What Is Bitcoin Cash (BCH): All You Need To Know

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]

Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?

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

Taproot and Your /Coins

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

Taproot and Your Contracts

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

Taproot and Your Contracts, Part 2: Cryptographic Boogaloo

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

Quantum Quibbles!

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

Summary

I Wanna Be The Taprooter!

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

But I Hate Taproot!!

That's fine!

Discussions About Taproot Activation

submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[ Bitcoin ] Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?

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

Taproot and Your /Coins

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

Taproot and Your Contracts

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

Taproot and Your Contracts, Part 2: Cryptographic Boogaloo

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

Quantum Quibbles!

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

Summary

I Wanna Be The Taprooter!

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

But I Hate Taproot!!

That's fine!

Discussions About Taproot Activation

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

Mining blocks with no transactions and it's effect on ETC

Dear Community,
I frequent the ETC block explorer (small quirks.. ) an have been noticing an increasing number of blocks with no transactions. Someone had published an article on increasing number of empty block on ETH and hence my curiosity lead me to exploring the same on ETC.
The phenomenon as described is SPV mining. So I tried to delve a little deeper on the concept and available literature. It seems that bitcoin underwent something similar which caused a non consensus fork of the chain. So I the following questions?
  1. SPV mining is an advocated profitability mechanism. Okay accepted. But does is not threaten the integrity of ETC chain if majority may not be enforcing the rules of the network.? I do not have access to a dataset or something , but by simply eyeballing the blocks i see a large percentage of them with no transactions and many pending left.
  2. The 51% attack on the chain has lead to major operators adjusting their confirmation requirements for ETC in 1000s. (Kraken shows 43k confirmations and an estimated time of 1 week, coinbase was 3k I think) .. This is absolutely ridiculous.. What does this tell about the future ..? Furthermore if miners continue to engage in such activities I think the time isn't coming down anytime soon. Is the whole point to keep the so called mempool empty.? So that it's faster and confirmations can happen faster.? Is this not a correlation..?
  3. With the possibility of ETH shifting to PoS and ETC remaining on PoW, mining setups with Ethash would maybe want to shift to ETC and bolster the security of the network and put the hardware to good use. I am hoping with this improved security, confirmation requirements and time taken would come down significantly. If the new miners mine an invalid block and if increased activity of SPV mining occurs, is a double spend or fork likely?
Please let me know if I am missing something.
submitted by 0ccumZRaz0r to EthereumClassic [link] [comments]

Building Ergo: Lite full nodes

Ergo allows any user to run a full node with low resources – meaning you can help maintain the network with a device as simple as a Raspberry Pi.
In a previous post, we looked at Ergo’s SPV mode, which allows for secure, efficient mobile clients. This enables users to make transactions using almost any device.
At the other end of the scale, you might want to run a full node. If you’re a miner, this will require that you download the full blockchain, because you’ll need the whole UTXO (unspent outputs) set to mine new blocks. But you can still run a full node without that UTXO set – vastly reducing the specification and expense of the hardware needed.
Ergo blocks
In Ergo, just like Bitcoin, Ethereum and other blockchains, blocks are broken into sections. In Bitcoin, there’s simply a block header and the transactions themselves. But in Ergo, we have some extra sections that enable new functionality:
The ‘extension’ section contains certain mandatory fields (including links for NiPoPoW, once per 1,024 block epoch) and parameters for miner voting, such as current block size. It can also contain arbitrary fields.
What this means in practice is that different types of node and client can download only those sections of the blocks they need – reducing the demands for storage, bandwidth and CPU cycles.
Lite full nodes
While miners need to download everything, lite full nodes only need the transactions and proofs. This means they have a cryptographic guarantee of transactions, without holding the full UTXO set itself.
Lite full nodes check the proofs generated by full nodes (including miners) who do hold the full blockchain, providing a guarantee of ledger validity. In Ethereum, these nodes are called Stateless Clients.
For Ergo, it means you can run a full node and maintain the network with a device as simple as a Raspberry Pi with 512 MB RAM. This provides the ideal balance between ensuring the security of the network and placing an unnecessary burden on users who wish to do so – improving decentralisation and democratising participation in the Ergo network and community.
Share post:
Facebook
Twitter
Ergoplatform.org
submitted by kushti to ergoplatformorg [link] [comments]

Groestlcoin 6th Anniversary Release

Introduction

Dear Groestlers, it goes without saying that 2020 has been a difficult time for millions of people worldwide. The groestlcoin team would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone our best to everyone coping with the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19. Let it bring out the best in us all and show that collectively, we can conquer anything.
The centralised banks and our national governments are facing unprecedented times with interest rates worldwide dropping to record lows in places. Rest assured that this can only strengthen the fundamentals of all decentralised cryptocurrencies and the vision that was seeded with Satoshi's Bitcoin whitepaper over 10 years ago. Despite everything that has been thrown at us this year, the show must go on and the team will still progress and advance to continue the momentum that we have developed over the past 6 years.
In addition to this, we'd like to remind you all that this is Groestlcoin's 6th Birthday release! In terms of price there have been some crazy highs and lows over the years (with highs of around $2.60 and lows of $0.000077!), but in terms of value– Groestlcoin just keeps getting more valuable! In these uncertain times, one thing remains clear – Groestlcoin will keep going and keep innovating regardless. On with what has been worked on and completed over the past few months.

UPDATED - Groestlcoin Core 2.18.2

This is a major release of Groestlcoin Core with many protocol level improvements and code optimizations, featuring the technical equivalent of Bitcoin v0.18.2 but with Groestlcoin-specific patches. On a general level, most of what is new is a new 'Groestlcoin-wallet' tool which is now distributed alongside Groestlcoin Core's other executables.
NOTE: The 'Account' API has been removed from this version which was typically used in some tip bots. Please ensure you check the release notes from 2.17.2 for details on replacing this functionality.

How to Upgrade?

Windows
If you are running an older version, shut it down. Wait until it has completely shut down (which might take a few minutes for older versions), then run the installer.
OSX
If you are running an older version, shut it down. Wait until it has completely shut down (which might take a few minutes for older versions), run the dmg and drag Groestlcoin Core to Applications.
Ubuntu
http://groestlcoin.org/forum/index.php?topic=441.0

Other Linux

http://groestlcoin.org/forum/index.php?topic=97.0

Download

Download the Windows Installer (64 bit) here
Download the Windows Installer (32 bit) here
Download the Windows binaries (64 bit) here
Download the Windows binaries (32 bit) here
Download the OSX Installer here
Download the OSX binaries here
Download the Linux binaries (64 bit) here
Download the Linux binaries (32 bit) here
Download the ARM Linux binaries (64 bit) here
Download the ARM Linux binaries (32 bit) here

Source

ALL NEW - Groestlcoin Moonshine iOS/Android Wallet

Built with React Native, Moonshine utilizes Electrum-GRS's JSON-RPC methods to interact with the Groestlcoin network.
GRS Moonshine's intended use is as a hot wallet. Meaning, your keys are only as safe as the device you install this wallet on. As with any hot wallet, please ensure that you keep only a small, responsible amount of Groestlcoin on it at any given time.

Features

Download

iOS
Android

Source

ALL NEW! – HODL GRS Android Wallet

HODL GRS connects directly to the Groestlcoin network using SPV mode and doesn't rely on servers that can be hacked or disabled.
HODL GRS utilizes AES hardware encryption, app sandboxing, and the latest security features to protect users from malware, browser security holes, and even physical theft. Private keys are stored only in the secure enclave of the user's phone, inaccessible to anyone other than the user.
Simplicity and ease-of-use is the core design principle of HODL GRS. A simple recovery phrase (which we call a Backup Recovery Key) is all that is needed to restore the user's wallet if they ever lose or replace their device. HODL GRS is deterministic, which means the user's balance and transaction history can be recovered just from the backup recovery key.

