sha 1 - Does the SHA hash function always generate a fixed ...

Reddcoin (RDD) 02/20 Progress Report - Core Wallet v3.1 Evolution & PoSV v2 - Commits & More Commits to v3.1! (Bitcoin Core 0.10, MacOS Catalina, QT Enhanced Speed and Security and more!)

Reddcoin (RDD) Core Dev Team Informal Progress Report, Feb 2020 - As any blockchain or software expert will confirm, the hardest part of making successful progress in blockchain and crypto is invisible to most users. As developers, the Reddcoin Core team relies on internal experts like John Nash, contributors offering their own code improvements to our repos (which we would love to see more of!) and especially upstream commits from experts working on open source projects like Bitcoin itself. We'd like tothank each and everyone who's hard work has contributed to this progress.
As part of Reddcoin's evolution, and in order to include required security fixes, speed improvements that are long overdue, the team has up to this point incorporated the following code commits since our last v3.0.1 public release. In attempting to solve the relatively minor font display issue with MacOS Catalina, we uncovered a complicated interweaving of updates between Reddcoin Core, QT software, MacOS SDK, Bitcoin Core and related libraries and dependencies that mandated we take a holistic approach to both solve the Catalina display problem, but in doing so, prepare a more streamlined overall build and test system, allowing the team to roll out more frequent and more secure updates in the future. And also to include some badly needed fixes in the current version of Core, which we have tentatively labeled Reddcoin Core Wallet v3.1.
Note: As indicated below, v3.1 is NOT YET AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD BY PUBLIC. We wil advise when it is.
The new v3.1 version should be ready for internal QA and build testing by the end of this week, with luck, and will be turned over to the public shortly thereafter once testing has proven no unexpected issues have been introduced. We know the delay has been a bit extended for our ReddHead MacOS Catalina stakers, and we hope to have them all aboard soon. We have moved with all possible speed while attempting to incorproate all the required work, testing, and ensuring security and safety for our ReddHeads.
Which leads us to: PoSV v2 activation and the supermajority on Mainnet at the time of this writing has reached 5625/9000 blocks or 62.5%. We have progressed quite well and without any reported user issues since release, but we need all of the community to participate! This activation, much like the funding mechanisms currently being debated by BCH and others, and employed by DASH, will mean not only a catalyst for Reddcoin but ensure it's future by providing funding for the dev team. As a personal plea from the team, please help us support the PoSV v2 activation by staking your RDD, no matter how large or small your amount of stake.
Every block and every RDD counts, and if you don't know how, we'll teach you! Live chat is fun as well as providing tech support you can trust from devs and community ReddHead members. Join us today in staking and online and collect some RDD "rain" from users and devs alike!
If you're holding Reddcoin and not staking, or you haven't upgraded your v2.x wallet to v3.0.1 (current release), we need you to help achieve consensus and activate PoSV v2! For details, see the pinned message here or our website or medium channel. Upgrade is simple and takes moments; if you're nervous or unsure, we're here to help live in Telegram or Discord, as well as other chat programs. See our website for links.
Look for more updates shortly as our long-anticipated Reddcoin Payment Gateway and Merchant Services API come online with point-of-sale support, as we announce the cross-crypto-project Aussie firefighter fundraiser program, as well as a comprehensive update to our development roadmap and more.
Work has restarted on ReddID and multiple initiatives are underway to begin educating and sharing information about ReddID, what it is, and how to use it, as we approach a releasable ReddID product. We enthusiastically encourage anyone interested in working to bring these efforts to life, whether writers, UX/UI experts, big data analysts, graphic artists, coders, front-end, back-end, AI, DevOps, the Reddcoin Core dev team is growing, and there's more opportunity and work than ever!
Bring your talents to a community and dev team that truly appreciates it, and share the Reddcoin Love!
And now, lots of commits. As v3.1 is not yet quite ready for public release, these commits have not been pushed publicly, but in the interests of sharing progress transparently, and including our ReddHead community in the process, see below for mind-numbing technical detail of work accomplished.
e5c143404 - - 2014-08-07 - Ross Nicoll - Changed LevelDB cursors to use scoped pointers to ensure destruction when going out of scope. *99a7dba2e - - 2014-08-15 - Cory Fields - tests: fix test-runner for osx. Closes ##4708 *8c667f1be - - 2014-08-15 - Cory Fields - build: add funcs.mk to the list of meta-depends *bcc1b2b2f - - 2014-08-15 - Cory Fields - depends: fix shasum on osx < 10.9 *54dac77d1 - - 2014-08-18 - Cory Fields - build: add option for reducing exports (v2) *6fb9611c0 - - 2014-08-16 - randy-waterhouse - build : fix CPPFLAGS for libbitcoin_cli *9958cc923 - - 2014-08-16 - randy-waterhouse - build: Add --with-utils (bitcoin-cli and bitcoin-tx, default=yes). Help string consistency tweaks. Target sanity check fix. *342aa98ea - - 2014-08-07 - Cory Fields - build: fix automake warnings about the use of INCLUDES *46db8ad51 - - 2020-02-18 - John Nash - build: add build.h to the correct target *a24de1e4c - - 2014-11-26 - Pavel Janík - Use complete path to include bitcoin-config.h. *fd8f506e5 - - 2014-08-04 - Wladimir J. van der Laan - qt: Demote ReportInvalidCertificate message to qDebug *f12aaf3b1 - - 2020-02-17 - John Nash - build: QT5 compiled with fPIC require fPIC to be enabled, fPIE is not enough *7a991b37e - - 2014-08-12 - Wladimir J. van der Laan - build: check for sys/prctl.h in the proper way *2cfa63a48 - - 2014-08-11 - Wladimir J. van der Laan - build: Add mention of --disable-wallet to bdb48 error messages *9aa580f04 - - 2014-07-23 - Cory Fields - depends: add shared dependency builder *8853d4645 - - 2014-08-08 - Philip Kaufmann - [Qt] move SubstituteFonts() above ToolTipToRichTextFilter *0c98e21db - - 2014-08-02 - Ross Nicoll - URLs containing a / after the address no longer cause parsing errors. *7baa77731 - - 2014-08-07 - ntrgn - Fixes ignored qt 4.8 codecs path on windows when configuring with --with-qt-libdir *2a3df4617 - - 2014-08-06 - Cory Fields - qt: fix unicode character display on osx when building with 10.7 sdk *71a36303d - - 2014-08-04 - Cory Fields - build: fix race in 'make deploy' for windows *077295498 - - 2014-08-04 - Cory Fields - build: Fix 'make deploy' when binaries haven't been built yet *ffdcc4d7d - - 2014-08-04 - Cory Fields - build: hook up qt translations for static osx packaging *25a7e9c90 - - 2014-08-04 - Cory Fields - build: add --with-qt-translationdir to configure for use with static qt *11cfcef37 - - 2014-08-04 - Cory Fields - build: teach macdeploy the -translations-dir argument, for use with static qt *4c4ae35b1 - - 2014-07-23 - Cory Fields - build: Find the proper xcb/pcre dependencies *942e77dd2 - - 2014-08-06 - Cory Fields - build: silence mingw fpic warning spew *e73e2b834 - - 2014-06-27 - Huang Le - Use async name resolving to improve net thread responsiveness *c88e76e8e - - 2014-07-23 - Cory Fields - build: don't let libtool insert rpath into binaries *18e14e11c - - 2014-08-05 - ntrgn - build: Fix windows configure when using --with-qt-libdir *bb92d65c4 - - 2014-07-31 - Cory Fields - test: don't let the port number exceed the legal range *62b95290a - - 2014-06-18 - Cory Fields - test: redirect comparison tool output to stdout *cefe447e9 - - 2014-07-22 - Cory Fields - gitian: remove unneeded option after last commit *9347402ca - - 2014-07-21 - Cory Fields - build: fix broken boost chrono check on some platforms *c9ed039cf - - 2014-06-03 - Cory Fields - build: fix whitespace in pkg-config variable *3bcc5ad37 - - 2014-06-03 - Cory Fields - build: allow linux and osx to build against static qt5 *01a44ba90 - - 2014-07-17 - Cory Fields - build: silence false errors during make clean *d1fbf7ba2 - - 2014-07-08 - Cory Fields - build: fix win32 static linking after libtool merge *005ae2fa4 - - 2014-07-08 - Cory Fields - build: re-add AM_LDFLAGS where it's overridden *37043076d - - 2014-07-02 - Wladimir J. van der Laan - Fix the Qt5 build after d95ba75 *f3b4bbf40 - - 2014-07-01 - Wladimir J. van der Laan - qt: Change serious messages from qDebug to qWarning *f4706f753 - - 2014-07-01 - Wladimir J. van der Laan - qt: Log messages with type>QtDebugMsg as non-debug *98e85fa1f - - 2014-06-06 - Pieter Wuille - libsecp256k1 integration *5f1f2e226 - - 2020-02-17 - John Nash - Merge branch 'switch_verification_code' into Build *1f30416c9 - - 2014-02-07 - Pieter Wuille - Also switch the (unused) verification code to low-s instead of even-s. *1c093d55e - - 2014-06-06 - Cory Fields - secp256k1: Add build-side changes for libsecp256k1 *7f3114484 - - 2014-06-06 - Cory Fields - secp256k1: add libtool as a dependency *2531f9299 - - 2020-02-17 - John Nash - Move network-time related functions to timedata.cpp/h *d003e4c57 - - 2020-02-16 - John Nash - build: fix build weirdness after 54372482. *7035f5034 - - 2020-02-16 - John Nash - Add ::OUTPUT_SIZE *2a864c4d8 - - 2014-06-09 - Cory Fields - crypto: create a separate lib for crypto functions *03a4e4c70 - - 2014-06-09 - Cory Fields - crypto: explicitly check for byte read/write functions *a78462a2a - - 2014-06-09 - Cory Fields - build: move bitcoin-config.h to its own directory *a885721c4 - - 2014-05-31 - Pieter Wuille - Extend and move all crypto tests to crypto_tests.cpp *5f308f528 - - 2014-05-03 - Pieter Wuille - Move {Read,Write}{LE,BE}{32,64} to common.h and use builtins if possible *0161cc426 - - 2014-05-01 - Pieter Wuille - Add built-in RIPEMD-160 implementation *deefc27c0 - - 2014-04-28 - Pieter Wuille - Move crypto implementations to src/crypto/ *d6a12182b - - 2014-04-28 - Pieter Wuille - Add built-in SHA-1 implementation. *c3c4f9f2e - - 2014-04-27 - Pieter Wuille - Switch miner.cpp to use sha2 instead of OpenSSL. *b6ed6def9 - - 2014-04-28 - Pieter Wuille - Remove getwork() RPC call *0a09c1c60 - - 2014-04-26 - Pieter Wuille - Switch script.cpp and hash.cpp to use sha2.cpp instead of OpenSSL. *8ed091692 - - 2014-04-20 - Pieter Wuille - Add a built-in SHA256/SHA512 implementation. *0c4c99b3f - - 2014-06-21 - Philip Kaufmann - small cleanup in src/compat .h and .cpp *ab1369745 - - 2014-06-13 - Cory Fields - sanity: hook up sanity checks *f598c67e0 - - 2014-06-13 - Cory Fields - sanity: add libc/stdlib sanity checks *b241b3e13 - - 2014-06-13 - Cory Fields - sanity: autoconf check for sys/select.h *cad980a4f - - 2019-07-03 - John Nash - build: Add a top-level forwarding target for src/ objects *f4533ee1c - - 2019-07-03 - John Nash - build: qt: split locale resources. Fixes non-deterministic distcheck *4a0e46e76 - - 2019-06-29 - John Nash - build: fix version dependency *2f61699d9 - - 2019-06-29 - John Nash - build: quit abusing AMCPPFLAGS *99b60ba49 - - 2019-06-29 - John Nash - build: avoid the use of top and abs_ dir paths *c8f673d5d - - 2019-06-29 - John Nash - build: Tidy up file generation output *5318bce57 - - 2019-06-29 - John Nash - build: nuke Makefile.include from orbit *672a25349 - - 2019-06-29 - John Nash - build: add stub makefiles for easier subdir builds *562b7c5a6 - - 2020-02-08 - John Nash - build: delete old Makefile.am's *066120079 - - 2020-02-08 - John Nash - build: Switch to non-recursive make
Whew! No wonder it's taken the dev team a while! :)
TL;DR: Trying to fix MacOS Catalina font display led to requiring all kinds of work to migrate and evolve the Reddcoin Core software with Apple, Bitcoin and QT components. Lots of work done, v3.1 public release soon. Also other exciting things and ReddID back under active dev effort.
submitted by TechAdept to reddCoin [link] [comments]

