracts to correctly align incentives for development of Tezos protocol. Namely, backers of this DAO would get ERC20 token representing voting and governance power. For example, let's say founders raised 250M USD worth in ETH and all of these money will be locked in smart contract. Only backers can unlock funds from smart contract by tranches as Tezos protocol developers making progress. It would be similar to traditional world - seed round, round A, round B etc. When Tezos mainnet goes live, backers would receive proportional amount of XTZ as their ERC20 voting tokens on Ethereum. Since that initial DAO would still have tons of ETH locked by the time Tezos mainnet released, those proceeds will be used to fund wallet developers, high-language developers, and so on (via voting by backers of course).
In this scenario, I would envision that the first big project after Tezos mainnet launched would be to build trustless, decentralized bridge between Tezos blockchain and Ethereum blockchain. Simply, because it would be good to migrate intial DAO and its ETH funds into Tezos blockchain.
There are only two downsides with this approach:
  1. You can't raise funds in Bitcoin but who cares if it's 100M or even 50M (still huge amount of money);
  2. Many people in crypto-space will make fun of you because you just setup DAO on Ethereum while developing Ethereum competitor;
Neither of these two downsides is important. Ultimate upside is that backers has direct control over how funds are spent because they would be the only ones who can unlock funds by voting for proposals.
On meta-level, you would have beautiful symmetry. Namely, you develop Tezos protocol and its ecosystem, using the similar ideas and spirit as Tezos protocol itself!
But we all know that it was never happened!
We all know drama with Gevers who tried to capture power at Tezos Foundation. We all know that there is no RPC command in Tezos github to vote out Tezos Foundation members ;) We all know that we are not in control of Tezos Foundation. Tezos Foundation is a swiss non-profit organization with its own board and we are not part of it. Tezos Foundation is govern under Swiss law and most of you are not even Swiss citizens.
Here is the question why Breitmans suddently decided to throw away all fundamental principles behind crypto-currencies and just went all-in with traditional world? Why we all got stuck with our own mini-Washington, namely Tezos Foundation? There is one reason why Breitmans decided to throw away all their principles and stick with this strange scheme involving Swiss foundations.
The reason is ... socialism. You might think I'm joking but stay with me. There were roaring 1920s and following 1929 stock market crash (by the way that was actually caused by government creating credit bubble). Republican (but still a socialist) Herbert Hoover created depression from 1929 crash. Franklin Roosevelt made this depression truly great! He imposed price-controls and outright gold confiscation (check "Executive Order 6102"). One of his most terrible pieces of paternalistic socialist legislation was "Securities Act of 1933". And this is the reason why Breitmans tried so hard escape iron hand of Roosevelt's zombie.
The same month as Tezos fundraiser, SEC issued statement about the most famous Ethereum DAO:
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-131
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf
Basically, they tried to say that DAO violated their 1933 Securities Act (aka Roosevelt zombie). I'm not claiming that Breitmans anticipated this exact SEC statement about Ethereum DAO. All I'm saying that they are smart enough to understand that SEC might come after them as well. It doesn't matter if SEC had right to do so. It doesn't matter that XTZ is not security at all. Only people outside of hardcore old school crypto-community would believe in such non-sense as rights. The truth is that any government is essentially an army which controls a territory and they (not you!) decide what they think is right or wrong.
Breitmans knew that SEC might chase them with bloody machete, so they decided to play traditional game which many played when Switzerland still had numbered accounts. Namely, using Switzerland as old-style traditional escape from Roosevelt zombies.
Unfortunately, for them they got in hands of people who knew too well how actually Swiss foundations work. We all remember how Gevers tried to exploit Swiss law about foundations to seize control over foundation's assets. Now we have new drama. But fundamentally, it's all because Breitmans choose Swiss law over Ethereum smart-contracts.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming Breitmans. I really think that their fear of Roosevelt zombie with bloody machete led them to setup weird foundation in Switzerland. In normal circumstances, I don't see any rational reason not to setup DAO as I described above.
Zooming out, on the bigger scale, you might see that these two worlds (i.e. traditional government law and crypto) are not compatible at all. You just can't have both of two worlds.
For the same reason, I don't believe in STOs. It's a nice toy, a temporary thing to bootstrap your Defi ecosystem in Tezos but nothing more than that.
Every STO, at some point, rely on some centralized entity which is controlled by law of some jurisdiction. Once government (aka army which control territories and make visibility of its own legitimacy via elections and passing laws) decides that your STO is not compliant, all these STO tokens will be worthless overnight. More on this in my another long post:
https://www.reddit.com/MakerDAO/comments/de0sys/kyc_is_absolutely_not_acceptable_for_makerdao/
Regardless of what's happen with Tezos Foundation, I strongly believe that Tezos protocol will thrive. Mainnet went life and the jinn that can't be put back in the bottle!
Update: Many here criticized my position regarding STOs. That's partly my fault with being too lax with terminology (once I wrote big post, I didn't have much energy to clarify on STOs in the end). By STO, I mean any tokens backed by regulated assets (again, I know it's lax definition). I assumed almost everyone here is for open, borderless finance. As a result of that, I assumed that you want to make these tokens available for everyone and that's why one day government will put pressure on such STO issuers to freeze tokens. However, it's turned out that some people excited for STOs being fully regulated from the start and therefore these tokens wouldn't be available for everyone. Basically, some people see main benefits of STOs as being pro-actively censorship friendly. In other words, they want to move all compliance on blockchain. Whereas, I see very existence of government regulations as root of all problems. Having said that, I'm not against STOs but I'm not very excited about them either. You have to make great mental leap to understand that fully-regulated STOs fundamentally solving wrong problem. You have to build fully censorship resistant technology, not fully censorship friendly. No matter how big market for STOs, it's still several orders of magnitude smaller than potential world of fully-inclusive finance without any borders whatsoever. Tezos is very well equipped for this ambitious task especially with new privacy features coming. Remember, Satoshi Nakamoto didn't ask permission from governments before releasing Bitcoin.
submitted by omgcoin to tezos [link] [comments]