Features

Download

Main Release (Main Net)
Testnet Release

Source

ALL NEW! – GroestlcoinSeed Savior

Groestlcoin Seed Savior is a tool for recovering BIP39 seed phrases.
This tool is meant to help users with recovering a slightly incorrect Groestlcoin mnemonic phrase (AKA backup or seed). You can enter an existing BIP39 mnemonic and get derived addresses in various formats.
To find out if one of the suggested addresses is the right one, you can click on the suggested address to check the address' transaction history on a block explorer.

Features

Live Version (Not Recommended)

https://www.groestlcoin.org/recovery/

Download

https://github.com/Groestlcoin/mnemonic-recovery/archive/master.zip

Source

ALL NEW! – Vanity Search Vanity Address Generator

NOTE: NVidia GPU or any CPU only. AMD graphics cards will not work with this address generator.
VanitySearch is a command-line Segwit-capable vanity Groestlcoin address generator. Add unique flair when you tell people to send Groestlcoin. Alternatively, VanitySearch can be used to generate random addresses offline.
If you're tired of the random, cryptic addresses generated by regular groestlcoin clients, then VanitySearch is the right choice for you to create a more personalized address.
VanitySearch is a groestlcoin address prefix finder. If you want to generate safe private keys, use the -s option to enter your passphrase which will be used for generating a base key as for BIP38 standard (VanitySearch.exe -s "My PassPhrase" FXPref). You can also use VanitySearch.exe -ps "My PassPhrase" which will add a crypto secure seed to your passphrase.
VanitySearch may not compute a good grid size for your GPU, so try different values using -g option in order to get the best performances. If you want to use GPUs and CPUs together, you may have best performances by keeping one CPU core for handling GPU(s)/CPU exchanges (use -t option to set the number of CPU threads).

Features

Usage

https://github.com/Groestlcoin/VanitySearch#usage

Download

Source

ALL NEW! – Groestlcoin EasyVanity 2020

Groestlcoin EasyVanity 2020 is a windows app built from the ground-up and makes it easier than ever before to create your very own bespoke bech32 address(es) when whilst not connected to the internet.
If you're tired of the random, cryptic bech32 addresses generated by regular Groestlcoin clients, then Groestlcoin EasyVanity2020 is the right choice for you to create a more personalised bech32 address. This 2020 version uses the new VanitySearch to generate not only legacy addresses (F prefix) but also Bech32 addresses (grs1 prefix).

Features

Download

Source

Remastered! – Groestlcoin WPF Desktop Wallet (v2.19.0.18)

Groestlcoin WPF is an alternative full node client with optional lightweight 'thin-client' mode based on WPF. Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) is one of Microsoft's latest approaches to a GUI framework, used with the .NET framework. Its main advantages over the original Groestlcoin client include support for exporting blockchain.dat and including a lite wallet mode.
This wallet was previously deprecated but has been brought back to life with modern standards.

Features

Remastered Improvements

Download

Source

ALL NEW! – BIP39 Key Tool

Groestlcoin BIP39 Key Tool is a GUI interface for generating Groestlcoin public and private keys. It is a standalone tool which can be used offline.

Features

Download

Windows
Linux :
 pip3 install -r requirements.txt python3 bip39\_gui.py 

Source

ALL NEW! – Electrum Personal Server

Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server aims to make using Electrum Groestlcoin wallet more secure and more private. It makes it easy to connect your Electrum-GRS wallet to your own full node.
It is an implementation of the Electrum-grs server protocol which fulfils the specific need of using the Electrum-grs wallet backed by a full node, but without the heavyweight server backend, for a single user. It allows the user to benefit from all Groestlcoin Core's resource-saving features like pruning, blocks only and disabled txindex. All Electrum-GRS's feature-richness like hardware wallet integration, multi-signature wallets, offline signing, seed recovery phrases, coin control and so on can still be used, but connected only to the user's own full node.
Full node wallets are important in Groestlcoin because they are a big part of what makes the system be trust-less. No longer do people have to trust a financial institution like a bank or PayPal, they can run software on their own computers. If Groestlcoin is digital gold, then a full node wallet is your own personal goldsmith who checks for you that received payments are genuine.
Full node wallets are also important for privacy. Using Electrum-GRS under default configuration requires it to send (hashes of) all your Groestlcoin addresses to some server. That server can then easily spy on your transactions. Full node wallets like Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server would download the entire blockchain and scan it for the user's own addresses, and therefore don't reveal to anyone else which Groestlcoin addresses they are interested in.
Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server can also broadcast transactions through Tor which improves privacy by resisting traffic analysis for broadcasted transactions which can link the IP address of the user to the transaction. If enabled this would happen transparently whenever the user simply clicks "Send" on a transaction in Electrum-grs wallet.
Note: Currently Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server can only accept one connection at a time.

Features

Download

Windows
Linux / OSX (Instructions)

Source

UPDATED – Android Wallet 7.38.1 - Main Net + Test Net

The app allows you to send and receive Groestlcoin on your device using QR codes and URI links.
When using this app, please back up your wallet and email them to yourself! This will save your wallet in a password protected file. Then your coins can be retrieved even if you lose your phone.

Changes

Download

Main Net
Main Net (FDroid)
Test Net

Source

UPDATED – Groestlcoin Sentinel 3.5.06 (Android)

Groestlcoin Sentinel is a great solution for anyone who wants the convenience and utility of a hot wallet for receiving payments directly into their cold storage (or hardware wallets).
Sentinel accepts XPUB's, YPUB'S, ZPUB's and individual Groestlcoin address. Once added you will be able to view balances, view transactions, and (in the case of XPUB's, YPUB's and ZPUB's) deterministically generate addresses for that wallet.
Groestlcoin Sentinel is a fork of Groestlcoin Samourai Wallet with all spending and transaction building code removed.

Changes

Download

Source

UPDATED – P2Pool Test Net

Changes

Download

Pre-Hosted Testnet P2Pool is available via http://testp2pool.groestlcoin.org:21330/static/

Source

submitted by Yokomoko_Saleen to groestlcoin [link] [comments]

Decred: Our Network Issue #2 - 4 Year Review

Decred: Our Network Issue #2 - 4 Year Review
Decred is approaching it's fourth Birthday on 8-Feb-2020 and to celebrate, the submission to the Our Network Newsletter will be covering an array of achievements by the Decred chain to date.
The Our Network newsletter is an industry wide publication driven by community members with a focus for on-chain data and behaviour of crypto-networks. Decred is featured once a month alongside other L1 networks Bitcoin, Ethereum, ZCash and Tezos.
https://ournetwork.substack.com/about?utm_source=subscribe_email&utm_content=learn_more

Insight 1 - Total Value Settled

Decred has finalised over $11.44 Billion in USD denominated value over its lifetime, accounting for the movement of over 409 Million DCR units. A dominant component of these on-chain flows comes from DCR tickets (~50%), which represent long-term holders participating in PoS security and governance.
Cumulative value settled in USD and DCBTC units

Insight 2 - Growth of Decred Mining

ASIC hardware was first released for Decred in Janurary 2018, approximately two years after launch and at the peak of the 2017-18 bull run. Decred hashrate has grown by 1,000x following ASICs coming online. Given the prolonged bear market, the Difficulty ribbon is currently squeezed although showing early signs of recovery.
Interestingly, the acceleration in hash-rate growth and subsequent squeeze/plateau of the difficulty ribbon are reminiscent of Bitcoin throughout the the 2015 bear market.
Growth of PoW mining hash-rate and difficulty.
Insight 3 - Stakeholder Commitments
Decred is unique in that it supports both Miners and Stakeholders with coins continually circulating via DCR Tickets. Observing the aggregate behaviour of both parties shows each create fundamental support/resistance levels during price discovery.
  • A cumulative $5.6B has been locked in DCR tickets and this commitment line (green) has been a magnet for price in a Bull Market.
  • The cumulative reward paid to PoW miners (incl. fees) now totals $147M and supports the notion that miners support bottoms for Bear Markets.
  • The Realised Price acts as a dynamic support and resistance line in response to changing ticket flows in Bull/Bear conditions.
  • The Realised Cap is currently squeezing against the PoW Miner line, an event last seen in early 2017.
Stakeholder commitment channel showing fundamental support and resistance by stakers and miners.

