The latest threat from the mining pools: Discus Fish : Bitcoin

UYT Main-Net pre-launching AMA successfully completed with a blast

7 pm, 29th September 2020 Beijing time the UYT Main-Net pre-launching AMA successfully completed with a blast!
Here is a full record of the AMA:
Host: Hello everyone, it’s a great honor to host the first AMA of UYT network in China. Today, we have invited the person in charge of UYT Dao.
Let’s ask Mr. Woo to introduce himself Woo: Hello, I’m Ben. I’ve met you in the previous global live broadcast. I’m the director of UYT Dao and the founder of IGNISVC. At present, I’m the CEO of the TKNT foundation and have been engaged in the blockchain industry.
Q1. At present, different types of blockchains have emerged, but cross-chain interaction is still suffering a lot. In your opinion, what is the necessity and significance of cross-chain?
Answer: The full name of UYT is to unite all your tokens, which is to integrate all public chains and increase the liquidity of the whole industry. Our purpose is not to create another public chain, but to become a platform for the exchange of value, technology, and resources of all public chains. What we need to solve is that each individual chain can circulate with each other.
The full name of UYT is to unite all your tokens, which is to integrate all public chains and increase the liquidity of the whole industry. Our purpose is not to create another public chain, but to become a platform for the exchange of value, technology, and resources of all public chains. What we need to solve is that each individual chain can circulate with each other.
Q2. The founder of Ethereum, V Shen, once wrote a cross-chain operation report for bank alliance chain R3, which mentioned three cross-chain methods. Which one does UYT belong to? Can you briefly introduce the cross-chain solution of UYT?
Answer: In Vitalik’s cross-chain report, there are three main cross-chain methods. The first is that both parties do not know that they are crossing the chain, or that they cannot “read” each other, such as the centralized exchange. The second way is that one of the links can read other chains, such as side-chain / relay chain. That is, a can read B, and B cannot read a; The third is that both a and B can read each other’s, which can achieve the value and information exchange between a, B, and the platform. UYT belongs to the third kind.
Our new official website will be online soon. Here are a few simple points: first of all, the architecture of UYT includes relay chain, parachain, parathreads, and bridges. In terms of ductility, it has exceeded almost all the public chains currently online.
In the UYT network, there are four kinds of consensus participants, namely collector, fisherman, nominator, and validator. The characteristics of this model are: first, all people can participate without loss. Secondly, as long as anyone makes more contribution to the ecology, he will get more rewards, otherwise, he will receive corresponding punishment.
The underlying layer of UYT is the substrate, which uses the rust programming language. Rust is committed to becoming a programming language that can solve the problems of high concurrency and high-security systems elegantly. This is also a great advantage that we are different from other blockchain projects in technology.
Q3. What are the roles in the UYT network? What are their respective functions?
Answer: After the main network of UYT is online, there will be four roles: collector, fisherman, nominator, and validator, which is totally different from the current system of the test network.
The collector, in short, is responsible for collecting all kinds of information in the parallel chain and packaging the information to the verifier.
Fishermen, to put it bluntly, is fishing law enforcement, which specifically checks out malicious acts and gets rewards after being checked out.
The nominator, in fact, is a group of rights and interests. The verifier is its representative, and they entrust the deposit to the verifier.
Verifier, package new blocks in the network. It must mortgage enough deposits and run a relay chain client on a highly available and high bandwidth machine. It can be understood as a mining pool. It can also be understood as the node in the current UYT DAPP.
Q4. What is the mining mechanism of the UYT network?
The only way to obtain UYT after its issuance is to participate in mining activities. In the initial stage, the daily constant output times of UYT are set to 1440000, and the cycle of bitcoin is halved. Mining rewards can be obtained in the following five ways:
1) Asset pledge mapping mining 2) Become the intermediate chain node of uyt network 3) Recommendation and reward mechanism 4) Voting reward 5) UYT network Dao will take out 10% of gas revenue from block packaging for community construction and reward of excellent community personnel
Q5. The rise and fall of the blockchain are very fast. In order to give investors confidence, is there a detailed development plan, implementation steps, and application direction of UYT network in the next few months?
Answer: UYT Network test network has been running stably for a year. After the main network is launched, all mechanisms will undergo major changes.
The relationship between the UYT test network and the main network can be understood as the relationship between KSM (dot test network) and dot the main network, and the feasibility of the technology can be reflected more quickly by the UYT test network because of its faster timeliness and all future technology updates Some will move to the main network after the stable operation of the test network.
In order to give users a better experience and give more rewards to excellent nodes, all Dao organizers are working hard for it.
The development team has completed the cross-chain of bitcoin and some high-quality Ethereum based tokens in the early stage, and now the code has all been open source. For other mainstream currencies, community members can apply for funds to develop. In order to develop the ecology and make a better technical reserve, we will set up a special ecological development fund when the main network goes online. The transfer bridge is our key funding direction. The maximum application amount of a team is as high as 100000 US dollars. In addition, if other public chains want to connect to UYT, they will get technical support. In order to encourage developers to participate in ecological construction, Dao also launched a series of grants to support development. Developers can directly pull the better applications on Eth and EOS directly, or develop new products according to their own advantages. These directions are now the focus of funding.
Due to the early online testing time of uyt network, it is based on the earlier version of substrate1.0. The on-chain governance mode can only be realized after the upgrade of 2.0 is completed.
At present, the upgrading work is going on steadily, and the on-chain governance will be implemented in the main network with the launch of the uyt main network.
As a heterogeneous cross-chain solution with high scalability and scalability, UYT network can perfectly bridge the parallel encryption system and its encryption assets in theory, and its wide applicability in the future can be expected. Therefore, we do not limit the areas where UYT network will play its advantages and roles. But in the general direction, there will be mainly DEFI and DEX ecological plates. From the industry, it can cover a wide range of fields, not only finance but also games, entertainment, shopping malls, real estate, and so on.
Q6、How can UYT help DEFI?
Answer: UYT network can not only link different public chains but also make parallel chains independent and interlinked. Just like the ACALA project some time ago, it has successfully obtained Pantera capital’s $7 million saft agreement. Although the concept of DEFI is very popular now, all DEFI products are still in the ecology of each public chain, and the cross-chain DEFI ecology has not been developed. UYT is to achieve cross-chain communication, value exchange, and develop truly decentralized financial services and products. For example, cross-chain decentralized flash cash, cross-chain asset support, cross-chain decentralized lending, Oracle machine, and other products. At present, our technical team is also speeding up the construction of infrastructure suitable for the landing of more DEFI products and services and is committed to creating a real cross-chain DEFI ecology, which is only a small step of UYT’s future plan.
Q7、TKNT should be one of the hottest projects in the UYT ecosystem recently. Please give us a brief introduction to the TKNT project and the value of TKNT in the UYT ecosystem. Why can TKNT increase 400 times in 7 days? And what is the cooperative relationship between UTC and TKNT?
Answer: I will answer each project from the technical and resource aspects. Let’s first introduce UTC. UTC is the token of Copernican network and the first project of UYT game entertainment ecology. In the future, it will be responsible for linking. Due to the high-quality public chain in the entertainment industry, because of the limited slots of UYT, each field will seek a high-quality partner and help the partner become the secondary relay chain of UYT. After the main network of UYT goes online, many chains will want to access UYT Greater value circulation, due to the limited external slots of UYT, the cost is also very high. At this time, you can choose to connect to UTC first, and then connect UTC to UYT. With more and more links with UYT, it will gradually evolve into a secondary relay chain of UYT network. UTC’s resources, online and offline, offline payment and offline entity applications, also have a very large community base.
The ecological partners have very good operation experience in the game industry. They will use blockchain technology to change the whole game entertainment industry to make it more transparent and fair. At the same time, there are enough entity consumption scenarios. This is also UYT Because of the reason why the network chose to cooperate with it, the UTC project has been supported by the UYT ecological fund. The support fund includes that after the main network is launched, it will also be the first ecological cooperation project supported by UYT. Because of the online time of the main network of UYT, UTC can’t directly form a chain at present and will give priority to issuing on Ethereum. TKNT is a new concept project TKN.com TKN is the largest online centralized guessing game platform in the world at present. TKNT mixes bet mining and DEFI, so it can carry out fixed mining through platform games, build a system that can realize game participation and in application payment in all Dapps based on ERC20, and combine with various financial services.
