Binance Pool Is Now the Largest Bitcoin SV Miner ...
Binance Pool Is Now the Largest Bitcoin SV Miner ...
Bitcoin Miner Braves Pandemic Amid Partial Relocation To ...
A Deep Dive Into Satoshi's 11-Year Old Bitcoin Genesis ...
Bitcoin Miner Software
# How To Get Bitcoin To Binance - Bitcoin Mining App For ...
Bitcoin and Binance Owners Named Coin Trade & Mine
6 Best Bitcoin Mining Software (That Work) in 2020 ...
Technical: A Brief History of Payment Channels: from Satoshi to Lightning Network
Who cares about political tweets from some random country's president when payment channels are a much more interesting and are actually capable of carrying value? So let's have a short history of various payment channel techs!
Generation 0: Satoshi's Broken nSequence Channels
Because Satoshi's Vision included payment channels, except his implementation sucked so hard we had to go fix it and added RBF as a by-product. Originally, the plan for nSequence was that mempools would replace any transaction spending certain inputs with another transaction spending the same inputs, but only if the nSequence field of the replacement was larger. Since 0xFFFFFFFF was the highest value that nSequence could get, this would mark a transaction as "final" and not replaceable on the mempool anymore. In fact, this "nSequence channel" I will describe is the reason why we have this weird rule about nLockTime and nSequence. nLockTime actually only works if nSequence is not 0xFFFFFFFF i.e. final. If nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF then nLockTime is ignored, because this if the "final" version of the transaction. So what you'd do would be something like this:
You go to a bar and promise the bartender to pay by the time the bar closes. Because this is the Bitcoin universe, time is measured in blockheight, so the closing time of the bar is indicated as some future blockheight.
For your first drink, you'd make a transaction paying to the bartender for that drink, paying from some coins you have. The transaction has an nLockTime equal to the closing time of the bar, and a starting nSequence of 0. You hand over the transaction and the bartender hands you your drink.
For your succeeding drink, you'd remake the same transaction, adding the payment for that drink to the transaction output that goes to the bartender (so that output keeps getting larger, by the amount of payment), and having an nSequence that is one higher than the previous one.
Eventually you have to stop drinking. It comes down to one of two possibilities:
You drink until the bar closes. Since it is now the nLockTime indicated in the transaction, the bartender is able to broadcast the latest transaction and tells the bouncers to kick you out of the bar.
You wisely consider the state of your liver. So you re-sign the last transaction with a "final" nSequence of 0xFFFFFFFF i.e. the maximum possible value it can have. This allows the bartender to get his or her funds immediately (nLockTime is ignored if nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF), so he or she tells the bouncers to let you out of the bar.
Now that of course is a payment channel. Individual payments (purchases of alcohol, so I guess buying coffee is not in scope for payment channels). Closing is done by creating a "final" transaction that is the sum of the individual payments. Sure there's no routing and channels are unidirectional and channels have a maximum lifetime but give Satoshi a break, he was also busy inventing Bitcoin at the time. Now if you noticed I called this kind of payment channel "broken". This is because the mempool rules are not consensus rules, and cannot be validated (nothing about the mempool can be validated onchain: I sigh every time somebody proposes "let's make block size dependent on mempool size", mempool state cannot be validated by onchain data). Fullnodes can't see all of the transactions you signed, and then validate that the final one with the maximum nSequence is the one that actually is used onchain. So you can do the below:
Become friends with Jihan Wu, because he owns >51% of the mining hashrate (he totally reorged Bitcoin to reverse the Binance hack right?).
Slip Jihan Wu some of the more interesting drinks you're ordering as an incentive to cooperate with you. So say you end up ordering 100 drinks, you split it with Jihan Wu and give him 50 of the drinks.
When the bar closes, Jihan Wu quickly calls his mining rig and tells them to mine the version of your transaction with nSequence 0. You know, that first one where you pay for only one drink.
Because fullnodes cannot validate nSequence, they'll accept even the nSequence=0 version and confirm it, immutably adding you paying for a single alcoholic drink to the blockchain.
The bartender, pissed at being cheated, takes out a shotgun from under the bar and shoots at you and Jihan Wu.
Jihan Wu uses his mystical chi powers (actually the combined exhaust from all of his mining rigs) to slow down the shotgun pellets, making them hit you as softly as petals drifting in the wind.
The bartender mutters some words, clothes ripping apart as he or she (hard to believe it could be a she but hey) turns into a bear, ready to maul you for cheating him or her of the payment for all the 100 drinks you ordered from him or her.
Steely-eyed, you stand in front of the bartender-turned-bear, daring him to touch you. You've watched Revenant, you know Leonardo di Caprio could survive a bear mauling, and if some posh actor can survive that, you know you can too. You make a pose. "Drunken troll logic attack!"
I think I got sidetracked here.
Bears are bad news.
You can't reasonably invoke "Satoshi's Vision" and simultaneously reject the Lightning Network because it's not onchain. Satoshi's Vision included a half-assed implementation of payment channels with nSequence, where the onchain transaction represented multiple logical payments, exactly what modern offchain techniques do (except modern offchain techniques actually work). nSequence (the field, but not its modern meaning) has been in Bitcoin since BitCoin For Windows Alpha 0.1.0. And its original intent was payment channels. You can't get nearer to Satoshi's Vision than being a field that Satoshi personally added to transactions on the very first public release of the BitCoin software, like srsly.