Establishing a smart contract commercial scenario: Chainlink, Zk-Snarks and sharding technology work together to make the ultimate killer

This text was translated from Chinese, open following link in Chrome and translate to see all images:
https://bihu.com/article/1242138347
EDIT: found an English text with pictures:
https://medium.com/@rogerfeng/making-smart-contracts-work-for-business-how-chainlink-zk-snarks-sharding-finally-delivered-8f268af75ca2
Author: Feng Jie translation: Liu Sha
“The highest state of technology is to integrate into the various scenes of everyday life, to fade away from high-tech outerwear and become a part of everyday life.” – Mark Weiser
People in the future will not even think that smart contracts are "innovative." By that time, smart contracts would permeate every aspect of life, and people couldn't even imagine what the era of non-digital currency would look like.
Later historians may divide human business history into two eras, the pre-smart contract era and the post-smart contract era. After all, digital money has brought unprecedented changes to the nature and patterns of business practices in the real world. An anonymous member of the Chainlink community once said: "Smart contracts can change the DNA of the business."
Of course, like all the technological revolutions of the past, smart contracts also need to reach a "tipping point" to truly achieve large-scale applications. So we need to ask ourselves two questions:
  1. What exactly is this so-called tipping point?
  2. As of August 2019, have we reached this tipping point?
To reach the tipping point means unlocking the ultimate nirvana of business.
Tipping point We can think about this issue from the perspective of mainstream companies. Imagine what a perfect smart contract platform should look like. What characteristics should this platform have? Or what features must be possessed?
To reach the tipping point, you must establish a public chain with the following four characteristics:
  1. Privacy protection
  2. In addition to the cryptocurrency, the transaction can also be settled in mainstream legal currency and comply with the regulatory requirements of financial markets such as ISO 20022.
  3. Achieve scalability without sacrificing decentralization or security, that is, solving the "impossible triangle problem."
  4. Connect the external data under the chain, that is, solve the "prophecy problem."
Now that we have Chainlink, zk-snarks and sharding technology, we have reached this tipping point.
Next, let's explore how this ultimate nirvana is actually made. Our discussion will be mainly from the perspective of Ethereum, which is still the top smart contract platform for community size and mainstream applications.
So what about the private chain?
Before delving into it, I want to take the time to solve an unavoidable problem. The mainstream view has always believed that the private chain is a more suitable solution for the enterprise. Therefore, we first dialectically analyze the two advantages and two major drawbacks of the private chain.
Disadvantages
  1. Centralization leads to relatively lower security
It's not surprising that IBM and Maersk's blockchain freight alliances have a hard time finding customers who are willing to join. How can other freight companies be willing to let their biggest competitors (Maersk) verify their trading data? Only madmen dare to do this.
  1. The staking of the horses occupy the hills:
This problem is even more serious than centralization. John Wolpert, co-founder of the IBM blockchain, wrote an excellent article called Breaking the Barriers to Realize Security: Why Companies Should Embrace the Ethereum Public Chain, which he covered in detail in the article.
If every company builds its own private chain, it will lead to chaos in the mountains. Today's B2B ecosystem is very complex. Imagine the innumerable private chains of the world intertwined to form a huge "spider web." This is not only cost-effective, but also not scalable.
The starting point of the blockchain is to break down barriers instead of building more barriers.
"One day, one of your big buyers called you to ask if you want to join their private chain. You promised. The next day you received a call from the wholesaler to ask you the same question. Then came the supplier, freight. Business, insurance company or even bank, and each company may have several private chains! Finally you have to invest a lot of time and cost to operate dozens of blockchains every day . If there are partners to let you join them at this time The private chain, you might say "Forget it, or fax me the order!" ”—Paul Brody (Ernst & Young)
“Every time you connect two private chains through a system integrator, you have to pay a lot of money .”
Advantage
  1. Scalability: With the Ethereum public chain implementing fragmentation technology, this advantage is rapidly shrinking.
  2. Privacy protection: At this stage, the classification of public chain / private chain is actually not very accurate. The Aztec , Zether, and Nightfall protocols (both based on the zk-snarks protocol) effectively provide a "private chain model" for the Ethereum public chain, allowing it to switch between the public and private chains. Therefore, a more accurate classification should be the alliance chain and the public chain.
By 2020, the label of the public chain/private chain will gradually disappear. The public and private chains will no longer be two opposing concepts. Instead, the concept of publicly traded/private transactions and confidential contracts/open contracts is changed, and the scope of these transactions and contracts varies according to specific needs, either bilaterally or multilaterally or even publicly.
All in all, the private chain has two major drawbacks compared to the public chain. Not only that, but the two major advantages of the private chain are also rapidly disappearing.
“Technology will evolve over time, so there will be a variety of solutions to solve existing problems. Ultimately, the public-chain platform will have the same performance, scalability and data privacy as the private chain, while at the same time ensuring security and Decentralized."
Feature 1: Privacy protection (predictive machine and public chain privacy)
Enigma founder Guy Zyskind once joked in his MIT graduation thesis that smart contracts can only become commercially valuable if they become "confidential contracts." He later proposed that zk-snarks and Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) are the most promising solutions. He said nothing wrong.
What is zk-snarks ? Zk-snarks is a zero-knowledge proof mechanism (ZPK). So what is the zero-knowledge proof mechanism? In short: a zero-knowledge proof mechanism allows you to prove that you own certain information without revealing the content of the information.
Vitalik Buterin explained this concept in detail from a technical point of view in an article published in 2017. Hackernoon also wrote an excellent article explaining the concept in an easy-to-understand way with the example of a five-year-old child and Halloween candy.
What is the trusted execution environment? The trusted execution environment lets the code run on closed hardware, and
1 ) The guarantee result cannot be tampered with
2 ) Protecting absolute privacy, even hardware running code can't get confidential information.
The most well-known trusted execution environment is Intel SGX. Chainlink has established a partnership with Intel SGX after acquiring Tom Crier.
Ernst & Young released the Nightfall agreement on Github on May 31, 2019. A well-known accounting firm with a history of 100 years will choose to add privacy features to the public chain instead of developing a private chain. This is a problem.
Since then, the community has been actively developing on this basis, not only to improve the code, but also to develop a plug-and-play Truffle Box for those who are not good at writing code. Blockchain communities and businesses generally rarely collaborate, so these collaborations fully demonstrate the popularity of Nightfall.
Prior to this, two zk-snark-based Ethereum public chain privacy protocols were introduced, namely AZTEC (Consensys) and Zether (Stanford, JPMorgan Chase). An obvious trend is slowly taking shape.
In the field of oracles, Chainlink uses both zero-knowledge proof and a trusted execution environment to complement each other. Trusted execution environments guarantee data privacy, even for nodes that cannot access data (this feature is critical for bank accounts and API keys).
Chainlink is still trying to implement a trusted execution environment, and nodes can access data temporarily, so authentication services are also needed. Although the credible execution environment is almost 100% foolproof, in theory, a strong shield has a spear that can penetrate it. Therefore, the team is currently trying to run zk-snarks in a trusted execution environment (Thomas Hodges mentioned this in the 2019 Trufflecon Q&A session). The combination of the two can form a very robust and complete system. The attacker must find a way to strip all the layers of an onion at the same time to make any effective attack (and it is already difficult to peel off a layer of skin).
“Chainlink combines a trusted execution environment with zero-knowledge proof to build what we call a defense-in-depth system, which means they provide all the tools needed for smart contract developers, including trusted execution environments, multiple nodes, and Data sources, fine margins, reputation systems, asymmetric encryption, zero-knowledge proofs, WASM, and OTP+RNG, these features allow smart contract developers to adjust the confidentiality and cost of contracts based on specific budget and security needs. Machine, Chainlink and its four major application scenarios》
In the future, zk-snarks may be upgraded to zk-starks (a fully transparent zero-knowledge proof mechanism) that protects the system from quantum computer attacks. And the best thing about zk-starks is that it's more scalable than zk-snarks. In other words, it can better protect privacy, and the cost of gas will not increase.
If you want to learn more about zk-starks, you can read a popular science article written by Adam Luciano.
Feature 2: Scalability (scalability of predictive machines and public chains) To understand this problem, we can make an analogy like this:
A public chain is like a large enterprise, and every employee (ie, a node) must attend each meeting (ie, confirm each transaction). Imagine how inefficient this company is! Only customers who have a lot of money (ie gas fees) can get their requests to the forefront. And this is not the most serious problem. The most serious problem is that the more employees (ie nodes) who join the company, the harder it is for the company to function properly! In the end, the company not only failed to expand linearly, but also became smaller and smaller. Although this guarantees decentralization and security to the greatest extent, the price is completely abandoning scalability.
There are various temporary fire fighting solutions, but no one solution can completely solve this "impossible triangle problem." For example, EOS uses the DPOS mechanism (share authorization certification mechanism), where only 21 super nodes (many of which are well-known nodes) are responsible for verifying all transactions.
Sidechains (such as Bitcoin's Lightning Network and Ethereum's lightning network) guarantee scalability and decentralization at the expense of security.
So how to use the fragmentation technology to solve this problem? Let's make another analogy:
In reality, there is only one company that is not too much to ask everyone to attend all meetings, that is, small start-ups (that is, private chains that limit the number of nodes).
In most cases, large companies divide employees into thousands of teams (ie, shards), and each team's principal (ie, the certifier) ​​is responsible for reporting to the senior management (ie, the main chain). If people from different teams need to collaborate (and sometimes also), then they can collaborate by cross-shard receipts. If a new employee joins the company, the team can be re-segmented (ie re-sharding). This allows for linear expansion.
In fact, the process of developing a start-up to a large enterprise is surprisingly similar to the process of Ethereum 1.0 developing into Ethereum 2.0.
“The Ethereum 1.0 period is that several people who are alone are trying to build a world computer; and Ethereum 2.0 will really develop into a world computer.” Vitalik Buterin said in the first piece of the workshop.
Since Ethereum was not originally built on the principle of fragmentation, it takes seven steps to achieve the goal (this is a bit like the word morphing solitaire game). The first step is planned for January 3, 2020.
At the same time, developers can use many other blockchain platforms designed based on the fragmentation principle. Some platforms, including Zilliqa and Quarkchain, are already compatible with Chainlink.
If you want to see more in-depth technical analysis of shards, check out an article by Ramy Zhang.
In the field of oracles, Chainlink has the following two characteristics:
1 ) Use Schnorr threshold signatures to quickly reach consensus in a cost-effective manner. The next version of the chain only needs 16,000 gas.