The reason why TKNT has created a myth of 400 times in 7 days is that the TkN platform has a buyback plan. As we all know, the online quiz game entertainment platform has an amazing profit. Every quarter, the profit will be used to buyback. The strong profit support has led to the huge increase of token. In the future, all users can use UTC to participate in TkN games. Therefore, the main network of UYT is that Line is also of great significance to TKNT. With the maturity of UYT ecology and technology, TKNT can have a more powerful performance. If TKNT wants to link more public chains, it needs to access UYT network, and realize a bigger vision with cross-chain interaction of UYT. After TKNT was launched on the exchange, the highest price has risen to $14, and now it has dropped to about $2.50. You will see that it will once again set a record high and create greater miracles. You will also see that $3 will be the best buying point for TKNT, because there will be several major moves in TKNT, and the global MLM plan will be launched on October 7 in Korea, China, and other countries There will be many marketing teams in Europe to promote TKNT, including DAPP.com As a shareholder of TkN, TKNT will also make every effort to promote TKNT. Secondly, TKNT will be launched next month on the largest digital currency exchange in South Korea, and Chinese users will see the shadow of TKNT on Binance in November. Of course, the decentralized trading platform of UYT will also be launched in the future.
Q8. What is the significance of the launch of UYT’s main network for the industry and ecology?
Answer: UYT is one of the few cross-chain platform projects in the industry at present.
There are many public chains and coin issuing projects. Why? Because of less work, more money. However, there are very high technical and capital requirements for cross-chain and platform. This barrier is very high, so almost no project side is willing to do this. But once this is done, it will be of great significance to the whole industry of digital currency and blockchain.
Because it will subvert the current situation of the whole currency circle and chain circle acting on their own, and the painting land is king. Let each independent ecosystem achieve a truly decentralized and trust-free cooperative relationship. This huge change will promote the whole industry to develop into a healthy and virtuous circle macro ecosystem.
Q9. The slogan of many project supporters is that UYT should surpass Ethereum. What is the difference in technology between UYT network and Ethereum?
Answer: Thank you so much for supporting UYT. In fact, the correct understanding is that UYT is the next era of Ethereum. First of all, UYT has a different vision from Ethereum.
Before the emergence of UYT, Ethereum, and EOS, no matter how well they developed, belonged to the era of a single chain. The popular metaphor is a LAN. However, UYT can realize the interoperability of each chain and bring the blockchain into the Internet era. Secondly, UYT is far superior to Ethereum in technology. It mainly includes three aspects: shared security, heterogeneous cross-chain, and no fork upgrade.
In the case that Ethereum 2.0 has not been implemented, UYT is the most friendly bottom layer for the DFI projects and other Dapps on Ethereum. Now, the hair chain architecture substrate of UYT is compatible with Ethereum smart contract language solidity, so eth developers can easily migrate their smart contracts to UYT.
Up to now, there is no good solution to the congestion problem of Ethereum, while UYT network not only solves the network congestion problem. What’s more, UYT can easily realize one-click online upgrade, instead of having to redeploy a set of contracts on Ethereum for each version upgraded and then require users to follow them to migrate the original assets from the old contract to the new contract. Developers can quickly and flexibly iterate their own protocols to change their application solutions according to the situation, so as to serve more users and solve more problems. At the same time, they can also repair the loopholes in the contract very quickly. In the case of hacker attacks, they can also solve the hacker stealing money and a series of other problems through parallel chain management. We can find that for Ethereum, UYT not only solves the congestion problem we see in front of us but also provides the most important infrastructure for the future applications such as DFI on Ethereum to truly mature into an open financial application that can serve all people. It also opens the Web 3.0 era of the blockchain industry. In terms of market value, Ethereum currently has a strong ecological construction, with a market value of US $40 billion. UYT will also focus on the development of this aspect after the main network goes online. No matter in terms of market value or ecological construction, I have enough confidence in UYT, after all, we are fully prepared.
Q10. What is the progress of the ecological construction of UYT? What opportunities do current ecological partners see in UYT or what changes may be brought about by UYT ecology?
Answer: After the main network of UYT goes online, there will be a series of ecological construction actions, and more attention will be paid to establishing contact with traditional partners. Cross-chain decentralized flash cash, cross-chain asset support, cross-chain decentralized lending, Oracle machine, and other products will also be the key cooperation direction of UYT.
UYT will give priority to the game and entertainment industry because this industry is most easily subverted by blockchain. As the ecological construction of UYT gets bigger and bigger, the future slots will become more and more expensive. The earlier you join UYT ecology, you will get more support from the ecological fund because the ecological fund is also limited. From the perspective of token value-added, all the project parties will cooperate with the project side in the future, and the project side needs to pledge a certain number of UYT to bid for slots, except for ecological rewards, others need to be purchased from market transactions.
The difference between the pledge here and the pledge we understand is that the UYT of the ecological partner participating in the auction pledge cannot enjoy the computing power for mining.
UYT main network has several opportunities for Eco partners to look forward to, the first point is bitcoin, bitcoin will be later than other assets late, but eventually, all the bubble and value will return to BTC, after the wave of DeFi bubble elimination, the focus will be very much in the bitcoin. UYT ecology can provide a more mature bottom layer for defi. In addition, now Ethereum’s DEFI is that of Ethereum and ERC 20 tokens, and the outbreak point of bitcoin has not yet arrived. Therefore, the DEFI of UYT ecology may be the next opportunity, which is a good opportunity for everyone.
The second opportunity is that after the main network goes online, the future UYT ecological projects will compete to bid for slots. In fact, the original intention of UYT is to realize the interconnection of all chains. The chain outside the UYT ecology also needs to communicate. The third is cross-fi. The BIFI is hatched on Ethereum, and the def on UYT can realize multi-chain operation. For example, TkN games or future UTC game platform users can call bitcoin on the UYT chain. This form only belongs to the decentralized finance in the cross-chain era of UYT, which can be called cross-fi.
Q11. Which exchanges will UYT go online next? What is the online strategy like?
Answer: As the founder of ignisvc and as UYT As the head of the Dao organization, we have always had good cooperative relations with major exchanges all over the world. TKNT will appear in several exchanges one after another. Hitbtc exchange in the United Kingdom, Upbit and Bithumb Exchange in South Korea, Bitfinex exchange in the United States, Binance exchange in China, BKEX exchange, and Kucoin exchange in China are all our partners, and they have been paying close attention to UYT Development, UYT is the public chain with the largest user base and the highest community participation in the cross-chain field, so the future value is immeasurable. If we have to go to the exchange, then we will choose one of the above exchanges to launch. But the vision of UYT is to create a fairer, safer, and transparent circulation in the field of digital currency, and users can master all the assets by themselves, Therefore, in the beginning, there is a simple DEX on the UYT wallet, which is a simple matchmaking transaction and is also an on-chain transaction. After the completion of the UYT DEX, more transactions may occur in the UYT DEX.
However, after the main network of UYT is online, centralized exchanges can directly access the block data synchronization of UYT, and it is not ruled out that some exchanges will directly go online for UYT trading. Such exchanges will not enjoy the support of the ecological support fund of UYT. The network project is a community-led project. Each cooperation plan of the exchange will be carried out in the way shared by the community in the future. Dao organization can only implement it according to the voting results.
Q12. What are the plans for the promotion of ecological development and market by the launch of UYT main network?
Answer: The launch of the main network will be completed around October 15.
On the offline side, due to the epidemic situation, we will jointly organize corresponding market activities with nodes in different countries. At present, there are three large-scale offline meetups that have been identified. We will also start a global roadshow when the epidemic is over.
On the online side, we have opened online Wechat, Kakao, Twitter, Reddit, and telegram communities. We will carry out AMA activities in various countries and promote them all over the world in various ways. Of course, we will launch MLM plans and cooperate with more marketing teams.
submitted by tkntfoundation to u/tkntfoundation [link] [comments]