Miners can totally bypass mempool rules. In fact, the reason why nSequence has been repurposed to indicate "optional" replace-by-fee is because miners are already incentivized by the nSequence system to always follow replace-by-fee anyway. I mean, what do you think those drinks you passed to Jihan Wu are, other than the fee you pay him to mine a specific version of your transaction?
Satoshi made mistakes. The original design for nSequence is one of them. Today, we no longer use nSequence in this way. So diverging from Satoshi's original design is part and parcel of Bitcoin development, because over time, we learn new lessons that Satoshi never knew about. Satoshi was an important landmark in this technology. He will not be the last, or most important, that we will remember in the future: he will only be the first.
Incentive-compatible time-limited unidirectional channel; or, Satoshi's Vision, Fixed (if transaction malleability hadn't been a problem, that is). Now, we know the bartender will turn into a bear and maul you if you try to cheat the payment channel, and now that we've revealed you're good friends with Jihan Wu, the bartender will no longer accept a payment channel scheme that lets one you cooperate with a miner to cheat the bartender. Fortunately, Jeremy Spilman proposed a better way that would not let you cheat the bartender. First, you and the bartender perform this ritual:
You get some funds and create a transaction that pays to a 2-of-2 multisig between you and the bartender. You don't broadcast this yet: you just sign it and get its txid.
You create another transaction that spends the above transaction. This transaction (the "backoff") has an nLockTime equal to the closing time of the bar, plus one block. You sign it and give this backoff transaction (but not the above transaction) to the bartender.
The bartender signs the backoff and gives it back to you. It is now valid since it's spending a 2-of-2 of you and the bartender, and both of you have signed the backoff transaction.
Now you broadcast the first transaction onchain. You and the bartender wait for it to be deeply confirmed, then you can start ordering.
The above is probably vaguely familiar to LN users. It's the funding process of payment channels! The first transaction, the one that pays to a 2-of-2 multisig, is the funding transaction that backs the payment channel funds. So now you start ordering in this way:
For your first drink, you create a transaction spending the funding transaction output and sending the price of the drink to the bartender, with the rest returning to you.
You sign the transaction and pass it to the bartender, who serves your first drink.
For your succeeding drinks, you recreate the same transaction, adding the price of the new drink to the sum that goes to the bartender and reducing the money returned to you. You sign the transaction and give it to the bartender, who serves you your next drink.
At the end:
If the bar closing time is reached, the bartender signs the latest transaction, completing the needed 2-of-2 signatures and broadcasting this to the Bitcoin network. Since the backoff transaction is the closing time + 1, it can't get used at closing time.
If you decide you want to leave early because your liver is crying, you just tell the bartender to go ahead and close the channel (which the bartender can do at any time by just signing and broadcasting the latest transaction: the bartender won't do that because he or she is hoping you'll stay and drink more).
If you ended up just hanging around the bar and never ordering, then at closing time + 1 you broadcast the backoff transaction and get your funds back in full.
Now, even if you pass 50 drinks to Jihan Wu, you can't give him the first transaction (the one which pays for only one drink) and ask him to mine it: it's spending a 2-of-2 and the copy you have only contains your own signature. You need the bartender's signature to make it valid, but he or she sure as hell isn't going to cooperate in something that would lose him or her money, so a signature from the bartender validating old state where he or she gets paid less isn't going to happen. So, problem solved, right? Right? Okay, let's try it. So you get your funds, put them in a funding tx, get the backoff tx, confirm the funding tx... Once the funding transaction confirms deeply, the bartender laughs uproariously. He or she summons the bouncers, who surround you menacingly. "I'm refusing service to you," the bartender says. "Fine," you say. "I was leaving anyway;" You smirk. "I'll get back my money with the backoff transaction, and posting about your poor service on reddit so you get negative karma, so there!" "Not so fast," the bartender says. His or her voice chills your bones. It looks like your exploitation of the Satoshi nSequence payment channel is still fresh in his or her mind. "Look at the txid of the funding transaction that got confirmed." "What about it?" you ask nonchalantly, as you flip open your desktop computer and open a reputable blockchain explorer. What you see shocks you. "What the --- the txid is different! You--- you changed my signature?? But how? I put the only copy of my private key in a sealed envelope in a cast-iron box inside a safe buried in the Gobi desert protected by a clan of nomads who have dedicated their lives and their childrens' lives to keeping my private key safe in perpetuity!" "Didn't you know?" the bartender asks. "The components of the signature are just very large numbers. The sign of one of the signature components can be changed, from positive to negative, or negative to positive, and the signature will remain valid. Anyone can do that, even if they don't know the private key. But because Bitcoin includes the signatures in the transaction when it's generating the txid, this little change also changes the txid." He or she chuckles. "They say they'll fix it by separating the signatures from the transaction body. They're saying that these kinds of signature malleability won't affect transaction ids anymore after they do this, but I bet I can get my good friend Jihan Wu to delay this 'SepSig' plan for a good while yet. Friendly guy, this Jihan Wu, it turns out all I had to do was slip him 51 drinks and he was willing to mine a tx with the signature signs flipped." His or her grin widens. "I'm afraid your backoff transaction won't work anymore, since it spends a txid that is not existent and will never be confirmed. So here's the deal. You pay me 99% of the funds in the funding transaction, in exchange for me signing the transaction that spends with the txid that you see onchain. Refuse, and you lose 100% of the funds and every other HODLer, including me, benefits from the reduction in coin supply. Accept, and you get to keep 1%. I lose nothing if you refuse, so I won't care if you do, but consider the difference of getting zilch vs. getting 1% of your funds." His or her eyes glow. "GENUFLECT RIGHT NOW." Lesson learned?