2 ) We have previously discussed the need to use trusted execution environment hardware to ensure that nodes cannot access sensitive data. Since you have hardware in your hand, you can use it to do some actual computing work, so that you can properly reduce the amount of computation on the smart contract platform.
"With the SGX system (Town Crier) and zero-knowledge proof technology, the oracle can be truly reliable and confidential, so the boundaries between the oracle and the smart contract are beginning to flow... Our long-term strategy... is to let The predictor becomes the key chain of computing resources used by most smart contracts. We believe that the way to achieve this goal is to perform chain operations in the oracle to meet various computing needs, and then send the results to the smart contract."Chainlink White Paper, Section 6.3 (26 pages)
Of course, this “long-term strategy” has certain risks, unless Chainlink can implement a trusted execution environment and its service provider ecosystem can achieve a qualitative leap. However, the Chainlink team's vision is absolutely forward-looking: under-chain computing is a key factor in ensuring that blockchains are not dragged down by large amounts of IoT data.
The Internet of Things has dramatically increased the current state of big data. At present, most of the data is still generated on the software side, and it is not real-time data, and most of the data in the future will be real-time data generated on the sensor side. One of the big drawbacks of real-time data is that it increases storage pressure. For example, Coughlin Associates expects an unmanned car to generate 1G of data per second. This means that the same car will produce 3.6T data per hour!
The only viable solution is to do real-time analysis of the data, rather than storing the data first. In the Global Cloud Index: 2016-2021 Forecast and Methodology White Paper, Cisco predicts that more than 90% of data in 2021 will be analyzed in real time without storage.
That is to say, the essence of data is that it can only exist in just one instant. The nature of the blockchain is not to be modified, so the two are as incompatible as water and oil.
The solution is to analyze the raw data under the chain, extract the meaningful results and send them to the blockchain. The combination of fragmentation technology and trusted execution environment forms a new computing architecture, similar to the cloud computing-fog computing-edge computing architecture.
It should be noted here that it is good to improve computing power, but this is not the main purpose of the blockchain.
The fundamental purpose of the blockchain is not to reduce the original cost of computing and data storage. After all, technology giants such as Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Salesforce, Tencent, Alibaba, and Dropbox have built world-class cloud services. The centralized server wins high computational efficiency (but the blockchain will greatly improve the computational efficiency through fragmentation technology, and will catch up with it one day). The value of the blockchain is to reduce the cost of building trust. Nick Szabo calls it "social scalability" (this is a relative concept to the "operational" scalability we have been talking about). Vitalik Buterin also made it clear that the meaning of smart contracts is to accept small arithmetic delay penalties in exchange for a substantial reduction in "social costs."
Alex Coventry of the Chainlink team once raised the question: "We have missed many opportunities for cooperation and reciprocity because we can't confirm whether the other party will fulfill the promise?"
Is there any potential for data storage projects like Siacoin and IPFS? What about decentralized computing projects like SONM and Golem?
Siacoin 's core value proposition is not that its computing efficiency is higher than traditional cloud services. The cost of computing is required to split, repeat, and reassemble data. And companies are more capable of buying the latest and greatest hardware than individuals. Siacoin's core value proposition is to process data in an Airbnb-like mode, so management fees will be lower than traditional models. It also generates additional social value, such as flood control, privacy and security, and anti-censorship.
The same is true of Golem and SONM. Even with the most efficient protocol, it is inevitable that a small amount of delay will be imposed and fined to coordinate the hardware of different geographical locations. Therefore, under the condition that all other conditions are equal, the centralized hardware still has the advantage of faster computing speed. However, the core value proposition of the above project is to use the Airbnb-like model to reduce management costs.
We must strictly distinguish between "social scalability" and "operational scalability", and the two cannot be confused. I will explain these two concepts in detail when I discuss "Magic Bus and Lightweight Library" later.
Feature 3: Compatible with legal currency
Most mainstream companies do not regard cryptocurrencies as "real currencies." In addition, even if someone wants to use cryptocurrency for trading, it is very difficult to actually operate because of its high price volatility. I discussed the “price volatility problem” in detail in Chapters 8 and 9 of the previous article. These problems do not completely erase the existence value of cryptocurrencies, because cryptocurrencies also have many advantages that legal currency does not have. I am just emphasizing what we need to know more about the comfort zone of mainstream companies.
Chainlink acts as a universal API connector that triggers open banking payments. Chainlink is fully compliant with ISO 20022 and has established a long-term partnership with SWIFT (it is worth mentioning that SWIFT has not been updated for a long time and hopes to be updated after the SIBOS 2019 conference).
PSD2 will take effect on September 14, 2019. All banks in the EU will all comply with this new regulation by then. In other words, the bank must put all account data in the "front end" and can be called through the API. The approved third party (ie, the Chainlink node) can trigger the payment directly without the payment service provider.
Although the United States and Japan have not adopted similar laws, many banks still spontaneously promote the development of open banks. Banks open APIs to third-party developers to create new revenue streams and customer experiences that ultimately increase profitability. In addition, this will allow banks to better respond to competitors in the mobile payment and financial technology sectors in an APP-centric economic model.
As this open banking revolution continues, Chainlink will connect smart contracts with the world's major currencies (US dollar, euro, yen, etc.).
Only one external adapter is required to connect to the authenticated API. From a programming perspective, it is relatively simple to allow everyone in the community to contribute code to the code base (and thus achieve scalability). Chainlink has released adapters for PayPal and Mister Tango (European version of PayPal).
Feature 4: Data connection with the chain
Chainlink has been working on solving the "prophecy problem" and successfully succeeded on the main online line on May 30, 2019.
Chainlink has made many achievements in just a few months. Provable (formerly Oraclize) was successfully used on the Chainlink node and finally settled the debate about whether the predictor should be centralized or decentralized.
Synthetic Ether lost 37 million Ethercoins in a hack because it did not connect to Chainlink. Fortunately, the money was finally recovered and did not cause any loss. This lesson illustrates the importance of decentralized oracles.
In addition, both Oracle and Google have partnered with Chainlink to monetize their API data and create a virtuous circle to capture the market opportunities that Facebook missed.
There are new nodes coming online every week, and the network activity has been very high. The Chainlink team maintains a list of certified nodes in the documentation and Twitter releases. Twitter user CryptoSponge also set up a new development for the Tableau push update Chainlink team:
Regarding the importance of the current stage in the history of blockchain development, Brad Huston summed it up very brilliantly:
"The biggest problem with cryptocurrencies is to build bridges between cryptocurrencies, fiat currencies and big data. Chainlink is very beautifully narrowing the distance between the three. Now it can even be said: 'The bridge has been built.'"
Magic bus and lightweight library
Let's summarize what we discussed earlier. The real purpose of the blockchain is to reduce the cost of building trust and achieve "social scalability."
Therefore, according to this logic, the main application scenarios of platforms such as Ethereum 2.0 and Zilliqa should be in the B2B field. I quote a sentence I wrote in a previous article:
“My conclusion is: If the smart contract is successful, it will also succeed in the B2B field first.”
The private chain itself is self-contradictory and destined to fail. It has led to the phenomenon of occupying the hills, thus increasing the social cost, which is in opposition to B2B itself, and ultimately it is self-restraint. ”
Before the emergence of fragmentation technology, even simple games (ie, etheric cats) could not be smoothly run on the public chain, let alone dealing with complex B2B contracts and even changing commercial DNA. With the sharding technology, everything is ready.
Despite this, we can't use Ethereum 2.0 as an all-powerful platform. Just now we said that although it is a good thing to speed up the calculation, this is not the real purpose of Ethereum 2.0. And before we also said that due to the irreversible modification of the blockchain, it is not good to deal with a large number of fleeting real-time data of the Internet of Things. In other words, we must be soberly aware that Ethereum 2.0 will not replace traditional web 2.0. Instead, we should make better use of the real advantages of Ethereum 2.0:
“There is a new concept now, that is to think of the Ethereum main network as a global bus... We use the Ethereum 2.0 main network to treat various business resources as a working group on Slack: it can be easily built and integrated. And restructuring. The SAP inventory management system in your company, the dealer's JD Edwards ERP system, and the financial technology partner's tall blockchain system can seamlessly interface, eliminating the need to develop an infrastructure specifically for each partner." - John Wolper describes his ideal "magic bus"
Ethereum 2.0 should be an integration center, not a data center or computing center. It should be a library built specifically to store B2B contract terms (to be honest, even with fragmentation technology, the amount of data is large enough).
We should not expect Ethereum 2.0 to be an all-powerful platform, but rather develop it into a "lightweight library."
If we reorder the pyramid model just now, the architecture of the magic bus is obvious:
Of course, the positional relationship in the above model is not static. With the development of 5G technology, edge computing and IoT sensors, they may bypass the cloud to directly interact (or even bypass the fog end). If the collaboration between Iotex and Chainlink is successful, then the edge can interact directly with the trusted execution environment.
Time will tell if Airbnb's shared data storage and computing model can make management costs lower than the current mainstream Web 2.0 model. Time will also prove whether the market really needs anti-censorship, anti-tampering, security protection and privacy protection. Do users really care about these social values ​​and are willing to pay for them? Do they think these are just the icing on the cake or the most fundamental value?
in conclusion
Whether it is the battle between web2.0 and web3.0 or the battle between cryptocurrency and legal currency, one thing is beyond doubt:
We have reached the tipping point, and the era of smart contracts with commercial value has arrived.
In fact, the only problem at the moment is the time issue, and the main roadblocks have been basically cleared.
  1. When will Ethereum 2.0 finish these 7 stages and be officially released?
  2. When will Chainlink use a trusted execution environment on a large scale? If the cooperation between Intel SGX and Town Crier fails, what alternative plans are there? Will Chainlink communicate with other blockchain teams that plan to use a trusted execution environment (such as Dawn Song's Oasis Labs)?
At present, the main technical problems in the ecosystem have been solved, and now it is only necessary to recruit a group of enthusiastic developers to do the work of “connecting the line”.
Digital currency has changed commercial DNA, and the future is full of possibilities.
The only thing that hinders us now is our own imagination. The future is infinitely imaginative, and the future will be the world of developers. Dapps is already overwhelming. There is no doubt that we have found the ultimate nirvana.
This text was translated from Chinese, open following in Chrome and translate to see all images:
https://bihu.com/article/1242138347
submitted by QuantLink to LINKTrader [link] [comments]

