How To Become a Bitcoin Miner in 10 seconds or less
Hashrate (Hashing power or h/s) – BitcoinWiki
Bitcoin Mining Calculator - Updated with 2020 Miners
Bitcoin Mining Calculator
Bitmain Unveils 2 Bitcoin Miners With Max Speeds Up to 110TH/s Per Unit. The Antminer S19 Pro model with 110TH/s and 29 joules per terahash (J/TH) is 24 trillion hashes per second faster than Microbt’s latest Whatsminer M30S model (86TH/s).
Bitcoin (BTC) ASIC manufacturer, MicroBT recently revealed its next-generation mining hardware at a virtual launch event on April 17. MicroBT’s forthcoming M30 series of Bitcoin miners, the MS30S++ and the MS30S+, boasts a hash rate of 100 terahashes per second (TH/s).
Bitcoin’s Computing Power Sets Record after 100K New Miners Go Online The total computing power now dedicated to securing the bitcoin blockchain has set yet another record, has reached 71.43 quintillion hashes per second (EH/s).
TH = 1012 = 10004 hashes_per_second EH = 1018 = 10006 hashes_per_second 21.113 0.101 daily USD per TH/s 116.73 EH/s So I was discussing this last week and honestly it all felt too simple, so I'm trying to get some stronger counterpoints to this argument. Goes something like this. You have some pool miner that wants to do a 51% attack. Lets assume the attack has three phases, the first phase is to try to accumulate 51% of the hashing power, next is the accumulation of more hashing power by ejecting other pools from through reorg. Finally when they aquired enough mining power they could blacklist exchange hotwallets or all manner of nefariousness. Lets further assume that everyone will act purely in their own self interest. For simplicity lets call the attacker "Spectre Pool".
Assuming Spectre Pool can hit something like 41% of the hashing power, the first goal is to accumulate more resources to hit 51%. Since pool mining is a commodity market, all Spectre has to do in this imaginary world is offer more than the market rate. Since they are already at 41% hashrate, they need to entice another 10% of the market to come to their pool. The obvious way to do this would be to offer a "new customer bonus" or something like that. Some promotion where they pay 1% above market price for the hashing power of pool members. So, given a network hashrate of 116.73 EH and a market rate of 0.101 USD/TH per day, the cost they would have to bear to offer a 1% promotion to entice 10% of the network would be: 116.73_EH / 0.101_USD/TH * 10% * 1% = 1,155,742 USD per day for each 1% "bonus" So, assuming they were willing to spend that much on "marketing", and that all miners worked in their own self interest, eventually they could lure enough miners over to achive 51%. Once they hit this threahold they could scale back on the "marketing" and thus reduce their daily burn.
Once at 51%, the next attack of Spectre will be to put their smallest competitor out of buisness. Lets call that the "Bond Pool", and pretend that Bond has 1.5% of the network hashing power. To put Bond out of buisness, with 51%, Spectere will need to reorg whenever Bond wins a block. By reorging to a chain without Bond, this will put Spectre one block behind and they will need to catch up. Once the reorg begins, Spectre will need to produce the longest chain on its own while starting one block behind. So we need to determine how long (statisticly) it will take Specter to produce an n+1 blocks and compare that to how long (statisticly) with take Bond to produce another block. Although this can be hammered out iterive calculations, a better approach will be an algebraic solution. Lets walk through the equations:
d - The delta above majority. So at 51%, d=1%
n - The number of blocks the majority can reorg
t - The pre-reorg blocktime based on hashrate (10 min)
M (aka Mp) - The percent of hashpower held by minority (49%)
S (aka Mp) - The percent of hashpower held by Spectre (51%)
m (aka Mp) - The blocktime durring attack on the minority chain
s (aka Mp) - The blocktime durring attack on the Spectre chain
n*m = s*(n+1) - Break even, when minority mines n at the same rate Spectre mines n+1
You can put the following into a GeoGebra CAS calculator to substitute and simplify the equations solve(n*m = s*(n+1), n) M = 1/2-d S = 1/2+d m = t/M s = t/S solve(n*m = s*(n+1), d) n = s/(m-s) b = m*M/p solve(b = s*(n+1),p) This will produce the following equations for the values we are interested in. m(t,d): t*(1/2-d) # from `m` define s(t,d): t*(1/2-d) # from `s` define n(s,m): s/(m-s) # from `n` solve d(n): 1/(4*n+2) # from `d` solve p(d): 2*d # from `p` solve b(t,p): t/p # from `b` define Here's a table
solve(nm = s(n+1), d) n = s/(m-s) b = m*M/p ``` Tb = The avg time between blocks won by Bond durring the reorg Ts = The avg time for Spectre to produce a block durring the reorg Tm = The avg time for the main chain to produce a block durring the reorg n = The number of blocks Specter will need to reorg Tb = 10_min / 49% / 3% = 10.89 Hrs Ts = 10_min / 51% = 19.61 Min Tm = 10_min / 49% = 20.41 Min Solve for the amount of blocks Specter can reorg Tmn > Ts(n+1) Tnn > Tsn + Ts n > Ts/(Tn - Ts) n > 24.5 Therefore: Spectre can produce 26 blocks faster than the main chain can produce 25. Specter has to win the reorg before Bond produces another block Assert: Ts * (n+1) < Tb 19.61_min * 26 < 10.89_hrs 8.50_hrs < 10.89_hrs ``` So once Spectre reaches 51% he has enough hashing power to prevent any of Bonds blocks from being included. Spectre can win a reorg (statistically) every 8.5 hrs and Bond can only produce a block (statisticly) every 10.89 hours. So once this attack starts, Spectre simply flashes his promotion to lure the miners in the Bond pool (who are receiving no reward) over to the Spectre pool. If he only gets one third of them, then he can increase his influence to 52% Doing the same math again, with 52% Spectre can ice out any pool who has up to 7% of the hashing. Then running the promotion, Spectre will try to get 40% of the "homeless miners". Now Spectre's power grows to 55% giving him the power to ice out 16% of his competitors. This can cascade on and on until Spectre is the only public pool left. 1 - All "hashes" are hashes per second 2 - TH = 1012 or 10004 hashes per second 3 - EH = 1018 or 10006 hashes per second 4 - Assume a market rate of 0.101 USD / TH / day 5 - Assume an average daily network hashrate of 116.73 EH ``` solve(nm = s(n+1), n) M = 1/2-d S = 1/2+d m = t/M s = t/S solve(nm = s(n+1), d) n = s/(m-s) b = mM/p solve(b = s(n+1),p) m(t,d): t(1/2-d) # from m define s(t,d): t(1/2-d) # from s define n(s,m): s/(m-s) # from n solve d(n): 1/(4n+2) # from d solve p(d): 2d # from p solve b(t,p): t/p # from b define ```
So I was discussing this last week and honestly it all felt too simple, so I'm trying to get some stronger counterpoints to this argument. Goes something like this. You have some pool miner that wants to do a 51% attack. Lets assume the attack has three phases, the first phase is to try to accumulate 51% of the hashing power, next is the accumulation of more hashing power by ejecting other pools from through reorg. Finally when they aquired enough mining power they could blacklist exchange hotwallets or all manner of nefariousness. Lets further assume that everyone will act purely in their own self interest. For simplicity lets call the attacker "Spectre Pool".
Assuming Spectre Pool can hit something like 41% of the hashing power, the first goal is to accumulate more resources to hit 51%. Since pool mining is a commodity market, all Spectre has to do in this imaginary world is offer more than the market rate. Since they are already at 41% hashrate, they need to entice another 10% of the market to come to their pool. The obvious way to do this would be to offer a "new customer bonus" or something like that. Some promotion where they pay 1% above market price for the hashing power of pool members. So, given a network hashrate of 116.73 EH and a market rate of 0.101 USD/TH per day, the cost they would have to bear to offer a 1% promotion to entice 10% of the network would be: 116.73_EH / 0.101_USD/TH * 10% * 1% = 1,155,742 USD per day for each 1% "bonus" So, assuming they were willing to spend that much on "marketing", and that all miners worked in their own self interest, eventually they could lure enough miners over to achive 51%. Once they hit this threshold they could scale back on the "marketing" and thus reduce their daily burn.
Once at 51%, the next attack of Spectre will be to put their smallest competitor out of buisness. Lets call that the "Bond Pool", and pretend that Bond has 1.5% of the network hashing power. To put Bond out of buisness, with 51%, Spectere will need to reorg whenever Bond wins a block. By reorging to a chain without Bond, this will put Spectre one block behind and they will need to catch up. Once the reorg begins, Spectre will need to produce the longest chain on its own while starting one block behind. So we need to determine how long (statisticly) it will take Specter to produce n+1 blocks and compare that to how long (statisticly) it will take Bond to win one block. Although this can be hammered out in an iterive calculation, a better approach will be an algebraic solution. Lets walk through the equations:
d - The delta above majority. So at 51%, d=1%
n - The length of reorg that the minority pool could attempt
t - The pre-attack blocktime based on hashrate (assume 10 min)
M (aka Mp) - The percent of hashpower held by minority (49%)
S (aka Sp) - The percent of hashpower held by Spectre (51%)
m (aka Mt) - The blocktime durring attack on the minority chain
s (aka St) - The blocktime durring attack on the Spectre chain
n*m = s*(n+1) - Break even, when minority mines n at the same rate Spectre mines n+1
You can put the following into a GeoGebra CAS calculator to substitute and simplify the equations solve(n*m = s*(n+1), n) M = 1/2-d S = 1/2+d m = t/M s = t/S solve(n*m = s*(n+1), d) n = s/(m-s) b = m*M/p solve(b = s*(n+1),p) This will produce the following equations for the values we are interested in. m(t,d): t/(1/2-d) # from `m` define s(t,d): t/(1/2-d) # from `s` define n(s,m): s/(m-s) # from `n` solve d(n): 1/(4*n+2) # from `d` solve p(d): 2*d # from `p` solve b(t,p): t/p # from `b` define Plugging the equations into excel produces the following (assuming t=10)
So once d=0.98%, Specture will have 50.98% of the hashing power, allowing him to eject 1.96% of all blocks mined at will. Of course this is all statistical, so Spectre will want some margin for randomness. So it would make sense to attach 1.5% of the blocks when Spectre reaches 51% So once Spectre reaches 51% he has enough hashing power to prevent any of Bonds blocks (1.5%) from being included. Spectre can win a reorg (statistically) every 8.5 hrs and Bond can only produce a block (statisticly) every 11.1 hours. So once this attack starts, Spectre simply flashes his promotion to lure the miners in the Bond pool (who are receiving no reward) over to the Spectre pool. If he only gets one third of them, then he can increase his influence to 52% Doing the same math again, with 52% Spectre can ice out any pool who has up to 4% of the hashing. Then running the promotion, Spectre will try to get 40% of the "homeless miners". Now Spectre's power grows to 55% giving him the power to ice out 10% of his competitors. This can cascade on and on until Spectre is the only public pool left. Now, at 51% the attack and reorgs take many hours, but as more and more pools get targeted, more and more miners will jump ship and end up at Spectre so long as they can hold the promotion. Bond's only choice would be to either close up, or leverage everything and mine at a loss for weeks hoping that Spectre eventually drops below the threshold for his attack. Of course Spectre has even more tremendous expenses. To offer the 1% promo to 10% of the network would cost Spectre $1.16 million / day, or 3.52 million per month for each percent of miners it lures over. So going from 41% to 61% would cost Spectre $70.3 million / month, but at that point he can attack 20% of the network giving him a reach of about 80% which is pretty much the entire pooled mining capacity today. Seems like $70 million is a small price to pay to buy the entire bitcoin network. Other expenses Spectre would accrue would be related to the attacks and reorgs. The early attacks will take hours and throughout Spectre needs to continue payouts to the pool even though he is generating no BTC durring the attack. So long as his chain is orphaned, his blocks have no value. Only after the attack and reorg when his chain becomes longest will he be able to claim the block reward for all the blocks he minded. This (in my opinion) will the the hardest challenge. The first attack and 25 block reorg will require Spectre to put his entire 51% hashing power on an orphaned chain for 8 hours requireing $208.6 million in payouts. Once he wins the attack and the chain reorgs he can cover his expeses with the block reward, but borrowing $208 million for 8 hours is still a very difficult thing to pull off. The interest alone on the attack is over $40,000 (20% interest compounded continually). Below is a table of the calculations
Levrg / Block
Of course, once Spectre gets 2/3 of the hashing power he controls the entire chain since he can include or exclude any block he wants. So this "Total Self Interest" simulation of a 6 day attack puts Spectre's expenses at $10.3 million in promotions and $71,000 in interest, or about $10.4 million total. 1 - All "hashes" are hashes per second 2 - TH = 1012 or 10004 hashes per second 3 - EH = 1018 or 10006 hashes per second 4 - Assume a market rate of 0.101 USD / TH / day 5 - Assume an average daily network hashrate of 116.73 EH
Hello. 👋🏻 Today we will tell you about ACIS-mining and its 3 best algorithms. 📌 With the advent of ASICs for mining, it became possible to mine Bitcoin in much larger quantities than using video cards. ASIC is an integrated circuit specialized to solve a specific problem, in our case, only for bitcoin mining. These schemes are many times more profitable than video cards, because with more power (hash calculation speed) they consume much less energy. This served as a good reason to create a cryptocurrency mining business. 📌 In bitcoin and other blockchain systems, the complexity of mining depends on how quickly the miners find the block. Compared with the GPU and CPU, specialized #ASIC miners solve #PoW puzzles better and are therefore able to quickly find new blocks. 📌 Since PoW is still the preferred mining consensus mechanism, we propose to take a multiple algorithm approach. Instead of trying to use algorithms which are ASIC resistant, we propose to use algorithms which have had ASIC miners for quite some time. These are: #SHA256, #Scrypt, and #X11. 🔹 The SHA-256 algorithm has a number of advantages over other information protection technologies. Over the years of use in the cryptocurrency industry, he has shown his resistance to various hacking attempts. 🔹 Scrypt is a cryptocurrency mining algorithm that was previously interesting to many single miners in view of its resistance to the so-called “hardware attack”. The speed of creating blocks in a Scrypt-based blockchain is about 30 seconds. The hashrate, like Ethash, is measured in Megahash per second. Scrypt, first of all, became popular due to its use in Litecoin #cryptocurrency. 🔹 X11 is an encryption algorithm in which eleven are used instead of one function. This means that this technology can provide a high degree of security, because in order to harm the system, an attacker will have to crack all 11 functions, which is very unlikely, because the changes made will be visible after breaking the first function, and developers will have a lot of time to protect the system before the hacker reaches the eleventh function. Since these miners are already in wide use, the distribution of mining should be fair and even. Furthermore, the use of three different algorithms results in a far less chance of any single person gaining a majority hash rate share. Lastly, we use the Multishield difficulty adjustment algorithm to prevent difficulty spike issues resulting from burst mining. Read more about PYRK mining solutions here: https://www.pyrk.org Read our Whitepaper to know more about the project: https://www.pyrk.org/Pyrk-Whitepaper.pdf https://preview.redd.it/rxmlr7wt1k251.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=162f9ddaacb3cf3e137638464a208bdf25e50a21
In every 210K mined blocks a planned (programmed) event takes place. This event is called halving. It is a regular reduction of miners’ fee (reward) for a produced block. Bitcoin creator put these halvings in software to keep inflation in check. Most commonly one block is being mined in 9 minutes and 20 seconds. According to this, halving occurs every four years. The Bitcoin network had two halvings: first in 2012 and then in 2016. If we look back and remember how much coins miners could earn in the early history of Bitcoin, it was 50 BTC for one block. Later on, after the first halving, the fee was equal to 25 BTC and the same happened four years after, then the reward was cut down to 12.5 BTC. The next (third) halving may be expected in May 2020. The payoff then will be reduced to 6.25 BTC. This will actually continue till there’s no award left (this will approximately happen in 2140). So why is there a need for halving? If coins are produced very fast or the amount of emitted BTC is not limited, there will be so many Bitcoins in circulation that they will have limited value. Vitalik Buterin once said in his interview with Bitcoin Magazine: «The main reason why this is done is to keep inflation under control.»