Insight 4 - Treasury Expenditure

The Decred Treasury is a central component of Decred's value proposition, enabling sustainable and self-sovereign development into the future. The treasury receives 10% of the DCR block subsidy for deployment by DCR stakeholders.
To date, the Decred Treasury has accumulated over 639,600 DCR, equivalent to $11.5M at $18/DCR. The project has a spend ratio of 32% of inflows to-date and 14% of the final inflow of 2.1M DCR, at the end of the block subsidy. Pricing all Treasury expenditure outflows on the day of the transaction, the Decred treasury has spent $6.96M USD to bring the protocol from genesis to its current state.
Treasury Balance, inflow and outflow in DCR and actual spend rate

Insight 5 - Decred Consensus Change DCP0005

Decred is currently undergoing its fifth on-chain vote to upgrade the consensus rules. The DCP0005 change restructures block headers and filters to improve SPV security and optimise the interaction between PoS votes and PoW miners.
The DCP0005 codebase lies dormant in the new node software and now that 95% of Miners and 75% of Stakers have upgraded, the vote to activate it is live. A minimum quorum of 20% of Stakeholders must vote with 75% consensus to activate the new code. The current approval rate has 99.94% of tickets voting Yes, out of a 59.68% participation rate (note that abstain is default and only yes/no votes count as participation).
DCP0005 Vote panel as of block 418,332
submitted by __checkmatey__ to decred [link] [comments]

Building Ergo: Lite full nodes

Ergo allows any user to run a full node with low resources – meaning you can help maintain the network with a device as simple as a Raspberry Pi.
In a previous post, we looked at Ergo’s SPV mode, which allows for secure, efficient mobile clients. This enables users to make transactions using almost any device.
At the other end of the scale, you might want to run a full node. If you’re a miner, this will require that you download the full blockchain, because you’ll need the whole UTXO (unspent outputs) set to mine new blocks. But you can still run a full node without that UTXO set – vastly reducing the specification and expense of the hardware needed.

Ergo blocks

In Ergo, just like Bitcoin, Ethereum and other blockchains, blocks are broken into sections. In Bitcoin, there’s simply a block header and the transactions themselves. But in Ergo, we have some extra sections that enable new functionality:
The ‘extension’ section contains certain mandatory fields (including links for NiPoPoW, once per 1,024 block epoch) and parameters for miner voting, such as current block size. It can also contain arbitrary fields.
What this means in practice is that different types of node and client can download only those sections of the blocks they need – reducing the demands for storage, bandwidth and CPU cycles.

Lite full nodes

While miners need to download everything, lite full nodes only need the transactions and proofs. This means they have a cryptographic guarantee of transactions, without holding the full UTXO set itself.
Lite full nodes check the proofs generated by full nodes (including miners) who do hold the full blockchain, providing a guarantee of ledger validity. In Ethereum, these nodes are called Stateless Clients.
For Ergo, it means you can run a full node and maintain the network with a device as simple as a Raspberry Pi with 512 MB RAM. This provides the ideal balance between ensuring the security of the network and placing an unnecessary burden on users who wish to do so – improving decentralisation and democratising participation in the Ergo network and community.
submitted by eleanorcwhite to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

Building Ergo: Lite full nodes

Ergo allows any user to run a full node with low resources – meaning you can help maintain the network with a device as simple as a Raspberry Pi.
In a previous post, we looked at Ergo’s SPV mode, which allows for secure, efficient mobile clients. This enables users to make transactions using almost any device.
At the other end of the scale, you might want to run a full node. If you’re a miner, this will require that you download the full blockchain, because you’ll need the whole UTXO (unspent outputs) set to mine new blocks. But you can still run a full node without that UTXO set – vastly reducing the specification and expense of the hardware needed.
Ergo blocks
In Ergo, just like Bitcoin, Ethereum and other blockchains, blocks are broken into sections. In Bitcoin, there’s simply a block header and the transactions themselves. But in Ergo, we have some extra sections that enable new functionality:
The ‘extension’ section contains certain mandatory fields (including links for NiPoPoW, once per 1,024 block epoch) and parameters for miner voting, such as current block size. It can also contain arbitrary fields.
What this means in practice is that different types of node and client can download only those sections of the blocks they need – reducing the demands for storage, bandwidth and CPU cycles.
Lite full nodes
While miners need to download everything, lite full nodes only need the transactions and proofs. This means they have a cryptographic guarantee of transactions, without holding the full UTXO set itself.
Lite full nodes check the proofs generated by full nodes (including miners) who do hold the full blockchain, providing a guarantee of ledger validity. In Ethereum, these nodes are called Stateless Clients.
For Ergo, it means you can run a full node and maintain the network with a device as simple as a Raspberry Pi with 512 MB RAM. This provides the ideal balance between ensuring the security of the network and placing an unnecessary burden on users who wish to do so – improving decentralisation and democratising participation in the Ergo network and community.
submitted by eleanorcwhite to CryptoCurrencies [link] [comments]

You can call you a Bitcoiner if you know/can explain these terms...

03/Jan/2009
10 Minutes
10,000 BTC Pizza
2016 Blocks
21 Million
210,000 Blocks
51% Attack
Address
Altcoin
Antonopoulos
Asic
Asic Boost
Base58
Batching
Bech32
Bit
Bitcoin Cash
Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP)
Bitcoin SV
Bitmain
Block
Block height
Block reward
Blockchain
Blockexplorer
Bloom Filter
Brain Wallet
Buidl
Change Address
Child pays for parent (CPFP)
Coinbase (not the exchange)
CoinJoin
Coinmarketcap (CMC)
Colored Coin
Confirmation
Consensus
Custodial Wallet
Craig Wright
David Kleinman
Difficulty
Difficulty adjustment
Difficulty Target
Dogecoin
Dorian Nakamoto
Double spend
Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)
Ethereum
Faketoshi
Fork
Full Node
Gavin Andresen
Genesis Block
Getting goxed
Halving
Hard Fork
Hardware Wallet
Hash
Hashing
Hierarchical Deterministic (HD) Wallet
Hodl
Hot Wallet
Initial Coin Offering (ICO)
Initial Exchange Offering (IEO)
Ledger
Light Node
Lightning
Litecoin
Locktime
Mainnet
Malleability
Master Private Key
Master Public Key
Master Seed
mBTC
Mempool
Merkle Tree
Mining
Mining Farm
Mining Pool
Mixing
MtGox
Multisig
Nonce
Not your keys,...
Opcode
Orphan block
P2PKH
P2SH
Paper Wallet
Peers
Pieter Wuille
Premining
Private key
Proof of Stake (PoS)
Proof of Work (PoW)
Pruning
Public key
Pump'n'Dump
Replace by Fee (RBF)
Ripemd160
Roger Ver
sat
Satoshi Nakamoto
Schnorr Signatures
Script
Segregated Witness (Segwit)
Sha256
Shitcoin
Sidechain
Signature
Signing
Simplified Payment Verification (SPV)
Smart Contract
Soft Fork
Stratum
Syncing
Testnet
Transaction
Transaction Fees
TransactionId (Txid)
Trezor
User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)
Utxo
Wallet Import Format (WIF)
Watch-Only Address
Whitepaper
List obviously not complete. Suggestions appreciated.
Refs:
https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-glossary https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgo7FCCPuylVk4luP3JAgVw https://www.youtube.com/useaantonop
submitted by PolaT1x to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: CryptoTechnology top posts from 2017-12-23 to 2020-01-20 15:51 PDT