Looking back 18 months.

I was going through old emails today and came across this one I sent out to family on January 4, 2018. It was a reflection on the 2017 crypto bull market and where I saw it heading, as well as some general advice on crypto, investment, and being safe about how you handle yourself in cryptoland.
I feel that we are on the cusp of a new bull market right now, so I thought that I would put this out for at least a few people to see *before* the next bull run, not after. While the details have changed, I don't see a thing in this email that I fundamentally wouldn't say again, although I'd also probably insist that people get a Yubikey and use that for all 2FA where it is supported.
Happy reading, and sorry for some of the formatting weirdness -- I cleaned it up pretty well from the original email formatting, but I love lists and indents and Reddit has limitations... :-/
Also, don't laught at my token picks from January 2018! It was a long time ago and (luckliy) I took my own advice about moving a bunch into USD shortly after I sent this. I didn't hit the top, and I came back in too early in the summer of 2018, but I got lucky in many respects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jan-4, 2018
Hey all!
I woke up this morning to ETH at a solid $1000 and decided to put some thoughts together on what I think crypto has done and what I think it will do. *******, if you could share this to your kids I’d appreciate it -- I don’t have e-mail addresses, and it’s a bit unwieldy for FB Messenger… Hopefully they’ll at least find it thought-provoking. If not, they can use it as further evidence that I’m a nutjob. 😉
Some history before I head into the future.
I first mined some BTC in 2011 or 2012 (Can’t remember exactly, but it was around the Christmas holidays when I started because I had time off from work to get it set up and running.) I kept it up through the start of summer in 2012, but stopped because it made my PC run hot and as it was no longer winter, ********** didn’t appreciate the sound of the fans blowing that hot air into the room any more. I’ve always said that the first BTC I mined was at $1, but looking back at it now, that’s not true – It was around $2. Here’s a link to BTC price history.
In the summer of 2013 I got a new PC and moved my programs and files over before scrapping the old one. I hadn’t touched my BTC mining folder for a year then, and I didn’t even think about salvaging those wallet files. They are now gone forever, including the 9-10BTC that were in them. While I can intellectually justify the loss, it was sloppy and underlines a key thing about cryptocurrency that I believe will limit its widespread adoption by the general public until it is addressed and solved: In cryptoland, you are your own bank, and if you lose your password or account number, there is no person or organization that can help you reset it so that you can get access back. Your money is gone forever.
On April 12, 2014 I bought my first BTC through Coinbase. BTC had spiked to $1000 and been in the news, at least in Japan. This made me remember my old wallet and freak out for a couple of months trying to find it and reclaim the coins. I then FOMO’d (Fear Of Missing Out”) and bought $100 worth of BTC. I was actually very lucky in my timing and bought at around $430. Even so, except for a brief 50% swing up almost immediately afterwards that made me check prices 5 times a day, BTC fell below my purchase price by the end of September and I didn’t get back to even until the end of 2015.
In May 2015 I bought my first ETH at around $1. I sent some guy on bitcointalk ~$100 worth of BTC and he sent me 100 ETH – all on trust because the amounts were small and this was a small group of people. BTC was down in the $250 range at that point, so I had lost 30-40% of my initial investment. This was of the $100 invested, so not that much in real terms, but huge in percentages. It also meant that I had to buy another $100 of BTC on Coinbase to send to this guy. A few months after I purchased my ETH, BTC had doubled and ETH had gone down to $0.50, halving the value of my ETH holdings. I was even on the first BTC purchase finally, but was now down 50% on the ETH I had bought.
The good news was that this made me start to look at things more seriously. Where I had skimmed white papers and gotten a superficial understanding of the technology before FOMO’ing, I started to act as an investor, not a speculator. Let me define how I see those two different types of activity:
So what has been my experience as an investor? After sitting out the rest of 2015 because I needed to understand the market better, I bought into ETH quite heavily, with my initial big purchases being in March-April of 2016. Those purchases were in the $11-$14 range. ETH, of course, dropped immediately to under $10, then came back and bounced around my purchase range for a while until December of 2016, when I purchased a lot more at around $8.
I also purchased my first ICO in August of 2016, HEAT. I bought 25ETH worth. Those tokens are now worth about half of their ICO price, so about 12.5ETH or $12500 instead of the $25000 they would be worth if I had just kept ETH. There are some other things with HEAT that mean I’ve done quite a bit better than those numbers would suggest, but the fact is that the single best thing I could have done is to hold ETH and not spend the effort/time/cost of working with HEAT. That holds true for about every top-25 token on the market when compared to ETH. It certainly holds true for the many, many tokens I tried to trade in Q1-Q2 of 2017. In almost every single case I would have done better and slept better had I just held ETH instead of trying to be smarter than Mr. Market.
But, I made money on all of them except one because the crypto market went up more in USD terms than any individual coin went down in ETH or BTC terms. This underlines something that I read somewhere and that I take to heart: A rising market makes everyone seem like a genius. A monkey throwing darts at a list of the top 100 cryptocurrencies last year would have doubled his money. Here’s a chart from September that shows 2017 year-to-date returns for the top 10 cryptocurrencies, and all of them went up a *lot* more between then and December. A monkey throwing darts at this list there would have quintupled his money.
When evaluating performance, then, you have to beat the monkey, and preferably you should try to beat a Wall Street monkey. I couldn’t, so I stopped trying around July 2017. My benchmark was the BLX, a DAA (Digital Asset Array – think fund like a Fidelity fund) created by ICONOMI. I wasn’t even close to beating the BLX returns, so I did several things.
  1. I went from holding about 25 different tokens to holding 10 now. More on that in a bit.
  2. I used those funds to buy ETH and BLX. ETH has done crazy-good since then and BLX has beaten BTC handily, although it hasn’t done as well as ETH.
  3. I used some of those funds to set up an arbitrage operation.
The arbitrage operation is why I kept the 11 tokens that I have now. All but a couple are used in an ETH/token pair for arbitrage, and each one of them except for one special case is part of BLX. Why did I do that? I did that because ICONOMI did a better job of picking long-term holds than I did, and in arbitrage the only speculative thing you must do is pick the pairs to trade. My pairs are (No particular order):
I also hold PLU, PLBT, and ART. These two are multi-year holds for me. I have not purchased BTC once since my initial $200, except for a few cases where BTC was the only way to go to/from an altcoin that didn’t trade against ETH yet. Right now I hold about the same 0.3BTC that I held after my first $100 purchase, so I don’t really count it.
Looking forward to this year, I am positioning myself as follows:
Looking at my notes, I have two other things that I wanted to work into this email that I didn’t get to, so here they are:
  1. Just like with free apps and other software, if you are getting something of value and you didn’t pay anything for it, you need to ask why this is. With apps, the phrase is “If you didn’t pay for the product, you are the product”, and this works for things such as pump groups, tips, and even technical analysis. Here’s how I see it.
    1. People don’t give tips on stocks or crypto that they don’t already own that stock or token. Why would they, since if they convince anyone to buy it, the price only goes up as a result, making it more expensive for them to buy in? Sure, you will have friends and family that may do this, but people in a crypto club, your local cryptocurrency meetup, or online are generally not your friends. They are there to make money, and if they can get you to help them make money, they will do it. Pump groups are the worst of these, and no matter how enticing it may look, stay as far away as possible from these scams. I even go so far as to report them when I see them advertise on FB or Twitter, because they are violating the terms of use.
    2. Technical analysis (TA) is something that has been argued about for longer than I’ve been alive, but I think that it falls into the same boat. In short, TA argues that there are patterns in trading that can be read and acted upon to signal when one must buy or sell. It has been used forever in the stock and foreign exchange markets, and people use it in crypto as well. Let’s break down these assumptions a bit.
i. First, if crypto were like the stock or forex markets we’d all be happy with 5-7% gains per year rather than easily seeing that in a day. For TA to work the same way in crypto as it does in stocks and foreign exchange, the signals would have to be *much* stronger and faster-reacting than they work in the traditional market, but people use them in exactly the same way.
ii. Another area where crypto is very different than the stock and forex markets centers around market efficiency theory. This theory says that markets are efficient and that the price reflects all the available information at any given time. This is why gold in New York is similar in price to gold in London or Shanghai, and why arbitrage margins are easily <0.1% in those markets compared to cryptoland where I can easily get 10x that. Crypto simply has too much speculation and not enough professional traders in it yet to operate as an efficient market. That fundamentally changes the way that the market behaves and should make any TA patterns from traditional markets irrelevant in crypto.
iii. There are services, both free and paid that claim to put out signals based on TA for when one should buy and sell. If you think for even a second that they are not front-running (Placing orders ahead of yours to profit.) you and the other people using the service, you’re naïve.
iv. Likewise, if you don’t think that there are people that have but together computerized systems to get ahead of people doing manual TA, you’re naïve. The guys that I have programming my arbitrage bots have offered to build me a TA bot and set up a service to sell signals once our position is taken. I said no, but I am sure that they will do it themselves or sell that to someone else. Basically they look at TA as a tip machine where when a certain pattern is seen, people act on that “tip”. They use software to see that “tip” faster and take a position on it so that when slower participants come in they either have to sell lower or buy higher than the TA bot did. Remember, if you are getting a tip for free, you’re the product. In TA I see a system when people are all acting on free preset “tips” and getting played by the more sophisticated market participants. Again, you have to beat that Wall Street monkey.
  1. If you still don’t agree that TA is bogus, think about it this way: If TA was real, Wall Street would have figured it out decades ago and we would have TA funds that would be beating the market. We don’t.
  2. If you still don’t agree that TA is bogus and that its real and well, proven, then you must think that all smart traders use them. Now follow that logic forward and think about what would happen if every smart trader pushing big money followed TA. The signals would only last for a split second and would then be overwhelmed by people acting on them, making them impossible to leverage. This is essentially what the efficient market theory postulates for all information, including TA.
OK, the one last item. Read this weekly newsletter – You can sign up at the bottom. It is free, so they’re selling something, right? 😉 From what I can tell, though, Evan is a straight-up guy who posts links and almost zero editorial comments.
Happy 2018.
submitted by uetani to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

FUD Copy Pastas

**Last updated: May 30, 2018: Updated wallet info with release of Trinity.
This 4 part series from the IOTA foundation covers most of the technical FUD centered at IOTA.
https://blog.iota.org/official-iota-foundation-response-to-the-digital-currency-initiative-at-the-mit-media-lab-part-1-72434583a2
Also the official IOTA faq on iota.org answers nearly all of these questions if you want to hear the answers directly.
Purpose of Writing
Since posting FUD is so ridiculously low-effort in comparison to setting the record straight, I felt it necessary to put a log of copy-pastas together to balance the scales so its just as easy to answer the FUD as it was to generate it. So next time you hear someone say "IOTA is centralized", you no longer have to take an hour out of your day and spin your wheels with someone who likely had an agenda to begin with. You just copy-paste away and move on.
It's also worth mentioning IOTA devs are too damn busy working on the protocol and doing their job to answer FUD. So I felt a semblance of responsibility.
Here they are. These answers are too my understanding so if you see something that doesn't look right let me know! They are divided into the following categories so if you are interested in a specific aspect of IOTA you can scroll to that section.
1) WALLET
2) COMMUNITY
3) INVESTING
4) TECHNICAL

WALLET

IOTA was hacked and users funds were stolen!

First, IOTA was not hacked. The term “hacked” is thrown around way too brazingly nowadays and often used to describe events that weren’t hacks to begin with. Its a symptom of this space growing way too fast creating situations of the blind leading the blind and causing hysteria.
What happened:
Many IOTA users trusted a certain 3rd party website to create their seed for their wallets. This website silently sent copies of all the seeds generated to an email address and waited till it felt it had enough funds, then it took everyones money simultaneously. That was the ”hack”.
https://blog.iota.org/the-secret-to-security-is-secrecy-d32b5b7f25ef
The lesson:
The absolute #1 marketed feature of crypto is that you are your own bank. Of everything that is common knowledge about crypto, this is at the top. But being your own bank means you are responsible for the security of your own funds. There is no safety net or centralized system in place that is going to bail you out.
For those that don’t know (and you really should if you’ve invested in anything crypto), your seed is your username-pw-security question-backup email all rolled into one. Would you trust a no-name 3rd party website to produce your username+pw for your bank account? Because thats essentially what users did.
The fix:
Make your seed offline with the generators in the sidebar or use dice. This is outlined in the “how to generate wallet and seed” directly following.
The trinity and carriota wallets will have seed generators within them upon their release.

How to generate wallet and seed

1) Download official trinity wallet here
2) follow the instructions on the app.
3) Do not run any apps in conjunction with the trinity app. Make sure all other apps are completely closed out on your device.

Are you sure a computer can’t just guess my seed?

An IOTA seed is 81 characters long. There are more IOTA seed combinations than atoms in the universe. All the computers in the world combined would take millions billions of years just to find your randomly generated one that’s located somewhere between the 0th and the 2781st combination. The chance for someone to randomly generate the exact same seed as yours is 1 / (2781).
If you can’t fathom the number 27 ^ 81, this video should help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8YIdmwcubc

Why is Trinity wallet taking so long!!??

Trinity is out. https://trinity.iota.org/

COMMUNITY

IOTA introduction video to share with family

https://youtu.be/LyC04NrJ3yA

Tangle visualizers

http://tangle.glumb.de/

How to setup a full node

Download Bolero and run! Bolero is an all-in-one full node install package with the latest IOTA IRI and Nelson all under a one-click install!
https://github.com/SemkoDev/bolero.fun/releases
"If you want to help the network then spam the network. If you really want to help the network then create a full node and let others spam you!"

No questions or concerns get upvoted, only downvoted!