Payback's a bitch.
Transaction malleability is a bitchier bitch. It's why we needed to fix the bug in SegWit. Sure, MtGox claimed they were attacked this way because someone kept messing with their transaction signatures and thus they lost track of where their funds went, but really, the bigger impetus for fixing transaction malleability was to support payment channels.
Yes, including the signatures in the hash that ultimately defines the txid was a mistake. Satoshi made a lot of those. So we're just reiterating the lesson "Satoshi was not an infinite being of infinite wisdom" here. Satoshi just gets a pass because of how awesome Bitcoin is.
CLTV-protected Spilman Channels
Using CLTV for the backoff branch. This variation is simply Spilman channels, but with the backoff transaction replaced with a backoff branch in the SCRIPT you pay to. It only became possible after OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (CLTV) was enabled in 2015. Now as we saw in the Spilman Channels discussion, transaction malleability means that any pre-signed offchain transaction can easily be invalidated by flipping the sign of the signature of the funding transaction while the funding transaction is not yet confirmed. This can be avoided by simply putting any special requirements into an explicit branch of the Bitcoin SCRIPT. Now, the backoff branch is supposed to create a maximum lifetime for the payment channel, and prior to the introduction of OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY this could only be done by having a pre-signed nLockTime transaction. With CLTV, however, we can now make the branches explicit in the SCRIPT that the funding transaction pays to. Instead of paying to a 2-of-2 in order to set up the funding transaction, you pay to a SCRIPT which is basically "2-of-2, OR this singlesig after a specified lock time". With this, there is no backoff transaction that is pre-signed and which refers to a specific txid. Instead, you can create the backoff transaction later, using whatever txid the funding transaction ends up being confirmed under. Since the funding transaction is immutable once confirmed, it is no longer possible to change the txid afterwards.
Todd Micropayment Networks
The old hub-spoke model (that isn't how LN today actually works). One of the more direct predecessors of the Lightning Network was the hub-spoke model discussed by Peter Todd. In this model, instead of payers directly having channels to payees, payers and payees connect to a central hub server. This allows any payer to pay any payee, using the same channel for every payee on the hub. Similarly, this allows any payee to receive from any payer, using the same channel. Remember from the above Spilman example? When you open a channel to the bartender, you have to wait around for the funding tx to confirm. This will take an hour at best. Now consider that you have to make channels for everyone you want to pay to. That's not very scalable. So the Todd hub-spoke model has a central "clearing house" that transport money from payers to payees. The "Moonbeam" project takes this model. Of course, this reveals to the hub who the payer and payee are, and thus the hub can potentially censor transactions. Generally, though, it was considered that a hub would more efficiently censor by just not maintaining a channel with the payer or payee that it wants to censor (since the money it owned in the channel would just be locked uselessly if the hub won't process payments to/from the censored user). In any case, the ability of the central hub to monitor payments means that it can surveill the payer and payee, and then sell this private transactional data to third parties. This loss of privacy would be intolerable today. Peter Todd also proposed that there might be multiple hubs that could transport funds to each other on behalf of their users, providing somewhat better privacy. Another point of note is that at the time such networks were proposed, only unidirectional (Spilman) channels were available. Thus, while one could be a payer, or payee, you would have to use separate channels for your income versus for your spending. Worse, if you wanted to transfer money from your income channel to your spending channel, you had to close both and reshuffle the money between them, both onchain activities.
Poon-Dryja Lightning Network
Bidirectional two-participant channels. The Poon-Dryja channel mechanism has two important properties:
No time limit.
Both the original Satoshi and the two Spilman variants are unidirectional: there is a payer and a payee, and if the payee wants to do a refund, or wants to pay for a different service or product the payer is providing, then they can't use the same unidirectional channel. The Poon-Dryjam mechanism allows channels, however, to be bidirectional instead: you are not a payer or a payee on the channel, you can receive or send at any time as long as both you and the channel counterparty are online. Further, unlike either of the Spilman variants, there is no time limit for the lifetime of a channel. Instead, you can keep the channel open for as long as you want. Both properties, together, form a very powerful scaling property that I believe most people have not appreciated. With unidirectional channels, as mentioned before, if you both earn and spend over the same network of payment channels, you would have separate channels for earning and spending. You would then need to perform onchain operations to "reverse" the directions of your channels periodically. Secondly, since Spilman channels have a fixed lifetime, even if you never used either channel, you would have to periodically "refresh" it by closing it and reopening. With bidirectional, indefinite-lifetime channels, you may instead open some channels when you first begin managing your own money, then close them only after your lawyers have executed your last will and testament on how the money in your channels get divided up to your heirs: that's just two onchain transactions in your entire lifetime. That is the potentially very powerful scaling property that bidirectional, indefinite-lifetime channels allow. I won't discuss the transaction structure needed for Poon-Dryja bidirectional channels --- it's complicated and you can easily get explanations with cute graphics elsewhere. There is a weakness of Poon-Dryja that people tend to gloss over (because it was fixed very well by RustyReddit):
You have to store all the revocation keys of a channel. This implies you are storing 1 revocation key for every channel update, so if you perform millions of updates over your entire lifetime, you'd be storing several megabytes of keys, for only a single channel. RustyReddit fixed this by requiring that the revocation keys be generated from a "Seed" revocation key, and every key is just the application of SHA256 on that key, repeatedly. For example, suppose I tell you that my first revocation key is SHA256(SHA256(seed)). You can store that in O(1) space. Then for the next revocation, I tell you SHA256(seed). From SHA256(key), you yourself can compute SHA256(SHA256(seed)) (i.e. the previous revocation key). So you can remember just the most recent revocation key, and from there you'd be able to compute every previous revocation key. When you start a channel, you perform SHA256 on your seed for several million times, then use the result as the first revocation key, removing one layer of SHA256 for every revocation key you need to generate. RustyReddit not only came up with this, but also suggested an efficient O(log n) storage structure, the shachain, so that you can quickly look up any revocation key in the past in case of a breach. People no longer really talk about this O(n) revocation storage problem anymore because it was solved very very well by this mechanism.