[HIRING] Full-stack Developer at f2pool / stakefish

Job Application => https://blockace.io/jobs/beautiful-code-creator-full-stack-at-f2pool-and-stakefish-5c09ef
We are a shark and a fish happily swimming together, creating a unique ecosystem within the crypto space!
The shark, f2pool, is the leading Bitcoin and Ethereum mining pool serving more than 100 countries! We are home to over 40 PoW cryptocurrencies.
The fish, stakefish, is a leading staking service provider, partnering with exciting new PoS projects. We provide a fair opportunity for everyone holding cryptocurrencies to contribute to network security and earn rewards!

What are we looking for?

Our next Beautiful Code Creator will:

Is this you?

If those describe you, this is the right opportunity for you!

Why are we awesome you ask?

We are a truly global team! We are digital nomads coming from more than 12 different countries, working from wherever we want. We have a collective mission, to provide meaningful services and bring a unique value to users within the crypto space.
We are looking for fun, curious and committed individuals to swim with us!
submitted by BlockchainJob to Jobs4Bitcoins [link] [comments]

Transcript of Open Developer Meeting in Discord - 7/19/2019

[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 3:58 PM
Hey everyone. The channel is now open for the dev meeting.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 3:58 PM
Hi
TronLast Friday at 3:59 PM
Hi all!
JerozLast Friday at 3:59 PM
:wave:
TronLast Friday at 3:59 PM
Topics: Algo stuff - x22rc, Ownership token for Restricted Assets and Assets.
JerozLast Friday at 4:00 PM
@Milo is also here from coinrequest.
MiloLast Friday at 4:00 PM
Hi :thumbsup:
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:00 PM
welcome, @Milo
TronLast Friday at 4:00 PM
Great.
@Milo Was there PRs for Android and iOS?
MiloLast Friday at 4:01 PM
Yes, I've made a video. Give me a second I'll share it asap.
JerozLast Friday at 4:02 PM
I missed the iOS one.
MiloLast Friday at 4:02 PM
Well its 1 video, but meant for all.
JerozLast Friday at 4:02 PM
Ah, there's an issue but no pull request (yet?)
https://github.com/RavenProject/ravenwallet-ios/issues/115
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:03 PM
nice @Milo
MiloLast Friday at 4:04 PM
Can it be that I have no video post rights?
JerozLast Friday at 4:05 PM
In discord?
MiloLast Friday at 4:05 PM
yes?
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:05 PM
just a link?
JerozLast Friday at 4:05 PM
Standard version has a file limit afaik
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:05 PM
try now
gave permissions
MiloLast Friday at 4:05 PM
it's not published yet on Youtube, since I didn't knew when it would be published in the wallets
file too big. Hold on i'll put it on youtube and set it on private
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:06 PM
no worries ipfs it...:yum:
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:06 PM
ok, just send link when you can
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:07 PM
So guys. We released Ravencoin v2.4.0!
JerozLast Friday at 4:08 PM
If you like the code. Go update them nodes! :smiley:
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:08 PM
We are recommending that you are upgrading to it. It fixes a couple bugs in the code base inherited from bitcoin!
MiloLast Friday at 4:08 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t\_g7NpFXm6g&feature=youtu.be
sorry for the hold up
YouTube
Coin Request
Raven dev Gemiddeld
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:09 PM
thanks short and sweet!!
KAwARLast Friday at 4:10 PM
Is coin request live on the android wallet?
TronLast Friday at 4:10 PM
Nice video.
It isn't in the Play Store yet.
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:10 PM
Well, this is the first time in a while where we have this many devs online. What questions do y'all have?
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:11 PM
Algo questions?
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:11 PM
sure
KAwARLast Friday at 4:11 PM
KK
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:12 PM
what are the proposed 22 algos in x22r? i could only find the original 16 plus 5 on x21.
TronLast Friday at 4:12 PM
Likely the 5 from x21 and find one more.
We need to make sure they're all similar in time profile.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:14 PM
should we bother fixing a asic-problem that we dont know exists for sure or not?
TronLast Friday at 4:14 PM
That's the 170 million dollar question.
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:14 PM
I would prefer to be proactive not reactive.
imo
JerozLast Friday at 4:14 PM
same
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:15 PM
RIPEMD160 is a golden oldie but not sure on hash speed compared to the others.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:15 PM
in my mind we should focus on the restricted messaging etc
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:15 PM
probably won't know if the action was needed until after you take the action
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:15 PM
we are at risk of being interventionistas
acting under opacity
TronLast Friday at 4:15 PM
Needs to spit out at least 256 bit. Preferably 512 bit.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:15 PM
ok
TronLast Friday at 4:15 PM
If it isn't 512 bit, it'll cause some extra headache for the GPU mining software.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:16 PM
i seek to avoid iatrogenics
TronLast Friday at 4:16 PM
Similar to the early problems when all the algos except the first one were built for 64-bytes (512-bit) inputs.
Had to look that one up. TIL iatrogenics
JerozLast Friday at 4:17 PM
I have to google most of @liqdmetal's vocabulary :smile:
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:17 PM
@Tron tldr: basically the unseen, unintended negative side effects of the asic "cure"
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:18 PM
10 dolla word
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:19 PM
we need a really strong case to intervene in what has been created.
TronLast Friday at 4:19 PM
I agree. I'm less concerned with the technical risk than I am the potential split risk experienced multiple times by Monero.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:20 PM
tron do you agree that forking the ravencoin chain presents unique risks compared to other chains that aren't hosting assets?
JerozLast Friday at 4:21 PM
Yes, if you fork, you need to figure out for each asset which one you want to support.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:21 PM
yeah. and the asset issuer could have a chain preference
TronLast Friday at 4:22 PM
@Sevvy (y rvn pmp?) Sure. Although, I'd expect that the asset issuers will be honor the assets on the dominant chain. Bigger concern is the branding confusion of multiple forks. See Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV for an example. We know they're different, but do non-crypto folks?
Hans_SchmidtLast Friday at 4:22 PM
I thought that the take-away from the recently published analyses and discussions was that ASICs for RVN may be active, but if so then they are being not much more effective than GPUs.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:22 PM
agreed on all accounts there tron
TronLast Friday at 4:23 PM
I'm not yet convinced ASICs are on the network.
KAwARLast Friday at 4:23 PM
It would be better to damage an asic builder by forking after they made major expenses. Creating for them the type of deficit that could be negated by just buying instead of mining. Asic existence should be 100 percent confirmed before fork.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:23 PM
170million dollar question is right.lol
TronLast Friday at 4:24 PM
I've had someone offer to connect me to the folks at Fusion Silicon.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:25 PM
yes. and if they are active on the network they are not particularly good ASICs
which makes it a moot point probably
TronLast Friday at 4:26 PM
The difficult part of this problem is that by the time everyone agrees that ASICs are problematic on the network, then voting the option in is likely no longer an option.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:26 PM
yes. part of me wonders if we would say "okay, the clock on the asic countdown is reset by this new algo. but now the race is on"
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:26 PM
There are always risks when making a change that will fork the network. We want wait to long though, as tron said. It wont be a voting change. it will be a mandatory change at a block number.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:26 PM
acknowledge the inevitable
MiloLast Friday at 4:27 PM
I had just a small question from my side. When do you think the android version would be published, and do you maybe have a time-frame for the others?
TronLast Friday at 4:27 PM
Quick poll. How would everyone here feel about a BIP9 option - separate from the new features that can be voted in?
KAwARLast Friday at 4:27 PM
Maybe voting should not be a strictly blockchain vote. A republic and a democratic voice?
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:27 PM
@Milo We can try and get a beta out next week, and publish soon after that.
MiloLast Friday at 4:28 PM
@[Dev-Happy] Blondfrogs :thumbsup::slight_smile:
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:28 PM
BIP9 preemptive vote. I like it.
TronLast Friday at 4:30 PM
The advantage to a BIP9 vote is that it puts the miners and mining pools at a clear majority before activation.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:30 PM
Centralisation is inevitable unless we decide to resist it. ASIC's are market based and know the risks and rewards possible. A key step in resisting is sending a message. An algo change to increase asic resistance is imho a strong message. A BIP9 vote now would also be an indicator of bad actors early....
TronLast Friday at 4:30 PM
The disadvantage is that it may not pass if the will isn't there.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:30 PM
Before assets are on main net and cause additional issues.
KAwARLast Friday at 4:31 PM
I am not schooled in coding to have an educated voice. I only understand social problems and how it affects the economy.
SpyderDevLast Friday at 4:31 PM
All are equal on RVN
TronLast Friday at 4:31 PM
It is primarily a social problem. The tech change is less risky and is easier than the social.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:32 PM
All can have a share....people who want more of a share however pay for the privilege and associated risks.
KAwARLast Friday at 4:33 PM
Assets and exchange listings need to be consistent and secure.
brutoidLast Friday at 4:36 PM
I'm still not entirely clear on what the overall goal to the algo change is? Is it just to brick the supposed ASICs (unknown 45%) which could still be FPGAs as seen from the recent block analysis posted in the nest. Is the goal to never let ASICs on? Is it to brick FPGAs ultimately. Are we making Raven strictly GPU only? I'm still unclear
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:37 PM
What about the future issue of ASICs returning after a BIP9 fork "soon"? Are all following the WP as a community? i.e asic resistant or are we prepared to change that to asic resistant for early coin emission. Ideally we should plan for the future. Could the community make a statement that no future algo changes will be required to incentivise future public asic manufacturers?
Lol. Same question @brutoid
brutoidLast Friday at 4:37 PM
Haha it is
You mind-beamed me!
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:38 PM
The is up to the community.
Currently, the feel seems like the community is anti asic forever.
The main issue is getting people to upgrade.
KAwARLast Friday at 4:38 PM
Clarity is important. Otherwise we are attacking windmills like Don Quixote.
brutoidLast Friday at 4:39 PM
I'm not getting the feeling of community ASIC hate if the last few weeks of discussion are anything to go by?
Hans_SchmidtLast Friday at 4:39 PM
A unilateral non-BIP9 change at a chosen block height is a serious thing, but anti-ASIC has been part of the RVN philosophy since the whitepaper and is therefore appropriate for that purpose.
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:39 PM
We can use the latest release as an example. It was a non forking release, announced for 2 weeks. and only ~30% of the network has upgraded.
TronLast Friday at 4:39 PM
@Hans_Schmidt Well said.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:40 PM