That’s just the nature of this business. Everyone in these communities has money at stake and are extremely incentivized to keep only positive news at the top of the front page. There is nothing you're going to do about that on this subreddit or any crypto subreddit. It's just a reddit fact of life we have to deal with. Everyone has a downvote and everyone has an upvote. But what can be done is just simply answer the questions even if they are downvoted to hell. Yea most people wont' see the answers or discussion but that one person will. every little bit counts.
I will say that there are most certainly answers to nearly every FUD topic out there. Every single one. A lot of the posts I'm seeing as of late especially since the price spike are rehashed from months ago. They are often not answered not because there isn't an answeexplanation, but because regulars who have the answers simply don't see them (for the reason listed above). I can see how it's easy for this to be interpreted (especially by new users) as there not being an answer or "the FUDsters are on to something" but thats just not the case.

Developer's candidness (aka dev's are assholes!)

http://www.reddit.com/Iota/comments/7obyyx/serious_talk_about_pr_system_iota_and_david/ds8ouvc
http://www.reddit.com/Iota/comments/7obyyx/serious_talk_about_pr_system_iota_and_david/ds8rega
http://www.reddit.com/Iota/comments/7oi9g8/why_is_everyone_so_critical_of_david_this_has_to/ds9rtbb
https://i.redd.it/qb0ik4tgny401.jpg
Lastly and to no surprise, David conducts himself very professionally in this interview even when asked several tough questions about the coordinator and MIT criticism.

IOTA Devs do not respond appropriately to criticism

When critiquers provide feedback that is ACTUALLY useful to the devs, then sure they'll be glad to hear it. So far not once has an outside dev brought up something that the IOTA devs found useful. Every single time it ends up being something that was already taken into consideration with the design and if the critiquer did an ounce of research they would know that. Thus you often find the IOTA devs dismissing their opinion as FUD and responding with hostility because all their critique is really doing is sending the message to their supporters that they are not supposed to like IOTA anymore.
Nick Johnson was a perfect example of this. The Ethereum community was co-existing [peacefully]with IOTA’s community (as they do with nearly all alt coins) until Nick wrote his infamous article. Then almost overnight Ethereum decided it didn’t like IOTA anymore and we’ve been dealing with that shit since. As of today, add LTC to that list with Charlie’s (even admitting) ignorant judgement of IOTA.
12/17/2017: Add John McAfee (bitcoin cash) and Peter Todd (bitcoin) to the list of public figures who have posted ignorantly on IOTA.

A lot of crypto communities certainly like to hate on IOTA...

IOTA is disrupting the disrupters. It invented a completely new distributed ledger infrastructure (the tangle) that replaces the blockchain and solves all of its fundamental problems (namely fees and scaling). To give you an idea of this significance, 99% of the cryptocurrencies that exist are built on a block chain. These projects have billions of dollars invested into them meaning everyone in their communities are incentivized to see IOTA fail and spread as much FUD about it as possible. This includes well known organizations, public figures, and brands. Everyone commenting in these subreddits and crypto communities have their own personal money at stake and skin in the game. Misinformation campaigns, paid reddit posters, upvote/downvote bots, and corrupt moderators are all very real in this space.

INVESTING

How do I buy IOTA

https://medium.com/@fuo213/how-to-buy-iota-the-complete-guide-for-crypto-dummies-e63560caf921

What is the IOTA foundation?

IOTA foundation is a non-profit established in Germany and recognized by the European Union. Blog post here: https://blog.iota.org/iota-foundation-fb61937c9a7e

How many companies and organizations are interested, partnered or actively using IOTA?

A lot, and often too many to keep up with.
https://reddit.com/Iota/comments/7f3dmx/list_of_known_iota_partnerships_corporate/

How was IOTA distributed?

All IOTAs that will ever exist were sold at the ICO in 2015. There was no % reserved for development. Devs had to buy in with their personal money. Community donated back 5% of all IOTA so the IOTA foundation could be setup.

No inflation schedule? No additional coins? How is this sustainable?

Interestingly enough, IOTA is actually the only crypto that does not run into any problems with a currency cap and deflationaryism. Because there are zero fees, you will always be able to pay for something for exactly what it's worth using IOTA, no matter how small the value. If by chance in the future a single iota grows so large in value that it no longer allows someone to pay for something in fractions of a penny, the foundation would just add decimal points allowing for a tenth or a hundreth or a thousandth of an iota to be transacted with.
To give you some perspective, if a single IOTA equals 1 penny, IOTA would have a 27 trillion dollar market cap (100x that of Bitcoin's today)

IOTA is not for P2P, only for M2M

With the release of the trinity wallet, it's now dead simple for anyone to use IOTA funds for P2P. Try it out.

Companies technically don’t have to use the IOTA token

Yes they do
Worth clarifying that 0 iota data transactions are perfectly fine and are welcomed since they still provide pow for 2 other transactions and help secure the network. In the early stages, these types of transactions will probably be what give us the tps/pow needed to remove the coordinator and allow the network defend 34% attacks organically.
But... if someone does not want to sell or exchange their data for free (0 IOTA transaction), then Dominic is saying that the IOTA token must be used for that or any exchange in value on the network.
This is inherently healthy for the ecosystem since it provides a neutral and non-profit middle ground that all parties/companies can trust. If one company made their own token it wouldn’t be trusted since companies are incentivized by profits and nothing is stopping them from manipulating their token to make them more money. Thus, the IOTA foundation will not partner with anyone who refuses to take this option off the table.

All these companies are going to influence IOTA development!!

These companies have no influence on the development of IOTA. They either choose to use it or they don’t.

Internet of things is cheap and will stay cheap

Internet of things is one application of IOTA and considered by many to be the 4th industrial revolution. Go do some googling. IOTA having zero fees enables M2M for the first time in history. Also, if a crypto can do M2M it sure as shit can do M2P and P2P. M2M is hard mode.

IOTA surpassing speculation

IOTA, through the data marketplace and [qubic](qubic.iota.org), will be the first crypto to surpass speculation and actually be used in the real world for something. From there, it will branch out into other use cases, such as P2P. Or maybe P2P use of IOTA will grow in parallel with M2M, because why not?
https://blog.iota.org/iota-data-marketplace-cb6be463ac7f
12/19/17 update: Bosch reinforces IOTA's break-out from speculation by buying IOTA tokens for its future use in the data marketplace. https://i.redd.it/8e5b8bi9ov401.png
http://www.bosch-presse.de/pressportal/de/en/robert-bosch-venture-capital-makes-first-investment-in-distributed-ledger-technology-137411.html

Investing in a new project barely off the ground

Investing in a project in its early stages was something typically reserved for wealthy individuals/organizations before ICO’s became a thing. With early investing comes much less hand holding and more responsibility on the user to know what they are doing. If you have a hard time accepting this responsibility, don’t invest and wait for the technology to get easier for you. How many people actually knew how to use and mine bitcoin in 2009 before it had all its gui infrastructure?
IOTA is a tangle, the first of its kind. NOT a copy paste blockchain. As a result wallets and applications for IOTA are the first of their kind and translating the tangle into a nice clean user-friendly blockchain experience for the masses is even more taxing.

Why is the price of my coin falling?!

This may be the most asked question on any crypto subreddit but it's also the easiest to explain. The price typically falls when bad things happen to a coin or media fabricates bad news about a coin and a portion of investors take it seriously. The price increases when good things happen to a coin, such as a new exchange listing or a partnership announced etc.. The one piece that is often forgotten but trumps all these effects is something called "market forces".
Market forces is what happens to your coin when another coin gets a big news hit or a group of other coins get big news hits together. For example, when IOTA data marketplace released, IOTA hit a x5 bull run in a single week. But did you notice all the other alt coins in the red? There are a LOT of traders that are looking at the space as a whole and looking to get in on ANY bull action and will sell their other coins to do so. This effect can also be compounded over a long period of time such as what we witnessed when the bitcoin fork FOMO was going on and alt coins were squeezed continuously to feed it for weeks/months.
These examples really just scratch the surface of market forces but the big takeaway is that your coin or any coin will most certainly fall (or rise) in price at the result of what other coins are doing, with the most well known example being bitcoin’s correlation to every coin on the market. If you don't want to play the market-force game or don't have time for it, then you can never go wrong buying and holding.
It's also important to note that there are layers of investors. There's a top layer of light-stepping investors that are a mixture of day traders and gamblers trying to jump in and jump out to make quick money then look for the next buying (or shorting) opportunity at another coin. There's a middle layer of buyers and holders who did their research, believe in the tech and placing their bets it will win out in the long run. And the bottom layer are the founders and devs that are in it till the bitter end and there to see the vision realized. When a coin goes on a bull run, always expect that any day the top layer is going to pack up and leave to the next coin. But the long game is all about that middle layer. That is the layer that will be giving the bear markets their price-drop resistance. That is why the meme "HODL" is so effective because it very elegantly simplifies this whole concept for the common joe and makes them a part of that middle layer regardless if they understand whats going on or not.

TECHNICAL

How is IOTA free and how does it scale

IOTA is an altruistic system. Proof of work is done in IOTA just like bitcoin. Only a user’s device/phone must do pow for 2 other transactions before issuing one of its own. Therefore no miners and no fees. And the network becomes faster the more transactions are posted. Because of this, spamming the network is encouraged since they provide pow for 2 other transactions and speed up the network.

IOTA is centralized

IOTA is more decentralized than any blockchain crypto that relies on 5 pools of miners, all largely based in China. Furthermore, the coordinator is not a server in the dev’s basement that secretly processes all the transactions. It’s several nodes all around the globe that add milestone transactions to show the direction of the IF’s tangle within the DAG so people don’t accidentally follow a fork from a malicious actor. Anyone with the know-how can fork the tangle right now with a double-spend. But no one would follow their fork because the coordinator reveals which tangle is the legit IF one. If the coordinator wasn’t there (assuming low honest-transaction volume), there would be no way to discern which path to follow especially after the tangle diverges into forks of forks. Once throughout of honest transactions is significant enough, the “honest tangle” will replace the coordinated one and people will know which one to follow simply because it’s the biggest one in the room.
Referencing the coordinator is also optional.
Also, if you research and understand how IOTA intends to work without the coordinator, it’s easier to accept it for now as training wheels. I suggest reading pg 15 and on of the white paper analyzing in great depth how the network will defend different attack scenarios without a coordinator. For the past several months, IOTA foundation has been using St Petersburg college’s super computer to stress test IOTA and learn when they can turn the coordinator off. There will likely be a blog about the results soon.
This is another great read covering double spends on IOTA without a coordinator: www.tangleblog.com/2017/07/10/is-double-spending-possible-with-iota/
This too: http://www.reddit.com/Iota/comments/7eix4a/any_iota_guru_that_can_explain_what_this_guy_is/dq5ijrm
Also this correspondence with Vitalik and Come_from_Beyond https://twitter.com/DavidSonstebo/status/932510087301779456
At the end of the day, outstanding claims require outstanding evidence and folks approaching IOTA with a “I’ll believe it when I see it” attitude is completely understandable. It’s all about your risk tolerance.

Can IOTA defend double spend attacks?

99% of these “but did they think about double spend attacks?” type questions could just be answered if people went and did their own research. Yes of course they thought about that. That’s like crypto101…
www.tangleblog.com/2017/07/10/is-double-spending-possible-with-iota/

Will IOTA have smart contracts?

Yes - qubic.iota.org

Trinary vs binary?

"By using a ternary number system, the amount of devices and cycles can be reduced significantly. In contrast to two-state devices, multistate devices provide better radix economy with the option for further scaling"
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep36652
https://www.reddit.com/CryptoCurrency/comments/6jgbvb/iota_isnt_it_the_perfect_cryptocurrency/dje8os2/

Bitcoin with lightning network will make IOTA obsolete.

