Slushpool.com Mining Review : Get Instant Access To a Safe

It is raining on Slush pool today. 11 new blocks in the last 9 hours. 8th BIP101 block mined as well.

It is raining on Slush pool today. 11 new blocks in the last 9 hours. 8th BIP101 block mined as well. submitted by anti-fragile to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Namecoin could definitely make good use of Segwit at some point in time. Couldn't we just implement it now to set up for success later?

submitted by not88 to Namecoin [link] [comments]

Evidence (anecdotal?) from /r/BitcoinMarkets that Core / Blockstream's destructiveness (smallblocks, RBF, fee increases) is actually starting to scare away investors who are concerned about fundamentals

https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/3wqmoz/daily_discussion_monday_december_14_2015/cxyla6f
Can someone please give me a good reason to invest in bitcoin? I'm talking fundamentals here.
I understand the excitement of a bull market, I really do, but when I look at /bitcoin my enthusiasm quickly dwindles.
It seems that my original convictions about its future have become a kind of joke - derided on theymos forums/subs. People are now applauding fee increases and the impossibility of "freeloading", see here.
Simultaneously they are overjoyed at the prospect of zero confirmations being rendered useless by Todd's already merged RBF scheme.
Those two taken together utterly destroy bitcoin as a convenient and quick electronic payment and microtransaction network.
Furthermore, as the blocks fill up (or are already filled up during peak times), the unreliability of confirmation times and fee estimates render it a poor choice as a settlement network, see here.
The icing on the cow patty cake is the lack of desire of the "core" devs to change their destructive plan - a plan which is hugely inconsistent with the vision I once had for bitcoin, or what would benefit your "average" bitcoiner.
I feel like a customer duped by a bait & switch.
I'm holding out hope that Coinbase/Bitstamp/Slush/Circle/Xapo/Bitpay etc. can pressure the rest of the industry enough that BIP101 gets merged, but my hope is rather slim atm - and not enough to convince me to invest yet more into this project.
But I'm open to suggestion so if anyone could enlighten me on their reasons - other than "bull market", I'm all ears.
sqrt7744
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