I'm not concerned about a "asic hardware problem" so much as I believe it more likely what we are seeing is several big fish miners (perhaps a single really big fish). For now I recommend standing pat on x16r. In the future I can see an algo upgrade fork to keep the algo up to date. If we start fighting against dedicated x16r hashing machines designed and built to secure our network we are more likely to go down in flames. The custom SHA256 computers that make the bitcoin the most secure network in existence are a big part of that security. If some party has made an asic that performs up to par or better than FPGA or GPU on x16r, that is a positive for this network, a step towards SHA256 security levels. It is too bad the community is in the dark regarding their developments. Therefore I think the community has to clarify its stance towards algorithm changes. I prefer a policy that will encourage the development of mining software, bitstreams and hardware by as many parties as possible. The imminent threat of ALGO fork screws the incentive up for developers.
JerozLast Friday at 4:40 PM
@brutoid the vocal ones are lenient towards asics, but the outcome of the 600+ votes seemed pretty clear.
brutoidLast Friday at 4:40 PM
This is my confusion
TronLast Friday at 4:41 PM
More hashes are only better if the cost goes up proportionally. Machines that do more hashes for less $ doesn't secure the network more, and trends towards centralization.
JerozLast Friday at 4:41 PM
I would argue for polling ever so often as it certainly will evolve dynamically with the state of crypto over time.
TronLast Friday at 4:41 PM
Measure security in two dimensions. Distribution, and $/hash.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:41 PM
and volume of hash
traysiLast Friday at 4:42 PM
45% of the hashrate going to one party is unhealthy, and standing pat on x16r just keeps that 45% where it is.
TronLast Friday at 4:42 PM
Volume doesn't matter if the cost goes down. For example, lets say software shows up that does 1000x better than the software from yesterday, and everyone moves to it. That does not add security. Even if the "difficulty" and embedded hashes took 1000x more attempts to find.
brutoidLast Friday at 4:42 PM
My issue is defintely centralization of hash and not so much what machine is doing it. I mine with both GPU and FPGA. Of course, the FPGAs are not on raven
TJayLast Friday at 4:44 PM
easy solution is just to replace a few of 16 current hash functions, without messing with x21r or whatever new shit
TronLast Friday at 4:44 PM
How do folks here feel about allowing CPUs back in the game?
traysiLast Friday at 4:44 PM
Botnets is my concern with CPUs
brutoidLast Friday at 4:44 PM
Botnets is my concern
SpyderDevLast Friday at 4:44 PM
Yes please.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:44 PM
the poll votes seem not very security conscious. More of day miners chasing profits. I love them bless! Imho the future is bright for raven, however these issues if not sorted out now will bite hard long term when asset are on the chain and gpu miners are long gone.....
ZaabLast Friday at 4:45 PM
How has the testing of restricted assets been on the test net?
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:45 PM
Agreed. I dont think x16r is obsolete like that yet however
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:45 PM
@Zaab not enough testing at the moment.
HedgerLast Friday at 4:45 PM
Yes, how is the Testing going?
justinjjaLast Friday at 4:45 PM
Like randomX or how are cpus going to be back in the game?
TronLast Friday at 4:45 PM
@Zaab Just getting started at testing at the surface level (RPC calls), and fixing as we go.
ZaabLast Friday at 4:45 PM
And or any updates on the review of dividend code created by the community
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:45 PM
if the amount of hash the unknown pool has is fixed as standarderror indicated then waiting for the community of FPGAers to get onto raven might be advantageous if the fork doesn't hurt FPGAs.
ZaabLast Friday at 4:45 PM
Can't rememeber who was on it
SpyderDevLast Friday at 4:45 PM
@Zaab But we are working on it...
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:46 PM
more hash for votes
JerozLast Friday at 4:46 PM
@Maldon is, @Zaab
TronLast Friday at 4:46 PM
@Zaab There are unit tests and functional tests already, but we'd like more.
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:46 PM
@Zaab Dividend code is currently adding test cases for better security. Should have more update on that next meeting
KAwARLast Friday at 4:46 PM
Absolute democracy seems to resemble anarchy or at least civil war. In EVE online they have a type of community voice that get voted in by the community.
ZaabLast Friday at 4:46 PM
No worries was just curious if it was going as planned or significant issues were being found
Obviously some hiccups are expected
More testing is always better!
TronLast Friday at 4:47 PM
Who in here is up for a good civil war? :wink:
ZaabLast Friday at 4:47 PM
Tron v Bruce. Celebrity fight night with proceeds to go to the RVN dev fund
SpyderDevLast Friday at 4:48 PM
Cagefight or mudpit?
JerozLast Friday at 4:48 PM
talking about dev funds..... :wink:
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:49 PM
and there goes the conversation....
KAwARLast Friday at 4:49 PM
I am trying to be serious...
ZaabLast Friday at 4:49 PM
Sorry back to the ascii topic!
traysiLast Friday at 4:49 PM
@Tron What do we need in order to make progress toward a decision on the algo? Is there a plan or a roadmap of sorts to get us some certainty about what we're going to do?
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:50 PM
Could we have 3 no BIP9 votes? No1 Friendly to asics, retain status quo. No2 change to x17r minimal changes etc, with no additional future PoW/algo upgrades. No3. Full Asic resistance x22r and see what happens...
:thonk~1:
Sounds messy....
TronLast Friday at 4:51 PM
Right now we're in research mode. We're building CNv4 so we can run some metrics. If that goes well, we can put together x22rc and see how it performs. It will likely gore everyone's ox. CPUs can play, GPUs work, but aren't dominant. ASICs VERY difficult, and FPGAs will have a tough time.
ZaabLast Friday at 4:51 PM
Yeah i feel like the results would be unreliable
TronLast Friday at 4:51 PM
Is this good, or do we lose everyone's vote?
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:52 PM
Fpga will be dead
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:52 PM
why isn;t a simple XOR or something on the table?
ZaabLast Friday at 4:52 PM
The multiple bip9 that is
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:52 PM
something asic breaking but doesn't greatly complicate ongoing efforts for FPGA being my point.
justinjjaLast Friday at 4:52 PM
How are you going to vote for x22rc?
Because if by hashrate that wouldn't pass.
traysiLast Friday at 4:52 PM
Personally I like the idea of x22rc but I'd want to investigate the botnet threat if CPUs are allowed back in.
TronLast Friday at 4:52 PM
XOR is on the table, and was listed in my Medium post. But, the social risk of chain split remains, for very little gain.
traysiLast Friday at 4:53 PM
@Lokar -=Kai=- A small change means that whoever has 45% can probably quickly adapt.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:53 PM
Research sounds good. x22rc could be reduce to x22r for simplicity...
TronLast Friday at 4:53 PM
x22r is a viable option. No CNv4.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:53 PM
Don't know how much time we have to play with though...
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:53 PM
if they have FPGAs yes if they have ASIC then not so much, but I guess that gets to the point, what exactly are we trying to remove from the network?
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:54 PM
Guys my name is Arsen and we designed x16r fpga on bcus. Just about to release it to the public. I am buzzdaves partner.
Cryptonight
Will kill us
But agreed
Asic is possible on x16r
And you dont need 256 core
Cores
traysiLast Friday at 4:55 PM
Hi Arsen. Are you saying CN will kill "us" meaning RVN, or meaning FPGA?
JerozLast Friday at 4:55 PM
This is what im afraid of ^ an algo change killing FPGA as I have the feeling there is a big fpga community working on this
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:55 PM
Fpgas ))
whitefire990Last Friday at 4:55 PM
I am also about to release X16R for CVP13 + BCU1525 FPGA's. I'm open to algo changes but I really don't believe in CPU mining because of botnets. Any CNv4 shifts 100% to CPU mining, even if it is only 1 of the 22 functions.
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:55 PM
namely FPGAs that aren;t memory equipped
like fast mem
not ddr
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:55 PM
Hbm non hbm
Cryptonight
whitefire990Last Friday at 4:56 PM
Right now with both Buzzdave/Altered Silicon and myself (Zetheron) about to release X16R for FPGA's, then the 45% miner's share will decrease to 39% or less.
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:56 PM
Will be dead for fpga
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:56 PM
sound so x22r is fpga "friendly" ... more so than asic anyway...
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:56 PM
But a change must be planned
X16r is no way possible to avoid asics
TJayLast Friday at 4:56 PM
@LSJI07 - MBIT I would say less friendly...
whitefire990Last Friday at 4:57 PM
As I mentioned in thenest discussion, asic resistance increases with the square of the number of functions, so X21R is more asic resistant than X16R, but both are pretty resistant
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:58 PM
Yeah more algos make it heavier on ASIC
DirkDiggler (Citadel Architect)Last Friday at 4:58 PM
My interpretation of the whitepaper was that we used x16r as it was brand new (thus ASIC resistant), and that was to ensure a fair launch... We've launched... I don't like the idea of constantly forking to avoid the inevitable ASICs.
x16r was a great "experiment" before we had any exchange listings... that ship has sailed though... not sure about all these x22rs lmnop changes
KAwARLast Friday at 5:00 PM
I believe that it is easier to change the direction of a bicycle than an oil tanker. We feel more like a train. We should lay out new tracks and test on them and find benefits that are acceptable to everyone except train robbers. Then open the new train station with no contentious feelings except a silently disgruntled minority group. ???
Hans_SchmidtLast Friday at 5:01 PM
The most productive action the community can do now re ASICs is to voice support for the devs to make a non-BIP9 change at a chosen block height if/when the need is clear. That removes the pressure to act rashly to avoid voting problems.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 5:01 PM
Thats why im proposing to fork at least once to a more asic resistant algo (but FPGA "friendly/possible"), with the proviso ideally that no more PoW algo forks are require to provide future ASICs some opportunity to innovate with silicon and efficiency.
TJayLast Friday at 5:01 PM
folks should take into account, that high end FPGAs like BCU1525 on x16r can't beat even previous gen GPUs (Pascal) in terms of hash cost. so they aren't a threat to miners community
PlayHardLast Friday at 5:02 PM
A proper change
Requires proper research
eyz (Silence)Last Friday at 5:02 PM
Just so I'm clear here, we are trying to boot ASICS, don't want CPUs because of Botnets, and are GPU and FPGA friendly right?
PlayHardLast Friday at 5:02 PM
It is not a quick one day process
eyz (Silence)Last Friday at 5:02 PM
If there is a bip9 vote there needs to be a clear explanation as I feel most in the community don't understand exactly what we are trying to fix
TronLast Friday at 5:03 PM
@Hans_Schmidt I like that route. It has some game theoretics. It gives time for miners to adapt. It is only used if needed. It reduces the likelihood of ASICs dominating the network, or even being built.
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 5:03 PM
Hey guys. great convo. We are of course looking to do the best thing for the community and miner. We are going to be signing off here though.
justinjjaLast Friday at 5:03 PM
TJay that comes down to power cost.
If your paying 4c/kw gpus all the way.
But if your a home miner in europe an fpga is your only chance
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 5:03 PM
@Hans_Schmidt How do we decide the block limit and when sufficient evidence is available? I would say we have had much compelling information to date...
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 5:03 PM
Thanks for participating. and keep up the good work :smiley:
Have a good weekend.
CAWWWW
TronLast Friday at 5:03 PM
I haven't seen any compelling evidence of ASICs - yet.
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 5:03 PM
:v:
JerozLast Friday at 5:04 PM
I suggest to continue discussion in #development and #thenest :smiley:
thanks all!
TronLast Friday at 5:04 PM
Cheers everyone!
KAwARLast Friday at 5:04 PM
Agree with Hans.
DirkDiggler (Citadel Architect)Last Friday at 5:04 PM
thanks Tron
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 5:04 PM
Ending here. continue in Nest if wanted
DirkDiggler (Citadel Architect)Last Friday at 5:04 PM
I am waiting for compelling evidence myself.
submitted by mrderrik to Ravencoin [link] [comments]