If you want lightning network, IOTA already released it. Called flash channels.
https://blog.iota.org/instant-feeless-flash-channels-88572d9a4385

IOTA rolled its own crypto!

https://blog.iota.org/official-iota-foundation-response-to-the-digital-currency-initiative-at-the-mit-media-lab-part-1-72434583a2
This is why: https://blog.iota.org/the-transparency-compendium-26aa5bb8e260
Cybercrypt has been hired to review and audit it. IOTA is currently running SHA-3/KECCAK now until Curl is ready.

MIT said bad things about IOTA

https://blog.iota.org/official-iota-foundation-response-to-the-digital-currency-initiative-at-the-mit-media-lab-part-1-72434583a2
And for official formal closure that MIT was completely wrong:
https://www.reddit.com/CryptoCurrency/comments/7svr8mit_media_lab_dci_allegations_proven_wrong_iotas/
https://blog.iota.org/curl-disclosure-beyond-the-headline-1814048d08ef
https://medium.com/@comefrombeyond/cfbs-comments-on-https-www-media-mit-edu-posts-iota-response-5834c7f8172d

Nick Johnson says IOTA is bad!

Nick Johnson is an ethereum dev who is incentivized to see IOTA fail, see CFBs twitter responses here.
https://mobile.twitter.com/nicksdjohnson/status/912676954184323073?lang=en
And this
https://t.co/1HgfPhg2lP
And this
https://www.reddit.com/Iota/comments/72lly0/comment/dnjk9f5?st=JB2VKUBB&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;sh=a2892548
And this
https://blog.iota.org/official-iota-foundation-response-to-the-digital-currency-initiative-at-the-mit-media-lab-part-1-72434583a2

IOTA is not private!

Masked authenticated messages exist right now so data can be transferred privately. Very important for businesses.

Coin privacy

Centralized coin mixer is out that foundation runs. Logs are kept so they can collect data and improve it Folks can copy the coin mixer code and run it themselves. Goal is for mixer to be decentralized and ran by any node.

How do nodes scale? How on earth can all that data be stored?

Full nodes store, update and verify from the last snapshot, which happens roughly every month. Its on the roadmap to make snapshotting automatic and up to each full node’s discretion.With automatic snapshots, each full node will act as a partial perma-node and choose when to snapshot its tangle data. If someone wants to keep their tangle data for several months or even years, they could just choose not to snapshot. Or if they are limited on hard drive space, they could snapshot every week.
Perma-nodes would store the entire history of the tangle from the genesis. These are optional and would likely only be created by companies who wish to sell historical access of the tangle as a service or companies who heavily use the tangle for their own data and want to have quick, convenient access to their data’s history.
Swarm nodes are also in development which will ease the burden on full nodes. https://blog.iota.org/iota-development-roadmap-74741f37ed01

Node discovery is manual? Wtf?

Nelson is fixing has fixed this:
https://medium.com/deviota/carriota-nelson-automatic-peer-discovery-for-iota-bdca9b8b8750
https://medium.com/deviota/carriota-nelson-in-a-nutshell-1ee5317d8f19
https://github.com/SemkoDev/nelson.cli

IOTA open source?

https://blog.iota.org/official-iota-foundation-response-to-the-digital-currency-initiative-at-the-mit-media-lab-part-1-72434583a2
IOTA protocol is open source. The coordinator is closed source open source.
https://imgur.com/a/xWQUp

Foundation moved user's funds?

https://blog.iota.org/official-iota-foundation-response-to-the-digital-currency-initiative-at-the-mit-media-lab-part-1-72434583a2
https://blog.iota.org/claims-and-reclaims-finalization-e692844c505a
https://www.reddit.com/Iota/comments/7mmimu/claims_and_reclaims_is_processing/drv63d5/

My IOTA donation address:

9PZFQNPLVDUNGAOYYMMXFWMGNPMNAJWZKTYOOMCYQTZQA9RPVVN9SE9KGOL9HWZFJBXKQGEOY9JJYDXB9TY9FLQPXB
submitted by mufinz2 to Iota [link] [comments]

Surae's (me) end-of-November (2017!) update.

You can check it out on the forums here. Here's a copypasta:
Surae's End of November (2017!) Update
Hello, everyone! Sarang posted his update a few days ago to give the community time to review his work before the end of the month. I was hoping to finish multisig off before the end of this month... so I held off on writing this update until then... but it looks like I'm somewhere between 2 days and a week behind on that estimate.
MRL Announcements
Meetings. We are holding weekly meetings on Mondays at 17:00 UTC. Logs are to be posted on my github soon(tm). Usually we alternate between "office hours" and "research meetings." At office hours, we want members of the community to come in and be able to ask questions, so we are considering opening up a relay to the freenode channel during office hours times, unless things get out of hand.
POW-Difficulty Replacement Contest. Some time in December, I am going to formalize an FFS "idea" to open up a multiple-round contest for possible replacements for our proof of work game. The first round would have a 3- or 6-month deadline. Personally, I would love it if this FFS could have an unbounded reward amount. If the community is extremely generous, we could easily whip up a large enough reward to spur lots and lots of interest across the world.
The Bitcoin POW game uses SHA256 to find nonces that produce hashes with sufficiently small digests according to the Bitcoin difficulty metric. Our current POW game uses CryptoNight to find nonces that produce hashes with sufficiently small digests according to the CryptoNote difficulty metric. The winner need not be proof of work. My current thoughts are roughly this:
All submissions will be public. Submissions that minimize incentives for centralized mining (or maximize disincentives) will be preferred over submissions that do not. Submissions that are elegant will be preferred over submissions that are not. Submissions that have provable claims about desirable properties will be preferred over submissions that do not (e.g. for either the Bitcoin or the Monero POW games, the necessary and sufficient network conditions for these games to produce blocks in a Poisson process have not been identified, to my understanding). Submissions that have a smaller environmental impact will be preferred over submissions that have a larger impact. And so on. I would like as many ideas as possible about a judging rubric for the first round. Especially if a large amount of money will be put up as a prize.
The details of the next round would be announced along with the winners of the first round. The reward funds should be released when a set of judges agree on a winner. MRL and Monero Core should each have representation on the panel of judges, and there ought to be at least one independent judge not directly associated with the Monero Project, like Peter Todd, Tim Ruffing, or someone along those lines. But, again, this is just an idea. If the community doesn't like it, we can drop it.
Here is a rundown for November
Multisig. Almost done. I know, I know, it's been forever. We, as a community, have recently come to see how important it is to carefully and formally ensure the correctness of our schemes before proceeding. Multisig is a delicate thing because a naively implemented multisig can reveal information about the participants.
I'm finishing vetting key creation today, finishing signatures tomorrow and the next day. Then I'm passing the result off to moneromooo and luigi to ensure that my description of their code is accurate up to their understanding. Then onto Sarang for final reviews before submission, hopefully by the end of the month. I have my life until Sunday evening blocked off to finish this. A copy of the document will be made available to the community ASAP (an older version is on my github), after more checking and writing is completed.
This whitepaper on multisig will be broken into two papers: one will be intended for peer review describing multi-ring signatures, and one will be a Monero Standard. More about that later...
RTRS RingCT column-linkability and amortization. You may say "what? I thought we were putting RTRS RingCT on the back burner?" Well, I'm still think ing about amortization of signatures. I'm thinking it will be possible (although perhaps not feasible) for miners to include amortized signatures upon finding new blocks. This would allow users to cite an amortized signature for fast verification, but has some possible drawbacks. But more exciting, I'm also chatting with Tim Ruffing, one of the authors on the RTRS RingCT papers: he thinks he has a solution to our "linkability by columns" problem with MLSAG and RingCT. Currently we try to avoid using more than one ring signature per recipient. This avoids linking distinct outputs based on bundling of these ring signatures. Ruffing believes RTRS RingCT can be tweaked to prove several commitments in a vector of commitments; this would allow a single RTRS RingCT to be computed and checked for each output being spent.
Once all the details are checked, I'll write up a document and make a copy of it available to the community. If it works, of course.
Consequences of bulletproofs. In my last end-of-month update I hinted at issues with an exponential space-time trade-off in RTRS RingCT. Due to the speed and space savings with bulletproofs, it may now be feasible to implement RTRS RingCT. With improved verification time savings with bulletproofs we can relax our requirements for verification times for signatures. This will allow the slightly longer verification times of RTRS RingCT to be counter-acted. Solving the problem "what ring sizes can we really get away with?" involves some modeling and solving some linear programming problems (linear programming, or linear optimization, is an anachronistically named area of applied mathematics involved with optimizing logistic problems... see here for more information).
Hence, we will be inserting bulletproofs into Monero with low friction, and then we will look into the logistics of moving to RTRS RingCT.
Monero Standards. Right now, we don't have a comprehensive list of how Monero works, all the various primitives and how they all fit together. Sarang and I have begun working on some Monero Standards that are similar to the original Cryptonote Standards (see here for more information). For each standard, from our hash function on upward, we will describe the standard, provide a justification for Monero's choices in those standards (complete with references), as well as a list of possible replacement standards. For example, our Monero RingCT Standard should describe the RingCT scheme described by shen, which is essentially a ring signature with linear combinations of signing keys + amount commitments. Under the "possible replacements" section, we would describe both the RTRS RingCT scheme and the doubly efficient zk-snark technology as two separate options.
These standards may take awhile to complete, and will be living documents as we change the protocol over the years. In the meantime, it will make it dramatically easier for future researchers to step into MRL and pick up where previous researchers have left off.
Hierarchical view keys. Exploiting the algebra we currently use for computing one-time keys, the sub-address scheme plays with view keys in a certain way, allowing a user to have one single view key for many wallets. Similarly, we may split a view key into several shares, where each subset of shares can be used to grant partial view access to the wallet. A receiver can request that a sender use a particular basepoint in their transaction key where different subsets of shares of the view key grant access to transactions with different basepoints in their transaction keys. None of these are protocol-level observations, they are wallet-level observations. Moreover, these require only that a receiver optionally specify a basepoint.
In other words: hierarchical view keys are a latent feature of our one-time address scheme that has not seen specific development yet. It's a rather low priority compared to the other projects under development; it grants users fine-grained control over their legal compliance, but Monero Standards will have great long-term impact on development and research at Monero.
Criticisms. Monero has suffered some recent criticisms about our hash function. I want to briefly address them.
First, I believe part of the criticism came from a confusion between Keccak3, SHA-3, and Keccak: we have never claimed to use SHA-3 as our hash function, we have only used the Keccak3 hash function, which is a legacy choice inherited from the original CryptoNote reference code. Many developers confuse the two, but Keccak3 was the hash function on which SHA-3 is based. In particular, the Keccak sponge construction can be used to fashion lots and lots of primitives, all of which could fairly be called "Keccak:" both Keccak3 and SHA-3 are Keccak constructions. This may be a subtle nomenclature issue, but it's important because a good portion of our criticisms say "Hey, they aren't using SHA-3!"
Second, I believe part of the criticism also comes from our choice of library, which in my opinion isn't a big deal as long as the library does what it says on the tin. In this case, our hash function is a valid implementation of Keccak3 according to the Keccak3 documentation. The most important criticism, from my point of view, is our choice of pre-SHA-3 Keccak3 as our hash function. Keccak3 underwent lots of analysis during the SHA contest, and Keccak3 is a well-vetted hash funtion. However, it has not been chosen as an international standard. There is a sentiment in the cryptocurrency community to distrust standards, which is probably a healthy sentiment. In this case, however, it means that our choice of hash function is not likely to be supported in common, well-vetted libraries in the future. Moreover, since SHA-3 is an international standard, it shall be undergoing heavy stress testing over the coming decades, a benefit Keccak3 shall not enjoy.
Last month, after some discussions, we made changes to our choice of PRNG in Monero to match the PRNG for Bitcoin. There has since been some discussions instantiated by anonimal about this choice of PRNG. We at MRL are doing our best to assist the core team in weighing the relative costs and benefits of switching to a library like crypto++, and so we believe these criticisms fall into the same category. We intend to address these issues and make formal recommendations in the aforementioned Monero Standards. Sorry for using the word aforementioned.
Things that didn't move much include a) educational outreach, b) SPECTRE, c) anti-ASIC roadmap, d) refund transactions. Most of which was on hold to complete multisig.
As far as educational outreach, I contacted a few members of a few math/cs depts at universities around me, but I haven't gotten anything hopeful yet. I wanted to go local (with respect to me) to make it easier to organize, but that's looking less likely. No matter how enthusiastic of a department we find, garnering participation from faculty members, beginning an application process for new students, squirelling up funding, working out logistics of getting teachers or lecturers/speakers from point A to point B, where to stash students, etc would be a challenge to finish before, say, July. And some schools start their fall semesters in mid-August. So I'm thinking that Summer 2019 is reasonable as the first Monero Summer School... and would be a real fun way to finish off a two-year post-doc!
December plan. I am going to finish multisig, and then finish the zk-lit review with Jeffrey Quesnelle, since these are both slam dunks. Any other time in December I have will be devoted to a) looking into the logistics of using the bulletproofs + RTRS RingCT set-up, b) reading the new zk-stark paper and assessing its importance for Monero, c) beginning work on Monero Standards, which includes addressing our hash function criticisms, our PRNG, etc.
Thank you again! This is an incredible opportunity, and this community is filled with some smart cookies. Every day is a challenge, and I couldn't ask for a more fun thing to be doing with my life right now. I'm hoping that my work ends up making Monero better for you.
submitted by snoether to Monero [link] [comments]