The Origins of the Blocksize Debate

On May 4, 2015, Gavin Andresen wrote on his blog:
I was planning to submit a pull request to the 0.11 release of Bitcoin Core that will allow miners to create blocks bigger than one megabyte, starting a little less than a year from now. But this process of peer review turned up a technical issue that needs to get addressed, and I don’t think it can be fixed in time for the first 0.11 release.
I will be writing a series of blog posts, each addressing one argument against raising the maximum block size, or against scheduling a raise right now... please send me an email ([email protected]) if I am missing any arguments
In other words, Gavin proposed a hard fork via a series of blog posts, bypassing all developer communication channels altogether and asking for personal, private emails from anyone interested in discussing the proposal further.
On May 5 (1 day after Gavin submitted his first blog post), Mike Hearn published The capacity cliff on his Medium page. 2 days later, he posted Crash landing. In these posts, he argued:
A common argument for letting Bitcoin blocks fill up is that the outcome won’t be so bad: just a market for fees... this is wrong. I don’t believe fees will become high and stable if Bitcoin runs out of capacity. Instead, I believe Bitcoin will crash.
...a permanent backlog would start to build up... as the backlog grows, nodes will start running out of memory and dying... as Core will accept any transaction that’s valid without any limit a node crash is eventually inevitable.
He also, in the latter article, explained that he disagreed with Satoshi's vision for how Bitcoin would mature[1][2]:
Neither me nor Gavin believe a fee market will work as a substitute for the inflation subsidy.
Gavin continued to publish the series of blog posts he had announced while Hearn made these predictions. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
Matt Corallo brought Gavin's proposal up on the bitcoin-dev mailing list after a few days. He wrote:
Recently there has been a flurry of posts by Gavin at http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/ which advocate strongly for increasing the maximum block size. However, there hasnt been any discussion on this mailing list in several years as far as I can tell...
So, at the risk of starting a flamewar, I'll provide a little bait to get some responses and hope the discussion opens up into an honest comparison of the tradeoffs here. Certainly a consensus in this kind of technical community should be a basic requirement for any serious commitment to blocksize increase.
Personally, I'm rather strongly against any commitment to a block size increase in the near future. Long-term incentive compatibility requires that there be some fee pressure, and that blocks be relatively consistently full or very nearly full. What we see today are transactions enjoying next-block confirmations with nearly zero pressure to include any fee at all (though many do because it makes wallet code simpler).
This allows the well-funded Bitcoin ecosystem to continue building systems which rely on transactions moving quickly into blocks while pretending these systems scale. Thus, instead of working on technologies which bring Bitcoin's trustlessness to systems which scale beyond a blockchain's necessarily slow and (compared to updating numbers in a database) expensive settlement, the ecosystem as a whole continues to focus on building centralized platforms and advocate for changes to Bitcoin which allow them to maintain the status quo
Shortly thereafter, Corallo explained further:
The point of the hard block size limit is exactly because giving miners free rule to do anything they like with their blocks would allow them to do any number of crazy attacks. The incentives for miners to pick block sizes are no where near compatible with what allows the network to continue to run in a decentralized manner.
Tier Nolan considered possible extensions and modifications that might improve Gavin's proposal and argued that soft caps could be used to mitigate against the dangers of a blocksize increase. Tom Harding voiced support for Gavin's proposal
Peter Todd mentioned that a limited blocksize provides the benefit of protecting against the "perverse incentives" behind potential block withholding attacks.
Slush didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other, and neither did Eric Lombrozo, though Eric was interested in developing hard-fork best practices and wanted to:
explore all the complexities involved with deployment of hard forks. Let’s not just do a one-off ad-hoc thing.
Matt Whitlock voiced his opinion:
I'm not so much opposed to a block size increase as I am opposed to a hard fork... I strongly fear that the hard fork itself will become an excuse to change other aspects of the system in ways that will have unintended and possibly disastrous consequences.
Bryan Bishop strongly opposed Gavin's proposal, and offered a philosophical perspective on the matter:
there has been significant public discussion... about why increasing the max block size is kicking the can down the road while possibly compromising blockchain security. There were many excellent objections that were raised that, sadly, I see are not referenced at all in the recent media blitz. Frankly I can't help but feel that if contributions, like those from #bitcoin-wizards, have been ignored in lieu of technical analysis, and the absence of discussion on this mailing list, that I feel perhaps there are other subtle and extremely important technical details that are completely absent from this--and other-- proposals.
Secured decentralization is the most important and most interesting property of bitcoin. Everything else is rather trivial and could be achieved millions of times more efficiently with conventional technology. Our technical work should be informed by the technical nature of the system we have constructed.
There's no doubt in my mind that bitcoin will always see the most extreme campaigns and the most extreme misunderstandings... for development purposes we must hold ourselves to extremely high standards before proposing changes, especially to the public, that have the potential to be unsafe and economically unsafe.
There are many potential technical solutions for aggregating millions (trillions?) of transactions into tiny bundles. As a small proof-of-concept, imagine two parties sending transactions back and forth 100 million times. Instead of recording every transaction, you could record the start state and the end state, and end up with two transactions or less. That's a 100 million fold, without modifying max block size and without potentially compromising secured decentralization.
The MIT group should listen up and get to work figuring out how to measure decentralization and its security.. Getting this measurement right would be really beneficial because we would have a more academic and technical understanding to work with.
Gregory Maxwell echoed and extended that perspective:
When Bitcoin is changed fundamentally, via a hard fork, to have different properties, the change can create winners or losers...
There are non-trivial number of people who hold extremes on any of these general belief patterns; Even among the core developers there is not a consensus on Bitcoin's optimal role in society and the commercial marketplace.
there is a at least a two fold concern on this particular ("Long term Mining incentives") front:
One is that the long-held argument is that security of the Bitcoin system in the long term depends on fee income funding autonomous, anonymous, decentralized miners profitably applying enough hash-power to make reorganizations infeasible.
For fees to achieve this purpose, there seemingly must be an effective scarcity of capacity.
The second is that when subsidy has fallen well below fees, the incentive to move the blockchain forward goes away. An optimal rational miner would be best off forking off the current best block in order to capture its fees, rather than moving the blockchain forward...
tools like the Lightning network proposal could well allow us to hit a greater spectrum of demands at once--including secure zero-confirmation (something that larger blocksizes reduce if anything), which is important for many applications. With the right technology I believe we can have our cake and eat it too, but there needs to be a reason to build it; the security and decentralization level of Bitcoin imposes a hard upper limit on anything that can be based on it.
Another key point here is that the small bumps in blocksize which wouldn't clearly knock the system into a largely centralized mode--small constants--are small enough that they don't quantitatively change the operation of the system; they don't open up new applications that aren't possible today
the procedure I'd prefer would be something like this: if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk. Hardfork changes should only be made if they're almost completely uncontroversial--where virtually everyone can look at the available data and say "yea, that isn't undermining my property rights or future use of Bitcoin; it's no big deal". Unfortunately, every indicator I can think of except fee totals has been going in the wrong direction almost monotonically along with the blockchain size increase since 2012 when we started hitting full blocks and responded by increasing the default soft target. This is frustrating
many people--myself included--have been working feverishly hard behind the scenes on Bitcoin Core to increase the scalability. This work isn't small-potatoes boring software engineering stuff; I mean even my personal contributions include things like inventing a wholly new generic algebraic optimization applicable to all EC signature schemes that increases performance by 4%, and that is before getting into the R&D stuff that hasn't really borne fruit yet, like fraud proofs. Today Bitcoin Core is easily >100 times faster to synchronize and relay than when I first got involved on the same hardware, but these improvements have been swallowed by the growth. The ironic thing is that our frantic efforts to keep ahead and not lose decentralization have both not been enough (by the best measures, full node usage is the lowest its been since 2011 even though the user base is huge now) and yet also so much that people could seriously talk about increasing the block size to something gigantic like 20MB. This sounds less reasonable when you realize that even at 1MB we'd likely have a smoking hole in the ground if not for existing enormous efforts to make scaling not come at a loss of decentralization.