What will happen with BTC price after Bitcoin halving?
Like any other cryptocurrency price prediction, the Bitcoin price prediction is always hard to make, so we can just guess looking at a combination of factors. Opinions are divided as follows: some think that the BTC price will go up and others think nothing will generally change and the price will stay the same. There are also skeptics that see the halving as bad luck. They believe that if even 10 percent of miners quit, it might scare away the investors and make them move out their assets. As a result, the Bitcoin price will go down. After the first Bitcoin halving the BTC price grew almost two hundredfold, the second time it grew sevenfold. Both times BTC had increased volatility. But no one can guarantee the same events nowadays. As far as we can see from the previous halvings, they had the same dynamics: the Bitcoin price grew up. This gives some people hope that it will repeat after the next BTC halving in May 2020. What are people’s opinions and predictions regarding the next Bitcoin halving? Let’s have a look. The CEO of Pantera Capital Dan Morehead predicts the rise of BTC after the coming halving:
“It’s right on the trend line, and I think it’s a good shot that by the end of the year, we hit that, and then if you just extrapolate that line out for another year, it’s $122,000 per Bitcoin and in one more year $356,000.”
Tom Lee from Fundstrat Global Advisors posted a part of the report regarding crypto outlook 2020. Here what is said regarding the BTC price in that report:
“For 2020, we see several positive convergences that enhance the use case and also the economic model for crypto and Bitcoin – thus, we believe Bitcoin and crypto total return should exceed that of 2019. In other words, we see strong probability that Bitcoin gains >100% in 2020.”
Bobby Lee (co-founder and CEO of BTC China) also expressed his opinion via twit saying:
“After next #BlockRewardHalving in Spring of 2020, new #Bitcoin output will drop again, to just 900 BTC/day. I predict #HashPower will continue to grow, with ever higher amounts of investment in mining (electricity costs). If that amount reaches $54m/day, we‘ll have $BTC at $60k.”
Jason A. Williams had an “unpopular opinion”:
“Unpopular Opinion – Bitcoin halving in May 2020 won’t do anything to the price. It will be a non-event.”
John McAfee is insanely positive as usual when speaking about the Bitcoin price prediction:
“When I predicted Bitcoin at $500,000 by the end of 2020, it used a model that predicted $5,000 at the end of 2017. BTC has accelerated much faster than my model assumptions. I now predict Bitcoin at $1 million by the end of 2020. I will still eat my d\ck if wrong.”*
Paolo Ardoino (Bitfinex & Tether Chief Technology Officer) said the following in his interview to U.Today:
“The halving is expected to occur next year, and I think it’s reasonable to expect an increase in the price of Bitcoin. I won’t do any price predictions myself and this is not financial or other advice from me or from Bitfinex or Tether, but I don’t see any reason for Bitcoin not hitting $100,000 within the next few years. That would already be an amazing goal for such technology.”
Tone Vays (Financial analyst) is less ambitious. That’s what he thinks:
“Technically, everything is in play until end of 2020, after that sub $5,000 is not likely. Worst Case Scenario: prices drop to $5k into the halving, then after halving 70% of miners shut down due to negative revenue, #Bitcoin spirals down in price but then rises from the dead!”
Petros Anagnostou, the founder of Crypto Solutions declares:
“My prediction: Bitcoin will reach $12,000 before the end of this year. And will reach a price of $50,000 – $100,000 by the end of 2020.”
To summarize, the forthcoming BTC halving 2020 will be a kind of guarantee that there will be no inflation, and investments will be profitable. At the same time, it is being one of the key factors responsible for the growth of the Bitcoin price. When it comes to miners, they usually feel stressed about it as to keep their income at the same level they will need to invest in new technical equipment. As for those who don’t mine but just buy Bitcoin to keep BTC as a cryptocurrency investment, the BTC halving will barely have any effect on them. No one can predict what exactly will happen after the upcoming BTC halving. It is always up to you either be on the optimistic side or be one of the doubters. This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You are the only one responsible for making investment decisions.
Bitcoin (BTC) is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that aims to function as a means of exchange that is independent of any central authority. BTC can be transferred electronically in a secure, verifiable, and immutable way.
Launched in 2009, BTC is the first virtual currency to solve the double-spending issue by timestamping transactions before broadcasting them to all of the nodes in the Bitcoin network. The Bitcoin Protocol offered a solution to the Byzantine Generals’ Problem with ablockchainnetwork structure, a notion first created byStuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta in 1991.
Bitcoin’s whitepaper was published pseudonymously in 2008 by an individual, or a group, with the pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto”, whose underlying identity has still not been verified.
The Bitcoin protocol uses an SHA-256d-based Proof-of-Work (PoW) algorithm to reach network consensus. Its network has a target block time of 10 minutes and a maximum supply of 21 million tokens, with a decaying token emission rate. To prevent fluctuation of the block time, the network’s block difficulty is re-adjusted through an algorithm based on the past 2016 block times.
With a block size limit capped at 1 megabyte, the Bitcoin Protocol has supported both the Lightning Network, a second-layer infrastructure for payment channels, and Segregated Witness, a soft-fork to increase the number of transactions on a block, as solutions to network scalability.
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that aims to function as a means of exchange and is independent of any central authority. Bitcoins are transferred electronically in a secure, verifiable, and immutable way.
Network validators, whom are often referred to as miners, participate in the SHA-256d-based Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism to determine the next global state of the blockchain.
The Bitcoin protocol has a target block time of 10 minutes, and a maximum supply of 21 million tokens. The only way new bitcoins can be produced is when a block producer generates a new valid block.
The protocol has a token emission rate that halves every 210,000 blocks, or approximately every 4 years.
Unlike public blockchain infrastructures supporting the development of decentralized applications (Ethereum), the Bitcoin protocol is primarily used only for payments, and has only very limited support for smart contract-like functionalities (Bitcoin “Script” is mostly used to create certain conditions before bitcoins are used to be spent).
In the Bitcoin network, anyone can join the network and become a bookkeeping service provider i.e., a validator. All validators are allowed in the race to become the block producer for the next block, yet only the first to complete a computationally heavy task will win. This feature is called Proof of Work (PoW). The probability of any single validator to finish the task first is equal to the percentage of the total network computation power, or hash power, the validator has. For instance, a validator with 5% of the total network computation power will have a 5% chance of completing the task first, and therefore becoming the next block producer. Since anyone can join the race, competition is prone to increase. In the early days, Bitcoin mining was mostly done by personal computer CPUs. As of today, Bitcoin validators, or miners, have opted for dedicated and more powerful devices such as machines based on Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (“ASIC”). Proof of Work secures the network as block producers must have spent resources external to the network (i.e., money to pay electricity), and can provide proof to other participants that they did so. With various miners competing for block rewards, it becomes difficult for one single malicious party to gain network majority (defined as more than 51% of the network’s hash power in the Nakamoto consensus mechanism). The ability to rearrange transactions via 51% attacks indicates another feature of the Nakamoto consensus: the finality of transactions is only probabilistic. Once a block is produced, it is then propagated by the block producer to all other validators to check on the validity of all transactions in that block. The block producer will receive rewards in the network’s native currency (i.e., bitcoin) as all validators approve the block and update their ledgers.
The Bitcoin protocol utilizes the Merkle tree data structure in order to organize hashes of numerous individual transactions into each block. This concept is named after Ralph Merkle, who patented it in 1979. With the use of a Merkle tree, though each block might contain thousands of transactions, it will have the ability to combine all of their hashes and condense them into one, allowing efficient and secure verification of this group of transactions. This single hash called is a Merkle root, which is stored in the Block Header of a block. The Block Header also stores other meta information of a block, such as a hash of the previous Block Header, which enables blocks to be associated in a chain-like structure (hence the name “blockchain”). An illustration of block production in the Bitcoin Protocol is demonstrated below. https://preview.redd.it/m6texxicf3151.png?width=1591&format=png&auto=webp&s=f4253304912ed8370948b9c524e08fef28f1c78d
Block time and mining difficulty
Block time is the period required to create the next block in a network. As mentioned above, the node who solves the computationally intensive task will be allowed to produce the next block. Therefore, block time is directly correlated to the amount of time it takes for a node to find a solution to the task. The Bitcoin protocol sets a target block time of 10 minutes, and attempts to achieve this by introducing a variable named mining difficulty. Mining difficulty refers to how difficult it is for the node to solve the computationally intensive task. If the network sets a high difficulty for the task, while miners have low computational power, which is often referred to as “hashrate”, it would statistically take longer for the nodes to get an answer for the task. If the difficulty is low, but miners have rather strong computational power, statistically, some nodes will be able to solve the task quickly. Therefore, the 10 minute target block time is achieved by constantly and automatically adjusting the mining difficulty according to how much computational power there is amongst the nodes. The average block time of the network is evaluated after a certain number of blocks, and if it is greater than the expected block time, the difficulty level will decrease; if it is less than the expected block time, the difficulty level will increase.
What are orphan blocks?
In a PoW blockchain network, if the block time is too low, it would increase the likelihood of nodes producingorphan blocks, for which they would receive no reward. Orphan blocks are produced by nodes who solved the task but did not broadcast their results to the whole network the quickest due to network latency. It takes time for a message to travel through a network, and it is entirely possible for 2 nodes to complete the task and start to broadcast their results to the network at roughly the same time, while one’s messages are received by all other nodes earlier as the node has low latency. Imagine there is a network latency of 1 minute and a target block time of 2 minutes. A node could solve the task in around 1 minute but his message would take 1 minute to reach the rest of the nodes that are still working on the solution. While his message travels through the network, all the work done by all other nodes during that 1 minute, even if these nodes also complete the task, would go to waste. In this case, 50% of the computational power contributed to the network is wasted. The percentage of wasted computational power would proportionally decrease if the mining difficulty were higher, as it would statistically take longer for miners to complete the task. In other words, if the mining difficulty, and therefore targeted block time is low, miners with powerful and often centralized mining facilities would get a higher chance of becoming the block producer, while the participation of weaker miners would become in vain. This introduces possible centralization and weakens the overall security of the network. However, given a limited amount of transactions that can be stored in a block, making the block time too longwould decrease the number of transactions the network can process per second, negatively affecting network scalability.