How to Explain Bitcoin: 3 Tips to Have Better Bitcoin Conversations

BTC Friends,
Let’s be honest, Bitcoin is confusing. Not to you (you are on this / after all), but to the people who have no idea what it is. Trying to explain Bitcoin is even harder. I’m sure we’ve all had those long, complicated, drawn-out conversations which leave people more confused than when it started.
To aid its adoption WE HAVE TO GET BETTER AT EXPLAINING WHAT BITCOIN IS.
Here are a few tips that should, hopefully, help you manage a simple and easy to understand discussion about Bitcoin.
Before we get to that, a few things to remember:
Bitcoin is a fundamental change from what most people believe. An explanation about Bitcoin shouldn’t be about “being right” or “winning the argument.” Instead, it should be about helping someone explore a new idea and begin to understand that there are actually different alternatives to the only “money” they’ve ever known.
Bitcoin is complicated. It’s important to remember that this is as much of an emotion transformation for someone as it is a logical one. A CONFUSED MIND ALWAYS SAYS NO. If you leave a person confused or frustrated about what Bitcoin is, they are more likely to build up a resistance to it and become close-minded because “it’s just too complicated.”
Adoption is a marathon, not a sprint. Don’t feel the need to word vomit all of your intense 1337 cypto-knowledge in a single conversation. Slow and steady. Like a good story-teller, keep them wanting more.
Now, some tips to consider:
1. Start with ‘WHAT is Bitcoin?,’ not ‘WHY is Bitcoin?’
A fundamental mistake that people make is to try to justify WHY something exists before even explaining WHAT something is. Your explanations need to act as a building blocks of knowledge which means you have to have a very clear, very easily understood, fundamental premise:
Bitcoin is…:
Digital coins that exist on the internet that you can spend and save just like the paper money in your wallet.
An alternative form of money than what you are given by your local government.
That's it. That's Bitcoin. While I’m sure we can, and probably will, argue about what that base, fundamental definition is, it’s important to start with WHAT, not WHY.
While hyperinflation, store of value, scarcity, the Federal Reserve, and how the printing of fiat devalues currency are all important, it does not answer the question of WHAT is Bitcoin. If you start with WHY, you are skipping a major building block in the mind of the listener and are on your way to creating confusion. And remember, a confused mind always says no!
Here is an example. (Now, don’t go full-internet on me. I’m not degrading this person or this video THANK YOU PERSON FOR MAKING THIS VIDEO. This video is awesome! I only bring it up because it is a recent video that got some attention. It also demonstrates this point.)
When asked to explain Bitcoin, here is the opening line:
“The FED…is out of control with printing money…”
This is a ‘WHY is Bitcoin’ response. Already, the listener is probably thinking, ‘what the heck does the FED have to do with anything? I just wanted to know what Bitcoin was…’ and you may just lose your listener right there.
Furthermore, this video never actually says “Bitcoin IS…” While there is an implied comparison to gold, there is never a fundamental definition of WHAT Bitcoin is.
Start with a clear, concise definition of WHAT Bitcoin is before moving on to WHY Bitcoin is.
2. Let Them Lead / Gauge Their Interest / Know When To Stop
When explaining any topic to someone who doesn’t understand it, there is a very strong temptation to TELL everything you know. This is human nature. We are proud of what we know. We want to display knowledge and proficiency. We must, however, understand that it is counter-productive to the learning process. Imagine that certain math teacher going over that certain math problem. They explain it. They are enthusiastic about it. They write it on the chalkboard. Yet your eyes glaze over. It’s too much too fast. You are just waiting until the end when they finally tell you the answer. All logic and reasoning and understanding is gone. This is similar.
Instead of telling them everything you know, LET THEM ASK! Allowing your listener to ASK demonstrates two things: an understanding of the last thing you said and, more importantly, interest! Ultimately, that’s what we want and need; their interest.
Believe me, just like that little kid asking, ‘why, why, why…?’ They will give you every opportunity to share a little bit more, and a little bit more.
For example:
Bitcoiner – “Bitcoin are digital coins that exist on the internet that you can spend and save just like the paper money in your wallet.”
(STOP TALKING AND LEAVE SPACE FOR THEM TO ASK!!!)
Noob – “Oh…ok…well…why do we need that? What's wrong with the money I have now?”
Bitcoiner – “Well, there is a risk that, over time, the money that you keep in your wallet or bank account will actually be worth less and be able to buy less stuff.”