Peter Todd also summarized some academic findings on the subject:
In short, without either a fixed blocksize or fixed fee per transaction Bitcoin will will not survive as there is no viable way to pay for PoW security. The latter option - fixed fee per transaction - is non-trivial to implement in a way that's actually meaningful - it's easy to give miners "kickbacks" - leaving us with a fixed blocksize.
Even a relatively small increase to 20MB will greatly reduce the number of people who can participate fully in Bitcoin, creating an environment where the next increase requires the consent of an even smaller portion of the Bitcoin ecosystem. Where does that stop? What's the proposed mechanism that'll create an incentive and social consensus to not just 'kick the can down the road'(3) and further centralize but actually scale up Bitcoin the hard way?
Some developers (e.g. Aaron Voisine) voiced support for Gavin's proposal which repeated Mike Hearn's "crash landing" arguments.
Pieter Wuille said:
I am - in general - in favor of increasing the size blocks...
Controversial hard forks. I hope the mailing list here today already proves it is a controversial issue. Independent of personal opinions pro or against, I don't think we can do a hard fork that is controversial in nature. Either the result is effectively a fork, and pre-existing coins can be spent once on both sides (effectively failing Bitcoin's primary purpose), or the result is one side forced to upgrade to something they dislike - effectively giving a power to developers they should never have. Quoting someone: "I did not sign up to be part of a central banker's committee".
The reason for increasing is "need". If "we need more space in blocks" is the reason to do an upgrade, it won't stop after 20 MB. There is nothing fundamental possible with 20 MB blocks that isn't with 1 MB blocks.
Misrepresentation of the trade-offs. You can argue all you want that none of the effects of larger blocks are particularly damaging, so everything is fine. They will damage something (see below for details), and we should analyze these effects, and be honest about them, and present them as a trade-off made we choose to make to scale the system better. If you just ask people if they want more transactions, of course you'll hear yes. If you ask people if they want to pay less taxes, I'm sure the vast majority will agree as well.
Miner centralization. There is currently, as far as I know, no technology that can relay and validate 20 MB blocks across the planet, in a manner fast enough to avoid very significant costs to mining. There is work in progress on this (including Gavin's IBLT-based relay, or Greg's block network coding), but I don't think we should be basing the future of the economics of the system on undemonstrated ideas. Without those (or even with), the result may be that miners self-limit the size of their blocks to propagate faster, but if this happens, larger, better-connected, and more centrally-located groups of miners gain a competitive advantage by being able to produce larger blocks. I would like to point out that there is nothing evil about this - a simple feedback to determine an optimal block size for an individual miner will result in larger blocks for better connected hash power. If we do not want miners to have this ability, "we" (as in: those using full nodes) should demand limitations that prevent it. One such limitation is a block size limit (whatever it is).
Ability to use a full node.
Skewed incentives for improvements... without actual pressure to work on these, I doubt much will change. Increasing the size of blocks now will simply make it cheap enough to continue business as usual for a while - while forcing a massive cost increase (and not just a monetary one) on the entire ecosystem.
Fees and long-term incentives.
I don't think 1 MB is optimal. Block size is a compromise between scalability of transactions and verifiability of the system. A system with 10 transactions per day that is verifiable by a pocket calculator is not useful, as it would only serve a few large bank's settlements. A system which can deal with every coffee bought on the planet, but requires a Google-scale data center to verify is also not useful, as it would be trivially out-competed by a VISA-like design. The usefulness needs in a balance, and there is no optimal choice for everyone. We can choose where that balance lies, but we must accept that this is done as a trade-off, and that that trade-off will have costs such as hardware costs, decreasing anonymity, less independence, smaller target audience for people able to fully validate, ...
Choose wisely.
Mike Hearn responded:
this list is not a good place for making progress or reaching decisions.
if Bitcoin continues on its current growth trends it will run out of capacity, almost certainly by some time next year. What we need to see right now is leadership and a plan, that fits in the available time window.
I no longer believe this community can reach consensus on anything protocol related.
When the money supply eventually dwindles I doubt it will be fee pressure that funds mining
What I don't see from you yet is a specific and credible plan that fits within the next 12 months and which allows Bitcoin to keep growing.
Peter Todd then pointed out that, contrary to Mike's claims, developer consensus had been achieved within Core plenty of times recently. Btc-drak asked Mike to "explain where the 12 months timeframe comes from?"
Jorge Timón wrote an incredibly prescient reply to Mike:
We've successfully reached consensus for several softfork proposals already. I agree with others that hardfork need to be uncontroversial and there should be consensus about them. If you have other ideas for the criteria for hardfork deployment all I'm ears. I just hope that by "What we need to see right now is leadership" you don't mean something like "when Gaving and Mike agree it's enough to deploy a hardfork" when you go from vague to concrete.
Oh, so your answer to "bitcoin will eventually need to live on fees and we would like to know more about how it will look like then" it's "no bitcoin long term it's broken long term but that's far away in the future so let's just worry about the present". I agree that it's hard to predict that future, but having some competition for block space would actually help us get more data on a similar situation to be able to predict that future better. What you want to avoid at all cost (the block size actually being used), I see as the best opportunity we have to look into the future.
this is my plan: we wait 12 months... and start having full blocks and people having to wait 2 blocks for their transactions to be confirmed some times. That would be the beginning of a true "fee market", something that Gavin used to say was his #1 priority not so long ago (which seems contradictory with his current efforts to avoid that from happening). Having a true fee market seems clearly an advantage. What are supposedly disastrous negative parts of this plan that make an alternative plan (ie: increasing the block size) so necessary and obvious. I think the advocates of the size increase are failing to explain the disadvantages of maintaining the current size. It feels like the explanation are missing because it should be somehow obvious how the sky will burn if we don't increase the block size soon. But, well, it is not obvious to me, so please elaborate on why having a fee market (instead of just an price estimator for a market that doesn't even really exist) would be a disaster.
Some suspected Gavin/Mike were trying to rush the hard fork for personal reasons.
Mike Hearn's response was to demand a "leader" who could unilaterally steer the Bitcoin project and make decisions unchecked:
No. What I meant is that someone (theoretically Wladimir) needs to make a clear decision. If that decision is "Bitcoin Core will wait and watch the fireworks when blocks get full", that would be showing leadership
I will write more on the topic of what will happen if we hit the block size limit... I don't believe we will get any useful data out of such an event. I've seen distributed systems run out of capacity before. What will happen instead is technological failure followed by rapid user abandonment...
we need to hear something like that from Wladimir, or whoever has the final say around here.
Jorge Timón responded:
it is true that "universally uncontroversial" (which is what I think the requirement should be for hard forks) is a vague qualifier that's not formally defined anywhere. I guess we should only consider rational arguments. You cannot just nack something without further explanation. If his explanation was "I will change my mind after we increase block size", I guess the community should say "then we will just ignore your nack because it makes no sense". In the same way, when people use fallacies (purposely or not) we must expose that and say "this fallacy doesn't count as an argument". But yeah, it would probably be good to define better what constitutes a "sensible objection" or something. That doesn't seem simple though.
it seems that some people would like to see that happening before the subsidies are low (not necessarily null), while other people are fine waiting for that but don't want to ever be close to the scale limits anytime soon. I would also like to know for how long we need to prioritize short term adoption in this way. As others have said, if the answer is "forever, adoption is always the most important thing" then we will end up with an improved version of Visa. But yeah, this is progress, I'll wait for your more detailed description of the tragedies that will follow hitting the block limits, assuming for now that it will happen in 12 months. My previous answer to the nervous "we will hit the block limits in 12 months if we don't do anything" was "not sure about 12 months, but whatever, great, I'm waiting for that to observe how fees get affected". But it should have been a question "what's wrong with hitting the block limits in 12 months?"
Mike Hearn again asserted the need for a leader:
There must be a single decision maker for any given codebase.
Bryan Bishop attempted to explain why this did not make sense with git architecture.
Finally, Gavin announced his intent to merge the patch into Bitcoin XT to bypass the peer review he had received on the bitcoin-dev mailing list.
submitted by sound8bits to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Our BlockStream Saviours and XT Infidels!