3. Bitcoin’s additional features
Segregated Witness (SegWit)
Segregated Witness, often abbreviated as SegWit, is a protocol upgrade proposal that went live in August 2017. SegWit separates witness signatures from transaction-related data. Witness signatures in legacy Bitcoin blocks often take more than 50% of the block size. By removing witness signatures from the transaction block, this protocol upgrade effectively increases the number of transactions that can be stored in a single block, enabling the network to handle more transactions per second. As a result, SegWit increases the scalability of Nakamoto consensus-based blockchain networks like Bitcoin and Litecoin. SegWit also makes transactions cheaper. Since transaction fees are derived from how much data is being processed by the block producer, the more transactions that can be stored in a 1MB block, the cheaper individual transactions become. https://preview.redd.it/depya70mf3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=a6499aa2131fbf347f8ffd812930b2f7d66be48e The legacy Bitcoin block has a block size limit of 1 megabyte, and any change on the block size would require a network hard-fork. On August 1st 2017, the first hard-fork occurred, leading to the creation of Bitcoin Cash (“BCH”), which introduced an 8 megabyte block size limit. Conversely, Segregated Witness was a soft-fork: it never changed the transaction block size limit of the network. Instead, it added an extended block with an upper limit of 3 megabytes, which contains solely witness signatures, to the 1 megabyte block that contains only transaction data. This new block type can be processed even by nodes that have not completed the SegWit protocol upgrade. Furthermore, the separation of witness signatures from transaction data solves the malleability issue with the original Bitcoin protocol. Without Segregated Witness, these signatures could be altered before the block is validated by miners. Indeed, alterations can be done in such a way that if the system does a mathematical check, the signature would still be valid. However, since the values in the signature are changed, the two signatures would create vastly different hash values. For instance, if a witness signature states “6,” it has a mathematical value of 6, and would create a hash value of 12345. However, if the witness signature were changed to “06”, it would maintain a mathematical value of 6 while creating a (faulty) hash value of 67890. Since the mathematical values are the same, the altered signature remains a valid signature. This would create a bookkeeping issue, as transactions in Nakamoto consensus-based blockchain networks are documented with these hash values, or transaction IDs. Effectively, one can alter a transaction ID to a new one, and the new ID can still be valid. This can create many issues, as illustrated in the below example:
Alice sends Bob 1 BTC, and Bob sends Merchant Carol this 1 BTC for some goods.
Bob sends Carols this 1 BTC, while the transaction from Alice to Bob is not yet validated. Carol sees this incoming transaction of 1 BTC to him, and immediately ships goods to B.
At the moment, the transaction from Alice to Bob is still not confirmed by the network, and Bob can change the witness signature, therefore changing this transaction ID from 12345 to 67890.
Now Carol will not receive his 1 BTC, as the network looks for transaction 12345 to ensure that Bob’s wallet balance is valid.
As this particular transaction ID changed from 12345 to 67890, the transaction from Bob to Carol will fail, and Bob will get his goods while still holding his BTC.
With the Segregated Witness upgrade, such instances can not happen again. This is because the witness signatures are moved outside of the transaction block into an extended block, and altering the witness signature won’t affect the transaction ID. Since the transaction malleability issue is fixed, Segregated Witness also enables the proper functioning of second-layer scalability solutions on the Bitcoin protocol, such as the Lightning Network.
Lightning Network is a second-layer micropayment solution for scalability. Specifically, Lightning Network aims to enable near-instant and low-cost payments between merchants and customers that wish to use bitcoins. Lightning Network was conceptualized in a whitepaper by Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja in 2015. Since then, it has been implemented by multiple companies. The most prominent of them include Blockstream, Lightning Labs, and ACINQ. A list of curated resources relevant to Lightning Network can be found here. In the Lightning Network, if a customer wishes to transact with a merchant, both of them need to open a payment channel, which operates off the Bitcoin blockchain (i.e., off-chain vs. on-chain). None of the transaction details from this payment channel are recorded on the blockchain, and only when the channel is closed will the end result of both party’s wallet balances be updated to the blockchain. The blockchain only serves as a settlement layer for Lightning transactions. Since all transactions done via the payment channel are conducted independently of the Nakamoto consensus, both parties involved in transactions do not need to wait for network confirmation on transactions. Instead, transacting parties would pay transaction fees to Bitcoin miners only when they decide to close the channel. https://preview.redd.it/cy56icarf3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=b239a63c6a87ec6cc1b18ce2cbd0355f8831c3a8 One limitation to the Lightning Network is that it requires a person to be online to receive transactions attributing towards him. Another limitation in user experience could be that one needs to lock up some funds every time he wishes to open a payment channel, and is only able to use that fund within the channel. However, this does not mean he needs to create new channels every time he wishes to transact with a different person on the Lightning Network. If Alice wants to send money to Carol, but they do not have a payment channel open, they can ask Bob, who has payment channels open to both Alice and Carol, to help make that transaction. Alice will be able to send funds to Bob, and Bob to Carol. Hence, the number of “payment hubs” (i.e., Bob in the previous example) correlates with both the convenience and the usability of the Lightning Network for real-world applications.
Schnorr Signature upgrade proposal
Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (“ECDSA”) signatures are used to sign transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. https://preview.redd.it/hjeqe4l7g3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=8014fb08fe62ac4d91645499bc0c7e1c04c5d7c4 However, many developers now advocate for replacing ECDSA with Schnorr Signature. Once Schnorr Signatures are implemented, multiple parties can collaborate in producing a signature that is valid for the sum of their public keys. This would primarily be beneficial for network scalability. When multiple addresses were to conduct transactions to a single address, each transaction would require their own signature. With Schnorr Signature, all these signatures would be combined into one. As a result, the network would be able to store more transactions in a single block. https://preview.redd.it/axg3wayag3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=93d958fa6b0e623caa82ca71fe457b4daa88c71e The reduced size in signatures implies a reduced cost on transaction fees. The group of senders can split the transaction fees for that one group signature, instead of paying for one personal signature individually. Schnorr Signature also improves network privacy and token fungibility. A third-party observer will not be able to detect if a user is sending a multi-signature transaction, since the signature will be in the same format as a single-signature transaction.
4. Economics and supply distribution
The Bitcoin protocol utilizes the Nakamoto consensus, and nodes validate blocks via Proof-of-Work mining. The bitcoin token was not pre-mined, and has a maximum supply of 21 million. The initial reward for a block was 50 BTC per block. Block mining rewards halve every 210,000 blocks. Since the average time for block production on the blockchain is 10 minutes, it implies that the block reward halving events will approximately take place every 4 years. As of May 12th 2020, the block mining rewards are 6.25 BTC per block. Transaction fees also represent a minor revenue stream for miners.
Hey everyone! Welcome to the ABCmint (Or ABC, or Abcardo) subreddit! Please feel free to introduce yourselves below. I wrote a few questions to get the creative juices flowing.
What's your cryptocurrency journey? How does ABC compare to other crypto projects you've invested/participated in?
Are you currently mining? If you do mine, have you been able to draw meaningful analytics from your mining activity? (Reason I say this: "gethashespersec" is typically the golden standard when it comes to benchmarking your mining speed. With ABC, we aren't solving hashes).
What features and applications would you like to see in the ABC ecosystem?
Have been involved with Crypto since roughly 2011, in the early Bitcoin days. I didn't strike it rich off the early bull runs, but to be fair, I was just a 13-year-old.
I mine on and off, main reason being my rig will keep me up at night if it's running.
I haven't been able to meaningfully conclude what the ideal mining hardware is for this coin, because there is no statistic for the amount of work I'm performing. "polyspersec" (polynomials factored per second) needs to be implemented; not only would that provide insight and less waste for current miners, but it would also allow mining pools to form.
It's not a necessity yet, as solo mining still yields payouts. As I mentioned above, there are blockers to creating a mining pool in the project's current state. But I firmly believe that a pool is a pretty important item on ABC's roadmap, and I would love to work with someone on that.
Plans for the future: I'll start scouring the web for ABC related news that pops up, and share them on this subreddit. Additionally, I'd like to add some good PQC readings. If you have articles or books, please share them in a comment!
The attempted come back of CoinEx, China's forked-Bitcoin exchange
Written by Shuyao Kong Published bydecrypt.co An interview with Haipo Yang, a crypto OG who’s trying to reposition his Bitcoin Cash-based CoinEx exchange. And more, in this week’s da bing. https://preview.redd.it/h5f3i3lldv051.jpg?width=3200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=09b8696303ae5c6170753cc438929ebe520d4605 Haipo Yang, founder of ViaBTC, one of the largest mining pools in the world, and CoinEx, a crypto exchange known for its focus on Bitcoin Cash-based trading, is a well-known but relatively quiet character in China’s crypto circle. Typically, Yang doesn’t talk that much about his journey launching the mining pool, nor about CoinEx, which launched in December 2017. And he almost never speaks about his fervent support for BCH, a hard fork of Bitcoin, and his now even more enthusiastic belief in BSV. Yet that’s changing of late. Yang has been more active in recent months, participating in interviews about CoinEx and tweeting more frequently on Weibo, China’s Twitter. He’s been making controversial statements predicting the death of BTC, while supporting BCH and BSV on social media. Recently, Yang told me that as a developer rather than a business person, he’s never been comfortable speaking in public. However he’s making an effort now to help publicize his renovation of CoinEx. So, for this week’s da bing, I decided to chat with him and get a peek into the mind of a veteran crypto entrepreneur who’s trying to make a personal, as well as a platform, comeback.
CoinEx’s golden opportunity
The first hard fork of Bitcoin occurred in August, 2017 and created a new cryptocurrency called Bitcoin Cash. The fork was prompted by partisans, including Yang, who wanted bigger block sizes on the blockchain — the basic idea was that bigger blocks would enable more transactions per second and make Bitcoin Cash something people would actually use to buy things, rather than Bitcoin’s more commonly perceived use as a store of value. Yang added a tremendous amount of value to the mining scene in China. As a technical founder with has years of experience in big tech firms such as Tencent, Yang is proud of his #buidl skills. He developed most of the code in the early days of VicBTC, which became one of the biggest mining pools to this day. Not satisfied with owning just a mining pool,Yang conceived of CoinEx, which was born in December of that year, specifically to carry on the mission of the newly forked Bitcoin Cash blockchain. As he got swept up in Bitcoin Cash enthusiasm, he even said that “BCH is bitcoin.” CoinEx’s strategy was BCH-focused from day one; BCH was its base currency, meaning you could use it to buy and sell other currencies, such as Ethereum and Litecoin. Interestingly, Jihan Wu, the co-founder of Bitcoin Exchange — himself a famous BCH supporter — was a big investor in the exchange. That made me wonder why he, Yang, and many other OG crypto miners, were so passionate about BCH. Was it just about bigger block sizes? “Bigger block size means more users and use cases,” Yang explained. The move to bigger block sizes was attractive to miners because they would facilitate more transactions. Miners make money on transaction fees, as well as mining blocks. Likewise, the network would arguably be more useful to people, who were looking for digital cash for every day use. That especially resonated with many early hardcore Bitcoiners. Said Yang: “We really believe that Bitcoin should be a P2P cash vehicle rather than a store of value.” This view probably sounds outdated to people who believe that Bitcoin’s value as cash is long gone, with solutions such as Lightning Network fulfilling that role. Instead, the new narrative for Bitcoin resides in its value, rather than utility. Yet Yang believed that the forked network would create far more opportunity “We could invite influential companies to establish nodes and contribute to the network. This cannot be done with the original Bitcoin architecture,” he said.
But from its inception, CoinEx struggled with adoption and was dwarfed by the bigger exchanges. Part of that had to do with the fact that BCH and “Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision,” another Bitcoin hard fork, were both controversial. Critics pointed out that these networks are centralized in a few big mining pools, and 51% attacks are not out of the question. So over time, though Yang’s exchange still maintains strong support for BCH and BSV, it began to add support for all the major currencies. Finally, in January of this year, it announced a major upgrade, of… well, just about everything. It started to offer futures trading, leveraged trading, options trading, and over 100 token projects available to traders. It even rolled out its own blockchain, “CoinEx Chain” to support a new DEX, “CoinEx DEX.” https://preview.redd.it/3okoy5mudv051.png?width=1432&format=png&auto=webp&s=7099249da4a95db873d268f2dfc95d8db93a368e The seemingly sudden publicity of CoinEx should not come as a surprise, then. As BCH/BSV was being marginalized, Yang shifted his focus. He’s now trying to ride the wave of building a bigger, more dynamic exchange. “Crypto exchanges are where value is discovered,” Yang told me.
Building an exchange isn’t done overnight, nor is re-building one. CoinEx is still competing with the giants such as Binance. However Yang thinks his exchange will thrive by zigging when his competitors zag. As usual, CoinEx is taking a slightly different route, he told me. Like what? “We will be listing 小币种,” he said, using the expression for “small token projects.” I cannot help but wonder if these “small token projects” are simply shitcoins, the trading of which is certainly not new. Indeed, Yang said that he’s banking on the success of his new, public blockchain. “We are building a CoinEx Chain, a layer one protocol for DEX alone. Using our public blockchain, anyone can issue any token, at any time,” he said. He described the blockchain as “a real decentralized, token-issuance and transaction platform.” This is the core of Yang’s plan and vision. He believes that centralized exchanges will be a bottleneck for crypto adoption because it contradicts crypto’s nature as a completely free and open infrastructure. Essentially anyone should be able to launch a token and trade it with anyone. Only by building DEXes can we achieve full decentralization, he says.
The Religious nature of Bitcoin, and forked Bitcoin
It’s his belief that Bitcoin should adhere to Satoshi’s original vision that led Yang to send yet another controversial tweet last week, which I will translate: “The early days of Bitcoin expansion are similar to religion. The religious fervor brings prosperity to the industry.” By extension, Yang believes that the next generation of Bitcoin should provoke a similar “religious” fervor. That’s why he has slowly become more of a BSV advocate than a fan of Bitcoin Cash. Yang believes that “BSV has more religious connotations, despite its negative image.” (As most crypto people know, the controversial Craig Wright, who claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto, led the hard fork which created BSV. Consequently it is often met with skepticism and derision.) “The early days of Bitcoin expansion are similar to religion,” said Yang. “The religious fervor brings prosperity to the industry.” Crypto is famous for its tribalism. Many people choose one camp over another not for practical reasons but because of simple faith. Talking to Yang and reading his tweet brings a historic texture to the Bitcoin narrative. But crypto cannot survive on religion alone. One has to build. Hash might have been worshipped in the old days but now the crypto religion is all about the size of the congregation. Original article Click here to register on CoinEx!