Another thing I want to emphasize is that while the Lightning Network paper and many of the earlier presentations developed from the old Peter Todd hub-and-spoke model, the modern Lightning Network takes the logical conclusion of removing a strict separation between "hubs" and "spokes". Any node on the Lightning Network can very well work as a hub for any other node. Thus, while you might operate as "mostly a payer", "mostly a forwarding node", "mostly a payee", you still end up being at least partially a forwarding node ("hub") on the network, at least part of the time. This greatly reduces the problems of privacy inherent in having only a few hub nodes: forwarding nodes cannot get significantly useful data from the payments passing through them, because the distance between the payer and the payee can be so large that it would be likely that the ultimate payer and the ultimate payee could be anyone on the Lightning Network. Lessons learned?
We can decentralize if we try hard enough!
"Hubs bad" can be made "hubs good" if everybody is a hub.
Smart people can solve problems. It's kinda why they're smart.
After LN, there's also the Decker-Wattenhofer Duplex Micropayment Channels (DMC). This post is long enough as-is, LOL. But for now, it uses a novel "decrementing nSequence channel", using the new relative-timelock semantics of nSequence (not the broken one originally by Satoshi). It actually uses multiple such "decrementing nSequence" constructs, terminating in a pair of Spilman channels, one in both directions (thus "duplex"). Maybe I'll discuss it some other time. The realization that channel constructions could actually hold more channel constructions inside them (the way the Decker-Wattenhofer puts a pair of Spilman channels inside a series of "decrementing nSequence channels") lead to the further thought behind Burchert-Decker-Wattenhofer channel factories. Basically, you could host multiple two-participant channel constructs inside a larger multiparticipant "channel" construct (i.e. host multiple channels inside a factory). Further, we have the Decker-Russell-Osuntokun or "eltoo" construction. I'd argue that this is "nSequence done right". I'll write more about this later, because this post is long enough. Lessons learned?
Bitcoin offchain scaling is more powerful than you ever thought.
The biggest announcement of the month was the new kind of decentralized exchange proposed by @jy-p of Company 0. The Community Discussions section considers the stakeholders' response. dcrd: Peer management and connectivity improvements. Some work for improved sighash algo. A new optimization that gives 3-4x faster serving of headers, which is great for SPV. This was another step towards multipeer parallel downloads – check this issue for a clear overview of progress and planned work for next months (and some engineering delight). As usual, codebase cleanup, improvements to error handling, test infrastructure and test coverage. Decrediton: work towards watching only wallets, lots of bugfixes and visual design improvements. Preliminary work to integrate SPV has begun. Politeia is live on testnet! Useful links: announcement, introduction, command line voting example, example proposal with some votes, mini-guide how to compose a proposal. Trezor: Decred appeared in the firmware update and on Trezor website, currently for testnet only. Next steps are mainnet support and integration in wallets. For the progress of Decrediton support you can track this meta issue. dcrdata: Continued work on Insight API support, see this meta issue for progress overview. It is important for integrations due to its popularity. Ongoing work to add charts. A big database change to improve sorting on the Address page was merged and bumped version to 3.0. Work to visualize agenda voting continues. Ticket splitting: 11-way ticket split from last month has voted (transaction). Ethereum support in atomicswap is progressing and welcomes more eyeballs. decred.org: revamped Press page with dozens of added articles, and a shiny new Roadmap page. decredinfo.com: a new Decred dashboard by lte13. Reddit announcement here. Dev activity stats for June: 245 active PRs, 184 master commits, 25,973 added and 13,575 deleted lines spread across 8 repositories. Contributions came from 2 to 10 developers per repository. (chart)
Hashrate: growth continues, the month started at 15 and ended at 44 PH/s with some wild 30% swings on the way. The peak was 53.9 PH/s. F2Pool was the leader varying between 36% and 59% hashrate, followed by coinmine.pl holding between 18% and 29%. In response to concerns about its hashrate share, F2Pool made a statement that they will consider measures like rising the fees to prevent growing to 51%. Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 94.7 DCR (+3.4). The price was steadily rising from 90.7 to 95.8 peaking at 98.1. Locked DCR grew from 3.68 to 3.81 million DCR, the highest value was 3.83 million corresponding to 47.87% of supply (+0.7% from previous peak). Nodes: there are 240 public listening and 115 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 57% on v1.2.0 (+12%), 25% on v1.1.2 (-13%), 14% on v1.1.0 (-1%). Note: the reported count of non-listening nodes has dropped significantly due to data reset at decred.eu. It will take some time before the crawler collects more data. On top of that, there is no way to exactly count non-listening nodes. To illustrate, an alternative data source, charts.dcr.farm showed 690 reachable nodes on Jul 1. Extraordinary event: 247361 and 247362 were two nearly full blocks. Normally blocks are 10-20 KiB, but these blocks were 374 KiB (max is 384 KiB).