Dear Bitcoin community, we (your BlockStream Saviours) working hard to improve Bitcoin by getting rid of XT Infidels!
Here is what we have done so far!
  1. Successful DDOS against XT Nodes, you can see nice drop here: http://xtnodes.com/xt_nodes_alldata.php
  2. Successful DDOS against Slush Pool (https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3j63j2/slush_pool_under_ddos_attack/). Slush, this is what you get for ignoring our memo. For rest of you miner's, pay attention to what happened to Slush. We will let you know which blocks to mine. Keep voting for BIP100. It will soon be ready. https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3rs3vs/jeff_garzik_bip100_seems_unlikely_to_be_adopted/
  3. Created “authentic” letter from Satoshi http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html Very proud of this :) Got Gregory Maxwell to bless it! http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010327.html Thanks Gregory, we can always count on you (nice note on headers, pure gold).
  4. Kicked Mike Hearn out of #bitcoin-dev, he was talking too much anyway.. Good Job Wladimir J. Van, you should come join us at BlockStream! https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3n20nb/wheels_of_censorship_have_been_engaged_at/
  5. Censored Gavin out bitcoin-dev mailing list :) That was awesome! Unfortunately Evil BitcoinXT Infidels noticed. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3qi3w9/gavins_bitcoindev_post_gets_moderated_out/
  6. Started character assassination against Gavin and Mike Hearn (so far so good).
  7. Started successful censorship campaign at /bitcoin and bitcointalk.org with our Top Lieutenant Theymos. Theymos, you make us all proud.
  8. Had Theymos teach lesson to BIP101 supporters https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1028 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3rejl9/coinbase_ceo_brian_armstrong_bip_101_is_the_best/cwpglh6 Theymos, you have our permission to merge pull request 1028. Coinbase, see section #2 (Slush learned their lesson). To make it more clear - We will erase you from Internet!
  9. Almost removed Gavin from Foundation (he refuses to cooperate)... https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/
  10. Halted block-size increase nonsense-madman-talk by starting Scaling Bitcoin Workshop x2. Kudos to our great leader Adam Back for this brilliant idea!
  11. Our Plan is simple! https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/
  12. Our Plan is working! https://forum.bitcoin.com/post6452.html#p6452
  13. Please return to /bitcoin and bitcointalk.org where it is safe and peaceful. We will make you feel comfortable!
  14. Please avoid forum.bitcoin.com and /btc at all costs.
Together We Will Succeed!
Your friends at BlockStream. XOXO
submitted by blockstream_fan to btc [link] [comments]