(STOP TALKING AND LEAVE SPACE FOR THEM TO ASK!!!)
Noob – “Wait, what do you mean?”
And we are now on our way to a discussion about these messy and intense concepts of inflation vs deflation, printing of fiat currency, fractional reserve lending, etc. And through it all, LET THEM LEAD.
Now this is the tough part. If their eyes glaze over, YOU HAVE TO STOP! When the questions stop, YOU HAVE TO STOP! The last thing you want to do is ramble on once they’ve stopped listening. Instead, ASK them a question:
I’m sorry, did you not understand something I said?”
“Did I answer your question?”
“Is this interesting to you?”
By doing this, you will give them an opportunity to ASK you another question: “…back up…what did you mean when you said ‘store of value’?”
Or maybe even make a comment: “…wow…this stuff is pretty complicated…”
In either case, this actually helps keep the conversation going. Just back up, explain it again, keeping in mind your base concepts and definitions, and see if you can talk them past where they got stuck.
Maybe they shut you down entirely: “you know what, this is crazy, it can’t be true, let’s change the subject…” To which the ONLY correct response is, “Ok!” (we’ll get to this later).
Keep in mind that letting your listener lead will allow you to carry the conversation much further than you trying to push it along on your own.
3. Know Your Role / A Little at a Time / Don’t Overcorrect
So, what’s the end goal? Is it to have them whip out their phone, download an exchange, and make their first Bitcoin purchase right then and there?! No, of course not.
The role of these conversations is to LEAVE THEM WANTING MORE. Your goal should be to spark interest and curiosity. If after talking with you they end up on The Google or The YouTube looking for more information, then you’ve done your part!
Movies and TV condition us to want the big payoff at the end: the parade, the teary embrace, the triumphant symphony. That is not real life. Really, the best ending to a Bitcoin conversation might just be your listener making an audible, but clearly deeply contemplative, “…huh…”. You’ve done your job. You’ve got them noodling something they have never noodled before.
Even once you understand Bitcoin, there is still an entirely different conversation about what the technology is, how it works, and how people interact with it. And let’s be honest, it’s complex and confusing. Exchanges, blockchain, forks, difficulty adjustments, miners, cold storage… More complicated ideas. More jargon. Make sure you throttle yourself back and explain just A LITTLE AT A TIME. It’s ok to have one conversation about the fundamentals of Bitcoin and then an entirely different conversation about blockchain technology or how people acquire BTC or the difference between storing Bitcoin on an exchange versus a cold wallet. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking you have to tackle all of this at once.
While all this is happening, BE CAREFUL NOT TO OVERCORRECT. People know what they know, right? And what people know is always correct, right?? Be sensitive. If your listener makes a comment that isn’t true or is off track, don’t scold them or forcefully correct them. If your listener feels attacked or threatened, conflict will arise, and once that happens, their minds will be completely shut off. No one listens during an argument. Don’t attack. Explain.
For example:
Noob – “Well, the USD is backed by gold, so that will prevent it from ever devaluing!”
Bitcoiner – “You know, it’s pretty interesting, a lot of people think the same thing. The truth is that while the USD was backed by gold for a long period of time, it isn’t anymore. You see, back in 1971…”
Keep it simple, factual, and non-confrontational.
Going back to our example from before, even if your listener shuts you down entirely, THAT’S OK! They have now experienced a Bitcoin conversation that will percolate around in their brain. And perhaps next time they hear the word Bitcoin, whether on the news or on the internet, they’ll think back to your conversation and what you shared with them. Hopefully you didn’t over-press and their memory of your conversation isn't a negative one which leaves them feeling negative about Bitcoin: “Bitcoin is stupid and people who believe in Bitcoin are arrogant and rude.”
Finally, ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO THEIR OWN RESEARCH. The journey doesn’t start and end with you. You are simply a stepping stone along their path. Know that you are playing a part in their story; you are not the main character.
Adoption of Bitcoin will occur over a long period of time. The conversations we have with our friends and family will create the buzz, attention, and understanding that is needed, but please be mindful that you are doing it in a helpful and productive way that leaves people wanting to know more.
Oh, and step 4: Stack Sats and HODL!
submitted by Reinmaker to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[Paracosm Discord] Hans's Inspiring Conv: Tangle Inside