Update from Obelisk: shipping is expected in first half of July and there is non-zero chance to meet hashrate target. Another Chinese ASIC spotted on the web: Flying Fish D18 with 340 GH/s at 180 W costing 2,200 CNY (~340 USD). (asicok.com – translated, also on asicminervalue) dcrASIC team posted a farewell letter. Despite having an awesome 16 nm chip design, they decided to stop the project citing the saturated mining ecosystem and low profitability for their potential customers.
Changenow announced the option to buy DCR with fiat.
TokenPride: "We are seeking feedback on the general setup of our payment processor. We have tried to make it simple and user friendly. 10% of all purchases made in Decred will be donated to the Decred Development fund - and we will be releasing original Decred designs in the future".
BlueYard Capital announced investment in Decred and the intent to be long term supporters and to actively participate in the network's governance. In an overview post they stressed core values of the project:
There are a few other remarkable characteristics that are a testament to the DNA of the team behind Decred: there was no sale of DCR to investors, no venture funding, and no payment to exchanges to be listed – underscoring that the Decred team and contributors are all about doing the right thing for long term (as manifested in their constitution for the project). The most encouraging thing we can see is both the quality and quantity of high calibre developers flocking to the project, in addition to a vibrant community attaching their identity to the project.
The company will be hosting an event in Berlin, see Events below. Arbitrade is now mining Decred.
Campus Party in Brasilia, Brazil. @girino, @Rhama and @matheusd talked about Decred. Matheus was interviewed by a TV channel. Check this quick report about the event, click "Show newer" to continue reading. (photos: 123)
Blockchain Summit in London, UK. This was not a full blown presence with stand but rather investigation of opportunities by @kyle and @Ani. The resulting detailed report is a good example of a document advising to stakeholders whether it is worth spending project funds.
Meetup in Berlin, Germany on July 18. @jz will give a talk and Q&A about Decred and chat with Ele from @oscoin about incentivizing developers. Hosted by BlueYard Capital.
Hey guys! I'd like to share with you my latest adventure: Stakey Club, hosted at stakey.club, is a website dedicated to Decred. I posted a few articles in Brazilian Portuguese and in English. I also translated to Portuguese some posts from the Decred Blog. I hope you like it! (slack)
Decred Assembly - Ep20 - Governance: Driving the Future (youtube) @cburniske and @traceagain discuss the importance of governance protocols being foundational and problems with delegated proof of stake
"I think that developers in the future are going to base their decision on where to build on the basis of governance and community. And so I look for good governance mechanisms and strong communities in blockchains." (@decredproject)
What is on-chain cryptocurrency governance? Is it plutocratic? by Richard Red (medium)
Apples to apples, Decred is 20x more expensive to attack than Bitcoin by Zubair Zia (medium)
What makes Decred different and better from other cryptocurrencies? (cxihub.com)
Community stats: Twitter followers 40,209 (+1,091), Reddit subscribers 8,410 (+243), Slack users 5,830 (+172), GitHub 392 stars and 918 forks of dcrd repository. An update on our communication systems:
Matrix chat logs are nowviewable on the web with the exception of some channels that are not bridged. The new web logs means our chats are now fully public and indexed by search engines.
Slack had an outage on Jun 27 that disturbed communications for a few hours, discussions continued on Decred's bridged platforms.
Jake Yocom-Piatt did an AMA on CryptoTechnology, a forum for serious crypto tech discussion. Some topics covered were Decred attack cost and resistance, voting policies, smart contracts, SPV security, DAO and DPoS. A new kind of DEX was the subject of an extensive discussion in #general, #random, #trading channels as well as Reddit. New channel #thedex was created and attracted more than 100 people. A frequent and fair question is how the DEX would benefit Decred. @lukebp has put it well:
Projects like these help Decred attract talent. Typically, the people that are the best at what they do aren’t driven solely by money. They want to work on interesting projects that they believe in with other talented individuals. Launching a DEX that has no trading fees, no requirement to buy a 3rd party token (including Decred), and that cuts out all middlemen is a clear demonstration of the ethos that Decred was founded on. It helps us get our name out there and attract the type of people that believe in the same mission that we do. (slack)
Another concern that it will slow down other projects was addressed by @davecgh:
The intent is for an external team to take up the mantle and build it, so it won't have any bearing on the current c0 roadmap. The important thing to keep in mind is that the goal of Decred is to have a bunch of independent teams on working on different things. (slack)
A chat about Decred fork resistance started on Twitter and continued in #trading. Community members continue to discuss the finer points of Decred's hybrid system, bringing new users up to speed and answering their questions. The key takeaway from this chat is that the Decred chain is impossible to advance without votes, and to get around that the forker needs to change the protocol in a way that would make it clearly not Decred. "Against community governance" article was discussed on Reddit and #governance. "The Downside of Democracy (and What it Means for Blockchain Governance)" was another article arguing against on-chain governance, discussed here. Reddit recap: mining rig shops discussion; how centralized is Politeia; controversial debate on photos of models that yielded useful discussion on our marketing approach; analysis of a drop in number of transactions; concerns regarding project bus factor, removing central authorities, advertising and full node count – received detailed responses; an argument by insette for maximizing aggregate tx fees; coordinating network upgrades; a new "Why Decred?" thread; a question about quantum resistance with a detailed answer and a recap of current status of quantum resistant algorithms. Chats recap: Programmatic Proof-of-Work (ProgPoW) discussion; possible hashrate of Blake-256 miners is at least ~30% higher than SHA-256d; how Decred is not vulnerable to SPV leaf/node attack.