Mining is a lottery process by which anyone in the world, without asking for permission, gets the ability to write transactions into the Bitcoin ledger. This is called mining a block. The new ledger entries are then distributed to all other Bitcoin network participants in the form of a block, and verified for following the rules. The tickets to this lottery are purchased by expending electricity (money) by performing hashing, which is the process of taking data, running some code on it, and getting a short scrambled bunch of numbers and letters. You’re looking for a specific pattern that is impossible to predict ahead of time, so you keep hashing until you get the right thing. If you get the right pattern, you’ve won the lottery for the next block! The more electricity you spend, the more tickets you’re buying, and the more likely you are to win the next block. The proportion of the lottery tickets you own at any one time is called your hashrate (hashes per second), which directly to translates to kilowatt hours, which you pay for with money. Miners are incentivized economically, but not required, to commit to the ledger the transactions that everyone wants to send at the point in time when the block is found. When you write to the ledger, you’re also allowed a special transaction to yourself (called the coinbase transaction) that pays you a block reward (12.5BTC today, which gets cut in half every 4 years). This is how you get paid back for spending your energy/money.
﷽ The Federal Reserve and the United States government are pumping extreme amounts of money into the economy, already totaling over $484 billion. They are doing so because it already had a goal to inflate the United States Dollar (USD) so that the market can continue to all-time highs. It has always had this goal. They do not care how much inflation goes up by now as we are going into a depression with the potential to totally crash the US economy forever. They believe the only way to save the market from going to zero or negative values is to inflate it so much that it cannot possibly crash that low. Even if the market does not dip that low, inflation serves the interest of powerful people. The impending crash of the stock market has ramifications for Bitcoin, as, though there is no direct ongoing-correlation between the two, major movements in traditional markets will necessarily affect Bitcoin. According to the Blockchain Center’s Cryptocurrency Correlation Tool, Bitcoin is not correlated with the stock market. However, when major market movements occur, they send ripples throughout the financial ecosystem which necessary affect even ordinarily uncorrelated assets. Therefore, Bitcoin will reach X price on X date after crashing to a price of X by X date.
Stock Market Crash
The Federal Reserve has caused some serious consternation with their release of ridiculous amounts of money in an attempt to buoy the economy. At face value, it does not seem to have any rationale or logic behind it other than keeping the economy afloat long enough for individuals to profit financially and politically. However, there is an underlying basis to what is going on which is important to understand in order to profit financially. All markets are functionally price probing systems. They constantly undergo a price-discovery process. In a fiat system, money is an illusory and a fundamentally synthetic instrument with no intrinsic value – similar to Bitcoin. The primary difference between Bitcoin is the underlying technology which provides a slew of benefits that fiat does not. Fiat, however, has an advantage in being able to have the support of powerful nation-states which can use their might to insure the currency’s prosperity. Traditional stock markets are composed of indices (pl. of index). Indices are non-trading market instruments which are essentially summaries of business values which comprise them. They are continuously recalculated throughout a trading day, and sometimes reflected through tradable instruments such as Exchange Traded Funds or Futures. Indices are weighted by market capitalizations of various businesses. Price theory essentially states that when a market fails to take out a new low in a given range, it will have an objective to take out the high. When a market fails to take out a new high, it has an objective to make a new low. This is why price-time charts go up and down, as it does this on a second-by-second, minute-by-minute, day-by-day, and even century-by-century basis. Therefore, market indices will always return to some type of bull market as, once a true low is formed, the market will have a price objective to take out a new high outside of its’ given range – which is an all-time high. Instruments can only functionally fall to zero, whereas they can grow infinitely. So, why inflate the economy so much? Deflation is disastrous for central banks and markets as it raises the possibility of producing an overall price objective of zero or negative values. Therefore, under a fractional reserve system with a fiat currency managed by a central bank – the goal of the central bank is to depreciate the currency. The dollar is manipulated constantly with the intention of depreciating its’ value. Central banks have a goal of continued inflated fiat values. They tend to ordinarily contain it at less than ten percent (10%) per annum in order for the psyche of the general populace to slowly adjust price increases. As such, the markets are divorced from any other logic. Economic policy is the maintenance of human egos, not catering to fundamental analysis. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth is well-known not to be a measure of actual growth or output. It is a measure of increase in dollars processed. Banks seek to produce raising numbers which make society feel like it is growing economically, making people optimistic. To do so, the currency is inflated, though inflation itself does not actually increase growth. When society is optimistic, it spends and engages in business – resulting in actual growth. It also encourages people to take on credit and debts, creating more fictional fiat. Inflation is necessary for markets to continue to reach new heights, generating positive emotional responses from the populace, encouraging spending, encouraging debt intake, further inflating the currency, and increasing the sale of government bonds. The fiat system only survives by generating more imaginary money on a regular basis. Bitcoin investors may profit from this by realizing that stock investors as a whole always stand to profit from the market so long as it is managed by a central bank and does not collapse entirely. If those elements are filled, it has an unending price objective to raise to new heights. It also allows us to realize that this response indicates that the higher-ups believe that the economy could crash in entirety, and it may be wise for investors to have multiple well-thought-out exit strategies.
Economic Analysis of Bitcoin
The reason why the Fed is so aggressively inflating the economy is due to fears that it will collapse forever or never rebound. As such, coupled with a global depression, a huge demand will appear for a reserve currency which is fundamentally different than the previous system. Bitcoin, though a currency or asset, is also a market. It also undergoes a constant price-probing process. Unlike traditional markets, Bitcoin has the exact opposite goal. Bitcoin seeks to appreciate in value and not depreciate. This has a quite different affect in that Bitcoin could potentially become worthless and have a price objective of zero. Bitcoin was created in 2008 by a now famous mysterious figure known as Satoshi Nakamoto and its’ open source code was released in 2009. It was the first decentralized cryptocurrency to utilize a novel protocol known as the blockchain. Up to one megabyte of data may be sent with each transaction. It is decentralized, anonymous, transparent, easy to set-up, and provides myriad other benefits. Bitcoin is not backed up by anything other than its’ own technology. Bitcoin is can never be expected to collapse as a framework, even were it to become worthless. The stock market has the potential to collapse in entirety, whereas, as long as the internet exists, Bitcoin will be a functional system with a self-authenticating framework. That capacity to persist regardless of the actual price of Bitcoin and the deflationary nature of Bitcoin means that it has something which fiat does not – inherent value. Bitcoin is based on a distributed database known as the “blockchain.” Blockchains are essentially decentralized virtual ledger books, replete with pages known as “blocks.” Each page in a ledger is composed of paragraph entries, which are the actual transactions in the block. Blockchains store information in the form of numerical transactions, which are just numbers. We can consider these numbers digital assets, such as Bitcoin. The data in a blockchain is immutable and recorded only by consensus-based algorithms. Bitcoin is cryptographic and all transactions are direct, without intermediary, peer-to-peer. Bitcoin does not require trust in a central bank. It requires trust on the technology behind it, which is open-source and may be evaluated by anyone at any time. Furthermore, it is impossible to manipulate as doing so would require all of the nodes in the network to be hacked at once – unlike the stock market which is manipulated by the government and “Market Makers”. Bitcoin is also private in that, though the ledge is openly distributed, it is encrypted. Bitcoin’s blockchain has one of the greatest redundancy and information disaster recovery systems ever developed. Bitcoin has a distributed governance model in that it is controlled by its’ users. There is no need to trust a payment processor or bank, or even to pay fees to such entities. There are also no third-party fees for transaction processing. As the ledge is immutable and transparent it is never possible to change it – the data on the blockchain is permanent. The system is not easily susceptible to attacks as it is widely distributed. Furthermore, as users of Bitcoin have their private keys assigned to their transactions, they are virtually impossible to fake. No lengthy verification, reconciliation, nor clearing process exists with Bitcoin. Bitcoin is based on a proof-of-work algorithm. Every transaction on the network has an associated mathetical “puzzle”. Computers known as miners compete to solve the complex cryptographic hash algorithm that comprises that puzzle. The solution is proof that the miner engaged in sufficient work. The puzzle is known as a nonce, a number used only once. There is only one major nonce at a time and it issues 12.5 Bitcoin. Once it is solved, the fact that the nonce has been solved is made public. A block is mined on average of once every ten minutes. However, the blockchain checks every 2,016,000 minutes (approximately four years) if 201,600 blocks were mined. If it was faster, it increases difficulty by half, thereby deflating Bitcoin. If it was slower, it decreases, thereby inflating Bitcoin. It will continue to do this until zero Bitcoin are issued, projected at the year 2140. On the twelfth of May, 2020, the blockchain will halve the amount of Bitcoin issued when each nonce is guessed. When Bitcoin was first created, fifty were issued per block as a reward to miners. 6.25 BTC will be issued from that point on once each nonce is solved. Unlike fiat, Bitcoin is a deflationary currency. As BTC becomes scarcer, demand for it will increase, also raising the price. In this, BTC is similar to gold. It is predictable in its’ output, unlike the USD, as it is based on a programmed supply. We can predict BTC’s deflation and inflation almost exactly, if not exactly. Only 21 million BTC will ever be produced, unless the entire network concedes to change the protocol – which is highly unlikely. Some of the drawbacks to BTC include congestion. At peak congestion, it may take an entire day to process a Bitcoin transaction as only three to five transactions may be processed per second. Receiving priority on a payment may cost up to the equivalent of twenty dollars ($20). Bitcoin mining consumes enough energy in one day to power a single-family home for an entire week.
Trading or Investing?
The fundamental divide in trading revolves around the question of market structure. Many feel that the market operates totally randomly and its’ behavior cannot be predicted. For the purposes of this article, we will assume that the market has a structure, but that that structure is not perfect. That market structure naturally generates chart patterns as the market records prices in time. In order to determine when the stock market will crash, causing a major decline in BTC price, we will analyze an instrument, an exchange traded fund, which represents an index, as opposed to a particular stock. The price patterns of the various stocks in an index are effectively smoothed out. In doing so, a more technical picture arises. Perhaps the most popular of these is the SPDR S&P Standard and Poor 500 Exchange Traded Fund ($SPY). In trading, little to no concern is given about value of underlying asset. We are concerned primarily about liquidity and trading ranges, which are the amount of value fluctuating on a short-term basis, as measured by volatility-implied trading ranges. Fundamental analysis plays a role, however markets often do not react to real-world factors in a logical fashion. Therefore, fundamental analysis is more appropriate for long-term investing. The fundamental derivatives of a chart are time (x-axis) and price (y-axis). The primary technical indicator is price, as everything else is lagging in the past. Price represents current asking price and incorrectly implementing positions based on price is one of the biggest trading errors. Markets and currencies ordinarily have noise, their tendency to back-and-fill, which must be filtered out for true pattern recognition. That noise does have a utility, however, in allowing traders second chances to enter favorable positions at slightly less favorable entry points. When you have any market with enough liquidity for historical data to record a pattern, then a structure can be divined. The market probes prices as part of an ongoing price-discovery process. Market technicians must sometimes look outside of the technical realm and use visual inspection to ascertain the relevance of certain patterns, using a qualitative eye that recognizes the underlying quantitative nature Markets and instruments rise slower than they correct, however they rise much more than they fall. In the same vein, instruments can only fall to having no worth, whereas they could theoretically grow infinitely and have continued to grow over time. Money in a fiat system is illusory. It is a fundamentally synthetic instrument which has no intrinsic value. Hence, the recent seemingly illogical fluctuations in the market. According to trade theory, the unending purpose of a market or instrument is to create and break price ranges according to the laws of supply and demand. We must determine when to trade based on each market inflection point as defined in price and in time as opposed to abandoning the trend (as the contrarian trading in this sub often does). Time and Price symmetry must be used to be in accordance with the trend. When coupled with a favorable risk to reward ratio, the ability to stay in the market for most of the defined time period, and adherence to risk management rules; the trader has a solid methodology for achieving considerable gains. We will engage in a longer term market-oriented analysis to avoid any time-focused pressure. The Bitcoin market is open twenty-four-hours a day, so trading may be done when the individual is ready, without any pressing need to be constantly alert. Let alone, we can safely project months in advance with relatively high accuracy. Bitcoin is an asset which an individual can both trade and invest, however this article will be focused on trading due to the wide volatility in BTC prices over the short-term.
Technical Indicator Analysis of Bitcoin
Technical indicators are often considered self-fulfilling prophecies due to mass-market psychology gravitating towards certain common numbers yielded from them. They are also often discounted when it comes to BTC. That means a trader must be especially aware of these numbers as they can prognosticate market movements. Often, they are meaningless in the larger picture of things.
Volume – derived from the market itself, it is mostly irrelevant. The major problem with volume for stocks is that the US market open causes tremendous volume surges eradicating any intrinsic volume analysis. This does not occur with BTC, as it is open twenty-four-seven. At major highs and lows, the market is typically anemic. Most traders are not active at terminal discretes (peaks and troughs) because of levels of fear. Volume allows us confidence in time and price symmetry market inflection points, if we observe low volume at a foretold range of values. We can rationalize that an absolute discrete is usually only discovered and anticipated by very few traders. As the general market realizes it, a herd mentality will push the market in the direction favorable to defending it. Volume is also useful for swing trading, as chances for swing’s validity increases if an increase in volume is seen on and after the swing’s activation. Volume is steadily decreasing. Lows and highs are reached when volume is lower.