In case you missed it: Major Crypto and Blockchain News from the week ending 12/14/2018

Developments in Financial Services

Regulatory Environment

General News


submitted by QuantalyticsResearch to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Full English Transcript of Gavin's AMA on 8BTC, April 21st. (Part 2)

Part 1
Part 3
Raw transcript on Google Docs (English+Chinese): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p3DWMfeGHBL6pk4Hu0efgQWGsUAdFNK6zLHubn5chJo/edit?usp=sharing
Translators/Organizers: emusher, kcbitcoin, nextblast, pangcong, Red Li, WangXiaoMeng. (Ranked in alphabetical order)
18. sina
Q: 1) Hello, what's a better strategy for bitcoin holders if it hard forks at 75%? Is it worth holding of the coins in the minority chain? Or better selling them? Will the value of coins in the majority chain be weakened or reinforced? Thank you
A: 1) BIP109 does not hard fork at 75%, it hard forks 28 days after 75% has been reached-- so when the hard fork happens, there should be almost zero hash power on the minority chain. So there will not be a minority chain.
If I am wrong and blocks are created on the minority chain, people plan to get enough hash power to replace those blocks with empty blocks, so it is impossible to make any transactions on the minority chain.
Q: 2) if Bitcoin split into two chains, will it cause panic in the market, then the overall market capitalization fell?
A: 2) Bitcoin split into two chains accidentally in March of 2013, and there was panic selling -- the price dropped from $48 to $37 within a few hours. But the mining pools very quickly agreed on which branch of the chain they would support, the problem was resolved within a day, and a week later the price was over $60.
That shows the strength of consensus and incentives-- the mining pools did what was best for Bitcoin because that is what is best for themselves in the long term.
Q: 3) Now it requres 60-70G space for a full node wallet, also it takes severals days for synchronization. Technically, Is it possible in the future that a full node wallet only cost a little space and can be quickly synchronized? (Do not use light wallets and other third party wallets)
A: 3) You can run a pruned node that does not store the full block chain today (I’m running six right now on inexpensive servers around the world to test some new code).
It is technically possible to get fast synchronization without giving up any trust, but it would require miners do more work (they would have to compute and store and validate an “unspent transaction output committment hash” in the block chain). There are also schemes that would give you fast synchronization at a lightweight-wallet level of trust, but worked towards no trust if you were connected to the network for long enough.
Some developers say that you are not really using Bitcoin unless you run a full node, but that is wrong. Bitcoin was designed so that you can make the choice of speed and convenience versus trust. You give up very, very little trust if you run a lightweight wallet that supports multisignature transactions, and I think that is what most people should be running.
Q: 4) What do you think about Ethereum? Can Bitcoin achieve all the same functions claimed by Ethernet? Thank you
A: 4) I think most of the interesting things you can do with Ethereum you can also do with multi-signature Bitcoin transactions. I haven’t seen a really great use of Ethereum yet, and I think there will be a big problem with Ethereum smart contracts that are designed to steal people’s money, because very few people will have the skill necessary to tell if a complicated smart contract is correct.
I’m watching the rootstock.io project, which brings Ethereum contracts to Bitcoin.
Q: 5) Is it possible that Nakamoto may still participate in the development of Bitcoin by a pseudonym? What is the last time he contact you? Will he be back?
A: 5) Yes, it is possible. I tell reporters who ask me about Satoshi:
The idea of Bitcoin is important; who invented it is an interesting mystery, but I think it should remain a mystery until whoever invented it decides to step forward. We should respect Satoshi's privacy.
Q: 6) Now some government can prevent people from accessing foreign information using technical method(like the Great Firewall), people need to get across the wall first if they want to know information abroad. So technically speaking, is it possible that the government could block and damage the usage of bitcoin? If it is, is there any method to get across the wall?
A: 6) If a government controls network access into and out of their country (like the Great Firewall), they could easily block connections to and from today’s Bitcoin peer-to-peer network. Connections are not encrypted in any way, and most connect to port 8333, which would be easy to block.
However, blocking connections inside the country would be much harder. And it only takes one encrypted or satellite or microwave or laser connection that bypasses the firewall to get around the blockage and get blocks and transactions flowing across the border again.
I think governments that decide they don’t like Bitcoin are more likely to pass laws that make it a crime to use a currency other than the official government currency to pay for things.
Q: 7) You insist on hard fork at 75%, while Chinse Mining Pools insist at 90%. So it may be easier to get support from China If Classic changes to 90%. Have you ever considered to communicate with Chinese mine pool( such as convening a meeting) to reduce differences?
A: 7) Yes, I was in Beijing a few weeks ago to better understand what some of the Chinese mining pools are thinking. It was a productive meeting, and I look forward to communicating more with them soon.
Q: 8) How will halving and block size increasing impact the bitcoin price in your opnion? Thanks.
A: 8) The price, today, is a reflection of confidence. If people think Bitcoin will be valuable in the future, they are willing to buy it and hold it.
Everybody knows the halving will happen, so, theoretically, that should not affect today’s price.
I believe that increasing the block size limit would be very good for the price, because Bitcoin is more valuable the more people who are able to use it.
Q: 9) Technically, bitcoin should also have drawbacks. Some disadvantages may be improved in the future , while some may be difficult to improve. What are those shortcomings for bitcoin to hard to improve in your opinon? Are you an optimist thinking that all technical shortcomings are temporary, and they will all likely to be improved in the future?
A: 9) Every successful technology is full of shortcomings. It is always easier to look backwards and see your mistakes. Smart engineers are very good at working around those shortcomings, and wise engineering managers know when to work around a shortcoming to remain compatible with the existing technology and when it makes sense to break compatibility because eliminating a shortcoming would have large benefits.
Q: 10) If there is a kind of altcoin in the future goes beyond Bitcoin, it must has the advantage Bitcoin can not have, right? Conversely, if Bitcoin itself evolves fast, improves and adds new features, it will be difficult to be surpassed and eliminated, right? What does Bitcoin scalability and evolution capability look like?
A: 10) People are funny -- I can imagine an altcoin that has no technology advantages over Bitcoin, but some people prefer it for some reason. I live in a town where a lot of people care a lot about the environment, and I could imagine them deciding to use a “GreenCoin” where all miners must be inspected regularly and must use only solar power.
I think many engineers tend to over-estimate the importance of new features, and under-estimate the importance of reliability, convenience and reputation.
Satoshi designed Bitcoin to be very scalable, and to be able to evolve. I think the best way for any technology to scale and evolve is competition -- make the technology open, and let companies or teams compete to build the most reliable, convienent and secure products. That looks like (and is!) a very messy, chaotic process, but it produces better results, faster, than a single person or team deciding on on approach to solving every problem.
Q: 11) If R3 succeeds, will it challenge bitcoin in transnational remittances?
A: 11) Maybe -- if banks involved in R3 could make it very convenient to get money into and out of their blockchain. They might not be able to do that because of regulations, though. But I don’t know much about the international remittance market and what regulations the banks will have to deal with.
Q: 12) Can blockchain only be secured by mining? Some private blockchain do not have mining property, are they really blockchain?
A: 12) Security is not “yes it is secure” or “no it is not secure.” Proof of work (mining) is the most secure way we know of to secure a blockchain, but there are less secure methods that can work if less security is OK. And less security is OK for some private blockchains because if somebody cheats, they can be taken to court and money can be recovered.
Q: 13) Will public chain, private chain and R3 chain coexist for a long time? Or only one chain survive finally? What is the relationship among Bitcoin block chain, private chains and R3 chain , complementary or competitive? Will Bitcoin block chain eventually win?
A: 13) My guess is all of the “blockchain for everything” excitement will die down in a year or two and a lot of people will be disappointed.
Then a few years later there will be blockchains for everything, running quietly inside stock markets and currency exchanges and lots of other places. Some of them will use the Bitcoin blockchain, some of them won’t, and nobody besides blockchain engineers will care much.
Throughout it all, I think it is most likely Bitcoin continues to grow, hopefully with less drama as it gets bigger and more mature.
Q: 14) Some people think that it is difficult for the outside world to understand the technical details if lightning network is controlled by blockstream or another company, resulting in technological centralization, what’s your opinion?
A: 14) I don’t worry about that, the lightning protocol is being designed in the open as an open standard. It is complicated, but not so complicated only one person or company can understand it.
Q: 15) What is the procedure Bitcoin Core modify the rules? Take the 2M hard fork proposal as an example, I saw there are concerns that if one of the five core developers who have write access reject the proposal will be rejected. So If happens, does that mean the launch hard ford in July will be abandoned? What is percentage of agreement in Core developers to write code for such a major bifurcation matter like 2M hard fork? Are there any specific standards? Or the lead developer has the final decision?
A: 15) That is a good question for the current active Core developers. When I was the lead developer, I would make a final decision if a decision needed to be made.
19. JR13
Q: What do you think about the future of increasing bitcoin block size limit?
A: It will happen sooner or later -- almost everybody agrees it must happen. I am still working to make it happen sooner, because the longer it takes, the worse for Bitcoin.
20. vatten
Q: What decision making process you think should be used for future bitcoin development?
A: For example, WuJiHan's proposition of service providers and mining pools collecting individual mineuser opinion. Or, a non-profit making standard making committee like IEEE, consists of people with enough expertise in bitcoin and economy, finance?
I think we should look at how development of other very successful technologies works (like email or the http protocol). I am not an expert, but open standards and open processes for participating in creating standards that are either adopted by the market or not (like the IETF process) seem to work the best.
21. kcb
Q: From my experience on Reddit, people now start to understand that evil is not Blockstream/Core's intention. They simply have a very different vision on how Bitcoin network should be running and on how future development should be heading. They do whatever they can to protect their vision, even dirty tricks, because they feel they are bringing justice.
Similarly, in Chinese community, we do see the same situation. Many Chinese Bitcoiners that showed strong enthusiasm in the past differ with each other. This even happens among my own real-life friends.
My question is: How can we separate these two groups of people who have widely divergent visions? Bitcoin cannot proceed when carrying two totally different visions.
A: I don’t know! It is always best if everybody is free to work on their own vision, but for some reason some people seem to think that the block size limit will prevent big companies from taking over Bitcoin.
I think all they will accomplish is making the technology much more complicated. And big companies are much better able to deal with and control highly complicated technologies.
22. XRP
Q: Please share your comments on ripple, Mr. Guru.
A: I haven’t paid very much attention to Ripple- the last time I looked at it was probably two years ago. Back then I thought they would have trouble with governments wanting to regulate their gateway nodes as money transmitters, but I haven’t even taken the time to see if I was right about that.
23.Lory
Q: Hi Gavin, I think you had a disagreement with the Nakamoto roadmap in Bitcoin design. Can you explain why? Thank you.
A: I assume you mean the part where Satoshi says he doesn’t think a second implementation will ever be a good idea.
I just think Satoshi was wrong about that-- if you look at very successful protocols, they all have multiple compatible implementations. We understand a lot more about what it takes to be completely compatible and have much better tools to ensure compatibility. And the fact that there now are multiple compatible implementations working on the network (btcd being probably the best example) shows both that it is possible and that the other implementations are not a menace to the network.
24. HuoDongFaBu
Q: 1) For the dispute between Core and Classic, can we refer to the theory of “Common-pool resources” (Commons) in the Western cultural tradition to understand and grasp the public and neutral property of bitcoin so at to strive for a solution which can balance interests of all parties?
A: 1) Maybe. The blockchain could be considered a Commons today-- a common, limited resource. But if control of the block size limit was given to miners, then I don’t think it fits the definition any more, because miners would have the freedom to restrict its use however they saw fit, on a block-by-block basis. That is just a simple, pure market, with transaction creators on one side and miners on the other.
Q: 2) For the application requring "bitcoin multi-signature script", can you recommend any programming language, libraries or tools?
A: 2) BitPay has some good tools: https://github.com/bitpay/bitcore I haven’t worked on any multisignature applications since writing the low-level protocol code-- there are probably other great libraries and tools that I just don’t know about.
25. zhuoji
Q: Hello Gavin, are you now still developing Classic? Will Classic proceed? Would you give up Classic and return to Core?
A: Yes, yes, and there is no “return to” -- I plan on contributing to lots of projects.
26. jieke
Q: 1) If there are one million entrepreneurs who require fund and asset securitization via block chain technology, is it possible?
A: 1) If there are ten million investors willing to fund those entrepreneurs, sure it is possible. The technology won’t be a problem, one million is not a large number for today’s computers.
Q: 2) Why can we trust Bitcoin and what are the advantages of bitcoin in online payment and settlement? Its commission fee now is not as cheap as before, besides, the time for one confirm is not fast enough. Your opinions on pros and cons of Mining and PoW?
A: 2) For people in places with good-enough banking systems like the United States or China, purchasing things inside their own country, bitcoin does not have much of an advantage over existing payment systems. But if you are buying something from somebody in another country, or you live in a place where there are no good payment systems, Bitcoin works very well.
Proof of work and mining is the most fair, decentralized way to distribute new coins. They are also the best way of securing the network that we know of so far. Perhaps in 30 years when essentially all of the new coins have been mined and computer scientists have thoroughly studied other ways of securing the network it might make sense for Bitcoin to start to switch to something other than mining and proof-of-work to secure the network.
Q: 3) How likely the possibility of replacing the existing legal currency with virtual currency?
A: 3) Very unlikely in a large country. I can imagine a small country that uses a larger country’s currency deciding to switch to a crypto currency, though.
27. IMJENNIM
Q: 1) You have always insist on larger block. Some people share the same view, they just want to increase the block size, regardless of network bandwidth restrictions in China and other developing countries. How do you see this criticism?
A: 1) Most people are using Bitcoin over very limited bandwidth connections-- most people use lightweight wallets.
If you run a business that needs a fast connection to the Internet, then it is not expensive to rent a server in a data center that has very good bandwidth. Even inexpensive servers have plenty of bandwidth and CPU power to keep up with much higher transaction volume.
If you insist on running a full node from your home, average connection speed in China today is 3.7 megabits per second, which is almost 1,000 transactions per second. Latency through the Great Firewall is a bigger issue right now, but there are several software solutions to that problem that people (including myself) are working on right now.
Q: 2) In addition, I'm curious what is your opinion on the current Bitcoin Core team? There is no doubt? If so, why not act as a Core developer contributing code in Bitcoin Core to solve these problems?
A: 2) I like most of the people on the current Bitcoin Core team, they are great. But there are a couple of people on that team I don’t want to work with, so I have decided to limit the amount of time I spend with that project.
28.ShaSiKaEr
Q: 1) Hello Gavin, I would like to ask you how long since your last contribution in Bitcoin Core or others related? Expect the big influence as one of the earliest contributors, do not you think you ought to talk about the code, mostly for the coutribution of development of Bitcoin?
A from pangcong: 1)The last commit in bitcoin core made by Gavin is on September 30, 2015, after that Gavin was busy with bitcoin XT and bicoin classic. His actual development in bitcoin has never stopped, these records are very clear on github, if you want to ask questions which are obvious, please investigate first.
A from Gavin: 1) Also: I submitted some patches to Bitcoin Core a few days ago.
Q: 2) Also, you were a neutral software engineer before, seriously committed to improving the bitcoin. But now you're playing political means to enhance your impact on the future of Bitcoin, how do you respond with it?
A from KuHaiBian: 2) Now the biggest problem in Bitcoin is not block size limit, but that there is only one development team, it is as dangerous as the situation that there is only one mining pool mining bitcoin. This is the biggest problem Gavin is trying to solve.
A from Gavin: 2) I just give my honest opinion, and try to do what I can to make Bitcoin more successful.
29.Xseraph2
Q: There is no systematic process for Bitcoin upgrades. Is there any regulation/restriction on the power of Core devs? How do we balance the conflict between the centrilized power of the devs with interest of the community consensus? Do you think Bitcoin need to learn from R3 chains or distributed ledger systems? I.e. setting up regulations to constrain the power of the devs, so that only devs with “restricted access” can contribute, not everyone.
A: Competition is the best solution. If the Core team does not make their customers happy, then they will be replaced. It might take a year or more for another team to get the reputation for high-quality code that the Core team has acquired over the years.
30. ZhongBenCong
Q: In 2016, you propose to increase block size limit to 8M, then doubled every two years. Is it still the most promising expansion plan in your opinion now? If it is, do you think it possible that the block size reach 8GB in 2036, particularly given the network speed and bandwith in developing countries.
A: I think it would be best to eliminate the block size limit entirely, and let the miners decide if they should accept or reject blocks. The miners want Bitcoin to succeed, and will not choose a size so large the network cannot handle it.
I don’t know if people would agree to eliminate the limit, though. A dynamic limit that grows, but prevents an extremely large ‘attack block’ would also be a good solution.
The growing-8MB idea came from the idea that it should be possible for somebody on a home Internet connection to continue to validate every single transaction. However, more research showed that the bottleneck is not the connection from the Internet to our homes (even in China there is plenty of bandwidth there) but connections across international borders. In particular, the Great Firewall can sometimes greatly restrict bandwidth to and from China.
31. FengFengZhongXuYaoNi
Q: Gavin, hello! What is the reason do you think the community rejected Bitcoin XT?
A: It was a mistake to try to make more changes than just simply increasing the block size limit.
32. ShaSiBiEr
Q: Now the problem of block size limit is not so serious as before when Bitoin was attacked, and the Segwit has been deployed, so what is the controversy? Why have to argue to the bitter end, must we argue until bitcoin die? Gavin, we all know your contribution to Bitcoin. But in 2015, when you said in bitcoin software development, we need a "dictator" to resolve the dispute. I think you want to be this dictator. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008810.html
A: Must we argue until bitcoin die: I think is is in the nature of people to argue, so I think we will be arguing about lots of things until either we die or Bitcoin dies. I think in a few years we will look back and wonder why there was so much arguing, but I also think some good things have come from all of the argument.
33. HuoDongFaBu
Q: 1) What do you think about Ethereum? Can smart contract run based on Bitcoin?
A: 1) (This question is repeated. Please see Q18-4)
Q: 2) What are the problems Miners may have to face after halving in July? Thanks!
A: 2) There is a small risk that the halving will make a good fraction of the miners stop mining, because they will get about half of the bitcoins they got before the halving. And that might mean blocks take longer to create, which means less space for transactions, which might mean people get frustrated and leave Bitcoin. Which could drop the price even more, causing more miners to stop mining, more frustration, and so on.
Miners tell me they have already planned ahead for the halving and this will not happen, which is why I think it is a small risk and I don’t think the halving will be a big problem for most miners.
Q: 3) Where can we get the whole code and code review of bitcoin?
A: 3)
Bitcoin Core is at: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
Bitcoin Classic: https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic
btcd: https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd
bitcore: https://github.com/bitpay/bitcore
submitted by kcbitcoin to btc [link] [comments]