Period: 758.36 days
Submissions Comments
Total 956 13660
Rate (per day) 1.26 18.01
Unique Redditors 584 3144
Combined Score 21553 44566

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 1166 points, 43 submissions: Neophyte-
    1. "Do you need a Blockchain?" - this paper is fantastic, everyone should read this before evaluating a coin and if requires a block chain to solve a solution the coin is promising to solve. (136 points, 41 comments)
    2. Do any of you foresee a crypto being widely adopted as a general purpose payment coin? nano, btc, btccash etc (take your pick). I think it won't happen for reasons in this post. What do you think? (59 points, 54 comments)
    3. Noticed the huge rise of EOS lately what does it have over NEO and ethereum and to a lesser extent Cardano? I tried researching it, but wasn't sold. (54 points, 55 comments)
    4. Hard Problems in Cryptocurrency: Five Years Later ~Vitalik (46 points, 1 comment)
    5. I had a Q&A with Bruno head architect / CEO of oyster, thought you guys might like it. (45 points, 2 comments)
    6. A good article that explains in simple terms how Eth2 works, how it will be rolled out and migrated from eth1 (42 points, 4 comments)
    7. DAI the stablecoin can now be transferred GAS free (article explaining how it works via new MCD DAI contract). This holds alot of promise for the so called "Web3" (40 points, 8 comments)
    8. Veriblock is consuming 27% of bitcoins block space - what does this mean for bitcoins future? (39 points, 16 comments)
    9. Vitalik: Alternative proposal for early eth1 <-> eth2 merge (38 points, 3 comments)
    10. Is launching a PoW permissionless blockchain still possible today? or would it be too susceptible to a 51% attack? (37 points, 37 comments)
  2. 578 points, 16 submissions: crypto_ha
    1. Why is Ripple considered a cryptocurrency (by many)? (109 points, 63 comments)
    2. So reportedly there are serious vulnerabilities found in EOS’ code. And it seems like those are more than just random software bugs. (97 points, 29 comments)
    3. Guide: How to get started with Blockchain development? (60 points, 6 comments)
    4. A newly found vulnerability in Nano's Android wallet (44 points, 12 comments)
    5. The history and state of Ethereum's Casper research - Vitalik Buterin (39 points, 4 comments)
    6. What is the difference between Sidechain vs Child Chain vs Off Chain? (39 points, 12 comments)
    7. EOS mainnet is official live (finally), but... (36 points, 24 comments)
    8. Bitcoin's "doomsday" economics - Bank of International Settlements (34 points, 23 comments)
    9. How Wall Street’s embrace could undermine Bitcoin (30 points, 9 comments)
    10. Ethereum ERC 1497: DApp Dispute Evidence Standard (24 points, 0 comments)
  3. 513 points, 20 submissions: ndha1995
    1. Ethereum Classic is currently being 51% attacked (103 points, 31 comments)
    2. Why are there so many garbage posts the past 24 hours? (58 points, 10 comments)
    3. Google Unveils 72-Qubit Quantum Processor With Low Error Rates (48 points, 24 comments)
    4. IOTA's Network-Bound PoW consensus, is it feasible? (42 points, 13 comments)
    5. The Challenges of Investigating Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Related Crime (29 points, 7 comments)
    6. Deep dive into zk-STARKs with Vitalik Buterin's blog posts (26 points, 3 comments)
    7. Tether discussion thread (26 points, 21 comments)
    8. Vitalik Buterin Proposes a Consensus Algorithm That Requires Only 1% to Be Honest (24 points, 8 comments)
    9. Can somebody compare Qtum vs. NEO, technology-wise? (E.g. PoS vs. PoW; smart contract protocols...) (21 points, 15 comments)
    10. Introduction to Non Fungible Tokens (NFTs) (21 points, 9 comments)
  4. 377 points, 16 submissions: turtleflax
    1. Around 13% of DASH's privateSends are traceable to their origin (69 points, 3 comments)
    2. "Big Bang" attack could leverage Monero's dynamic blocksize to bloat the blockchain to 30TB in only 36 hours (52 points, 3 comments)
    3. The case for the obsolescence of Proof of Work and why 2018 will be the year of Proof of Stake (41 points, 29 comments)
    4. Monero vs PIVX: The First Scheduled Privacy Coin Debate Thread on /CryptoCurrency (38 points, 12 comments)
    5. Introducing the Privacy Coin Matrix, a cross-team collaboration comparing 20 privacy coins in 100 categories (26 points, 25 comments)
    6. Do permissioned blockchains have any merits? (25 points, 23 comments)
    7. The State of Hashing Algorithms — The Why, The How, and The Future (21 points, 4 comments)
    8. How Zerocoin Works in 5 Minutes (19 points, 5 comments)
    9. Errors made by Satoshi (17 points, 8 comments)
    10. How Much Privacy is Enough? Threats, Scaling, and Trade-offs in Blockchain Privacy Protocols - Ian Miers (Cornell Tech, Zerocoin, Zerocash) (17 points, 4 comments)
  5. 321 points, 6 submissions: Qwahzi
    1. Technical comparison of LIGHTNING vs TANGLE vs HASHGRAPH vs NANO (133 points, 37 comments)
    2. Addressing Nano's weaknesses (bandwidth usage and disk IO). Nano voting traffic to be reduced by 99.9% by implementing vote by hash, lazy bootstrapping, and reduced vote rebroadcasting (x-post CryptoCurrency) (78 points, 8 comments)
    3. Emergent centralization due to economies of scale (PoW vs DPoS) – Colin LeMahieu (52 points, 37 comments)
    4. Nano community member developing a distributed "mining" service to pay people to do PoW for third-parties (e.g. exchanges, light wallet services, etc) (32 points, 20 comments)
    5. What do you think about OpenCAP, the cryptocurrency alias protocol that mirrors traditional email addresses? (15 points, 12 comments)
    6. Bitcoin would be a calamity, not an economy (11 points, 52 comments)
  6. 256 points, 4 submissions: rockyrainy
    1. Bitcoin Gold hit by Double Spend Attack (51% attack). The Attacker reversed 22 blocks. (179 points, 102 comments)
    2. ZK-starks white paper published (44 points, 16 comments)
    3. [Q] How does a network reach consensus on what time it is? (21 points, 17 comments)
    4. Stateless (no history) Cryptocurrency via snapshots? (12 points, 7 comments)
  7. 244 points, 3 submissions: HSPremier
    1. From a technical standpoint: Why does every blockchain projects need their own coins? (181 points, 50 comments)
    2. What is Reddit's obsession with REQ? (61 points, 43 comments)
    3. What is the technological difference between a privacy coin and a privacy coin platform? Won't a privacy coin platform be more superior than a privacy coin? (2 points, 3 comments)
  8. 234 points, 2 submissions: Realness100
    1. A Guided Reading of Bitcoin’s Original White Paper (202 points, 10 comments)
    2. A Guided Reading of Ethereum's Original White Paper! (32 points, 5 comments)
  9. 185 points, 4 submissions: tracyspacygo
    1. My brief observation of most common Consensus Algorithms (159 points, 49 comments)
    2. What are the main Trends/Challenges for Bitcoin and whole crytpocurrencies industry? (12 points, 33 comments)
    3. Guideline for Newbies: Trying out Bitcoin transactions with TESTNET (7 points, 1 comment)
    4. Most advanced Cryptocurrencies Comparison Table (7 points, 8 comments)
  10. 177 points, 9 submissions: benmdi
    1. What's the best argument against cryptotechnology? I.e. Steelman the cryptocurrency skeptic (43 points, 42 comments)
    2. Would there be interest from this community in crypto resources aimed at developers? If so, what topics? (29 points, 14 comments)
    3. Has the window for bootstrapping a new PoW coin closed? (24 points, 57 comments)
    4. What can we, as a community, learn from the rise & acquisition of GitHub (23 points, 8 comments)
    5. 🍱 Rollup Roundup: Understanding Ethereum's Emerging Layer 2 (19 points, 1 comment)
    6. Video Tutorial: Introducing An Experience Dev To Smart Contract Coding (17 points, 3 comments)
    7. Do we need a blockchain to be decentralized? What questions would you ask a self described fan of decentralization, but blockchain skeptic? (11 points, 19 comments)
    8. ETH Block Rewards And Second Order Effects On Hardware Availability (7 points, 8 comments)
    9. Which Of The Big Tech Companies Is Most Likely To Bring Crypto Mainstream? Here's Why I Think It's Apple (4 points, 7 comments)