Therefore, due to the relatively high volume on the 12th of March, we can safely determine that a low for BTC was not reached.
VIX – Volatility Index, this technical indicator indicates level of fear by the amount of options-based “insurance” in portfolios. A low VIX environment, less than 20 for the S&P index, indicates a stable market with a possible uptrend. A high VIX, over 20, indicates a possible downtrend. VIX is essentially useless for BTC as BTC-based options do not exist. It allows us to predict the market low for $SPY, which will have an indirect impact on BTC in the short term, likely leading to the yearly low. However, it is equally important to see how VIX is changing over time, if it is decreasing or increasing, as that indicates increasing or decreasing fear. Low volatility allows high leverage without risk or rest. Occasionally, markets do rise with high VIX.
As VIX is unusually high, in the forties, we can be confident that a downtrend for the S&P 500 is imminent.
RSI (Relative Strength Index): The most important technical indicator, useful for determining highs and lows when time symmetry is not availing itself. Sometimes analysis of RSI can conflict in different time frames, easiest way to use it is when it is at extremes – either under 30 or over 70. Extremes can be used for filtering highs or lows based on time-and-price window calculations. Highly instructive as to major corrective clues and indicative of continued directional movement. Must determine if longer-term RSI values find support at same values as before. It is currently at 73.56.
Secondly, RSI may be used as a high or low filter, to observe the level that short-term RSI reaches in counter-trend corrections. Repetitions based on market movements based on RSI determine how long a trade should be held onto. Once a short term RSI reaches an extreme and stay there, the other RSI’s should gradually reach the same extremes. Once all RSI’s are at extreme highs, a trend confirmation should occur and RSI’s should drop to their midpoint.
Trend Definition Analysis of Bitcoin
Trend definition is highly powerful, cannot be understated. Knowledge of trend logic is enough to be a profitable trader, yet defining a trend is an arduous process. Multiple trends coexist across multiple time frames and across multiple market sectors. Like time structure, it makes the underlying price of the instrument irrelevant. Trend definitions cannot determine the validity of newly formed discretes. Trend becomes apparent when trades based in counter-trend inflection points continue to fail. Downtrends are defined as an instrument making lower lows and lower highs that are recurrent, additive, qualified swing setups. Downtrends for all instruments are similar, except forex. They are fast and complete much quicker than uptrends. An average downtrend is 18 months, something which we will return to. An uptrend inception occurs when an instrument reaches a point where it fails to make a new low, then that low will be tested. After that, the instrument will either have a deep range retracement or it may take out the low slightly, resulting in a double-bottom. A swing must eventually form. A simple way to roughly determine trend is to attempt to draw a line from three tops going upwards (uptrend) or a line from three bottoms going downwards (downtrend). It is not possible to correctly draw a downtrend line on the BTC chart, but it is possible to correctly draw an uptrend – indicating that the overall trend is downwards. The only mitigating factor is the impending stock market crash.
Time Symmetry Analysis of Bitcoin
Time is the movement from the past through the present into the future. It is a measurement in quantified intervals. In many ways, our perception of it is a human construct. It is more powerful than price as time may be utilized for a trade regardless of the market inflection point’s price. Were it possible to perfectly understand time, price would be totally irrelevant due to the predictive certainty time affords. Time structure is easier to learn than price, but much more difficult to apply with any accuracy. It is the hardest aspect of trading to learn, but also the most rewarding. Humans do not have the ability to recognize every time window, however the ability to define market inflection points in terms of time is the single most powerful trading edge. Regardless, price should not be abandoned for time alone. Time structure analysis It is inherently flawed, as such the markets have a fail-safe, which is Price Structure. Even though Time is much more powerful, Price Structure should never be completely ignored. Time is the qualifier for Price and vice versa. Time can fail by tricking traders into counter-trend trading. Time is a predestined trade quantifier, a filter to slow trades down, as it allows a trader to specifically focus on specific time windows and rest at others. It allows for quantitative measurements to reach deterministic values and is the primary qualifier for trends. Time structure should be utilized before price structure, and it is the primary trade criterion which requires support from price. We can see price structure on a chart, as areas of mathematical support or resistance, but we cannot see time structure. Time may be used to tell us an exact point in the future where the market will inflect, after Price Theory has been fulfilled. In the present, price objectives based on price theory added to possible future times for market inflection points give us the exact time of market inflection points and price. Time Structure is repetitions of time or inherent cycles of time, occurring in a methodical way to provide time windows which may be utilized for inflection points. They are not easily recognized and not easily defined by a price chart as measuring and observing time is very exact. Time structure is not a science, yet it does require precise measurements. Nothing is certain or definite. The critical question must be if a particular approach to time structure is currently lucrative or not. We will measure it in intervals of 180 bars. Our goal is to determine time windows, when the market will react and when we should pay the most attention. By using time repetitions, the fact that market inflection points occurred at some point in the past and should, therefore, reoccur at some point in the future, we should obtain confidence as to when SPY will reach a market inflection point. Time repetitions are essentially the market’s memory. However, simply measuring the time between two points then trying to extrapolate into the future does not work. Measuring time is not the same as defining time repetitions. We will evaluate past sessions for market inflection points, whether discretes, qualified swings, or intra-range. Then records the times that the market has made highs or lows in a comparable time period to the future one seeks to trade in. What follows is a time Histogram – A grouping of times which appear close together, then segregated based on that closeness. Time is aligned into combined histogram of repetitions and cycles, however cycles are irrelevant on a daily basis. If trading on an hourly basis, do not use hours.
Daily Lows Mode for those Months: 1, 1, 2, 4, 12, 17, 18, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30
Hourly Lows Mode for those Months (Military time): 0100, 0200, 0200, 0400, 0700, 0700, 0800, 1200, 1200, 1700, 2000, 2200
Minute Lows Mode for those Months: 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 09, 09, 59, 59, 59, 59
Day of the Week Lows (last twenty-six weeks):
Weighted Times are repetitions which appears multiple times within the same list, observed and accentuated once divided into relevant sections of the histogram. They are important in the presently defined trading time period and are similar to a mathematical mode with respect to a series. Phased times are essentially periodical patterns in histograms, though they do not guarantee inflection points Evaluating the yearly lows, we see that BTC tends to have its lows primarily at the beginning of every year, with a possibility of it being at the end of the year. Following the same methodology, we get the middle of the month as the likeliest day. However, evaluating the monthly lows for the past year, the beginning and end of the month are more likely for lows. Therefore, we have two primary dates from our histogram. 1/1/21, 1/15/21, and 1/29/21 2:00am, 8:00am, 12:00pm, or 10:00pm In fact, the high for this year was February the 14th, only thirty days off from our histogram calculations. The 8.6-Year Armstrong-Princeton Global Economic Confidence model states that 2.15 year intervals occur between corrections, relevant highs and lows. 2.15 years from the all-time peak discrete is February 9, 2020 – a reasonably accurate depiction of the low for this year (which was on 3/12/20). (Taking only the Armstrong model into account, the next high should be Saturday, April 23, 2022). Therefore, the Armstrong model indicates that we have actually bottomed out for the year! Bear markets cannot exist in perpetuity whereas bull markets can. Bear markets will eventually have price objectives of zero, whereas bull markets can increase to infinity. It can occur for individual market instruments, but not markets as a whole. Since bull markets are defined by low volatility, they also last longer. Once a bull market is indicated, the trader can remain in a long position until a new high is reached, then switch to shorts. The average bear market is eighteen months long, giving us a date of August 19th, 2021 for the end of this bear market – roughly speaking. They cannot be shorter than fifteen months for a central-bank controlled market, which does not apply to Bitcoin. (Otherwise, it would continue until Sunday, September 12, 2021.) However, we should expect Bitcoin to experience its’ exponential growth after the stock market re-enters a bull market. Terry Laundy’s T-Theory implemented by measuring the time of an indicator from peak to trough, then using that to define a future time window. It is similar to an head-and-shoulders pattern in that it is the process of forming the right side from a synthetic technical indicator. If the indicator is making continued lows, then time is recalculated for defining the right side of the T. The date of the market inflection point may be a price or indicator inflection date, so it is not always exactly useful. It is better to make us aware of possible market inflection points, clustered with other data. It gives us an RSI low of May, 9th 2020. The Bradley Cycle is coupled with volatility allows start dates for campaigns or put options as insurance in portfolios for stocks. However, it is also useful for predicting market moves instead of terminal dates for discretes. Using dates which correspond to discretes, we can see how those dates correspond with changes in VIX. Therefore, our timeline looks like:
2/14/20 – yearly high ($10372 USD)
3/12/20 – yearly low thus far ($3858 USD)
5/9/20 – T-Theory true yearly low (BTC between 4863 and 3569)
With Block Explorer and dedicated services offered by some crypto exchanges. Unlike banks, where it can be difficult to get information about details about transactions that are currently being processed and completed transactions, the blockchain offers a much higher level of transparency. Anyone can search for information using specific Bitcoin addresses, block numbers, and transaction hashes. In conjunction with Wallet Explorer, this means that connections can be made between addresses and the wallets in which Bitcoin is stored. Bitcoin Transactions This is of course extremely useful if you are concerned about whether your crypto has reached the right destination - or are wondering whether the transaction has been verified. However, it should be remembered that these tools are also suitable for law enforcement agencies trying to curb the use of BTC for illegal purposes.
Are there any benefits to transaction trackers?
There is an extraordinary number of possible applications. If you use a crypto exchange, you can use transaction trackers to check whether their trading platform is functioning normally and how long it can take for a transaction to be completed. This can provide valuable information before making a payment, as long delays can mean that you rely on another provider instead. It is possible that you can rely on some of these trackers to be better prepared from a tax perspective and to be able to easily assess the performance of your crypto portfolio. In the dreaded scenario that crypto was sent by mistake, you also have the option to find out which address it was given. Unfortunately, however, this is not a guarantee that you will get it back.
How do I avoid stuck transactions?
First of all, it is important to ensure that you pay adequate fees. Over the years, the number of transactions carried out on the Bitcoin network has continued to increase. This has led miners to prioritize higher fee transactions, including those first in their blocks. If a crypto transaction is sent with a lower fee, it can take hours, days, and possibly weeks to be confirmed. Such long delays usually indicate that the transaction is constantly outbid, and miners have little incentive to approve it. As a result, it languishes in a mempool and eagerly waits for a block to come. Crypto Wallets - and some exchanges - have started to help users get the best chance of getting their transaction verified the first time. Some monitor network activity and enforce dynamic fees. This means that the fees associated with each transaction fluctuate depending on the level of employment of the miners. If you're in a hurry, you can also manually add a higher fee to increase your chances of running fast. Conversely, if you're in no hurry, you can save fees and accept that it may take a little longer for your money to reach the recipient.
Why do Bitcoin transactions take so long?
Scalability has long been a problem in the Bitcoin network. To complete a transaction, it usually has to be confirmed six times before it is sent to the recipient. Coupled with the aforementioned high demand, this means that it can take anywhere from 10 minutes to a day for transactions to complete - or even longer in certain circumstances. Bitcoin's scalability problem has been a longstanding problem for many years. The network can only process about seven transactions per second, which means that it pales in comparison to payment giants like Visa. Workarounds have been introduced, such as the Lightning network, which adds another layer to the blockchain to enable immediate payments with lower fees. However, it is fair to say that even these solutions did not have the expected traction.
Can Bitcoin transactions be canceled?
This is a very common question, but the answer is no. Blockchains are designed to be irreversible. Once a transaction is committed to a network, control is no longer in your hands. For this reason, it is imperative to do a double-check, double-check, and triple-check before sending high-value crypto transactions to ensure that you have not made any typing errors in the address. It's also worth checking that you're sending the right amount of crypto.
How can I be informed of what is happening to my crypto transactions?
Some crypto exchanges aim to provide full transparency to their users. This openness setting can be particularly beneficial for users who are using Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for the first time.
Bitcoin Hashrate Spikes to 120 Exahash: Difficulty Drops Allowing Miners to Rejoin the Competition
The Bitcoin (BTC) protocol’s difficulty adjustment dropped over 9% on June 4, giving miners who shut off their machines a chance to join the competition once again. Moreover, Glassnode statistics show that blocks are being produced at a faster rate and at the highest levels since July 2019. According to the Bitcoin (BTC) research and analysis firm, Glassnode, blocks are being produced at a higher level than before and at a level not seen in 11 months. That month in July 2019, the price of BTC was doing extraordinarily well and almost touched $13K per unit on global exchanges. “Bitcoin blocks are currently being produced at a rate of almost 8 blocks per hour,” Glassnode tweeted on June 6, 2020. “This is the highest level we’ve seen since July 2019, and likely an effect of the recent difficulty adjustment.” Statistics show that the BTC network experienced a decent-sized difficulty drop on June 4, 2020. It was the seventh-largest difficulty drop during the protocol’s entire existence and the fourth negative drop in 2020. The drop was approximately -9.29% and almost immediately afterward, BTC’s hashrate started climbing northbound. Difficulty drops and increases are part of the system Satoshi Nakamoto designed and the Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (DAA) adjusts every 2016 blocks. With blocks set at roughly every 10 minutes, typically DAA drops or increases take place every two weeks on average. Data from Blockchain.com indicates that the hashrate dropped to a low of 90 exahash per second (EH/s) on May 26, 2020. News.Bitcoin.com also reported on the fact that hashpower was steadily increasing but the DAA drop on June 4, making it much easier for certain miners. Our newsdesk also reported that there were 17 mining pools hashing away at the Bitcoin network before the halving and now there are 32 pools. Blockchain.com stats show that on June 5, the SHA256 hashpower ramped up to 109EH/s. Looking at data from today, June 7, 2020, shows that the hashrate has spiked even more to 120EH/s according to Fork.lol’s 12-hour averages. At press time, BTC prices have been down 1.8% during the last 24 hours and the price per unit on Sunday, June 7, 2020, is between $9,425 to $9,550. The overall market capitalization of all 5,000+ coins in existence has also dropped to $269 billion at the time of publication.