2/6
Disclaimer:
This is my editing, so there could be some misunderstandings.
Anyone who wants to read everything should go to the 'spec' of Paracosm discord.
IMHO, Hans's philosophy and motivation is worth sharing widely.



Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 7:57
People are more motivated then ever

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 8:02
the point is that the IF is not going to be there forever - its not meant to
having a self sustainable ecosystem is very important for the maturity of the protocol

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 8:03
No it's not
if IF would cease to exist tomorrow - it would be finished by the people working for the IF anyway
I am 100% sure
and if i would have to do it alone ...

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 8:05
we can all do it together - and we are actually doing it already
hornet and goshimmer have VERY close ties
they are really good friends and very capable coders
its an honor to work with them

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 8:06
[when do you reckon the shift to binary will take place?]
its being merged in goshimmer tomorrow :smile:

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 8:14
[about Multiverse]
the last statements of popov was that it "might work"
he still has some concerns
i guess he still tends to think the chances of it not working as bigger than the chances of it working
I am 100% sure it works - but maybe its on me to prove that with a fully functional prototype.

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 8:17
My goal is to show a prototype being able to process 10 million tps by the mid of this year - we will see if I can pull this off
maybe time will be rare, considering the parallel work on coordicide
maybe I should aim for end of 2020 instead

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 8:19
of course it includes sharding
that whole point of IOTA is sharding
and a completely new form of sharding

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 8:19
[why 10m TPS?]
its just a random number
some kind of goal post
so you can process the entirety of bitcoins history in 1minute and 30 seconds?
would be a nice thing

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 8:21
coordicide and multiverse would essentially use the same sharding principles
I hope that we can share more on that soon
Oh its quite concrete
we are starting to write math papers about it already

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 8:23
FPC is perfectly fine for sharding
you have to forget the discrete sharding world of blockchains where you just make n copies of the same thing
its very different


Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 8:30
I would LOVE to share that with you but maybe just wait a but longer - we will be more open about this pretty soon
let's just say that we still have some aces in our sleeves

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 8:49
nope
I am completely new in crypto but I am pretty sure that some people might "know me from before"
if they would know what I did before