  11. 175 points, 9 submissions: galan77
    1. Is the Lightning Network a massive threat to the blockchain? (49 points, 66 comments)
    2. TPS of Lightning Network vs. Sharding, which one does better? (28 points, 7 comments)
    3. Are there any major downsides to sharding? (21 points, 33 comments)
    4. What's the difference between trustlessness and permissionlessness (19 points, 7 comments)
    5. Which consensus algorithm is the best, PoW, PoS, PoAuthority, PoAsset? (18 points, 57 comments)
    6. How can XRP reach 50,000 TPS when they have no sharding and every node has to validate every single transaction. (15 points, 14 comments)
    7. A few questions about the Lightning Network (14 points, 6 comments)
    8. Pascalcoin can do 72,000 tps apparently. Is this legit? The new Nano? (8 points, 39 comments)
    9. How does Ripple's (XRB's) consensus algorithm Proof of Correctness work, are there any downsides? (3 points, 23 comments)
  12. 175 points, 1 submission: ilielezi
    1. Why white papers in crypto world are so unprofessional? (175 points, 88 comments)
  13. 165 points, 6 submissions: CryptoMaximalist
    1. Facebook's Libra (48 points, 55 comments)
    2. “Fake Stake” attacks on some Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies responsibly disclosed by researchers from the Decentralized Systems Lab at UIUC (31 points, 9 comments)
    3. Quantum Computing and the Cryptography in Crypto (27 points, 14 comments)
    4. PING and REJECT attacks on ZCash (Patch available) | Stanford Applied Crypto Group (22 points, 1 comment)
    5. Introduction to Cryptography: Part 1 - Jinglan Wang (19 points, 1 comment)
    6. New site howmanyconfs.com shows the amount of time and confirmations of Proof of Work coins to match 6 confirmations on Bitcoin (18 points, 11 comments)
  14. 163 points, 10 submissions: GainsLean
    1. Videos For Developers Who Want To Learn Blockchain In A Practical Way (36 points, 17 comments)
    2. What Do You Want To Learn? (32 points, 20 comments)
    3. Get Involved With The Smart Contract Coding Challenge (25 points, 4 comments)
    4. Solution To $10K Art Prize (25 points, 3 comments)
    5. Blockchain Course Outline Has Been Released - Feedback warranted (22 points, 12 comments)
    6. Introduction To Distributed Systems And Consensus Protocols (9 points, 2 comments)
    7. Are there any closed source crypto wallets? (4 points, 19 comments)
    8. Are there any successful proof of identity projects? (4 points, 8 comments)
    9. SPV Wallets Vs API Wallets (4 points, 1 comment)
    10. 12 Popular Consensus Algorithms - Explained (2 points, 0 comments)
  15. 163 points, 7 submissions: QRCollector
    1. Part 5. I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the fifth part of the series talking about an advanced vulnerability of BTC. (43 points, 43 comments)
    2. I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the third part of the series introducing Quantum resistant blockchains. (36 points, 4 comments)
    3. Part 4B. I’m writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the fourth part of the series explaining the special quality of going quantum resistant from genesis block. (25 points, 21 comments)
    4. Part 6. (Last part) I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. Failing shortcuts in an attempt to accomplish Quantum Resistance (24 points, 38 comments)
    5. I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the first part of the series introducing the basic concept of blockchain and what makes it reliable. (23 points, 10 comments)
    6. I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the fourth part of the series explaining the special quality of going quantum resistant from genesis block. (7 points, 1 comment)
    7. Part 2. I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the second part of the series: An accessible description of hashing and signature schemes. (5 points, 0 comments)
  16. 162 points, 3 submissions: FashionistaGuru
    1. How do we change the culture around cryptocurrency? (118 points, 54 comments)
    2. Which cryptos have the best new user experience? (30 points, 34 comments)
    3. Why does Apple prevent many crypto apps from entering the App Store? (14 points, 8 comments)
  17. 157 points, 7 submissions: SamsungGalaxyPlayer
    1. Breaking Monero Episodes 1-3: Introduction, Ring Signatures, 0-Decoy and Chain Reactions (45 points, 1 comment)
    2. "No, dPoW Isn't a Perfect Solution" (35 points, 48 comments)
    3. Breaking Mimblewimble’s Privacy Model - Dragonfly Research (27 points, 10 comments)
    4. Breaking Monero (and Zcash) Episodes 7-9: Remote Nodes, Timing Attacks, Poisoned Outputs (EAE Attack) (21 points, 2 comments)
    5. "Attacker Collection of IP Metadata" (18 points, 10 comments)
    6. "Tracing Transactions Across Cryptocurrency Ledgers" Using Shapeshift and Changelly (6 points, 4 comments)
    7. Breaking Monero Episodes 4-6: Chain Splits (Key Image Attack), Input Selection Algorithm, Unusual Ringsize (5 points, 2 comments)
  18. 147 points, 1 submission: shunsaitakahashi
    1. Proof-of-Approval: Stake Based, 1 Block Finality & History Attack Defense (147 points, 4 comments)
  19. 146 points, 6 submissions: themoderndayhercules
    1. "The selfish mining fallacy" explained and debunked (60 points, 8 comments)
    2. A Discussion of Stable coins and Decentralized Oracles (35 points, 8 comments)
    3. A Selfish Mining Double Spending attack Simulator (25 points, 2 comments)
    4. Why reputation systems don't work (15 points, 12 comments)
    5. A better incentivization for Swarm (6 points, 0 comments)
    6. When Mises met Szabo - A Discussion of the value of Bitcoin (5 points, 16 comments)
  20. 143 points, 7 submissions: KomodoWorld
    1. Komodo Platform's core developer and founder jl777 has started his own blog on Medium. The blog is aimed for senior developers who want to learn about blockchain. (46 points, 15 comments)
    2. Delayed Proof of Work (dPoW) security explained (36 points, 46 comments)
    3. Proof-of-Gameplay (19 points, 3 comments)
    4. Good guide for getting started with the Custom Consensus tech for Komodo-based blockchains (17 points, 0 comments)
    5. Cross-chain migration of coins with Crypto Conditions - by smk762 (12 points, 0 comments)
    6. A step-by-step example of working with a Crypto Conditions based Oracle - by smk762 (10 points, 0 comments)
    7. Changing consensus rules on the fly with Crypto Conditions (3 points, 0 comments)
  21. 141 points, 8 submissions: Stormy1997
    1. What technical/business advantages does a private blockchain have over a SQL server? (49 points, 79 comments)
    2. Is sharding to scale bad? (24 points, 28 comments)
    3. How would one create a fiat gateway theoretically? (19 points, 19 comments)
    4. Looking for Stellar smart contract/side chain code examples (16 points, 1 comment)
    5. Question - Securing personal information on a centralized server with user-owned keys (13 points, 3 comments)
    6. How do blockchains/smart contracts communicate with oracles? (10 points, 4 comments)
    7. Bandwidth scaling for TPS (8 points, 2 comments)
    8. Best method to transmit detailed data between two parties via existing platforms (2 points, 1 comment)
  22. 141 points, 3 submissions: seventyfiver
    1. Why does Ethereum use Solidity while other ecosystems like NEO stick with popular ones like Java and C#? (94 points, 26 comments)
    2. Chainlink's initial Go implementation went live this morning. Has anyone reviewed the code and can comment on it's quality? (40 points, 3 comments)
    3. What are some great books on cryptoeconomics or blockchain technology? (7 points, 4 comments)
  23. 134 points, 6 submissions: johnny_milkshakes
    1. Sub dedicated to DAG based coins (42 points, 8 comments)
    2. Thoughts on this? (28 points, 38 comments)
    3. This is very interesting (24 points, 19 comments)
    4. Educational presentation by Clara Shikhelman (18 points, 0 comments)
    5. Ethics question. (12 points, 40 comments)
    6. How to scale on chain? (10 points, 30 comments)
  24. 127 points, 4 submissions: sukitrebek
    1. What are you currently obsessed with, and why? (58 points, 150 comments)
    2. Crypto-based social network without a cryptocurrency. (42 points, 23 comments)