I have a Full node and some hashing power, but don't like either SegWit or Unlimited. Maybe I'll Vote BIP105?

I currently don't have any flags on my node indicating my BIP preferences. Nor am I using my vote function on slush pool (left as 'Current rules/Bitcoin core'). So I feel like I'm wasting my vote. But this is because I don't like either SegWit or Bitcoin Unlimited.
I absolutely think we need to increase the block size for continued growth but my current issues are:
SegWit - Seems to me like just a band-aid on the problem. A one off solution to give us a bit of wiggle room for a few more transactions until we're back to the same blocksize issue in the future.
Bitcoin Unlimited - Is actually damn close to what I thought we'd be trying for. Progressive growth based on demand. But then they throw the "Articles of Federation" in the mix. Which to quote them at > https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articles
Article 2: Confederation
All Bitcoin Unlimited (henceforth BU) activities shall be recorded and be publicly accessible. BU roles shall consist of:
President: a publicly identified (real-life identity is known) BU Member who is responsible for the ongoing activities of the confederation. The president shall resolve BUIP number conflicts, organize BUIP discussion (in the forum designated by the secretary), and schedule/initiate voting (within the limits specified in these articles).
Secretary: a publicly identified BU Member who is responsible for recording activities and vote results, and making this information publicly available. The Secretary is responsible for creating, maintaining and moderating a public forum where discussion can be held. Moderation is exclusively limited to moving content with an indication of it being moved - no content may be deleted. The secretary shall tally and report on votes.
Developer: a publicly identified BU Member who is responsible for maintaining the BU code repository, choosing which committers have access to the software repository, reviewing and merging patches, and periodically releasing BU software. The Developer is an outreach position - s/he must actively work to encourage others to work on submissions, and to convert one-time submitters into regular committers.
Pool Operator: a publicly identified BU member who is responsible for running the BU Mining pool as specified in Article 4. The position of pool operator might be vacant and pool operation is optional, as resources permit.
Member: an individual who is invited (by BUIP) to join the Confederation, signs this document, and has joined or voted within the last 1 year. Non-publicly identified members may have restricted voting or other restrictions as determined by subsequent BUIPs - this measure may be needed to restrict duplicate accounts.
Officer term is for two years. For continuity, elections shall be staggered by 6 months and take place 1 week prior to responsibility transfer. Beginning with the President on Jan 15, 2018, then Secretary, Developer, and Pool Operator. This means that the initial officer term may exceed 2 years. Voting for all the initial officers shall occur on Jan 15, 2016.
Which for me makes me nervous, as not being an expert in the issue I can't tell if this really is a sneaky step towards centralization or if it's just a fair way of doing things?
So I've been going through the wiki list of all proposed BIP's to try and educate myself without reddit :)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/masteREADME.mediawiki
Maybe I'll just vote for BIP105 instead? It looks fair and seems straight talking. It'll never happen but at least I had my vote.
I think the politics of this is hampering any real technical step in the right direction. After all this is just code. Amazing code, but does anyone have a similar opinion? Unused votes? Or was unaware of the Bitcoin unlimited confederation?
submitted by shermand100 to btc [link] [comments]

Some things that might help with segwit adoption

Testnet is at > 1 million blocks. Kinda disheartening when you start it up and can't do anything for hours.
Slush already merged a PR for Bitcoin segwit. Someone familiar with the code could probably bang out the Litecoin version in an hour or two.
submitted by flound1129 to litecoin [link] [comments]