Antminer T19 May Not Affect Bitcoin Hash Rate but Keeps Bitmain Ahead
The Antminer T19 by Bitmain may not have a big impact on the Bitcoin network, and it comes out amid the firm’s internal and post-halving uncertainty. Earlier this week, Chinese mining-hardware juggernaut Bitmain unveiled its new product, an application-specific integrated circuit called Antminer T19. The Bitcoin (BTC) mining unit is the latest to join the new generation of ASICs — state-of-the-art devices designed to mitigate increased mining difficulty by maximizing the terahashes-per-second output. The Antminer T19 announcement comes amid the post-halving uncertainty and follows the company’s recent problems with its S17 units. So, can this new machine help Bitmain to reinforce its somewhat hobbled position in the mining sector? T19: The cheaper S19 According to the official announcement, the Antminer T19 features a mining speed of 84 TH/s and a power efficiency of 37.5 joules per TH. The chips used in the new device are the same as those equipped in the Antminer S19 and S19 Pro, though it uses the new APW12 version of the power supply system that allows the device to start up faster. Bitmain usually markets its Antminer T devices as the most cost-effective ones, while the S-series models are presented as the top of the line in terms of productivity for their respective generation, Johnson Xu — the head of research and analytics at Tokensight — explained to Cointelegraph. According to data from F2Pool, one of the largest Bitcoin mining pools, Antminer T19s can generate $3.97 of profit each day, while Antminer S19s and Antminer S19 Pros can earn $4.86 and $6.24, respectively, based on an average electricity cost of $0.05 per kilowatt-hour. Antminer T19s, which consume 3,150 watts, are being sold for $1,749 per unit. Antminer S19 machines, on the other hand, cost $1,785 and consume 3,250 watts. Antminer S19 Pro devices, the most efficient of three, are considerably more expensive and go for $2,407. The reason Bitmain is producing another model for the 19 series is due to what is known as "binning" chips, Marc Fresa — the founder of mining firmware company Asic.to — explained to Cointelegraph: “When chips are designed they are meant to achieve specific performance levels. Chips that fail to hit their target numbers, such as not achieving the power standards or their thermal output, are often ‘Binned.’ Instead of throwing these chips in the garbage bin, these chips are resold into another unit with a lower performance level. In the case of Bitmain S19 chips that don’t make the cutoff are then sold in the T19 for cheaper since they do not perform as well as the counterpart.” The rollout of a new model “has nothing to do with the fact that machines are not selling well,” Fresa went on to argue, citing the post-halving uncertainty: “The biggest reason machines probably are not selling as well as manufacturers would like is because we are on a bit of a tipping point; The halving just happened, the price can go anyway and the difficulty is continuing to drop.” Product diversification is a common strategy for mining hardware producers, given that customers tend to aim for different specifications, Kristy-Leigh Minehan, a consultant and the former chief technology officer of Genesis Mining, told Cointelegraph: “ASICs don’t really allow for one model as consumers expect a certain performance level from a machine, and unfortunately silicon is not a perfect process — many times you’ll get a batch that performs better or worse than projected due to the nature of the materials. Thus, you end up with 5–10 different model numbers.” It is not yet clear how efficient the 19-series devices are because they have not shipped at scale, as Leo Zhang, the founder of Anicca Research, summed up in a conversation with Cointelegraph. The first batch of S19 units reportedly shipped out around May 12, while the T19 shipments will start between June 21 and June 30. It is also worth noting that, at this time, Bitmain only sells up to two T19 miners per user “to prevent hoarding.” Hardware problems and competitors The latest generation of Bitmain ASICs follows the release of the S17 units, which have received mostly mixed-to-negative reviews in the community. In early May, Arseniy Grusha, the co-founder of crypto consulting and mining firm Wattum, created a Telegram group for consumers unsatisfied with the S17 units they purchased from Bitmain. As Grusha explained to Cointelegraph at the time, out of the 420 Antminer S17+ devices his company bought, roughly 30%, or around 130 machines, turned out to be bad units. Similarly, Samson Mow, the chief strategy officer of blockchain infrastructure firm Blockstream, tweeted earlier in April that Bitmain customers have a 20%–30% failure rate with Antminer S17 and T17 units. “The Antminer 17 series is generally considered not great,” added Zhang. He additionally noted that Chinese hardware company and competitor Micro BT has been stepping on Bitmain’s toes lately with the release of its highly productive M30 series, which prompted Bitmain to step up its efforts: “Whatsminer gained significant market share in the past two years. According to their COO, in 2019 MicroBT sold ~35% of the network hashrate. Needless to say Bitmain is under a lot of pressure both from competitors and internal politics. They have been working on the 19 series for a while. The specs and price look very attractive.” Minehan confirmed that MicroBT has been gaining traction on the market, but refrained from saying that Bitmain is losing market share as a result: “I think MicroBT is offering option and bringing in new participants, and giving farms a choice. Most farms will have both Bitmain and MicroBT side by side, rather than exclusively host one manufacturer.” “I would say that MicroBT has taken up the existing market share that Canaan has left,” she added, referring to another China-based mining player that recently reported a net loss of $5.6 million in the first quarter of 2020 and cut the price of its mining hardware by up to 50%. Indeed, some large-scale operations seem to be diversifying their equipment with MicroBT units. Earlier this week, United States mining firm Marathon Patent Group announced that it had installed 700 Whatsminer M30S+ ASICs produced by MicroBT. However, it is also reportedly waiting for a delivery of 1,160 Antminer S19 Pro units produced by Bitmain, meaning that it also remains loyal to the current market leader. Will the hash rate be affected? Bitcoin’s hash rate plummeted 30% soon after the halving occurred as much of the older generation equipment became unprofitable due to the increased mining difficulty. That spurred miners to reshuffle, upgrading their current rigs and selling older machines to places where electricity is cheaper — meaning that some of them had to temporarily unplug. The situation has stabilized since, with the hash rate fluctuating around 100 TH/s for the past few days. Some experts attribute that to the start of the wet season in Sichuan, a southwest Chinese province where miners take advantage of low hydroelectricity prices between May and October. The arrival of the new generation of ASICs is expected to drive the hash rate even higher, at least once upgraded units become widely available. So, will the newly revealed T19 model make any impact on the state of the network? Experts agree that it won’t affect the hash rate to a major degree, as it’s a lower output model compared with the S19 series and MicroBT’s M30 series. Minehan said she doesn’t expect the T19 model “to have a huge impact that’s an immediate cause of concern,” as “most likely this is a run of <3500 units of a particular bin quality.” Similarly, Mark D’Aria, the CEO of crypto consulting firm Bitpro, told Cointelegraph: “There isn’t a strong reason to expect the new model to significantly affect the hashrate. It might be a slightly more compelling option to a miner with extraordinarily inexpensive electricity, but otherwise they likely would have just purchased an S19 instead.” Bitmain continues to hold leadership despite internal struggle At the end of the day, manufacturers are always in an arms race, and mining machines are simply commodity products, Zhang argued in a conversation with Cointelegraph: “Besides price, performance, and failure rate, there are not many factors that can help a manufacturer differentiate from the others. The relentless competition led to where we are today.” According to Zhang, as the iteration rate naturally slows down in the future, there will be more facilities using “creative thermal design such as immersion cooling,” hoping to maximize the mining efficiency beyond just using most powerful machines. As for now, Bitmain remains the leader of the mining race, despite having to deal with the largely defunct 17 series and an intensifying power struggle between its two co-founders, Jihan Wu and Micree Zhan, which recently resulted in reports of a street brawl. “Due to its recent internal issues, Bitmain is facing challenges to keep its strong position in the future thus they started to look at other things to expand its industry influences,” Xu told Cointelegraph. He added that Bitmain “will still dominate the industry position in the near future due to its network effect,” although its current problems might allow competitors such as MicroBT to catch up. Earlier this week, the power struggle inside Bitmain intensified even further as Micree Zhan, an ousted executive of the mining titan, reportedly led a group of private guards to overtake the company’s office in Beijing. Meanwhile, Bitmain continues to expand its operations. Last week, the mining company revealed it was extending its “Ant Training Academy” certification program to North America, with the first courses set to launch in the fall. As such, Bitmain seems to be doubling down on the U.S.-based mining sector, which has been growing recently. The Beijing-based company already operates what it classifies as “the world’s largest” mining facility in Rockdale, Texas, which has a planned capacity of 50 megawatts that can later be expanded to 300 megawatts.
arriving at consensus AND distributing coins via burning Bitcoin instead of electricity/equipment to create permissionless, unfakeable, green, and trust minimized basis over every aspect of sidechain control.
creating Bitcoin peg from altcoin chain to mainchain (the hard direction) by allocating small percentage of Bitcoin intended for burning to reimbursing withdrawals, effectively making it a childchain/sidechain (no oracles or federated multisigs)
This is not an altcoin thread. I'm not making anything. The design discussed options for existing altcoins and new ways to built on top of Bitcoin inheriting some of its security guarantees. 2 parts: First, the design allows any altcoins to switch to securing themselves via Bitcoin instead of their own PoW or PoS with significant benefits to both altcoins and Bitcoin (and environment lol). Second, I explain how to create Bitcoin-pegged assets to turn altcoins into a Bitcoin sidechain equivalent. Let me know if this is of interest or if it exists, feel free to use or do anything with this, hopefully I can help.
how to create continuous sunk costs, permissionless entry, high cost of attacks?
how to do it without needing to build up a new source of hardware capital or energy costs?
how to peg another chain's token value w/o incentivized collusion risk of federation or oracles?
how to make sidechain use fully optional for all Bitcoin parties?
how to allow programmable Bitcoins w/ unlimited permissionless expressiveness w/o forcing mainchain into additional risks?
Solution to first few points:
Continuous Proof of Bitcoin Burn (CPoBB) to distribute supply control and sidechain consensus control to independent parties
Distributes an altcoin for permissionless access and sidechain-only sybil protection.
In case of sidechain block-producer censorship, Bitcoin's independent data availability makes sidechain nodes trivially aware
PoW altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:
cost of capital and energy -> cost of burnt bitcoin
finality of their PoW -> finality of Bitcoin's PoW
impact on environment -> 0 impact on environment
unforgeable costliness of work -> unforgeable costliness of burn
contract logic can include conditions dependent on real Bitcoins as it's Bitcoin-aware
PoS altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:
permissioned by coin holders entry -> permissionless entry by anyone with access to Bitcoin
no incentive to give up control or sell coins -> incentive to sell coins to cover the cost of burnt bitcoin
incentivized guaranteed centralization of control over time by staking -> PoW guarantees with same 0 environmental impact
nothing at stake -> recovering sunk costs at stake
contract logic can include conditions dependent on real Bitcoins as it's Bitcoin-aware
We already have a permissionless, compact, public, high-cost-backed finality base layer to build on top - Bitcoin! It will handle sorting, data availability, finality, and has something of value to use instead of capital or energy that's outside the sidechain - the Bitcoin coins. The sunk costs of PoW can be simulated by burning Bitcoin, similar to concept known as Proof of Burn where Bitcoin are sent to unspendable address. Unlike ICO's, no contributors can take out the Bitcoins and get rewards for free. Unlike PoS, entry into supply lies outside the alt-chain and thus doesn't depend on permission of alt-chain stake-coin holders. It's hard to find a more bandwidth or state size protective blockchain to use other than Bitcoin as well so altcoins can be Bitcoin-aware at little marginal difficulty - 10 years of history fully validates in under a day.
What are typical issues with Proof of Burn?
limited burn time window prevents permissionless entry in the future. how many years did it take for most heavily mined projects to become known and well reviewed? many. thus entry into control of supply that's vital to control of chain cannot be dependent on the earliest stage of the project. (counterparty)
"land grabs" - by having limited supply without continuous emission or inflation we encourage holding vs spending.