Chinese comments are translated to English: "What Happened At The Satoshi Roundtable"

Inherent flaw...
This saying... If there were no inside trading, I would not believe it. I hope miners could be more responsible, and so that bitcoin is not strangled in the cradle.
Whatever plunged downwards so much would also go up afterwards. How is that related to short-term block reward? Not to mention hash rate reduction has little impact on block mining, and the duration is short. As of today's network and hardware, why can't 2MB be achieved? Although other techs like LN can scale. On-chain scaling is essential, which is irreplaceable.
Those who keep their eyes closed for immediate interests, they will be eliminated sooner or later. No matter how many guns are in their hands.
This (the author) is a true bitcoin practitioner. Shame on those domestic trolls attacking him.
Domestic miners have already taken the short position. So they still are the winners.
Bitcoin price drop due to hash rate reduction has happened once before, when price hit ¥900 (translator's note: Jan 14 2015). But at the same time the number of coins being mined also decreased, which in turn reduced selling pressure. And hash rate regained slowly. So Brian is not familiar with bitcoin mining. This is his flaw.
(Reply to Wu Gang)I agree with CoinBase CEO Brain's views
(Reply to Wu Gang) Why hash rate decrease will lead to reduced mined coins? It is just two weeks adjustment period. Once the difficulty is adjusted, numbers of coins mined will be the same as before.
And obviously you evaded the main points. The point is hash rate drop will cause 4-6 weeks of congestion, which will make people lose faith. Will reduced coins mined make up for it?
Now I prefer to believe that you have some secrete interest behind the scenes. Or if these recent statements by you is really your true judgement and your understanding of technology, I seriously doubt with your leadership, how far can HaoBTC go.
Market position gives those big bitcoin players certain power. In a short period of time, they are movers and shakers. But that's at the cost of the loss of market share. MtGox was so, Core will be, too, miners and mining pools are no exception!
Repost Bitcoin KingOfMoney's comment
(Reply to Bitcoin KingOfMoney) This guy's so full of ambition.
(reply to Zhao LeTian) Even Children three years old are able to understand why those domestic bosses would oppose that (Classic). Only shows dirty secrets hidden behind the curtain.
(reply to FishSpecial) Yes, Coinbase CEO is a political player, trying to completely control Bitcoin. His resorts are very dangerous.
(reply to P2PBUCKS) Show me your proof. Shall I believe what you said just because you said it? I think he's (Brian) got reasonable points.
(reply to P2PBUCKS) You're saying conspiracy theories again.
(reply to Zhao LeTian) Now you do not believe. Wait to see.
(reply to Zhao LeTian) To hinder the process of Bitcoin the debate finding a conclusion, HAOBTC's men are “work extremely hard”. why? why?
(reply to Zhao LeTian's previous commment: I(Zhao) agree with CoinBase CEO Brain's views )
Although I agree that Bitcoin prices will rise. But if reward halved and price did not go up, Bitcoin will not work fine. The threats within the logic and fear are too bad. Bitcoin has its own decentralized POW adjustment method. With previous halving experiences, the Bitcoin ecosystem won't be significantly affected if prices did not rise. Bitcoin has POW self-regulating system, so bitcoin can worth ten thousand USD.
(reply to Wu Gang)
The points I agree with brain is that only under the dictatorship can we have so-called >90% "consensus". Forking is no big deal. It's not a split but an election.
If you can't refute with reason, you just simply launch personal attacks (calling names). Many of our countryman are used to this sort of technique.
Price is going to drop again.
(reply to Song HuanPing) Note its not "again", its "already". OK, You big slick.
How low the price will go so I can buy long?
(reply to Song HuanPing) Song HuanPing: All you should do is Short! Short! Short! So you could be a winner in life [insidious emojo]
Oh, they need no standpoint, they are happy to remain the status quo, and do not want to see BTC rise. Otherwise, it will cause runs on banks and lead to bankruptcy. (*HaoBTC providing bank service for bitcoin)
(reply to Zhao LeTian) All right.
(reply to Zhao LeTian)
Bitcoin is a scientific system, rather than a political network. How to protect Bitcoin network security, we need a consensus system. Elections are only politicians' ways to seize control of the Bitcoin. With less than 90% agree, hash rate will split, it will allow the existence of two kinds of bitcoin for a period of time. That two types of coin in offchain wallets can be withdrawn. That will risk the entire community of being attacked. Scientific systems can be tested to confirm the feasibility through experiments.
(reply to Wu Gang)
On the contrary, where there are people, there are politics. Politics is everywhere. You can suspect other people's point of view, but you should not suspect other people's motives. So getting used to produce conspiracy theories.
repost the above Zhao's weibo.
(reply to Zhao LeTian)
You are pointing at the wrong guy. Ha ha, politics is not bad, but what I mean is that bitcoin is a scientific system, not a political one. Scientific systems should deal with things in accordance with scientific and systematic ways. In fact, I suddenly found that, in fact, the fundamental difference here is to define if Bitcoin is a scientific system or a political one. Bitcoin is scientific systems to bring freedom to people.
I only believe data, no others.
(reply to Wu Gang)
And even in science, there is no absolutely correct theories. We always have parallel(relative) theories. And the evolution of the old and new theories and systems. The fact that being intolerant of different opinions is the biggest joke.
StarryNight (HaoBTC Wu Gang) mostly stand in the perspective of his own bank. The fear for forking is worst for those coin counterfeiting exchanges, and the presidents of bitcoin banks! So ~~~
Flow with the trend. No one can stop it. Reverse the trends of bitcoin, cis and live, Nizhe death. Its your own choice to make!
(reply to Zhao LeTian)
There have always been differences. There are also differences in science. But ultimately only one of many will be proved to be correct science.
¥900 followed with a rebound is because the market bottomed out. A slight drop of hash rate leaded to longer block generation, and a slight reduction of newly mined coins. It is almost negligible to price.
You did not fully grasp what he was saying. Is any congestion in previous halvings? What was the trading volume when last halving took place?
(reply to Wu Gang) Bitcoin is a currency system, it has millions of users with a market cap of billions of dollars. It is no longer an early stage scientific experiment. Bitcoin is not the core's private plaything. Core has no power to decide how bitcoin's future should be like, and what route to go. Recently our party stated with their scientific proof that our living areas are better without the walls, and should be open to the roads and streets. Do you support that too?
(reply to Song HuanPing) You've said its gonna drop last time when ¥1700
Dont mess with me. It is dropping all the time.
(reply to Wu Gang)
But the core cannot prove the "science" they believes in to be the only correct one. When you can't prove it, and meanwhile force your will on bitcoin and users. This behaviour is no different from Hitler's genocide on the basis of "scientific" racial theory .
I highly endorse Coinbase CEO's views
To Wu Gang, for the company's immediate interests, and go against 2MB plan. The eyes of some are really short-sighted! DOS operating system can not go far with only 640KB of memory. The same truth holds that Bitcoin cannot always be limited to 1MB blocks! Nor should we deem Bitcoin programming sacred, like other people can not develop it. Competing teams are going to show up.
(reply to HappyFlyLong)
Please discuss only which views are correct or not. Trying to attack others with guessing their motives is what idiots would do ...
I always believed P2PBUCKS, and thank you for the reminders. But it is recommended to tell with reason.
Can't agree more.
A grand waterfall is coming
Forking is not allowed? Should it be better if Satoshi decided to go closed-source?
(reply to KillBtc's comment: To hinder the process of Bitcoin the debate finding a conclusion, HAOBTC's men are “work extremely hard”. why? why?)
Toxic Tumour of the coin industry.
haobtc... Beyond redemption
[Conspiracy] Coinbase CEO just want to control BTC with the help of LTC's creator? To break other's monopoly with your own. This is power struggle, we people have seen much more like this. We are also very good at it.
Edit: typo and grammar
BTC: 1JpazvbnCqFzhLvaVncoCkbWXNoWbgeS6Q
submitted by nextblast to btc [link] [comments]