The Origins of the (Modern) Blocksize Debate

On May 4, 2015, Gavin Andresen wrote on his blog:
I was planning to submit a pull request to the 0.11 release of Bitcoin Core that will allow miners to create blocks bigger than one megabyte, starting a little less than a year from now. But this process of peer review turned up a technical issue that needs to get addressed, and I don’t think it can be fixed in time for the first 0.11 release.
I will be writing a series of blog posts, each addressing one argument against raising the maximum block size, or against scheduling a raise right now... please send me an email ([email protected]) if I am missing any arguments
In other words, Gavin proposed a hard fork via a series of blog posts, bypassing all developer communication channels altogether and asking for personal, private emails from anyone interested in discussing the proposal further.
On May 5 (1 day after Gavin submitted his first blog post), Mike Hearn published The capacity cliff on his Medium page. 2 days later, he posted Crash landing. In these posts, he argued:
A common argument for letting Bitcoin blocks fill up is that the outcome won’t be so bad: just a market for fees... this is wrong. I don’t believe fees will become high and stable if Bitcoin runs out of capacity. Instead, I believe Bitcoin will crash.
...a permanent backlog would start to build up... as the backlog grows, nodes will start running out of memory and dying... as Core will accept any transaction that’s valid without any limit a node crash is eventually inevitable.
He also, in the latter article, explained that he disagreed with Satoshi's vision for how Bitcoin would mature[1][2]:
Neither me nor Gavin believe a fee market will work as a substitute for the inflation subsidy.
Gavin continued to publish the series of blog posts he had announced while Hearn made these predictions. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
Matt Corallo brought Gavin's proposal up on the bitcoin-dev mailing list after a few days. He wrote:
Recently there has been a flurry of posts by Gavin at http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/ which advocate strongly for increasing the maximum block size. However, there hasnt been any discussion on this mailing list in several years as far as I can tell...
So, at the risk of starting a flamewar, I'll provide a little bait to get some responses and hope the discussion opens up into an honest comparison of the tradeoffs here. Certainly a consensus in this kind of technical community should be a basic requirement for any serious commitment to blocksize increase.
Personally, I'm rather strongly against any commitment to a block size increase in the near future. Long-term incentive compatibility requires that there be some fee pressure, and that blocks be relatively consistently full or very nearly full. What we see today are transactions enjoying next-block confirmations with nearly zero pressure to include any fee at all (though many do because it makes wallet code simpler).
This allows the well-funded Bitcoin ecosystem to continue building systems which rely on transactions moving quickly into blocks while pretending these systems scale. Thus, instead of working on technologies which bring Bitcoin's trustlessness to systems which scale beyond a blockchain's necessarily slow and (compared to updating numbers in a database) expensive settlement, the ecosystem as a whole continues to focus on building centralized platforms and advocate for changes to Bitcoin which allow them to maintain the status quo
Shortly thereafter, Corallo explained further:
The point of the hard block size limit is exactly because giving miners free rule to do anything they like with their blocks would allow them to do any number of crazy attacks. The incentives for miners to pick block sizes are no where near compatible with what allows the network to continue to run in a decentralized manner.
Tier Nolan considered possible extensions and modifications that might improve Gavin's proposal and argued that soft caps could be used to mitigate against the dangers of a blocksize increase. Tom Harding voiced support for Gavin's proposal
Peter Todd mentioned that a limited blocksize provides the benefit of protecting against the "perverse incentives" behind potential block withholding attacks.
Slush didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other, and neither did Eric Lombrozo, though Eric was interested in developing hard-fork best practices and wanted to:
explore all the complexities involved with deployment of hard forks. Let’s not just do a one-off ad-hoc thing.
Matt Whitlock voiced his opinion:
I'm not so much opposed to a block size increase as I am opposed to a hard fork... I strongly fear that the hard fork itself will become an excuse to change other aspects of the system in ways that will have unintended and possibly disastrous consequences.
Bryan Bishop strongly opposed Gavin's proposal, and offered a philosophical perspective on the matter:
there has been significant public discussion... about why increasing the max block size is kicking the can down the road while possibly compromising blockchain security. There were many excellent objections that were raised that, sadly, I see are not referenced at all in the recent media blitz. Frankly I can't help but feel that if contributions, like those from #bitcoin-wizards, have been ignored in lieu of technical analysis, and the absence of discussion on this mailing list, that I feel perhaps there are other subtle and extremely important technical details that are completely absent from this--and other-- proposals.
Secured decentralization is the most important and most interesting property of bitcoin. Everything else is rather trivial and could be achieved millions of times more efficiently with conventional technology. Our technical work should be informed by the technical nature of the system we have constructed.
There's no doubt in my mind that bitcoin will always see the most extreme campaigns and the most extreme misunderstandings... for development purposes we must hold ourselves to extremely high standards before proposing changes, especially to the public, that have the potential to be unsafe and economically unsafe.
There are many potential technical solutions for aggregating millions (trillions?) of transactions into tiny bundles. As a small proof-of-concept, imagine two parties sending transactions back and forth 100 million times. Instead of recording every transaction, you could record the start state and the end state, and end up with two transactions or less. That's a 100 million fold, without modifying max block size and without potentially compromising secured decentralization.
The MIT group should listen up and get to work figuring out how to measure decentralization and its security.. Getting this measurement right would be really beneficial because we would have a more academic and technical understanding to work with.
Gregory Maxwell echoed and extended that perspective:
When Bitcoin is changed fundamentally, via a hard fork, to have different properties, the change can create winners or losers...
There are non-trivial number of people who hold extremes on any of these general belief patterns; Even among the core developers there is not a consensus on Bitcoin's optimal role in society and the commercial marketplace.
there is a at least a two fold concern on this particular ("Long term Mining incentives") front:
One is that the long-held argument is that security of the Bitcoin system in the long term depends on fee income funding autonomous, anonymous, decentralized miners profitably applying enough hash-power to make reorganizations infeasible.
For fees to achieve this purpose, there seemingly must be an effective scarcity of capacity.
The second is that when subsidy has fallen well below fees, the incentive to move the blockchain forward goes away. An optimal rational miner would be best off forking off the current best block in order to capture its fees, rather than moving the blockchain forward...
tools like the Lightning network proposal could well allow us to hit a greater spectrum of demands at once--including secure zero-confirmation (something that larger blocksizes reduce if anything), which is important for many applications. With the right technology I believe we can have our cake and eat it too, but there needs to be a reason to build it; the security and decentralization level of Bitcoin imposes a hard upper limit on anything that can be based on it.
Another key point here is that the small bumps in blocksize which wouldn't clearly knock the system into a largely centralized mode--small constants--are small enough that they don't quantitatively change the operation of the system; they don't open up new applications that aren't possible today
the procedure I'd prefer would be something like this: if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk. Hardfork changes should only be made if they're almost completely uncontroversial--where virtually everyone can look at the available data and say "yea, that isn't undermining my property rights or future use of Bitcoin; it's no big deal". Unfortunately, every indicator I can think of except fee totals has been going in the wrong direction almost monotonically along with the blockchain size increase since 2012 when we started hitting full blocks and responded by increasing the default soft target. This is frustrating
many people--myself included--have been working feverishly hard behind the scenes on Bitcoin Core to increase the scalability. This work isn't small-potatoes boring software engineering stuff; I mean even my personal contributions include things like inventing a wholly new generic algebraic optimization applicable to all EC signature schemes that increases performance by 4%, and that is before getting into the R&D stuff that hasn't really borne fruit yet, like fraud proofs. Today Bitcoin Core is easily >100 times faster to synchronize and relay than when I first got involved on the same hardware, but these improvements have been swallowed by the growth. The ironic thing is that our frantic efforts to keep ahead and not lose decentralization have both not been enough (by the best measures, full node usage is the lowest its been since 2011 even though the user base is huge now) and yet also so much that people could seriously talk about increasing the block size to something gigantic like 20MB. This sounds less reasonable when you realize that even at 1MB we'd likely have a smoking hole in the ground if not for existing enormous efforts to make scaling not come at a loss of decentralization.
Peter Todd also summarized some academic findings on the subject:
In short, without either a fixed blocksize or fixed fee per transaction Bitcoin will will not survive as there is no viable way to pay for PoW security. The latter option - fixed fee per transaction - is non-trivial to implement in a way that's actually meaningful - it's easy to give miners "kickbacks" - leaving us with a fixed blocksize.
Even a relatively small increase to 20MB will greatly reduce the number of people who can participate fully in Bitcoin, creating an environment where the next increase requires the consent of an even smaller portion of the Bitcoin ecosystem. Where does that stop? What's the proposed mechanism that'll create an incentive and social consensus to not just 'kick the can down the road'(3) and further centralize but actually scale up Bitcoin the hard way?
Some developers (e.g. Aaron Voisine) voiced support for Gavin's proposal which repeated Mike Hearn's "crash landing" arguments.
Pieter Wuille said:
I am - in general - in favor of increasing the size blocks...
Controversial hard forks. I hope the mailing list here today already proves it is a controversial issue. Independent of personal opinions pro or against, I don't think we can do a hard fork that is controversial in nature. Either the result is effectively a fork, and pre-existing coins can be spent once on both sides (effectively failing Bitcoin's primary purpose), or the result is one side forced to upgrade to something they dislike - effectively giving a power to developers they should never have. Quoting someone: "I did not sign up to be part of a central banker's committee".
The reason for increasing is "need". If "we need more space in blocks" is the reason to do an upgrade, it won't stop after 20 MB. There is nothing fundamental possible with 20 MB blocks that isn't with 1 MB blocks.
Misrepresentation of the trade-offs. You can argue all you want that none of the effects of larger blocks are particularly damaging, so everything is fine. They will damage something (see below for details), and we should analyze these effects, and be honest about them, and present them as a trade-off made we choose to make to scale the system better. If you just ask people if they want more transactions, of course you'll hear yes. If you ask people if they want to pay less taxes, I'm sure the vast majority will agree as well.
Miner centralization. There is currently, as far as I know, no technology that can relay and validate 20 MB blocks across the planet, in a manner fast enough to avoid very significant costs to mining. There is work in progress on this (including Gavin's IBLT-based relay, or Greg's block network coding), but I don't think we should be basing the future of the economics of the system on undemonstrated ideas. Without those (or even with), the result may be that miners self-limit the size of their blocks to propagate faster, but if this happens, larger, better-connected, and more centrally-located groups of miners gain a competitive advantage by being able to produce larger blocks. I would like to point out that there is nothing evil about this - a simple feedback to determine an optimal block size for an individual miner will result in larger blocks for better connected hash power. If we do not want miners to have this ability, "we" (as in: those using full nodes) should demand limitations that prevent it. One such limitation is a block size limit (whatever it is).
Ability to use a full node.
Skewed incentives for improvements... without actual pressure to work on these, I doubt much will change. Increasing the size of blocks now will simply make it cheap enough to continue business as usual for a while - while forcing a massive cost increase (and not just a monetary one) on the entire ecosystem.
Fees and long-term incentives.
I don't think 1 MB is optimal. Block size is a compromise between scalability of transactions and verifiability of the system. A system with 10 transactions per day that is verifiable by a pocket calculator is not useful, as it would only serve a few large bank's settlements. A system which can deal with every coffee bought on the planet, but requires a Google-scale data center to verify is also not useful, as it would be trivially out-competed by a VISA-like design. The usefulness needs in a balance, and there is no optimal choice for everyone. We can choose where that balance lies, but we must accept that this is done as a trade-off, and that that trade-off will have costs such as hardware costs, decreasing anonymity, less independence, smaller target audience for people able to fully validate, ...
Choose wisely.
Mike Hearn responded:
this list is not a good place for making progress or reaching decisions.
if Bitcoin continues on its current growth trends it will run out of capacity, almost certainly by some time next year. What we need to see right now is leadership and a plan, that fits in the available time window.
I no longer believe this community can reach consensus on anything protocol related.
When the money supply eventually dwindles I doubt it will be fee pressure that funds mining
What I don't see from you yet is a specific and credible plan that fits within the next 12 months and which allows Bitcoin to keep growing.
Peter Todd then pointed out that, contrary to Mike's claims, developer consensus had been achieved within Core plenty of times recently. Btc-drak asked Mike to "explain where the 12 months timeframe comes from?"
Jorge Timón wrote an incredibly prescient reply to Mike:
We've successfully reached consensus for several softfork proposals already. I agree with others that hardfork need to be uncontroversial and there should be consensus about them. If you have other ideas for the criteria for hardfork deployment all I'm ears. I just hope that by "What we need to see right now is leadership" you don't mean something like "when Gaving and Mike agree it's enough to deploy a hardfork" when you go from vague to concrete.
Oh, so your answer to "bitcoin will eventually need to live on fees and we would like to know more about how it will look like then" it's "no bitcoin long term it's broken long term but that's far away in the future so let's just worry about the present". I agree that it's hard to predict that future, but having some competition for block space would actually help us get more data on a similar situation to be able to predict that future better. What you want to avoid at all cost (the block size actually being used), I see as the best opportunity we have to look into the future.
this is my plan: we wait 12 months... and start having full blocks and people having to wait 2 blocks for their transactions to be confirmed some times. That would be the beginning of a true "fee market", something that Gavin used to say was his #1 priority not so long ago (which seems contradictory with his current efforts to avoid that from happening). Having a true fee market seems clearly an advantage. What are supposedly disastrous negative parts of this plan that make an alternative plan (ie: increasing the block size) so necessary and obvious. I think the advocates of the size increase are failing to explain the disadvantages of maintaining the current size. It feels like the explanation are missing because it should be somehow obvious how the sky will burn if we don't increase the block size soon. But, well, it is not obvious to me, so please elaborate on why having a fee market (instead of just an price estimator for a market that doesn't even really exist) would be a disaster.
Some suspected Gavin/Mike were trying to rush the hard fork for personal reasons.
Mike Hearn's response was to demand a "leader" who could unilaterally steer the Bitcoin project and make decisions unchecked:
No. What I meant is that someone (theoretically Wladimir) needs to make a clear decision. If that decision is "Bitcoin Core will wait and watch the fireworks when blocks get full", that would be showing leadership
I will write more on the topic of what will happen if we hit the block size limit... I don't believe we will get any useful data out of such an event. I've seen distributed systems run out of capacity before. What will happen instead is technological failure followed by rapid user abandonment...
we need to hear something like that from Wladimir, or whoever has the final say around here.
Jorge Timón responded:
it is true that "universally uncontroversial" (which is what I think the requirement should be for hard forks) is a vague qualifier that's not formally defined anywhere. I guess we should only consider rational arguments. You cannot just nack something without further explanation. If his explanation was "I will change my mind after we increase block size", I guess the community should say "then we will just ignore your nack because it makes no sense". In the same way, when people use fallacies (purposely or not) we must expose that and say "this fallacy doesn't count as an argument". But yeah, it would probably be good to define better what constitutes a "sensible objection" or something. That doesn't seem simple though.
it seems that some people would like to see that happening before the subsidies are low (not necessarily null), while other people are fine waiting for that but don't want to ever be close to the scale limits anytime soon. I would also like to know for how long we need to prioritize short term adoption in this way. As others have said, if the answer is "forever, adoption is always the most important thing" then we will end up with an improved version of Visa. But yeah, this is progress, I'll wait for your more detailed description of the tragedies that will follow hitting the block limits, assuming for now that it will happen in 12 months. My previous answer to the nervous "we will hit the block limits in 12 months if we don't do anything" was "not sure about 12 months, but whatever, great, I'm waiting for that to observe how fees get affected". But it should have been a question "what's wrong with hitting the block limits in 12 months?"
Mike Hearn again asserted the need for a leader:
There must be a single decision maker for any given codebase.
Bryan Bishop attempted to explain why this did not make sense with git architecture.
Finally, Gavin announced his intent to merge the patch into Bitcoin XT to bypass the peer review he had received on the bitcoin-dev mailing list.
submitted by sound8bits to sound8bits [link] [comments]