These issues can be fixed by having Proof of Burn be permanently accessible and continuous: Continuous Proof of Bitcoin Burn CPoBB
This should be required for any design for it to stay permissionless. Optional is constant fixed emission rate for altcoins not trying to be money if goal is to maximize accessibility. Since it's not depending on brand new PoW for security, they don't have to depend on massive early rewards giving disproportionate fraction of supply at earliest stage either. If 10 coins are created every block, after n blocks, at rate of 10 coins per block, % emission per block is = (100/n)%, an always decreasing number. Sidechain coin doesn't need to be scarce money, and could maximize distribution of control by encouraging further distribution. If no burners exist in a block, altcoin block reward is simply added to next block reward making emission predictable. Sidechain block content should be committed in burn transaction via a root of the merkle tree of its transactions. Sidechain state will depend on Bitcoin for finality and block time between commitment broadcasts. However, the throughput can be of any size per block, unlimited number of such sidechains can exist with their own rules and validation costs are handled only by nodes that choose to be aware of a specific sidechain by running its consensus compatible software. Important design decision is how can protocol determine the "true" side-block and how to distribute incentives. Simplest solution is to always :
Agree on the valid sidechain block matching the merkle root commitment for the largest amount of Bitcoin burnt, earliest inclusion in the bitcoin block as the tie breaker
Distribute block reward during the next side-block proportional to current amounts burnt
Bitcoin fee market serves as deterrent for spam submissions of blocks to validate
sidechain block reward is set always at 10 altcoins per block Bitcoin block contains the following content embedded and part of its transactions: tx11: burns 0.01 BTC & OP_RETURN tx56: burns 0.05 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 1> ... tx78: burns 1 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 2> ... tx124: burns 0.2 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of INVALID sidechain block version 3> ...
Validity is deterministic by rules in client side node software (e.g. signature validation) so all nodes can independently see version 3 is invalid and thus burner of tx124 gets no reward allocated. The largest valid burn is from tx78 so version 2 is used for the blockchain in sidechain. The total valid burn is 1.06 BTC, so 10 altcoins to be distributed in the next block are 0.094, 0.472, 9.434 to owners of first 3 transactions, respectively. Censorship attack would require continuous costs in Bitcoin on the attacker and can be waited out. Censorship would also be limited to on-sidechain specific transactions as emission distribution to others CPoB contributors wouldn't be affected as blocks without matching coin distributions on sidechain wouldn't be valid. Additionally, sidechains can allow a limited number of sidechain transactions to happen via embedding transaction data inside Bitcoin transactions (e.g. OP_RETURN) as a way to use Bitcoin for data availability layer in case sidechain transactions are being censored on their network. Since all sidechain nodes are Bitcoin aware, it would be trivial to include. Sidechain blocks cannot be reverted without reverting Bitcoin blocks or hard forking the protocol used to derive sidechain state. If protocol is forked, the value of sidechain coins on each fork of sidechain state becomes important but Proof of Burn natively guarantees trust minimized and permissionless distribution of the coins, something inferior methods like obscure early distributions, trusted pre-mines, and trusted ICO's cannot do. More bitcoins being burnt is parallel to more hash rate entering PoW, with each miner or burner getting smaller amount of altcoins on average making it unprofitable to burn or mine and forcing some to exit. At equilibrium costs of equipment and electricity approaches value gained from selling coins just as at equilibrium costs of burnt coins approaches value of altcoins rewarded. In both cases it incentivizes further distribution to markets to cover the costs making burners and miners dependent on users via markets. In both cases it's also possible to mine without permission and mine at a loss temporarily to gain some altcoins without permission if you want to. Altcoins benefit by inheriting many of bitcoin security guarantees, bitcoin parties have to do nothing if they don't want to, but will see their coins grow more scarce through burning. The contributions to the fee market will contribute to higher Bitcoin miner rewards even after block reward is gone.
What is the ideal goal of the sidechains? Ideally to have a token that has the bi-directionally pegged value to Bitcoin and tradeable ~1:1 for Bitcoin that gives Bitcoin users an option of a different rule set without compromising the base chain nor forcing base chain participants to do anything different. Issues with value pegs:
federation based pegs allow collusion to steal bitcoins stored in multi-party controlled accounts
even if multisig participants are switched or weighted in some trust minimized manner, there's always incentive to collude and steal more
smart contract pegs (plasma, rollups) on base chain would require bitcoin nodes and miners to validate sidechain transactions and has to provide block content for availability (e.g. call data in rollups), making them not optional.
bitcoin nodes shouldn't be sidechain aware so impossible to peg the value
Let's get rid of the idea of needing Bitcoin collateral to back pegged coins 1:1 as that's never secure, independent, or scalable at same security level. As drive-chain design suggested the peg doesn't have to be fast, can take months, just needs to exist so other methods can be used to speed it up like atomic swaps by volunteers taking on the risk for a fee. In continuous proof of burn we have another source of Bitcoins, the burnt Bitcoins. Sidechain protocols can require some minor percentage (e.g. 20%) of burner tx value coins via another output to go to reimburse those withdrawing side-Bitcoins to Bitcoin chain until they are filled. If withdrawal queue is empty that % is burnt instead. Selection of who receives reimbursement is deterministic per burner. Percentage must be kept small as it's assumed it's possible to get up to that much discount on altcoin emissions. Let's use a really simple example case where each burner pays 20% of burner tx amount to cover withdrawal in exact order requested with no attempts at other matching, capped at half amount requested per payout. Example:
withdrawal queue: request1: 0.2 sBTC request2: 1.0 sBTC request3: 0.5 sBTC same block burners: tx burns 0.8 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.1 BTC is sent to request2 tx burns 0.4 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1 tx burns 0.08 BTC, 0.02 BTC is sent to request 1 tx burns 1.2 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.2 BTC is sent to request2 withdrawal queue: request1: filled with 0.32 BTC instead of 0.2 sBTC, removed from queue request2: partially-filled with 0.3 BTC out of 1.0 sBTC, 0.7 BTC remaining for next queue request3: still 0.5 sBTC
Withdrawal requests can either take long time to get to filled due to cap per burn or get overfilled as seen in "request1" example, hard to predict. Overfilling is not a big deal since we're not dealing with a finite source. The risk a user that chooses to use the sidechain pegged coin takes on is based on the rate at which they can expect to get paid based on value of altcoin emission that generally matches Bitcoin burn rate. If sidechain loses interest and nobody is burning enough bitcoin, the funds might be lost so the scale of risk has to be measured. If Bitcoins burnt per day is 0.5 BTC total and you hope to deposit or withdraw 5000 BTC, it might take a long time or never happen to withdraw it. But for amounts comparable or under 0.5 BTC/day average burnt with 5 side-BTC on sidechain outstanding total the risks are more reasonable. Deposits onto the sidechain are far easier - by burning Bitcoin in a separate known unspendable deposit address for that sidechain and sidechain protocol issuing matching amount of side-Bitcoin. Withdrawn bitcoins are treated as burnt bitcoins for sake of dividing block rewards as long as they followed the deterministic rules for their burn to count as valid and percentage used for withdrawals is kept small to avoid approaching free altcoin emissions by paying for your own withdrawals and ensuring significant unforgeable losses. Ideally more matching is used so large withdrawals don't completely block everyone else and small withdrawals don't completely block large withdrawals. Better methods should deterministically randomize assigned withdrawals via previous Bitcoin block hash, prioritized by request time (earliest arrivals should get paid earlier), and amount of peg outstanding vs burn amount (smaller burns should prioritize smaller outstanding balances). Fee market on bitcoin discourages doing withdrawals of too small amounts and encourages batching by burners. The second method is less reliable but already known that uses over-collateralized loans that create a oracle-pegged token that can be pegged to the bitcoin value. It was already used by its inventors in 2014 on bitshares (e.g. bitCNY, bitUSD, bitBTC) and similarly by MakerDAO in 2018. The upside is a trust minimized distribution of CPoB coins can be used to distribute trust over selection of price feed oracles far better than pre-mined single trusted party based distributions used in MakerDAO (100% pre-mined) and to a bit lesser degree on bitshares (~50% mined, ~50% premined before dpos). The downside is 2 fold: first the supply of BTC pegged coin would depend on people opening an equivalent of a leveraged long position on the altcoin/BTC pair, which is hard to convince people to do as seen by very poor liquidity of bitBTC in the past. Second downside is oracles can still collude to mess with price feeds, and while their influence might be limited via capped price changes per unit time and might compromise their continuous revenue stream from fees, the leverage benefits might outweight the losses. The use of continous proof of burn to peg withdrawals is superior method as it is simply a minor byproduct of "mining" for altcoins and doesn't depend on traders positions. At the moment I'm not aware of any market-pegged coins on trust minimized platforms or implemented in trust minimized way (e.g. premined mkr on premined eth = 2 sets of trusted third parties each of which with full control over the design). _______________________________________
Brief issues with current altchains options:
PoW: New PoW altcoins suffer high risk of attacks. Additional PoW chains require high energy and capital costs to create permissionless entry and trust minimized miners that are forever dependent on markets to hold them accountable. Using same algorithm or equipment as another chain or merge-mining puts you at a disadvantage by allowing some miners to attack and still cover sunk costs on another chain. Using a different algorithm/equipment requires building up the value of sunk costs to protect against attacks with significant energy and capital costs. Drive-chains also require miners to allow it by having to be sidechain aware and thus incur additional costs on them and validating nodes if the sidechain rewards are of value and importance.
PoS: PoS is permissioned (requires permission from internal party to use network or contribute to consensus on permitted scale), allows perpetual control without accountability to others, and incentivizes centralization of control over time. Without continuous source of sunk costs there's no reason to give up control. By having consensus entirely dependent on internal state network, unlike PoW but like private databases, cannot guarantee independent permissionless entry and thus cannot claim trust minimization. Has no built in distribution methods so depends on safe start (snapshot of trust minimized distributions or PoW period) followed by losing that on switch to PoS or starting off dependent on a single trusted party such as case in all significant pre-mines and ICO's.
Proof of Capacity: PoC is just shifting costs further to capital over PoW to achieve same guarantees.
PoW/PoS: Still require additional PoW chain creation. Strong dependence on PoS can render PoW irrelevant and thus inherit the worst properties of both protocols.
Tokens inherit all trust dependencies of parent blockchain and thus depend on the above.
Embedded consensus (counterparty, veriblock?, omni): Lacks mechanism for distribution, requires all tx data to be inside scarce Bitcoin block space so high cost to users instead of compensated miners. If you want to build a very expressive scripting language, might very hard & expensive to fit into Bitcoin tx vs CPoBB external content of unlimited size in a committed hash. Same as CPoBB is Bitcoin-aware so can respond to Bitcoin being sent but without source of Bitcoins like burning no way to do any trust minimized Bitcoin-pegs it can control fully.
Few extra notes from my talks with people:
fees must be high to be included in next block (and helps pay and bribe bitcoin miners), RBF use is encouraged to cancel late transactions
what if not enough burners, just passive nodes? you can burn smallest amount of bitcoin yourself when you have a transaction you want to go through
using commit hashes on bitcoin to lock altcoin state isn't new (e.g. kmd) but usually those rely on some federation or permissioned proof of stake mechanism with no real costs. this is combination of both.
this is not exactly like counterparty's embedded consensus as block data and transactions are outside Bitcoin, but consensus is derived with help of embedded on Bitcoin data.
deterministic randomness (e.g. via that block's hash) could be used to assign winning sidechain block weighted by amount burned to allow occasional blocks formed by others curbing success rate of censorship by highest burner
wants to transition away from using proof of burn via tunable proofs and native proof of work (whitepaper)
a dominant premine (trust maximized) relative to emission that defeats the purpose of distributing control over incentives (figure 3 in tokenpaper suggests premine still ~30%-70% by year 2050)
variable emission rate "adaptive mint and burn" makes supply unpredictable (and possibly gameable)
additional rewards that aren't trust minimized like "app mining" and "user incentives" possibly gameable with premine
election of a leader includes their own PoW to be elected even at start (5% cap), why lol?
blockstack also suggested use of randomness that depends on that block so Bitcoin miners that already spent energy mining that block can't just re-do it to get picked at no cost
if can burn bitcoins directly via op_return tx would help to use 1 less output and be provably prunable for utxo set (not sure if that's relayed as standard)
Main questions to you:
why not? (other than blocktime)
can this be done without an altcoin? (Not sure and don't think so w/o compromising unforgeable costliness and thus trust minimization. At least it's not using an altcoin that's clearly centralized.)