    3. How does underlying architecture affect what kinds of applications are possible? (17 points, 3 comments)
    4. Holochain vs. Radix DLT (10 points, 11 comments)
  25. 126 points, 1 submission: RufusTheFirefly
    1. Everytime I try to investigate the technology behind Cardano(Ada), I come across the words "scientific" and "peer-reviewed" over and over but almost no actual details. Can someone fill how this coin actually works and where they are in development? (126 points, 49 comments)
  26. 112 points, 1 submission: rocksolid77
    1. Can we have a real debate about the Bitcoin scaling issue? (112 points, 89 comments)
  27. 110 points, 4 submissions: kelluk
    1. What one can learn from browsing 30 million Ethereum addresses (72 points, 21 comments)
    2. I wanted to categorize all coins/tokens, and this is my proposal (23 points, 33 comments)
    3. Should whitepapers be understood by ordinary people? (10 points, 41 comments)
    4. Querying the Ethereum blockchain: how to & what to? (5 points, 5 comments)
  28. 107 points, 1 submission: NewDietTrend
    1. Outside of currency and voting, blockchain is awful and shouldnt be used. Can anyone explain where blockchain is worth the cost? (107 points, 166 comments)
  29. 105 points, 1 submission: insette
    1. /CryptoTech PSA: there are broadly TWO TYPES of Decentralized Exchanges. Which type are you investing in? (105 points, 55 comments)
  30. 103 points, 3 submissions: dtheme
    1. How to accept crypto payments for digital downloads if you are a small business? Solutions, e-commerce sites are lacking (46 points, 38 comments)
    2. How many 24 letter seeds and "Bitcoin" keys can there be? (34 points, 24 comments)
    3. Is there any reason why the big tech companies are not getting into crypto? (23 points, 36 comments)
  31. 103 points, 3 submissions: dvnielng
    1. Why do so many of these businesses need a token? (Unsure) (61 points, 86 comments)
    2. DAPPS - Only coins that have intrinsic value? Ethereum , Neo? (31 points, 10 comments)
    3. How could blockchain work for expensive purchases/escrow? (11 points, 2 comments)
  32. 101 points, 1 submission: kickso
    1. Is NANO everything it says it is? (101 points, 96 comments)
  33. 98 points, 3 submissions: heart_mind_body
    1. How can we breathe some life into this sub? (56 points, 22 comments)
    2. Can anyone give an example for a technology that provides a "public permissioned blockchain"? (28 points, 16 comments)
    3. Can we do a discussion on ICON and "clusters of private chains connected to a public chain" ? (14 points, 13 comments)
  34. 97 points, 8 submissions: kelraku
    1. Thoughts on Mimblewimble? (23 points, 13 comments)
    2. Has anyone looked at the lelantus protocol? (18 points, 6 comments)
    3. How much control do developers have over the coins (18 points, 6 comments)
    4. Lesser known protocols? (11 points, 17 comments)
    5. Zerocoin and Blockchain Analysis (9 points, 5 comments)
    6. Zerocoin vs Cryptonote (7 points, 14 comments)
    7. Lightning network privacy (6 points, 13 comments)
    8. Integrity of the DAG (5 points, 17 comments)
  35. 96 points, 6 submissions: blockstasy
    1. How to Get to One Million Devs (32 points, 12 comments)
    2. The Decade in Blockchain — 2010 to 2020 in Review (27 points, 4 comments)
    3. Ethereum by the Numbers – The Year of 2019 (26 points, 9 comments)
    4. Knowledge Drop: Mining and the role it plays with the Ethereum blockchain (5 points, 0 comments)
    5. A great article that explains Ethereum’s Muir Glacier Update (4 points, 0 comments)
    6. Youtube Silences Crypto Community (2 points, 6 comments)
  36. 93 points, 3 submissions: OneOverNever
    1. Which is the last WHITE PAPER you've read that's truly impacted you? (77 points, 81 comments)
    2. [CMV] Bitcoin's intrinsic technological value. (14 points, 29 comments)
    3. What are some weak points that still hold XVG back from becoming a top player in crypto? (Technically speaking, not marketing and etc.) (2 points, 19 comments)
  37. 93 points, 3 submissions: ryano-ark
    1. (ARK) ACES Completes Integration of ARK Channels for Two-way Transfers for Easy ICOs When Paired With ARK Deployer (Push-Button-Blockchains) (57 points, 5 comments)
    2. (ARK) ACES Releases Fast (Ansible) Deployments for all ACES Applications. (23 points, 4 comments)
    3. A Future of Cryptocurrencies and Blockchains (13 points, 3 comments)
  38. 92 points, 2 submissions: BobUltra
    1. Our blockchains are all centralized! (51 points, 34 comments)
    2. List of qualities needed to dethrone Bitcoin. (41 points, 43 comments)
  39. 90 points, 1 submission: refreshx2
    1. CMV: It doesn't make sense for (crypto)companies to create coins linked to their tech (90 points, 18 comments)
  40. 89 points, 1 submission: perceptron01
    1. What does Nano do better than Steem? (89 points, 55 comments)
  41. 87 points, 1 submission: Shuk
    1. How does one begin to develop an employable skill in blockchain development? (87 points, 25 comments)
  42. 87 points, 1 submission: conorohiggins
    1. I spent three weeks researching and writing a huge guide to stablecoins. Enjoy! (87 points, 36 comments)
  43. 86 points, 1 submission: Bacon_Hero
    1. ELI5: Why did it take so long for blockchain technology to be created? (86 points, 66 comments)
  44. 85 points, 3 submissions: theFoot58
    1. If crypto now is like 'the Internet' of the past, where are we? (65 points, 53 comments)
    2. If the Internet had its Genesis Block, what would it be? (14 points, 9 comments)
    3. Coin grouping - ruby and CryptoCompare API (6 points, 1 comment)
  45. 85 points, 1 submission: youngm2
    1. Which decentralised exchange has the most promise for 2018? (85 points, 89 comments)
  46. 84 points, 4 submissions: bLbGoldeN
    1. On Mass Adoption of Cryptocurrencies (28 points, 68 comments)
    2. Join the Bloom team for our first tech AMA tomorrow (Tuesday, March 13th) at 7 PM GMT! (23 points, 2 comments)
    3. Join the Decred team for an AMA - Friday, June 1st from 19:00 to 22:00 UTC (17 points, 10 comments)
    4. Join the district0x team for an AMA Monday, April 2nd at 5:00 PM (GMT) (16 points, 0 comments)
  47. 82 points, 2 submissions: SubsequentDownfall
    1. Has a 51% attack ever been witnessed? (45 points, 46 comments)
    2. Is a DAG coin like RaiBlocks able to be private like Monero? (37 points, 40 comments)
  48. 82 points, 2 submissions: guidre
    1. Tron and other source Code (42 points, 24 comments)
    2. Why Will companies adopt blockchain, the user interface is complex and i'm not sure that many companies want all their internal dealings made public. (40 points, 19 comments)
  49. 81 points, 4 submissions: solar128
    1. New Atomic Swap Tools Released (35 points, 4 comments)
    2. Using Blockchain to make a censorship-resistant Reddit (28 points, 14 comments)
    3. Best security practices for addressing Spectre & Meltdown (13 points, 0 comments)
    4. Influence of on-chain governance weighted by wealth - good or bad? (5 points, 2 comments)
  50. 81 points, 2 submissions: Blockchainsapiens
    1. Blockchain study finds 0.00% success rate and vendors don't call back when asked for evidence (47 points, 30 comments)
    2. The elephant in the room: would the public ever use a volatile currency over a stable currency? (34 points, 45 comments)
  51. 81 points, 1 submission: Mycryptopedia
    1. Understanding the Tech Behind RaiBlocks (81 points, 7 comments)
  52. 81 points, 1 submission: davidvanbeveren
    1. Article thoroughly analysing / comparing IOTA and RaiBlocks (x-post /CryptoCurrency) (81 points, 10 comments)
  53. 77 points, 4 submissions: DeleteMyOldAccount
    1. HD Wallets Explained: What they are, and how to make them coin agnostic (28 points, 11 comments)
    2. Bitcoin Cash May 15th fork (23 points, 22 comments)
    3. So you want to build a Bitcoin HD wallet? Part 1 (23 points, 3 comments)
    4. Applications of Blockchain in Supply Chain (3 points, 9 comments)
  54. 76 points, 3 submissions: kryptofinger
    1. Why would anyone bother using any DPOS coins for dapps like Eos over normal systems like AWS? (44 points, 104 comments)
    2. Could a state backed privacy coin work? (22 points, 32 comments)
    3. Thoughts on Elastos? (10 points, 8 comments)