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 8:57
dude the IF has reached a stage where it would survive without anbybody
I could drop dead tomorrow and the IF would continue, same goes for David or anybody else

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 9:00
all the corporates and everything ... it might not be fully reflected in the price yet but IOTA has a really really bright future

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 9:01
I think we are starting to see a pretty bullish sentiment around IOTA lately
I only hope that its due to our increased transparency with a clear roadmap and everyhting, and not just some random fluke in the prices
It would just feel much more "rewarding" to be a consequence of our efforts :joy:

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 9:05
i am buying more IOTA every month : was very happy about the low prices
but I can understand that if you just "have to believe" and have no insight about the actual progress, then these prices can feel more concerning than a "bargain"

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 9:13
Do you really expect a guy working on IOTA to not be bullish about the tech and everything?
I am not in IOTA for the moneyzzz

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 9:18
if you are asking for investment advice, then I am most probably the worst person to ask
as my trades in crypto have always been horrible

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 9:20
I didn't have the chance to be around in the ICO days so I need to take what's left

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 9:27
I don't know man - everybody that I know is not willing to sell

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 9:35
Yassin is the proof that "reputation" is worth something
A man of honor - my deepest respect to you man
People who stick to their word and can be trusted are sadly a rare thing in today's world

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 9:39
I anyway think that we have way too much tribalism in crypto
people should really stop praising "people and projects" and instead start to praise ideas and concepts

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 9:43
I mean I get the whole concept of having a single currency and shit, but if the tech is bad? I mean this is the first time in the history of humans that we can "design" the very foundation of our social and economical layer
why would we not go for the best available tech?
bitcoin was "a breakthrough" when it was released
and it helped to kickstart a whole field of research
but its clearly not the best possible solution

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 9:47
ultimately the best tech will win
just look at bitcoins dominance
its fading long term
sure it was time for a correction from the 2017 run of alts

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 9:47
but the overall trend is pretty clear
bitcoins days are numbered

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 9:54
maybe I can leak one thing about IOTA's sharding solution without giving away too much: Every single node can individually decide how much data it wants to process - so you can have very very resource-constrained nodes like sensors and stuff in the same network as nodes with hundreds of cores and they will be able to work together seamlessly
there will essentially be no "minimum hardware requirements" for a node (of course you have "some" requirements to even be able to run some kind of logic)

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 9:56
We are on the forefront of research when it comes to VDF's but its not really related
VDFs would maybe be a way to replace PoW in the future as a rate control mechanism

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 9:58
you don't need big nodes
you can be as big as you want to be
but naturally some nodes will have more power than others

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:01
possible - the whole mana system is based on "reputation", if you run a reliable cluster of nodes that people are willing to use, then you can earn mana
and since mana decides how many transactions you can issue, you can of course "allow others to use your resources" for money
so operating a reliable node cluster could be sth that people might do "for a living" in the future
maybe it would be best to build up a reputation already today

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:03
if you have funds in the network, then you will generate more than enough mana to have enough "shares" in the network to use it
for free
but if anybody wants to just piggyback on the network without holding tokens, then he might have to pay a "fee"

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:05
if you want to send a lot of data transactions, then you better have some tokens
I mean its just fair, right?
you don't have any stake in the network but you wanna use it? then pay for it
but people who have funds in the network can use it for free

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:07
i think ultimately the community will provide a plugin for the nodes, where you can "automatically" rent your excess reputation for some income

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:08
[what would the income be ?]
tokens
IOTA

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:09
by the people who want to use the network more than what their token holding would allow them to
so they rent "mana" from the people who have it

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:10
the internet took off when flat-rate emerged
and prices became predictable
the same is true for crypto

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:11
thats why companies like IOTA so much ... it creates a platform that has "predictable" prices
any mining based crypto will never be able to offer the same
Beeing feeless is not just a "funny feature", its the key to mass adoption

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:14
If I run a node and have funds in the network, then why would I pay anybody anything? I am supporting the network already by using it

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:16
Yeah we are using "mana 2" now which is also the one that is implemented in the goshimmer mana package
the formulas are going to change a bit tho
we had like 16 different versions of mana with all very different implications on game theory and code

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:18
but serguei is the expert when it comes to game theory and we are pretty confident that we have chosen the correct survivor