DCR opened the month at ~$93, reached monthly high of $110, gradually dropped to the low of $58 and closed at $67. In BTC terms it was 0.0125 -> 0.0150 -> 0.0098 -> 0.0105. The downturn coincided with a global decline across the whole crypto market. In the middle of the month Decred was noticed to be #1 in onchainfx "% down from ATH" chart and on this chart by @CoinzTrader. Towards the end of the month it dropped to #3.
Please note: we will not accept any kind of payment to list an asset.
Bithumb got hacked with a $30 m loss. Zcash organized Zcon0, an event in Canada that focused on privacy tech and governance. An interesting insight from Keynote Panel on governance: "There is no such thing as on-chain governance". Microsoft acquired GitHub. There was some debate about whether it is a reason to look into alternative solutions like GitLab right now. It is always a good idea to have a local copy of Decred source code, just in case. Status update from @sumiflow on correcting DCR supply on various sites:
To begin with, none of the below sites were showing the correct supply or market cap for Decred but we've made some progress. coingecko.com, coinlib.io, cryptocompare.com, livecoinwatch.com, worldcoinindex.com - corrected! cryptoindex.co, onchainfx.com - awaiting fix coinmarketcap.com - refused to fix because devs have coins too? (slack)
About This Issue
This is the third issue of Decred Journal after April and May. Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research. The new public Matrix logs look promising and we hope to transition from Slack links to Matrix links. In the meantime, the way to read Slack links is explained in the previous issue. As usual, any feedback is appreciated: please comment on Reddit, GitHub or #writers_room. Contributions are welcome too, anything from initial collection to final review to translations. Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee and Richard-Red. Special thanks to @Haon for bringing May 2018 issue to medium.
01-11 07:03 - 'Day 9: I will post this guide regularly until available solutions like SegWit & order batching are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and TX fees are low. Do you want low TX fees? This is how...' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/Darknicks removed from /r/Bitcoin within 293-303min
''' Since Bastiat didn't post this today, I would like to post it again because it's necessary. TL/DR Bitcoin users can help lower transaction fees and improve Bitcoin by switching to SegWit addresses and encourage wallets and exchanges to do the same. SUMMARY Segregated Witness (SegWit) was activated on the Bitcoin network August 24 2017 as a soft fork that is backward compatible with previous Bitcoin transactions ([Understanding Segregated Witness]1 ). Since that time wallets and exchanges have been slow to deploy SegWit, some admitting in December 2017 that they have not even started work on integrating it. Others, such as Zebpay in India [have already implemented SegWit]2 and are reaping the benefits of reduced transaction fees. If Bitcoin users demand SegWit now it will temporarily relieve the transaction backlog while more even more advanced solutions such as Lightning are developed. Batching is another great way that exchanges can reduce their fees. See: [Saving up to 80% on Bitcoin transaction fees by batching payments]3 . Despite the benefits of batching, some exchanges have been slow to implement it. There is an opportunity now for all Bitcoin users to individually contribute to help strengthen and improve the Bitcoin protocol. At this point, the process requires a bit of work/learning on the part of the user, but in doing so you'll actually be advancing Bitcoin and leaving what could turn out to be a multi-generational legacy for humanity. MEMPOOL/SEGWIT STATISTICS
[BitInfoCharts.com - Average Transaction Fees]4 - $29.72 USD per TX
BACKGROUND On Dec 18 Subhan Nadeem has pointed out that: [If every transaction in the Bitcoin network was a SegWit transaction today, blocks would contain up to 8,000 transactions, and the 180,000 unconfirmed transaction backlog would disappear instantly. Transaction fees would be almost non-existent once again]7 . A few thousand Bitcoin users from /Bitcoin switching to making their next transactions SegWit transactions will help take pressure off the network now, and together we can encourage exchanges/wallets to rapidly deploy SegWit for everyone ASAP. Let's make 80%+ SegWit happen fast. You can help by taking one or more of the action steps below. ACTION STEPS
If your favorite wallet has not yet implemented SegWit, kindly ask them to do so immediately. In the meantime start using a wallet that has already implemented SegWit.
If your favorite exchange has not yet implemented SegWit, try to avoid making any further purchases of Bitcoin at that exchange and politely inform them that if they do not enable SegWit within 30-days they will lose your business. Sign-up for an account at a SegWit deployed/ready exchange now and initiate the verification process so you'll be ready to bail
Help educate newcomers to Bitcoin about the transaction issue, steer them towards SegWit wallets from day one, and encourage them to avoid ever purchasing Bitcoin through non-SegWit ready exchanges that are harming Bitcoin.