how to make it less detectable by Bitcoin miners? ( BMM could use some techniques described here: https://twitter.com/SomsenRuben/status/1210040270328254464 ) ( Perhaps since sidechain nodes receive proposed blocks independently and can figure out their hash, the commit message ( sidechain id + block commit + miner address) can be hashed one more time before its placed on Bitcoin, making miners unaware until after Bitcoin block is found that this is that sidechain's burn. Sidechain block producers would have to delay sidechain block propagation until after Bitcoin block is propagated, 10 minutes blocktime helps here. Hiding the fact that Bitcoin is burnt until after the fact is another possibly important matter. )
Should reward be split between all valid blocks or just winner gets all? (Blockstacks approach does not reward blocks marked by different from leader chaintip. That seems dangerous since sidechain tx sorting would be difficult to match and could take significant time to be compensated for perfectly valid work and coins burned. It doesn't seem as necessary in burning since we're not expending costs based on only one previous block version, the costs are independent of block assembly. Tradeoff is between making it easier for independent "mining" of sidechain and making it easier to validate for full nodes on sidechain)
First layer on-chain solutions The first layer scaling solution supports changes in the underlying blockchain code. For example, increasing the block size limit from 1MB to 10 MB or reducing the block creation time from 10 minutes to 5 minutes. Any structural or fundamental change to the property of a blockchain requires the entire community to transit into a new and improved chain. There are 3 different scaling mechanisms in First layer scaling solution:- · Sharding · SegWit · Hard fork In this article, I will focus on one of the scaling solutions of the first layer i.e Hard Fork. But before starting this we will first understand what fork is? “A fork can be defined as a software upgrade/ change that brings new features to blockchain technology.” So what are the reasons behind Fork? Since the technology is quite new and is continuously evolving, there is a need for the latest features to provide more security, speed, privacy, robustness, etc to make it more desirable. This necessity gives rise to `the software upgrade and enhancements regularly. Hence forking came into the picture to make changes into the underlying protocol. Forking is one of the common and iterative processes of any technology which is under development. Another reason for forking is when the community faces disagreement in protocol upgrades. Some community members especially miners and developers were so unhappy that they created rival cryptocurrency with similar base code. The fork can further be categorized into two parts:- 1.Hard Fork A hard fork is a permanent parting from the previous version of a blockchain. In this method, the network got upgraded to follow a new set of consensus rules and is not compatible with the older one. Thus, to verify and validate new blocks of transactions, all network participants are required to upgrade to the latest version of the software. i.e the nodes running the older version will no longer accept transactions created on the new version. These nodes disqualify all those blocks and consider them invalid if they are not been upgraded to the latest version of the protocol. This permits the user to use the new coin as well as a new blockchain. This method creates two different versions of the blockchain · One continues to run on an older version. · And others follow the newly upgraded path. Thus it gives rise to new coins with two separate ledgers. Old Currency user receives the same amount of new currency which they were having at the time of hard fork. Thus hard forking gives rise to two conditions: · Either one blockchain dominates. · Or Both blockchain co-exists and operates independently. Few hard forked cryptocurrencies are as follows: 📷 https://preview.redd.it/bhcu56s3n3251.png?width=1255&format=png&auto=webp&s=9fd3fe3e534226dc57b663187ad3e1f38763888f Find the complete list of hard forked Cryptocurrency here There are many examples of hard forks, but the most prominent one is Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash which was a hard fork on August 1, 2017. The idea behind this division is to scale the Bitcoin network so that more and more transactions could be added to the block. However, this idea was not fully welcomed by the entire Bitcoin, resulting in the hard fork. During this fork, Bitcoin continued to operate with the old protocol, and Bitcoin Cash was created with larger block size. Different Catagory Hard forks can be categorized into two parts:- · Planned Hard Fork In planned hard fork users were intimated in advance by project developers regarding protocol upgrade. Thus, this activity enjoys a high degree of consensus from the project developers and the community before the actual hard fork process occurred. Example: Monero’s hard fork in January of 2017, New privacy feature is known as Ring Confidential Transactions (RingCT) is added. · Contentious Hard Fork Now consider a case when a different participant of a project i.e its developers, network users, and miners does not agree to a common solution and proceed towards fork known as Contentious hard fork. This type of forking happens when a group of community users supports major code change with the view to invent a superior blockchain than the parent one. Bitcoin Cash is one of the popular examples of a contentious hard fork and which happened because a group of Bitcoin community users believed that by increasing the block size of Bitcoin from 1MB to 8MB would results in faster transaction processing on the network. Reasons for Hard fork · To enhance security. · Enhance transaction speed. · Improving scalability. 2.Soft Fork A soft fork is a software upgrade that is backward compatible with earlier versions of the software i.e the underlying code has been updated but the nodes running the older version approve new version. In the soft-forked blockchain, all blocks follow both the old and the new set of consensus rule, hence it does not require nodes on the network to upgrade to maintain consensus. However, blocks that were produced by nodes that follow old consensus rules will violate the new set of consensus rules. Thus unlike hard fork where two different blockchains are created thereby resulting in the creation of new cryptocurrency, the soft fork allows new blocks to be added to the blockchain would be approved by older nodes. Once the majority of users recognized and adopted the new set of consensus rules, the older network will be discarded, and the new blockchain will then be termed as a true’ blockchain. The shared blockchain history will remain the same until the fork. Examples of soft forks: · Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 66: This was implemented as a soft fork on Bitcoin’s signature validation · Pay to Script Hash (P2SH): This soft fork resulted in multi-signature addresses on the Bitcoin network Examples of Hard Fork:-
Bitcoin Cash is a hard-forked cryptocurrency from Bitcoin and was created in 2017. It sometimes also referred to as Bcash. Some developers wanted to make certain important changes to Bitcoin but the entire Bitcoin community did not come in support of it, thus they part away to create Bitcoin Cash. In the year 2018 Bitcoin Cash further divided into two cryptocurrencies: o Bitcoin Cash o Bitcoin SV Advantages of Bitcoin cash:- · Bitcoin Cash supports block size which is eight times bigger than a Bitcoin block. · BCH can handle more transactions per second –Thus more people can use BCH at the same time · It has cheaper transaction fee- Around $0.20 per transaction · BCH has faster transfer times-It takes 10 minutes to verify a Bitcoin transaction. 2.Litecoin Litecoin is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency and open-source software project, Litecoin was an early bitcoin spinoff and is started in October 2011. It is very similar to Bitcoin. Three benefits of Litecoin are as follows: o Transaction confirmation time is faster -10 minutes per transaction in BTC whereas 2.5min in LiteCoin. This difference in confirmation time makeS Litecoin famous among merchants and e-commerce stores. o Increased storage efficiency-due to script usage in LTC proof-of-work algorithm o More coins to reward miners (84mn to be distributed total compared to 21mn BTC). https://preview.redd.it/iqqyh8z7n3251.png?width=745&format=png&auto=webp&s=5fc50a8f0b92022de497db591b5f8e88b5f28024 Read More: Mastering Basic Attention Token (BAT)
The One Thing EVERYONE Must Know About the Dev Funding Plan: IT'S COMPLETELY FREE.
sigh I get so tired of having to stop working to put out a post explaining issues. If anyone else wants to join in I could use help. (actually I've seen Jonald F. do this before too, so thanks JF!) Things are bad when even developers don't understand what's going on. So I'll try to clearly explain an important point on the Dev Funding Plan (DFP from now on) for the community: it's completely free. Yet we still get panicked posts saying Please Save Us from the TAX!!! Somebody Help! You may be for or against the DFP, but either way please at least understand what you're forming an opinion on. Let's start from the beginning. We know Bitcoin works on blocks and block coin rewards. The block reward, which started at 50 coins per block, and cuts in half approximately every 4 years, serves two purposes: it's a fair way to bring coins into circulation, but more importantly it provides security for the network. For simplicity, please think of "security" as being measured in power bars. When the network first started, with just Satoshi and Hal Finney, there was 1 power bar. This power bar was made up of the electricity their combined computer hardware used to find blocks. They were the first miners. Bitcoin uses a difficulty level to adjust how hard or easy it is to find blocks. This level is important for a key reason: we want the inflation rate of coins (how fast they come into circulation) to stay about the same, regardless how many miners (computing power) suddenly comes online. If the difficulty is set at super easy, but suddenly a super computer comes online that computer can gobble up thousands of coins in minutes if not seconds, creating massive rapid inflation. So the first thing to understand is that due to the Difficulty Level Adjustment the rate of coins coming into circulation will always stay about the same, regardless how many miners join or leave the network. Getting back to power bars. So the point of Bitcoin is there is no center, no fixed authority. The problem is we still need a decision made about which chain is valid. This is where proof-of-work comes in. Satoshi's fairly brilliant solution to a consensus decision, with no leader, was to simply look for the longest chain (technically the chain with most hashing work). The reasoning was: as there are far more ordinary people than there are governments and dictators a Bitcoin supported by the all the world's people should always be able to muster more hashrate than even rich governments. So Bitcoin began and people saw the brilliance: even with a weak power bar level of 1 (a couple computers), Bitcoin was safe from 51% attacks and attacking govs competing for control of the chain because a super low hashrate meant Bitcoin wasn't popular and govs wouldn't bother paying attention. By the time Bitcoin was big enough for govs to worry about attacking it should also have so many participants the power bar level would be far higher, providing strong defense. Let's say the ideal power bar level is 50,000. At this level no government on earth has enough resources to beat the grassroots network. We hear people brag about how much security BTC has. However, the marketcap for all of BTC is about $160B. Countries like the U.S. and China have GDP measured in many trillions; a trillion is 1,000 billion. Does 160B really seem untouchable? For numeric comparison the main U.S. federal food assistance program cost the government $70B in 2016, representing about 2% of the budget. So the entirety of the BTC market cap is about twice the size of one welfare program, representing 2% of the overall budget. Where should we place the current security power bars if we want guaranteed safety from a determined U.S. gov? If 50,000 is guaranteed safe we're far from it. I'd say BTC is more like 5,000. That's still pretty decent. Of course, BCH split from BTC... and didn't carry over all the miners and accompanying security. That's not an immediate concern because if BTC isn't on government's radar yet BCH sure isn't. However, that doesn't mean BCH doesn't need security from hostile forces. It's still a valuable network and needs defenses. Where would we put power bars for BCH? If BTC is 5,000 and BCH only has 3% of that hashrate then BCH has just 150. That's it. How the Developer Funding Plan Works Back to the DFP. What this says is as a community we agree to break off a piece of the block reward and instead of giving 100% to miners we give a small percent to developers. If each block is 10 coins and the price is $300 then winning a block means winning $3,000. Of course that's not all profit because miners have electricity and other expenses to pay before calculating profit. So if we reduce the portion of the miner reward by 10% so they get just 9 coins per block yet the price stays the same what happens? It means miners receive $2,700 for the same effort. We've just made it more expensive to mine BCH from the point of view of miners. What would any miner then rationally do? Seek profitability elsewhere if available. Suddenly BTC SHA256 hashing looks slightly more attractive so they'll go there. Hashrate leaves BCH and goes to BTC, but the key important point is BOTH chains have a difficulty adjustment algorithm which adjusts to account for rising or lowering miners overall, which keeps the coin inflation rate steady. This means BTC total hashrate rises (more miners compete for BTC) and its Difficulty Level rises accordingly, so the same rate of BTC pumps out; on BCH total hashrate falls (less miners compete for BCH) and its Difficulty falls, so the same rate of BCH pumps out. Inflation remains about the same on both coins so the price of both coins doesn't change any, beyond what it normally does based on news/events etc. So what difference is there? The difference is total network security. Hashrate totals have changed. BTC gains more miner securing hashrate while BCH loses it. So BTC goes from 5,000 to say 5,100 power bars. BCH goes from about 150 to 140. Does any of that matter in the grand scheme of things? Not in the slightest. Part of the reason is due to our emergency circumstances with BCH we had to rework our security model. Our primary defense is an idea I came up with, which BitcoinABC implemented, saying it's not sheer hashpower that dictates what chain we follow. We won't replace a chain we're working on if a new one suddenly appears if it means changing more than 10 blocks deep of history. This prevents all the threatening hashrate hanging over our heads from mining a secret chain and creating havoc unleashing it causing 10+ confimed txs to be undone, while exchanges, gambling sites etc. have long since paid out real world money. Switching $6M worth of block rewards from mining to devs just means we lose a bit of hashrate security, while we gain those funds for development. Nothing more. Nobody holding BCH pays in the form of inflation or any other way. It costs literally NOTHING BECAUSE The block reward is ALREADY ALLOCATED. It will EITHER go 100% to mining security if we do nothing, or go to both miners and devs if the plan is put into effect. Hopefully this helps. :) TL;DR: we switch security which we don't really need, for developer funding which we do.
The unit of measurement of hash rate is hash per second. Terms are also used for this unit, such as mega, giga, and tera. Different extraction devices for different digital currencies have different power hashes. For example, the hash bitcoin mining machine has a different rate than the Atrium mining machine. Three dependent factors Hash per second is an SI derived unit representing the number of double SHA-256 computations performed in one second, referred to as hash rate.It is usually symbolized as h/s (with an appropriate SI prefix).. Use in hardware specifications. The hash rate is the primary measure of a Bitcoin miner's performance. In 2014, a miner's performance was generally measured in Ghash/s, or billions of Mining Hash Rate. This chart shows an estimate of how many hashes per second bitcoin miners are performing on the network. Estimate = difficulty * 2 32 / time. The bitcoin network has a global block difficulty that adjusts every 2016 blocks (~2 weeks) based on a target time of 10 minutes per block. the transactions of bitcoins are done through the processing of hashes. Depending on their power, the mining devices can process a definite number of hashes per second. For example, when the power of a device is 1 th/s, it can process 1,000,000,000,000 hashes per second. if the miner processes more hashes, it receives more commission Current value is updated every 2 hours from Bitcoin Block Explorer: more on difficulty Bitcoin Block Explorer: hash rate: Specify how many mega-hashes per second each worker (graphics card or cpu) is able to generate. hash rates examples: consumption: The power consumption in watts of each individual worker. If you have multiple workers on a
MINING HASHRANGE - MINING WITH CPU OR CLOUD PROOF OF PAYMENT
M30S delivers (88 TH/s) Tera Hashes Per Second with outstanding power consumption at 38 watts per Tera hash. Model Whatsminer M30S mining SHA-256 algorithm with a maximum hashrate of 88Th/s for a ... Ethereum mining Hashrate & Power consumption on RX 5700 XT RX VEGA 56 RX VEGA 64 RTX 2080 RTX 2080 Ti GTX 1080 Ti 1080 1070 1060 1050 Ti 980 Ti 980 970 960 RX 580 RX570 ... Stripdown of a Bitmain Antminer T9+ cryptocurrency mining rig. This monster can calculate 10.5 trillion SHA-256 hashes per second. I thought it would make a nice shed heater (with cashback). A brief and simple introduction to the hash function and how blockchain solutions use it for proof of work (mining) and data integrity (Merkle Trees). ... What Bitcoin Miners Actually Do ... Other markets will use the same pricing method but may use different units for hashing per second (i.e BTC / Megahash/sec / hour ) Example: You specify to buy 10 Terhash/sec for 1 hour, and pay at ...