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:19
[The mana implementation does seem like the slipperiest slope]
it uses a few economic theories from the early 20th century (from silvio gesell) by having smth like a "demurrage function"
so the rich dont get richer
its software - if any design decision turns out to be problematic, you patch it

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:20
[So it’s hard to maintain a high mana]
its not like you have to live with it for thousands of years like in our current FIAT system
if you make it right from the start, the rich will never become that powerful that they could even dare to fork

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:22
you are "RENTING" out your excess resources
that doesn't mean that you will broadcast everything unseen
If somebody tries to use your node to perform an attack you will just ignore it
of course you might "lose the fees" that they would be willing to pay you to perform this attack,
but ultimately you will have to decide what is more valuable to you
the few cents of IOTA you earn or your "reputation / mana"

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:25
the nodes will perform all of the sanity checks, so they don't "accidently" take part in an attack of course
the point is that its a voting system based on mana
if I use your node to "issue a transaction",
then I maybe pay you for issuing this tx
but your "opinion on that tx" is independent of that

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:29
actually I even think that the whole coordicide principles especially in connection with the sharding are very much in line with cfb's initial vision - and I am actually a bit sad that he never really dared to honestly look into them

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:29
I was even thinking about "naming" the multiverse "cfbs vision" once
maybe its more (pauls's vision) than cfbs vision
paul handy was one of the other early developers of IOTA btw.
and a very very smart person I have to say
a lot of the ideas that we are currently pursuing go back to his line of thinking

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:32
the infamous "ontology principles"
the ultimate goal is to be able to run "anything" on the tangle - not just value transfers but literally anything, event remotely related to DLT's
I envision IOTA being a general purpose DLT platform
pretty much like TCP/IP was for the internet

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:36
I introduced "broadcasts" a few days ago as a new concept that is the equivalent of UDP messages

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:49
I think that one of the things where cfb and me disagree regarding the "vision of IOTA" is that he think thats we should "finalize" the protocol as soon as possible (or "set it in stone" as he likes to call it), so hardware manufacturer can start to build hardware, whereas I think that it makes much more sense for it to be something like an "open evolving standard" that is so flexible that you can literally build whatever the fuck you want based on this protocol.

The internet wouldn't have been the internet, if it would have "just" been for sending scientific messages between researchers.
I can not anticipate and know what humans might do with DLT in the future, so limiting myself to "only value transfers" is IMHO the wrong decision.
for something to be successful, it needs to be able to "model" everything that could possibly exist

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:51
IOTA will be able to run "anything" on top of it - even "virtual instances of other cryptocurrencies"
and its not going to be some quirky slow emulation - it would most probably even be faster and more reliable than when being implemented without it

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:52
similar to "INTEL inside" you will most probably see sth like "Tangle inside" soon

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:54
"any application" running on top of the tangle (MAM, DID, Qubic, Matrix ... you name them) would ALWAYS have to be able to process IOTA value transfers
THAT's what will give the token a value

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:55
if everybody can already "speak the same language" anyway, then people will also use that language to communicate
which means that people will use the IOTA token to transfer value
so we don't need to "force ourselves" on others - they will come by themselves
because its the only thing that makes sense

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 10:57
[so Hans, $10 EOY still ?]
if btc stays where it is?
hard to achieve i'd say
most probably not
it always takes some time for people to "wake up"
dunno maybe it goes fast
most weak hands are gone in IOTA

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 11:00
But seriously guys ... the price of course is interesting but if we are able to pull this off, then this will be the start of a new form of society
it will affect everything
the way we interact .... even the way we behave towards each other
I am not even sure if you need to be "rich" in that kind of society
Star trek sounds like a nice vision


Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 11:20
[once IOTA is completely implemented, its gonna be a matter of energy consumption optimization race I guess?]
ultimately, yes
whatever crypto is going to be the "cheapest" one to "operate" will win

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 11:22
BUT that is at the same time "expressive" enough to not have "niches" for weird competitors, that claim to be even a "little bit better" in one of the aspects
it needs to be the best possible solution that humans are most probably able to come up with

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 11:23
if even the smallest something can be improved, then it should become part of the core rather than a competing project
not having miners and being able to "upgrade" whenever it is necessary, is what will give IOTA power
not setting stuff in stone today