Transcript of Proof of Stake & Name Discussion in Slack

Discussion starts off around Tone Vays’ Decred segment
sambiohazard: he is generally pessimistic about altcoins
praxis: Yes, he's a notorious Bitcoin maximalist.
simmysong: what’d he say about decred?
ty13r: weren't you watching the show? @jimmysong I saw your name in the chat
jimmysong: I popped in just now but then he wasn’t talking decred anymore so i left I also didn’t say anything
ty13r: @jimmysong good to know :slightly_smiling_face:
jrick: oh i found my next avatar
ty13r: @jimmysong he talked about the chart for a minute. I'm not sure what else he said prior. not sure what he said after either lol
go1dfish: sounds like he’s fundamentally opposed to proof of stake
sambiohazard: he just said there is probably downside on price, and maybe its warranted for goo future growth he hadnt researched/read about fundamentals so pure TA
ty13r: sounds like he won't like decred because it's has a form of proof of stake built into the protocol sounds like he hates all ideas related to proof of stake
pvtwarren: he hates all ideas that are not bitcoin pretty much
ty13r: except monero and ethereum i guess
pvtwarren: he doesn't hate ethereum?
ty13r: apparently monero and ethereum deserve to be #2 and #3 not sure I don't see why he wouldn't
pvtwarren: back in January I remember he was still calling it a scam maybe I remember incorrectly
cryptocasca: His problem with PoS guys is the "rich people control the blockchain" problem He told me himself
go1dfish: since when is mining cheap?
cryptocasca: He just needs to hear how our devs got around that I'm not agreeing. Obviously. I'm just saying he thinks of PoS is a system where it's the rich people who control the direction of the coin and proletariat eat the crumbs
dustinb: Congrats on the news y'all - what do you think this trend means for the industry at large?
ty13r: Well I'm not exactly sure we really differ. People who hold a lot of decred and stake it, directly control the future of the blockchain.
cryptocasca: I'm not agreeing. Obviously. I'm just saying he thinks of PoS is a system where it's the rich people who control the direction of the coin and proletariat eat the crumbs The more decred you stake the more say you have.
cryptocasca: There's a cap though @ty13r on the ticket amount that can exist
ty13r: No That's what the sdiff algo does
cryptocasca: Well not a hard one Right
ty13r: I think that's nice though Anyone can participate at any time With enough funds of course
cryptocasca: That's not how he spins it. And we need to combat that mentality. He thinks if you're just a mega whale and buy a bunch of coins that you control the show. That essentially DCR is a system run by whales not people
davecgh: So, regardless of the specifics here, I think this is very likely going to be one of those cases where there will simply be a fundamental difference of opinion on the topic. While a lot of people love to rail on the rich as being evil (while simultaneously wanting to be rich -- the hypocrisy there is quite amusing), the fact of the matter is people with more skin in the game have more incentive to keep their stake more valuable. Loving it or hating it won't change the facts.
cryptocasca: Yes. I agree.
ty13r: Yep.
cryptocasca: I think the staking aspect is important here.
ty13r: But same can be said for PoW mining
cryptocasca: The locking up for 28+ days
ty13r: Buy more miners, you have more say. Well also just like PoW mining anyone can participate at any given time. And people are getting paid for putting skin in the game 142 days is a long time in crypto land Which is the period it takes for a ticket to expire.
dustinb: The problem isn't just that the rich have control, it's that the rich get richer. PoS is similar to compound interest.
go1dfish: the power over traditional bitcoins is in the mining hardware and that is not specific to the currency they back, which is why you have worries about bitcoin forks attacking each other
coin_artist: But also earlier contributors who earned decred build the grassroots community
go1dfish: @dustinb I think that’s a large aspecting driving anti-pos perception but it applies similarly to mining hardware
dustinb: Ya @go1dfish - the combination of long term staking + PoW changes things, I need to think more on it. Tendermint's solution has always been the credible threat of hard fork if anyone's stake gets too big.
go1dfish: but mining also ends up specifically favoring some people due to external factors like power pricing
davecgh: The other thing here is something which doesn't exist yet, so it's completely understandable why it's not considered, but there is a huge difference between hard-fork voting and proposal voting.
dustinb: Proposal wouldn't solve it. The non-majority would have to hf.
ty13r: I believe this is another reason why 60% of the reward goes to PoW
davecgh: Hard fork voting is changing the rules. It's the kind of thing where you could destroy the currency if you aren't careful. That, in my opinion, should consequently very much have a high barrier to entry. Proposals, on the other hand, should definitely have a lower barrier to entry and thus would be much more inclusive.
dustinb: Ya - that's the exact reason I like decred, save the hfs for the big stuff.
davecgh: These things are not the same and they shouldn't be treated as such. Again, this is my own opinion. I'm sure not everyone agrees.
ty13r: @davecgh but how will you differentiate them economically?
davecgh: e.g. you wouldn't need a full ticket to vote on proposals, but you would for HFV.
ty13r: You might split tickets 32 times, but 1 ticket is still worth 32 votes.
davecgh: On the HFV side, yes. However, you can count them however you want on the proposal side. It's l2. You don't need to weight them the same.
ty13r: So a split ticket weight might have the same weight as non-split ticket? But if that's the case couldn't someone stake their funds with splits to get more votes? Without some sort of identity system it seems difficult to prevent Sybil attacks in that case.
davecgh: I'm spitballing here, so don't take this as gospel or anything, but you could definitely look at the snapshotting tickets and see there are 40960 tickets in total and those tickets are split up such that there are 163,840 participants. So, when you do the proposal system vote, the majority is required to be X% of 163,840. Meanwhile, the on-chain HFV is still 1 ticket = 1 vote.
dustinb: I like making it difficult to hf, but is the goal to make it impossible? Not only does that goal technically seem unlikely but aren't there some advantages to hf when we have very serious disagreements within a network about how to proceed?
davecgh: It's not impossible at all. There is a very nice distribution of holders.
ty13r: We're referring to the proposal system vote right now
dustinb: ah.
ty13r: Basically the signaling mechanism for work and spending funds.
davecgh : The other thing to keep in mind is that the l2 system can be wildly different if we so choose. You can create HLTCs to locked up funds for "layer 2" tickets that can potentially have arbitrary division. You don't have all of the limitations as the on-chain system.
ty13r: The HF vote makes it real. @dustinb we just had what should have been a contentious vote that passed with ease surprisingly.
davecgh: Then, you still have demonstrable skin in the game, just much much less for participating in the lead-up to a hard fork. However, the actual hard fork vote, a.ka. the thing that actually changes the rules, will, necessarily, use the on-chain system. Again, I totally get this is rather abstract right now since it isn't fully built out and mostly just still in our heads.
ty13r: But doesn't attacking the l2 system pose a larger risk? Definitely :slightly_smiling_face: It's like controlling the seeds And the hf vote is like controlling when to harvest If the seeds never get planted there will never be anything to harvest I'm all in favor of lowering the barrier to entry, but increasing the favor of Sybil attacks seems tough to juggle if tickets can have a different weight on the l2 system.
davecgh: Well, people with more skin in the game will still have more influence. So, the majority would still win in that case. It just means it allows more inclusivity, which I think we all desire.
ty13r: Yeah I think that's fair. @davecgh so could the proposal system have completely separate tickets not related to the HF tickets? For example...
davecgh: If we so desire, absolutely.
ty13r: I have a bunch of decred that I'm not HF staking But there's a proposal vote going on that I want to vote for I lock up tickets in the l2 vote for a week (no reward) and get my funds back after the vote has concluded
davecgh: You'd need to think through the adversarial cases as we've done with the on-chain system in order to prevent the case where you vote, all of your locked funds immediately unlock, and then you dump. So, you'd want some type of randomness factor in there to prevent gaming of it.
ty13r: People HF staking still got to vote as well, but so did I without having to lockup my funds for a longer, unknown period of time. What do you mean by dump?
davecgh: However, from a pure perspective of whether or not it's possible, you can definitely have a different ruleset. For example, one of the biggest differences, everything else aside, is that the voting period duration will be much faster. Rather than taking a full month, only having 5 votes per block, etc, in the proposal system, the vote would go on for, say a week, and so long as you own a ticket, you can vote whenever you want within that period. Notice how that ruleset is entirely different already. I personally can envision a need for differing voting periods too. There will very likely be time-sensitive things that need to be voted on more or less immediately and maybe they are only 2 days. On the end of the spectrum, perhaps there are things that need longer than a week.
moo31337: murmurs something about how not interesting ticket splitting is
davecgh: By dump I mean something like "Lock up a bunch of coins, vote down some proposal, all of my coins immediately unlock, sell all of my coins". If you can do that, you no longer necessarily have any incentive to vote according to increasing your holding's values.
moo31337: you really dont want my raw opinion on it
davecgh: That doesn't apply to the on-chain system because you can't snap vote. Your coins are locked, potentially for months, and you can't influence when they unlock at all. So, if you try vote in a way that would decrease your holding's value, you would be doing so to your own detriment.
ty13r: Let's hear it @moo31337
Davecgh: I can sum it up easily!
ty13r: That's what she said
moo31337: @davecgh nailed it
ty13r: Yeah splitting seems like it has a lot of obstacles
moo31337: I super dont want to write that code
ty13r: @moo31337 assuming increasing the ticket pool size was easy (which I know it's not and could hurt the network) would you be in favor of that? Also increasing votes per block proportionately of course
jy-p: I wouldn't from a on-chain footprint perspective having a "ticket split" similar to a stock split would be a ton of work even having 32 split would lead to a massive footprint for offchain votes in the proposal system let's say you have 100 B for each vote in the proposal system, then take 100 B x 40,960 = ~4 MB for the proposal vote multiply that by 32 to get ~128 MB of offchain data to track for proposals this is one proposal too we'll be experimenting with ways to shrink this footprint soon, so this constraint may improve substantially with time
ty13r: Yeah and on chain votes are even bigger
jy-p: exactly imo, the real solution to the ticket price barrier is to allow tickets to be purchased via a variation on LN
davecgh: Agreed, and that's why I was talking about l2 tickets above.
ty13r: how do you keep people from getting more voting rights though?
davecgh: You don't. Just like in the on-chain system. If you're willing to lock up more funds, you get more influence. However, it allows "smaller fish" to participate too. They just have influence proportional to their stake.
ty13r: But if you own 51% of a ticket you can vote it however you want So you could turn 100 tickets into more tickets
davecgh: Oh, I see your confusion. Yeah, your talking about buying partial tickets. We're talking about just having more tickets period.
ty13r: Ahhh ok sorry So more tickets...but anchored through the LN
davecgh: No worries! Like I said, abstract stuff is always fun to discuss for this reason! Right.
ty13r: I like it.
jy-p: there are a variety of approaches we could take, e.g. fractional voting that is tallied via L2 and rolled into a single ticket we'll start with the simple stuff and see what we can get done first
davecgh: Yeah, one of things you guys might have noticed is we're pretty keen on taking things one step at a time. Trying to do everything half-assed at once is a recipe for failure, imo.
ty13r: So for example you'd have maybe 5 tickets vote directly on chain and 5 tickets vote via LN? Definitely agree with that
davecgh: It might look great on paper when you can tout via marketing that you have X, Y, Z, and a BBQ too! The reality is that if all of those systems are poorly implemented though, it isn't going to make it long term.
moo31337: 40k tickets ought to be enough for everyone one ticket one vote!!!
ty13r: Another reason why I advocate for this project is you guys spend the painstaking time to do things right. So I definitely appreciate the non rush to the finish line mentality.
moo31337: oh there is a rush we just tend not to compromise when it matters I think we need a code is boss meme
davecgh: Right. We do have quite aggressive timelines. However, as @moo31337 said, if we have to bump an estimated release date to make sure something is right, that's what we'll do.
jy-p: speaking of which, i think we're nearing time for 1.1.0 release. that will include the proposal system backend
moo31337: you don’t want my working hours and certainly not @davecgh hours; i dont think anyone understands how @davecgh puts 28 hours in a day
ty13r: I know you guys work your asses off. Feels weird when dave goes offline for a few hours honestly lol Feels like he's been gone for days :joy:
reddit thread suggesting name change appears
ay-p: Ahhh that daily "let's change the name" thread
jy-p: I'm 100% sick of these posts
ty13r: lol I was about to say the same thing
jy-p: "I know you're named john, but i think you'd sound much more attractive if you were named " look at the names of these other major projects - they are beyond retarded
go1dfish: you just know it’s going to be a popular proposal when that system is ready.
davecgh: I'm actually looking forward to that proposal. It will be voted down once and for all. Then, in the future we'll just be able to link to the failed proposal. No fuss.
davecgh: I'm never going to shop at Amazon because it has too much to do with rivers and jungles and women warriors!
jy-p: the word Amazon triggers me b/c of the systematic destruction of the rainforest there
moo31337: see my turquoise was dead on! colors are hip for branding these days and it has to be calming
go1dfish: I like the name I think where the branders can win the fight is in suggesting good unit names decred works as a project name, but it seems a bit clunky as a unit name.
davecgh: Well, we probably shouldn't be so dismissive, but after seeing the same thing so many times, it's kind of comical. What is especially funny is that if you actually followed some of the others that people now claim are "good" names, there were the exact same threads about them not being good names too. Now, they are magically good names though because they're popular.
submitted by Pvtwarren to decred [link] [comments]