Spread the word! Contact individuals, websites, etc that use Bitcoin, explain the benefits of SegWit to everyone, and request they make the switch
IMPORTANT NOTE: The mempool is currently still quite backlogged. If you are a long-term holder and really have no reason to move your Bitcoins at this time, wait until the mempool starts to clear and transaction fees go down before moving your Bitcoins to a SegWit address or SegWit friendly exchange. SELECTED TOP EXCHANGES BY BATCHING & SEGWIT STATUS
Note: all exchanges that have deployed SegWit are currently only sending to p2sh SegWit addresses for now. No exchange will send to a bech32 address like the ones that Electrum generates [Source 1: BitcoinCore.org]8 [Source 2: /Bitcoin]9 Official statements from exchanges:
Bitonic: [SegWit: In testing (including send from bech32). Batching: Have been for years. ]10
Kraken: [Deposits are made to Segwit addresses and withdrawls are sent in Segwit format, but frontend presentation is pending full implementation/support in wallets such as bitcoin core.]11
Shapeshift: [We don't order batch, but we will get to it. So much engineering to do :/]12
SELECTED WALLETS THAT HAVE SEGWIT ALREADY Make sure you have a SegWit capable wallet installed and ready to use for your next bitcoin transaction
SegWit Enabled Wallets
Ledger Nano S
FAQs Where can I get a fee estimate for a SegWit transaction?
[Here's a good website that could help.]13
How can I get a SegWit address from my Bitcoin Core wallet?
Currently, Bitcoin Core hasn't implemented a way to get a SegWit address using the GUI. But you can get a receiving SegWit address using the debug console. To do it, go to the "Receive" tab and copy a receiving address (it starts with 1). Then just click Help > Debug window > Console and type: addwitnessaddress addr
You should replace addr with the receiving address that you just copied. Tap enter and you'll get an address (starts with 3). This is your SegWit address. You can use this one to receive funds. When you spend from this address, it will be a SegWit transaction. Easy huh?
If I'm a HODLer, will it help to send my BTC to a SegWit address now?
No, just get ready now so that your NEXT transaction will be to a SegWit wallet. Avoid burdening the network with any unneccessary transactions for now.
Why is SegWit adoption going so slowly? Is it a time-consuming process, is there risk involved, is it laziness, or something else?
SegWit will require some extra work to be done right and securely. Also, most exchanges let the user pay the fee, and up to now users have not been overly concerned about fees so for some exchanges it hasn't been a priority.
Once Segwit is FULLY adopted, what do we see the fees/transaction times going to?
Times stay the same - fees will go down. How much and for how long depends on what the demand for transactions will be at that time.
What determines Bitcoin transaction fees, to begin with?
Fees are charged per byte of data and are bid up by users. Miners will typically include the transaction with the highest fee/byte first.
Can you please tell me how to move my Bitcoins to SegWit address in Bitcoin core wallet? Does the sender or receiver matter?
The Bitcoin core wallet does not yet have a GUI for its SegWit functionality. Download Electrum v3.0.5 to generate a SegWit address. A transaction between two SegWit addresses is a SegWit transaction. A transaction sent from a SegWit address to a non-SegWit address is a SegWit transaction. A transaction sent from a non-SegWit address to a SegWit address is NOT a SegWit transaction. You can send a SegWit Tx if the sending address is a SegWit address. [Source: HowToToken]14
What wallet are you using to "batch your sends"? And how can I do that?
Using Electrum, the "Tools" menu option: "Pay to many". Just enter your receive addresses and the amounts for each, and you can send multiple transactions for nearly the price of one.
Why doesn't the Core Wallet yet support SegWit?
The Core Wallet supports SegWit, but its GUI doesn't. The next update will likely have GUI support built-in
Why isn't a large exchange like Coinbase SegWit ready & deployed when much smaller exchanges already are? Why do they default to high fees? Where is the leadership there?
Draw your own conclusions based on their own words: [March 2016 - Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has reservations about Core]15 [Dec 2017 - Coinbase is STILL working on Segwit]16
P2SH/bech32 FAQs What are the two SegWit address formats and why do they exist?
It's been a challenge for wallet developers to implement SegWit in a way that users can easily and without too much disruption migrate from legacy to SegWit addresses. The first wallets to enable SegWit addresses – Ledger, Trezor, Core, GreenAddress – use so-called “nested P2SH addresses.” This means they take the existing Pay 2 Script Hash address – starting with a “3” – and put a SegWit address into it. This enables a high grade of compatibility to existing wallets as every wallet is familiar with these addresses, but it is a workaround which results in SegWit transactions needing around 10 percent more space than they otherwise would. Electrum 3.0 was the first wallet to use bech32 addresses instead of nested p2sh addresses. [Source: BTCManager.com]17
What is the difference in address format between SegWit address formats P2SH and bech32?
P2SH starts with "3..." bech32 starts with "bc1..."
Which addresses can I send from/to?
P2SH Segwit addresses can be sent to using older Bitcoin software with no Segwit support. This supports backwards compatibility bech32 can only be sent to from newer Bitcoin software that support bech32. Ex: Electrum [Source: BitcoinTalk.org]18
Why did ThePirateBay put up two Bitcoin donation addresses on their frontpage, one bech32 and one not?