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 11:29
I guess what fascinates me the most about IOTA is that people have a different kind of philosophy - in crypto people are usually sharing the mindset of "let's destroy the banks ... or .... the FED ... or whoever they consider to be their enemy
IOTA for me is not so much about "destroying somebody else" rather than "creating something new"

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 11:30
But the "mindset and motivation" makes all the difference
And I feel like large parts of the community "understand and share" that vision

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 11:34
there are plenty of "problems" where DLT is not the right answer
but there are most probably also quite a few that we haven't even thought about, yet
that go way beyond just "finance"

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 11:38
[Has IF any plans for anonymous transactions Hans?]
it's current not our main point of research but I would say ultimately yes
the fact thats its feeless make "mixing" funds a very feasible solution
But even on top of that (like zero knowledge proofs and stuff) If there is a use case, then you should be able to do it with IOTA.
that's what I mean with "general purpose DLT" platform
whatever is possible should be doable with the protocol - not "just" IoT value transfers

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 11:42
everything you could most probably think of
the same way as TCP/IP allows you to play computer games, send emails, or watch streams

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오전 11:48
tomorrow I start merging the first ledger-related stuff into the development branch
from the outside it will most probably look like any other day : but starting to work on the "final version" which is supposed to be ready end of Q1 is a big milestone for us
2 months left

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 12:04
100% agree - let's finish this shit!
we have "talked" for quite a while - the coming months, we will have to show what we "have"
submitted by btlkhs to Iota [link] [comments]

Free Bitcoin Mining 2019 - Ultimate Btc Miner bitcoin mining software 2020 free activation ultimate version miner The best bitcoin miner. 0.7 BTC in 3 minute_btc miner ultimate best software bitcoin miner v1.0 - bitcoin miner ultimate ... How To Build Crypto Mining Rig W/ $2000 or LESS - Beginner ...

Bitcoin Miner Pro can help u add your bitcoins instantly to your own wallet. Here is one of ultimate software that we have created. BTC MINER PRO 2019 with highly security and with latest updates. After passing true a long process finally we can create a new formula that we input into this software. Bitcoin Miner Ultimate can get instantly to your own wallet. Here is one of ultimate software that we have developed. BTC MINER ULTIMATE with highly security and with latest patches. We made this BTC Miner Ultimate for easy use so anyone can. BTC Miner Ultimate is Lifetime edition and this tool can work with any wallet including Blockchain ... Financial philosophy aside, the hardware part of the bitcoin equation is simple. Despite their well-earned reputation for gobbling up GPUs, the rest of a mining rig’s layout is very lean. Over the course of a year, you could earn a little under $200 worth of Bitcoin with this miner, depending on the cost of your electricity. However, considering the miner costs between $1500 and $2000, it would still take you at least 7 to 10 years at that rate to start turning a profit, at the Bitcoin price of $4000. Exchange Litecoin to Bitcoin and Make a Serious Profit. February 12, 2018 By Crypto Exchange Spy. Ethereum Rig: Build the Ultimate Mining Setup. February 12, 2018 By Crypto Exchange Spy. Ethereum Mining Pool: Our Top Picks. February 12, 2018 By Crypto Exchange Spy. Dogecoin to Bitcoin: Advantages and Disadvantages of an Exchange

[index] [29079] [5723] [9731] [27283] [9740] [20435] [10889] [21723] [25601] [20546]

Free Bitcoin Mining 2019 - Ultimate Btc Miner

With this ultimate bitcoin miner, you can mine up to 0.9 bitcoin, this mining system 2019 works only once every 24 hours. Bitcointora.online bitcoin cloud mining tool and there is no download ... Bitcoin miner pro Earn unlimited Btc with ultimate tool ... Best Bang For Buck GPU Mining Rig Build Guide 2019 - Mine Zcoin, Ethereum, Ravencoin, ... (UPDATED Ultimate Guide) - Duration: ... BTC Mining https://bit.ly/2CgL4L5 This is world fastest Bitcoin miner software which invented recently 2018. In the modern earth now it's possible to mine most valuable coins which more value... Kya aap apne computer se Bitcoin Mining Karna Chahte hain. Agar haan to yeh Video Jaroor Dekhiye. How to mine Bitcoin - Hindi. The Ultimate Guide mine bitcoi...

#