Public debate on FOne proposals voting


Initiator of three proposals: run! (Proposal 1), Stone Online (Proposal 2), Donglai (Proposal 3), and Special Guest Zhang Jian.
This debate consists of three sessions: initiator statement, debating session and summary session.
The first session: Each initiator explain his understanding of FOne and the current problems FOne faced.
Proposal 1: Run
Design of this proposal:
Profit distribution mechanism + marketing effect = whether the merchant can survive.
How the Merchant, FT holder shareholder and FCoinwill distributed 100% profits:
Proposal 1: allocation for merchants is basically around 65%, and with more reasonable ladder-shaped competition mechanism.
Option 2: allocation for merchants is about 60–70%,
Option 4: only 10% for merchants which can be directly excluded, while for okex and houbi, this percentage isabout 50%
Option 3 can also be excluded: we need to ensure the interests of the head merchants, so that they can be loyal to the platform and bring new businesses.
Proposal II: stone
This proposal is to improve the enthusiasm of the merchants, to increase the transaction volume and transaction depth, so that more people actively help the FCoin platform to develop better.
Option 2, basic dividends plus dynamic rewards, combined with t repurchase and destruction, which can balance the interests of all parties. In early stage, trading volume can be used as the dynamic rewards standard. Later some other factors can be introduced in according to the improvement of the platform.
Proposal III: Donglai
About my understanding on FOne and current issues.
FOne’s positioning: FCoin2.0 is a technical service provider, everyone can open an exchange.
Our disadvantage:
  1. The cold starting by transfee-mining mode was successful, but it also brought some problems. The price of FT plummeted, and investors lost faith. The platform is under lots of pressure lately.
  2. Although the trading experience is constantly optimized, but there is still a big gap between the first-class exchange;
Our advantage:
  1. The core technology: We have had the largest trading volume in the history of the exchange, and platform security is guaranteed.
2.Communitization: community users are the shareholders of the platform, shall have the opportunity to participate in community building and community development process .
  1. Transparency: This advantage is not too obvious when price is low, but will be revealed and become one of our core competitiveness when price go higher..
4. Self-contained traffic: we have been in the center of public opinion whether in the early stage or at the present. When our business can be stabilize or even grow, this self-contained traffic will bring us a lot of advantages then.
5 . We are a exchange with public heart, it showed by following three things:
1 stop transfee-mining
2 used profit to buy back FT
  1. used FCoin Fund to buy back FT
The above is the embodiment of FCoin’s, along withthe power of the community and our technology, we can be even stronger in the future.
What can FOne exchange do?
Providing technical support and open our developing authorities, let the market to promote business and expolre more possibilities.
Following possibilities I can think of based on the exchange’s gameplay, FOne can be
1, an exchange of spot trading, like Binance.
2, an exchange of fiat month trading, like ZB.
3, an exchange of margin trading, like Huobi.
4, an exchange of futures trading, like OKEX.
5, an exchange of options trading, like JEX.
6, an exchange of transfee mining, like FCoin1.0.
7, an exchange of transfee mining, can be any feasible innovation model.
What’s more important is that not only we have Chinese uers, but from global wide.
New gameplay:
  1. can be a game mode, developers can develop their own game projects like F3D, Zethr, ETH.TOWN, EOSBET.
  2. can be a virtual product trading platform, and support the trading of all virtual products, such as the services and transactions that Taobao (Ebay) does involves.
  3. can be an app store, to develop under the requirement of merchants.
  4. there are more fun ideas waiting for you to discover and participate.
The above non-exchange gameplay may be implemented in the short term or never be able to realized, they are just some possibilities I can think of.
The positioning of FCoin2.0 is a platform and a technical service provider. We welcome everyone to discuss the possibilities, as long as it can bring benefits and bring profits to the platform and FT holders.
Current issues FOne faced.
  1. We will face the problem of trading depth at the early stage which can be solved through sharing depth. We should have larger volume and measures to encourage placing orders.
2, the number of main coins is insufficient, all main coins must be fully supported in the future.
3, FCone still works as a trading zone right now. I hope it can develop as an exchange in the later stage, to support the complete domain name, independent page and so on.
  1. The review process needs to be speeded up, the process can be simplified and is transparent.
5, The platform can technically support the operationsof the shops, and share the commission with merchants.
Debating
Part 1: Initiator elaborate on his proposal
Proposal I: Run:
80% of the distribution is for the head merchants.20% and 30% can be understood as a competition ladder.
Proposal II: stones
Option 2 is basic dividend plus dynamic reward, combined with a repurchase destruction mechanism. This repurchase and destruction mechanism will allow some people who do not support Option 4 and Option 3 to have some leeway.
Proposal III: Donglai:
There are three reasons for the recommendation of option 3:
Firstly, it is simple. Too many rules can be a shackle for FONE which will kill too many possibilities.
Secondly, is the fairness. Encourage same standard for all merchants
The last one is the low threshold, which allow more people participate in, then FONE will have a chance to grow bigger, which means more dividends FT holders.
Reasons for the design of the 2–8 distribution ratio:
  1. Many great platform companies like Meituan, and Didi all use this golden ratio, and Tmall is even lower than this ratio.
  2. There are other platforms ask above 50% distribution, but it won’t work for FCoin based on current situation.
  3. Some operations already limited the development of FCoin, which will cause vitality losing.
  4. 20% will be taken from all merchants. Our income is proportional to the total income of the merchants. Only when FOne grows bigger, more profit will be brought, and more dividends can to allocated to FT holders.
The second part of the debating: Explain the mechanism of their own proposal and the impact it may have on FOne’s prospects (3 minutes)
Proposal I : Run
We only need simplicity and stability at this stage which can help to attract more people. That’s why I denied option 3 and 4, because they will have to change before enter the bull market.
In addition, comparing schemes 2 and 3, option 1 will save more room for the platform to engage in activities, and attract merchants. If Option 3 is implemented but don’t work. The platform will have to launch more activities, which won’t be good for a total of 4% revenue.
Proposal II: Stone
The 60% dividend can guarantee the basic income of merchants, 20% dynamic rewards is a mean of macro-control to motivate the merchants and regulate their behaviors. Then these parts used for repurchaseand destruction, plus 23% of FCoin fund, which can be increased to about 30%, which expands the deflation expectation and supports FT price, which is good for everyone.
The biggest feature of this proposal is the consideration of three parties. To ensure everyone has a basic income and also encourage those who are actively participated in.
Proposal III: Donglai
Option 3 is the easiest and quickest. Since tranfeemining has stopped, and free trading for Main Board A, and FONE is now the main income source of FT holders. The sooner FONE starts, the better it is for FT holders.
It’s better not to have too many constraint in the primary development stage of FONE. Providing a fair environment and also lowering the threshold for entry, which can help to lock the FT’s liquidity, increase its application scenario, and the actual value of FT. When FT enters the positive cycle, these will become the power of development.
The third part of the debating: evaluating other competition proposals
Proposal I: Run
I will skip option 4.
Option 3 is a good option. I know exactly that okex is 50%, for option 3, merchants accounted for 80% while the platform accounted for 4%, as a technical service provider to ensure everyone’s safety, but he can only get 4% the profit, do you think this is appropriate?
Option 2 is a good solution. first It is smoother, it uses a Y=X curve, which is theoretically more elaborate than a sweeping approach. Second, it introduces destruction. Because there is no data support, I can’t explain compare with option 1 which is better. Theoretically it’s finer than the first one.Option 1 is more concise but option 2 is more complicated.
Proposal II: Stones