  55. 76 points, 1 submission: francohab
    1. 55% of the Nano representative nodes are "official representatives", presumably held by developers. How big of an issue is that? (76 points, 46 comments)
  56. 75 points, 2 submissions: MerkleChainsaw
    1. The biggest challenge for cryptocurrencies and how to mitigate it (73 points, 37 comments)
    2. Short and long term design tradeoffs in crypto (2 points, 2 comments)
  57. 75 points, 1 submission: jatsignwork
    1. Raiblocks & Spam (75 points, 60 comments)
  58. 74 points, 1 submission: behindtext
    1. Hello, this is Jake Yocom-Piatt. Ask me anything about Decred! (74 points, 49 comments)
  59. 73 points, 2 submissions: TexasRadical83
    1. Why use a new "currency" at all? (40 points, 48 comments)
    2. Why are big price increases for crypto a good thing? (33 points, 41 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. Neophyte- (1649 points, 746 comments)
  2. ndha1995 (583 points, 98 comments)
  3. turtleflax (406 points, 116 comments)
  4. senzheng (326 points, 193 comments)
  5. holomntn (294 points, 40 comments)
  6. manly_ (286 points, 43 comments)
  7. signos_de_admiracion (250 points, 18 comments)
  8. fgiveme (231 points, 77 comments)
  9. crypto_kang (222 points, 45 comments)
  10. jatsignwork (220 points, 37 comments)
  11. GainsLean (218 points, 76 comments)
  12. benthecarman (211 points, 48 comments)
  13. rockyrainy (200 points, 39 comments)
  14. hungryforitalianfood (197 points, 58 comments)
  15. rocksolid77 (190 points, 20 comments)
  16. bannercoin (189 points, 11 comments)
  17. insette (181 points, 47 comments)
  18. DiogenicOrder (175 points, 41 comments)
  19. islanavarino (173 points, 51 comments)
  20. behindtext (172 points, 14 comments)
  21. takitus (171 points, 25 comments)
  22. sukitrebek (170 points, 42 comments)
  23. UnknownEssence (170 points, 31 comments)
  24. crypto_ha (170 points, 26 comments)
  25. AlexCoventry (167 points, 17 comments)
  26. DragonWhsiperer (165 points, 38 comments)
  27. stop-making-accounts (164 points, 57 comments)
  28. KnifeOfPi2 (157 points, 13 comments)
  29. Edgegasm (156 points, 42 comments)
  30. ippond (152 points, 15 comments)
  31. dontlikecomputers (151 points, 61 comments)
  32. QRCollector (150 points, 46 comments)
  33. alexrecuenco (145 points, 18 comments)
  34. BobUltra (144 points, 88 comments)
  35. SpamCamel (135 points, 22 comments)
  36. InterdisciplinaryHum (133 points, 107 comments)
  37. theglitteringone (132 points, 10 comments)
  38. ChocolateSunrise (128 points, 23 comments)
  39. PM_ME_UR_QUINES (125 points, 4 comments)
  40. narwhale111 (122 points, 15 comments)
  41. pepe_le_shoe (121 points, 47 comments)
  42. Darius510 (119 points, 39 comments)
  43. glen-hodl (118 points, 21 comments)
  44. HOG_ZADDY (117 points, 23 comments)
  45. coranos2 (116 points, 44 comments)
  46. etherenvoy (116 points, 15 comments)
  47. johnny_milkshakes (115 points, 55 comments)
  48. galan77 (115 points, 52 comments)
  49. hybridsole (113 points, 40 comments)
  50. funciton (113 points, 8 comments)
  51. Mr0ldy (110 points, 24 comments)
  52. Corm (109 points, 42 comments)
  53. cryptoscopia (109 points, 7 comments)
  54. ReportFromHell (106 points, 39 comments)
  55. broscientologist (105 points, 26 comments)
  56. straytjacquet (104 points, 28 comments)
  57. Quadling (101 points, 24 comments)
  58. BlockEnthusiast (101 points, 17 comments)
  59. thats_not_montana (99 points, 37 comments)
  60. TheRealMotherOfOP (98 points, 27 comments)
  61. yarauuta (96 points, 11 comments)
  62. pegasuspect93 (96 points, 1 comment)
  63. andrew_bao (93 points, 40 comments)
  64. samdotla (93 points, 6 comments)
  65. melodious_punk (91 points, 34 comments)
  66. Mquantum (91 points, 31 comments)
  67. TJ_Hooker15 (91 points, 27 comments)
  68. NoFaptain99 (91 points, 3 comments)
  69. ilielezi (87 points, 10 comments)
  70. Raapop (87 points, 2 comments)
  71. Allways_Wrong (86 points, 36 comments)
  72. bLbGoldeN (86 points, 19 comments)
  73. ResIpsaLoquiturrr (86 points, 15 comments)
  74. kabelman93 (85 points, 29 comments)
  75. no_pants_gamer (84 points, 9 comments)
  76. AnkurTechracers (83 points, 16 comments)
  77. ric2b (83 points, 11 comments)
  78. Big_Goose (83 points, 10 comments)
  79. Lifeistooshor1 (82 points, 21 comments)
  80. vornth (82 points, 11 comments)
  81. Sargos (81 points, 25 comments)
  82. refreshx2 (81 points, 16 comments)
  83. Qwahzi (78 points, 27 comments)
  84. StupidRandomGuy (77 points, 35 comments)
  85. WikiTextBot (77 points, 24 comments)
  86. SnootyEuropean (77 points, 5 comments)
  87. cryptogainz (76 points, 14 comments)
  88. frequentlywrong (76 points, 4 comments)
  89. the_defiant (76 points, 4 comments)
  90. BrangdonJ (75 points, 28 comments)
  91. hendrik_v (75 points, 7 comments)
  92. solar128 (74 points, 18 comments)
  93. foobazzler (74 points, 8 comments)
  94. ginger_beer_m (73 points, 35 comments)
  95. kAhmij (73 points, 25 comments)
  96. DeleteMyOldAccount (73 points, 20 comments)
  97. sn0wr4in (73 points, 9 comments)
  98. Dyslectic_Sabreur (72 points, 5 comments)
  99. X7spyWqcRY (71 points, 8 comments)
  100. Krapser (70 points, 5 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. A Guided Reading of Bitcoin’s Original White Paper by Realness100 (202 points, 10 comments)
  2. From a technical standpoint: Why does every blockchain projects need their own coins? by HSPremier (181 points, 50 comments)
  3. Bitcoin Gold hit by Double Spend Attack (51% attack). The Attacker reversed 22 blocks. by rockyrainy (179 points, 102 comments)
  4. Why white papers in crypto world are so unprofessional? by ilielezi (175 points, 88 comments)
  5. My brief observation of most common Consensus Algorithms by tracyspacygo (159 points, 49 comments)
  6. Proof-of-Approval: Stake Based, 1 Block Finality & History Attack Defense by shunsaitakahashi (147 points, 4 comments)
  7. "Do you need a Blockchain?" - this paper is fantastic, everyone should read this before evaluating a coin and if requires a block chain to solve a solution the coin is promising to solve. by Neophyte- (136 points, 41 comments)
  8. Technical comparison of LIGHTNING vs TANGLE vs HASHGRAPH vs NANO by Qwahzi (133 points, 37 comments)
  9. Everytime I try to investigate the technology behind Cardano(Ada), I come across the words "scientific" and "peer-reviewed" over and over but almost no actual details. Can someone fill how this coin actually works and where they are in development? by RufusTheFirefly (126 points, 49 comments)
  10. How do we change the culture around cryptocurrency? by FashionistaGuru (118 points, 54 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 160 points: holomntn's comment in ELI5: Why did it take so long for blockchain technology to be created?
  2. 121 points: KnifeOfPi2's comment in How do we change the culture around cryptocurrency?
  3. 105 points: theglitteringone's comment in Outside of currency and voting, blockchain is awful and shouldnt be used. Can anyone explain where blockchain is worth the cost?
  4. 102 points: benthecarman's comment in If crypto now is like 'the Internet' of the past, where are we?
  5. 96 points: pegasuspect93's comment in If crypto now is like 'the Internet' of the past, where are we?
  6. 95 points: bannercoin's comment in Realistically, why would anybody expect the startup crypto platforms to beat out the corporate giants who are developing their own Blockchain as a Service (BaaS) solutions? Ex. IBM, SAP, JP Morgan...
  7. 83 points: AlexCoventry's comment in Ethereum private key with all zeroes leads to an account with 5000$ on it
  8. 82 points: deleted's comment in Is blockchain really useful ?
  9. 81 points: signos_de_admiracion's comment in Why white papers in crypto world are so unprofessional?
  10. 78 points: NoFaptain99's comment in Why do so many of these businesses need a token? (Unsure)
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Mining im Detail erklärt: Nonce, Merkle Root, SPV...  Teil 15 Kryptographie Crashkurs Mining Bitcoin - YouTube Will Bitcoin SV KILL all Blockchains ? Craig Wright Acquires PATENT for SPV Technology Newly Bitcoin Mining Software - Earn 0.5 Btc - NO FEE - FULL VERSION! How To Mine Bitcoins Using Your Own Computer - Easy Guide