Upgrade Block 494,784 Play-by-Play

T-100 blocks: Wang Chun renegs on his reneg, starts mining btc1, troll complete.
T-15 blocks: Greg threatens to shave his neck beard if miners don't change their mind within hours. Dying breaths of Blockstream and threats go ignored.
T-5 blocks: Everyone in North Corea remind each other to HODL and no matter what happens, the Core node they run is the "real Bitcoin" because reasons.
T-1 block: The exchanges and merchants who have not committed to Segwit2x pause all trading to see how things play out.
494,784: The block heard around the world. Chain splits to 2MB and the market dumps like a truck right after coins have been secured on both chains.
T+5 blocks: North Corean's are concerned why no blocks have been mined, reports come in that their gazillion non-mining nodes are getting bored.
T+25 blocks: One or two Core blocks have been mined. Slush pool earns the mother of all DDOS attacks. The minority chain is mangled by a 51%-75% attack of SHA256 Crane Kick hashes.
T+50 blocks: Luke-Jr talks Core into merging his POW change with 300kb block sizes. Adam immediately takes credit, "It's HashCash with electrolytes".
T+100 blocks: The rest of the Bitcoin economic community come online with Segwit2x compatible nodes. North Corea is filled with FUD and confusion. Node runners with [No2x] twitter handles start to fly off the handle.
T+250 blocks: BTC starts moon trajectory. Blockstream has been fired, but the good people of BTC1, BU and Classic welcome code contributions to the bankster-free chain.
submitted by DataGuyBTC to btc [link] [comments]

Trying to recover lost BTC from MTGox, but support hasn't been very helpful. Any suggestions on how to get this resolved? or should I just call it a learning experience?

I was an early adopter of bitcoin and started mining back in 2011. I didn't make a ton, but I earned a couple BTC mining with Slush's pool and had it auto cashing out at .25 BTC increments to my account at MTGox, I have records of at least (1.5 BTC) being sent to MTGox before they were compromised in June of 2011. When they were compromised they reset everyone's password and in order to reclaim your account at the time you had to give them a copy of your drivers license and some other personal information that I wasn't comfortable giving a company that had just had a major data breach. At that point I decided to abandon MTGox and BTC and chalked it up to a lesson learned.
~2 weeks ago when BTC was at ~$250 a friend of mine emailed me asking if I was still into BTC since he had saved all of his and made a ton of money by cashing out pretty close to the top of the bubble. I explained my situation and he suggested contacting MTGox to find out if I'd still be able to recover the missing BTC.
I did just that and on April 21st I tried to recover my account and was told that it didn't exist so I created a new account and opened a ticket with MTGox Support to see if there was any chance of recovering the missing BTC/account.
On April 23rd I noted that a couple days had gone by and that I hadn't heard back from support so I updated the ticket with some more information regarding the compromise and asked if they'd had a chance to look into it?
On April 24th Support emailed me back and said that they'd found my old account and that they should be able to recover the missing BTC, they just needed to know whether I wanted to merge my new account (that I created to create the support ticker) and the old one? or if I just wanted to delete the new one and have the old one replace it. I responded within a few minutes and asked them to merge the two accounts and keep the new account name.
April 25th I get a response saying that in order to proceed with the merging I'll need to verify the balance of both accounts and the last 3 transactions on both accounts. I emailed them back within a few minutes and gave them the necessary information. The emailed me back within a few minutes and I was told that they'd proceed with the merge and would email me as soon as the changes had been made.
April 29th and it's been 4 days since the last contact, I emailed them back and politely asked when I could expect this issue to be resolved, and got what seems to be the standard line "Sorry for the delay.We will check and keep you posted as soon as possible.We appreciate your patience."
April 30th I still haven't heard anything and politely ask them again when can I expect a resolution.
May 1st I get an email "We apologize for the delay.We will check with our Developer and will update you on this." Later I got an email stating "The username has been changed and the old account is reactivated,we will update you once the account is merged". Then I got the last email "Your accounts has been merged as requested.Please do not hesitate to contact us for any further assistance."
At this point I'm excited that I've got my BTC back and I go to log into MTGox to find that I can't login. I go to reset my password and find out that my newaccountname has been replaced with oldaccountname which albeit isn't that big of a deal so I was willing to accept it. I click on the password reset link change my password and get into my account and the account balance is at 0.00 BTC. I'm rather frustrated and I've emailed support informing them that I'm still missing my BTC, I didn't even bother mentioning the oldaccountname vs newaccountname because I don't really care about that, the important thing is that they allow me to reclaim my 1.5 BTC.
TLDR: Trying to recover my account/BTC from when MTGox was compromised in June 2011, dealing with support for the last 10 days has been rather frustrating.
Do you guys have any better suggestions on how to get results from MTGox Support? Should I just call it a loss and move on? Anything you guys have to add I'd really appreciate. If nothing else this at least gave me a place to vent an get some of this off my chest as the last week or so of dealing with them has been rather frustrating.
submitted by Pyro919 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

What we need to solve the ghash.io issue is commitment.