USB Bitcoin Miner - The Power of 1000's Computers - YouTube Bitcoin Shaft What is Bitcoin / BTC / Cryptocurrency ??? Do Not Buy These Crypto Coins EVER - YouTube A Brief History of Bitcoin in 5 Minutes

Bitcoin Recovery Seed: What’s the Idea. The recovery seed functions as a key to your hardware wallet which stores all the private keys. Furthermore, these private keys can be used to send your Bitcoins over the Blockchain network.Every private key is tied to a public key(or bitcoin-address) and this public key can be used to receive Bitcoin. Bitcoin price today is $13,073.32 USD with a 24-hour trading volume of $23,603,626,066 USD. Bitcoin is up 0.48% in the last 24 hours. The current CoinMarketCap ranking is #1, with a market cap of $242,210,721,011 USD. It has a circulating supply of 18,527,100 BTC coins and a max. supply of 21,000,000 BTC coins. You can find the top exchanges to trade Bitcoin listed on our Bitcoin, SHA-256, and the NSA. Bitcoin looks to be a great new digital currency that the whole world may someday use. However there are some odd things about bitcoin that deserve more exposure. First, Bitcoin was officially released by an unknown person who used a Japanese pseduonym, 5 days before Obama was elected. This person does not exist. Secondly, bitcoin mining is designed to solve ... When bitcoin first launched, the reward was 50 bitcoin. In 2012, it halved to 25 bitcoin. In 2016, it halved again to 12.5 bitcoin. On May 11 2020, the reward halved again to 6.25 bitcoin. In 2012 ... SHA-1, SHA-224, SHA-256: Input length is bounded to $2^{64}$ bits. SHA-384, SHA-512, SHA-512/224, SHA-512/256: Input length is bounded to $2^{128}$ bits. These are insanely large sizes (and it seems likely that only the ones for SHA-1, SHA-224, and SHA-256 could practically apply to electromagnetic storage). But in theory $2^{64}$ bit (approx. 1 exbibyte) restriction could prohibit calculating ...

[index] [39342] [22637] [35393] [17664] [35713] [43233] [2430] [8560] [27734] [49797]

USB Bitcoin Miner - The Power of 1000's Computers - YouTube

Apologies to my Chinese friends if I got the translation wrong. When It Comes to Question about how to learn basic of bitcoin then this video will really help you to build good basic about bitcoin and its simple tips that... SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE HOW MUCH - http://shorturl.at/arBHL GekkoScience NewPac USB Miner - https://bit.ly/2RIQgdX GekkoScience 8 Port USB Hub - https://bit.ly/2x... Do Not Buy These Crypto Coins EVER 👉 Bitcoin Prediction // Price Halving 2020 // End 2021 // End Based On Facts 👉 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PJVipti3ms... 1. May 2010 In 2010, Laszlo Hanyecz agreed to pay 10,000 bitcoins for two pizzas. It was the most expensive pizza in history. 2. Jul 2010 Mt. Gox,was responsible for more than 70% of bitcoin ...

#