On the Main tab, click Start Bitcoin on system login. Click the Ok button to save the new settings. The next time you login to your desktop, Bitcoin Core GUI should be automatically started as an icon in the tray. If Bitcoin Core GUI does not automatically start, you may need to add it to an .xinit or .xsession file as described here. 4. Bitcoin Core – A full Bitcoin node. Platforms: Mac OS, Linux, and Windows. All of the wallets I’ve covered so far are known as SPV wallets or lite wallets. This means that they don’t have a full copy of the blockchain in order to verify transactions – they rely on other computers on the network to give them transaction information.. Bitcoin Core is a full node Bitcoin wallet. In this post, the chief researcher is from RSK Labs – Sergio Lerner will analyze advanced technologies that use Liquid and RSK sidechains. In 2016, Blockstream introduced the “tied” sidechain technology [Pegged Sidechain] , as a possible way to scale the Bitcoin blockchain.The first original sidechain concept was a combination of atomic cross-chain swaps using simplified payment The bitcoin wiki’s mining hardware comparison page is a good place to go for rough information on hash rates for different hardware. When choosing a hardware, it’s worth looking at your device Despite this enormous spotlight towards Bitcoin, it remains under-researched because of the large size of the Bitcoin Data, (Roughly 250 GB) and the inability to process this data in small time.

[index] [24814] [17288] [9447] [11306] [28209] [10054] [4132] [15525] [13639] [7018]

Bitcoin Mining im Detail erklärt: Nonce, Merkle Root, SPV... Teil 15 Kryptographie Crashkurs

Free cloud mining is the best option for a newbie, who doesn't have knowledge of how to set up mining hardware and wants to be a part of free bitcoin mining industries. This is a basic video on mining bitcoin but don't let that fool you. Although I show you how to mine bitcoin on a windows 10 machine in this video, it should work with older versions as well, but ... The Best Bitcoin Mining Hardware 2018 Reviewed: ASIC Litecoin, Ethereum Miner Rig 2020 - Duration: 1:56. 5Reviewed.com 220 views bitcoin mining bangla tutorial 2018, bitcoin mining bangla tutorial, bitcoin mining bd, bitcoin mining bangla tutorial 2019, bitcoin mining blockchain, bitcoin mining bot, bitcoin mining botnet ... # Blockstream Sidechain Proposal: https://blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf # RSK Bitcoin Mainnet Sidechain w/ Solidity EVM https://media.rsk.co/bamboo-mainnet-...

Flag Counter