First of all, option 4 is obviously unscientific, 10% is attributed to the merchants which will decrease theirenthusiasm, and make trading volume and depth of the entire trading area even difficult.
About option 1, it’s much similar to my proposal II, only mine adds repurchase and destruction. Compared to option 1, I think option 2 is more scientific.
About option 3, 80% for the merchants and 20% for the platform, which leaves no leeway for everyone.
Proposal III: Donglai
The starting point of Option 1 and Option 2 is very good, but in fact there is a fatal problem which islacking of fairness, and will force some small merchants to exit from this market.
The biggest problem of option 1 is that, if the bottom 80% merchants can’t compete with the top 20, which leads to the exit. The newly-entered merchants can’t compete with the top 20, which leads to fewer and fewer stores, and less incomes of the whole patform. This is why it is necessary to ensure the fairness for everyone on the platform.
Motivating is supportive, but not in this way,.
As for option4, I said that fish can be big only water is enough. The ft holder can get more dividends only more merchants come in and bring more profits, that’s when the value of FT can really show up. 1*80% is much smaller than 100*20%.
The fourth part of the debating: defending yourself
Proposal I: Run
I will give the answer to the questions on proposal I and II.
Under the spirit of the blockchain, constant and stable is the fairest. The reason why Bitcoin and Ethereum is so powerful is that they are stable enough.
Last I would like to say something to those who supports option 3. Those who hold millions of FTs (mostly are those “holding up” on FCoin) will be able to open stores and make more money if option 3 passes. It may sees like you have more dividends, but in fact platform will lost the credibility, lost the right to maintain users. Moreover, if these people really go to play, and your resources are not enough, basic Your income is zero, what is the difference between 20% and 80% of 0, so I think we need to calm down and think carefully before making a choice.
Stone
Incentives will make users feel our responsibility. Option 3 leave us no room for manoeuvre, which is not good for later strategy. The aggressiveness of Option 2 is increasing. Repurchase and destruction can also reduce the resistance of some policies, so that it can also obtain understanding and recognitionof most users.
Donglai
Now back to the positioning of FC2.0, which is a platform-based service provider. What is the most important thing about the platform? Fairness. The example I gave just now, 20%dividend is completely incapable when competing with 80% dividends. This is why the option 1 failed during the referendum. In fact, 60% is also difficult to compete with 80%. The result is inevitably that more shops will have to close. Then the early merchants have to repeat the competition again and more shop closed. And it’s the same logic for option 2.
So I request again please pay attention to our positioning, do not undermine fairness as we are a platform. As for the incentive part mentioned in Option 1 and Option 2, I think it should not be the basic rules. It should be a short-term plan for operation and promotion.
As for the other proposals, 20% dividends are too small, the total amount of dividends per day is less than three bitcoins. What we have to do now is to make the pool bigger, 3X80% is much smaller than 300X20%.
Summary
Proposal I: Run
The proposal collection from the community is a good idea. I only contribute 20% of this proposalbecause many people have made a lot of efforts before. We are the shareholders of fcoin, and we need to choose a good solution for the future development of FCoin, so that we can make profits. In the last I want to say that I have high expectations for FCoin, and I hope FCoin is getting better and better, thank you.
Proposal II: Stone
I hope that everyone will vote rationally. FOne is a good attempt. Option 4 is not good for everyone’s participation, merchants have high operating cost promotion costs, 10% will be much less for that. Thank you. FOne can be an opportunity, a big opportunity in the bear market.
Proposal III: Donglai
FCoin is under the most embarrassing period since transfee mining ended and trading fee is free for Main Board A. Even 80% dividends for FT holders, there are still less than three BTCs in total per day. It is better to let the merchants operate, and FCoinprovides support for the merchants. so that they can make the pool bigger, FT holder can have more dividends.
The main focus of Option 3 is the positioning of FC2.0. The platform is a technical service provider,should be simple in the early stage of FONE. Should be no much restrictions for merchants. At the same time, FCoin must lower its posture, play the role ofservice provider but not a regulator.
Sharing from special guest MR. Zhang Jian
I would like to end up with a few words. This debate is wonderful. Everyone is well prepared! I will share some of my ideas on the debates and about the future.
FCoin’s future revenue e is very large, and will have more types of income e. So I think as long as FCoincan keep growing, the community keeps expanding.
I think that whether it is a bull market or a bear market, I feel that we should firmly expand our community, traffic, and trading volume. The income will definitely group up, and to a bring future that everyone can’t imagine!
I have talked with many investors, even the investors of the most well-known companies on world stage. In fact, everyone who knows the truth that, the most thing to make a great company successful is the thingit originally imagined.
What I want to say is that the space that FCoin can explore in the future is very large. Therefore, as long as we hold the initial heart of community, to follow this direction. we will be able to walk out of a way that all of us can imagine. So I said that great things must have evolved but not planned!

submitted by FCoinOfficial to FCoin_Official [link] [comments]

How to mine bitcoins? What is Cryptomining? solo mining -pool Mining EXPLAINED! #AXT Bitcoin Mining bitcoin mining 2019 should we mine bitcoin? get answer now What is the difference between PPS and PPLNS? How To Mine Bitcoin Gold Easily Bitcoin and cryptocurrency mining explained - YouTube

The pool offers three types of cloud mining contracts and there is usually a requirement to join a waiting list to get one. It is one of available pools that offer a chance to profit from Bitcoin mining. The payments miners get based on their contracts are delivered daily. Overall, the pool is considered legitimate by the community even though there are split opinions on Bitmain and their ... In fact, smaller mining pools have also been suffering greatly and a Swedish Bitcoin mining pool, KnCMiner had also filed for bankruptcy. Hence, joining major Bitcoin mining pools is only way out, but even that has its own consequence as it leads to centralization of the mining operations. In a nutshell, it is highly challenging for an individual to undertake the Before we bitcoin mining pools 2019 you a look into the top 20 Bitcoin Mining Pools inlet us first understand what a Bitcoin Mining Pool is. Now, you can hope to be lucky and become the one winner in a million participants or simply join one of the best mining pools and combine all your hashing power to increase the chance of earning. The pool offers three types of cloud mining contracts and ... What is Bitcoin Mining Summary. Bitcoin mining is the process of updating the ledger of Bitcoin transactions known as the blockchain.Mining is done by running extremely powerful computers called ASICs that race against other miners in an attempt to guess a specific number.. The first miner to guess the number gets to update the ledger of transactions and also receives a reward of newly minted ... Bitcoin miners are a group of “miners” who are indulged in solving a block for earning bounty/reward. The reward is equally split among themselves according to their contributed mining hash power. Bitcoin pool is a way to mine their resources and to share their hashing power. A valid proof of work should be presented in order to gain reward. Initially, generating a single block was taking ...

[index] [37533] [27405] [50351] [24126] [30686] [36140] [10133] [20824] [39445] [14906]

How to mine bitcoins? What is Cryptomining? solo mining -pool Mining EXPLAINED! #AXT

Mining Pool Shares, Difficulty and Luck Explained - Duration: 10 ... Bitcoin & Cryptocurrency Mining Pools Explained Best Mining Pools PPS vs PPLNS - Duration: 18:17. VoskCoin 9,965 views. 18:17 ... Dino Talks about the differences there are when you start mining in a pool. WEBD$gDAgWZzyWa8PSLreoHUeSr0KqPEzw3Tfav$ #webdollar #bounty #reward The info you need to know. This video will show you how to start bitcoin mining from home. It's very easy and "free" to do if you have a gaming PC. *****... Find out what pay schedule your mining pool is using. This is key! Extra rewards are to be had using PPLNS pay schedule. Mining Bitcoin is as easy as installing the mining software on the PC you already own and clicking start. Anyone can do this and see the money start rolling ...

#