We need a commitment from miners and a commitment from pool operators. I entirely understand why someone would want to mine at ghash.io. Besides no miner pool fee, It costs money to run miners and it's a lot more palatable to keep paying for that electricity when you're getting regular payouts. Being part of a large pool helps on that front.
What if we were able to could get current users at ghash.io to pledge to move their hash power to a specific competitor pool at a particular date? If we could get 10-15% of the network that is using ghash to commit and follow through by moving to eligius (also 0% pool fee) or slush's pool that would balance things out a lot more.
Ghash would still have about 30% of the network and the target pools would have a good amount pretty close to that. No pool would be mining blocks that much often than the other so the variance in your mining rewards should be acceptable.
What we need from the competitor mining pools is a commitment to improve. Slush pool could lower its fee slightly to entice the migration of miners. Or maybe eligius could merge mine altcoins like ghash. Do something to attract miners who use ghash.
Maybe I'm being optimistic thinking people will sacrifice a small percentage of profit to benefit the whole network but I truly hope something happens. Whether ghash has bad intentions or not doesn't matter. This is a danger hanging over the head of bitcoin and it'll be hard for bitcoin to grow under this issue.
We're also close to another surge in the network hashrate power. ASIC Miner is putting out 60ph in the next few months and bit fury will probably be doing something similar. If new miners keep going to ghash this problem will only get worse.
Large miners that use ghash, commit in this thread! Or start another one on bitcointalk for that purpose. Let's get a migration going for June 21!
submitted by Jaketheparrot to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

My incompetence as a little story

I discovered bitcoins back in April during a crazy (at the time) surge. I got right to mining because why the hell not? Get paid to let my computer sit around and think, yes please.
I made a wallet with the full BlockChain desktop program. It took days to authenticate or do something, I still don't really know what it did. I also found slush's pool and started getting my first shares. Everything was cool and I was loving the ideas that came with bitcoin. Single international currency, anonymity, infinitely divisible, instant payments, and best of all (for me at least) no physical medium. Shit is the future, but I didn't know how to put that wallet on an iPhone, I was stupid, still am.
So I made a new wallet somewhere else that had a step by step for getting set up with the BlockChain iPhone app. I put the wallet.json thing on an external HDD because I'm not dumb. I'm not going to loose my valuable bitcoins just as I'm getting going. Also I was reading that it was good to have multiple wallets in case something happens to your computer, or whatever else you have it saved on. I put it away and didn't really think anything of it until I was looking through my history on slush's pool.
holy shit I have a third of a coin on there :D I should fire up the hdd and merge the wallets and shop around on gyft. They are doing nothing just sitting there. I do just that and I'm just confused at what I see, well it looks like someone formatted the drive and just used it to mule a bunch of movies around.
We went to the beach the first week of August, I made sure we had a rainy day plan. I for whatever reason felt the need to format away a tiny file to make room for a couple of movies. Smart move past me. high five
I'm only writing this because I just finished ripping the apartment apart looking for anything I may have written down about it in the past hour, I saw the site that can possibly crack the wallet if you can give them most of the info. I didn't pick the key since that was arguably insecure. It's some ungodly random string of shit. So it's gone forever, no arguments here, it's part of the design and I understand that, now.
My current wallet though, I think I got it covered. The wallet.dat is saved in 3 physical locations and I have the paper wallets that represent them printed out in a firebox and at my parents house. My bitcoins aren't getting away this time! Still mining away, still watching them climb to the moon. Also waiting for some places around here to accept some so I can really take part in the badass future currency.
TL:DR iPhones are too hard for me therefore I threw a third of a bitcoin away so we would have some movies to watch just in case it rained.
submitted by Thilly to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Mining PC nicehash minergate & slushpool TEIL2 + batch Bitcoin Miner Tutorial - SlushPool Dashboard Bitcoin mining pool - Slushpool worker tutorial Best Bitcoin Mining Software That Work in 2020 Best Bitcoin Mining Software for PC 2020 Free Download No Fee + No Investment + Payment proof

Besides, the pool has a merged mining feature that lets you mine two coins (Namecoin alongside Bitcoin) all without additional setups after connecting miners. In merged mining, each of the share sent to the pool will contain hashes for both chains; if bitcoin is found, it is added to the blockchain while Namecoin is discarded. The mining pool also offers merged mining. If you mine Bitcoin, you will also receive Namecoin, Syscoin, and Emercoin for free. Bitcoin Cash miners will get free Syscoin, and Litecoin miners will receive free Dogecoin. CkPool. Also known as KanoPool is one of the smallest Bitcoin mining pool launched in the year 2014. Merged mining allows you to mine on more than one block chain at the same time. The benefit is that every share your miner contributes counts towards the total hash rate of both currencies, and as a result they are more secure. Slush's bitcoin mining pool. This website is going to be shut down on April 12! Slush Pool might not be the biggest Bitcoin mining pool in existence, but it is the first one, announced way back on November 27 th, 2010. It was designed and brought to existence by the team behind the SatoshiLabs, a company headquartered in Czech Republic, and it’s one of the most stable mining pools you can join at the moment. Slush Pool FAQ; Merged Mining. Section description: Merged mining allows you to mine on more than one blockchain at the same time. The benefit is that every share your miner contributes counts towards the total hash rate of both currencies, and as a re... Are we merge mining RSK? We are also using the Bitcoin hashing power to merge mine RSK

[index] [19532] [4385] [29337] [22142] [31172] [15928] [581] [28445] [5561] [8831]

Bitcoin Mining PC nicehash minergate & slushpool TEIL2 + batch

How to start Bitcoin mining for beginners (SUPER EASY) - ULTIMATE GUIDE - Duration: 13:51. We Do Tech 779,151 views. 13:51. How to Repair a DEAD Computer - Duration: 37:05. Bitcoin mining pool slushpool offers a new AI and a powerful dashboard. This tutorial will demonstrate how you can setup a worker on slushpool to mine bitcoin. #mining #miningpool #slushpool # ... [WrkzCoin] How to mine with xmrigCC (merged mining) wrkzcoin. Loading... Unsubscribe from wrkzcoin? ... keepercrypto.com // 💲new bitcoin cloud mining site 2020 // keepercrypto.com 100gh/s ... My little btc farm. I mine at slush pool and make about 10-15$ a month. Any questions feel free to ask. Antminer S9 profit slushpool vs bitcoin pool mining - Bitcoin or Bitcoin cash? - Duration: 2:11. Miner Digi 3,783 views. 2:11. Slushs pool mining tutorial - cgminer worker setup - Duration: 5:45.

Flag Counter