The address starting with a "3..." is a P2SH SegWit address that can be sent BTC from any Bitcoin address including a legacy address. The address starting with a "bc1..." is a bech32 SegWit address that can only be sent to from newer wallets that support bech32.
SEGWIT BLOG GUIDES
[HowToToken.com - How To Send Bitcoin Faster And Cheaper Over SegWit Transactions]19
[BTCManager.com - Electrum 3.0 is first Wallet to enable Bech32 SegWit Addresses]20
PREVIOUS DAY'S THREADS There's lots of excellent info in the comments of the previous threads:
[Day 1: If every Bitcoin tx was a SegWit tx today, we'd have 8,000 tx blocks & the tx backlog would disappear. Tx fees would be almost non-existent once again. THE NEXT BITCOIN TX YOU MAKE, MAKE IT A SegWit TX. DOWNLOAD A SegWit COMPATIBLE WALLET AND OPEN A SegWit COMPATIBLE EXCHANGE ACCOUNT RIGHT NOW]21
[Day 2: I will repost this guide daily until available solutions like Segwit & order batching are adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and transaction fees are low. You can help. Take action today]22
[Day 3: ARE YOU PART OF THE SOLUTION? News: Unconfirmed TX's @ 274K, more exchanges adding SegWit, Core prioritizes SegWit GUI]23
[Day 4: Unconfirmed TX's @ 174K]24
[Day 5: I will post this guide regularly until available solutions like SegWit & order batching are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and transaction fees are low. User demand from this community can help lead to some big changes. Have you joined the /Bitcoin SegWit effort?]25
[Day 6: I will post this guide regularly until available solutions like SegWit & order batching are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and tx fees are low. Refer a friend to SegWit today. There's no $10 referral offer, but you'll both get lower fees and help strengthen the BTC protocol]26
[Day 7: I will post this guide regularly until available solutions like SegWit & order batching are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and tx fees are low. Refer a friend to SegWit today. There's no $10 referral offer, but you'll both get lower fees and help strengthen the BTC protocol]27
[Day 8: I will post this guide regularly until available solutions like SegWit & order batching are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and TX fees are low. Do you want low TX fees? This is how you get low TX fees]28
A year after removing Bitcoin SV from its exchange in April 2019 and the mining pool operated by leading crypto exchange Binance now produces more blocks than anyone else. According to crypto statistics and services platform Coin Dance, Binance Pool is the largest miner of Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision (BSV) blocks as of June 16. Binance […] How To Get Bitcoin To Binance Bitcoin Dump File (7) How To Get Bitcoin To Binance Bitcoin Hackable (9) How To Get Bitcoin To Binance Simplex Bitcoin Login (1) Perfect Fitness (3) How To Get Bitcoin To Binance Bitcoin Mining Sign Up (2) How To Get Bitcoin To Binance Bitcoin Mining App For Windows 10 (4) How To Get Bitcoin To Binance Bitcoin ... Bitcoin and Binance Owners Named. by Laura Shin · 06/23/2020. Large projects, such as the first cryptocurrency, usually do not have owners. Yes, of course, in fact, the creator and ideological inspirer of Bitcoin is Satoshi Nakomoto. However, the identity of this programmer is still behind the screen of obscurity. Many are sure that the creator of digital gold is hiding in the shadows. So the ... Bitcoin Miner Software The most powerful mining engine of 2020. Try Now! Bitcoin Mining Software ... *It works on Windows, Android, Mac OS & iOS; Welcome gift not included; 250 TH/s; Get started. Popular Choice. Silver $ 0.005 /BTC. Average earnings 0.24 BTC; Key for 2 days *It works on Windows, Android, Mac OS & iOS; Welcome gift included; 350 TH/s; Get started. Gold $ 0.006 /BTC. Average ... Bitcoin version 0.1, the original Bitcoin codebase implementation, is written in the coding language C++ and blocks that were mined in the early days used a Windows GUI mining application ... 3. Best Bitcoin mining software CGminer. Pros: Supports GPU/FPGA/ASIC mining, Popular (frequently updated). Cons: Textual interface. Platforms: Windows, Mac, Linux Going strong for many years, CGminer is still one of the most popular GPU/FPGA/ASIC mining software available. CGminer is a command line application written in C. It’s also cross platform, meaning you can use it with Windows ... Bitcoin (BTC) mining agency Riot Blockchain has entered right into a deal to relocate a portion of its mining operations to a facility in New York operated by Coinmint.. Riot claims to have assessed the dangers side by side working in New York amid the COVID-19 pandemic and distinct that Coinmint’s “plug and play” infrastructure mitigates lots of the issues pertaining to coronavirus.
Satoshi DOES NOT have 1 Million Bitcoins? Binance HUGE ...
earn free btc, bitcoin mining 2020, connectbot, linux deploy, bitcoin mining script, bitcoin money adder android, bitcoin money adder free, bitcoin money adder apk, mine bitcoins, bitcoin money ... #bitcoin mining setups, #bitcoin mining software without investment, #bitcoin mining sites without investment bitcoin mining setups in india, #bitcoin mining sites without investment with payment ... * 0x führt ! BTC, Ethereum und Litecoin als das am meisten gehaltene Asset * Aktienmärkte bewegen sich wie 1929 was bedeutet das für Bitcoin ? * Was passiert... Bitcoin legt eine Aufwärtsbewegung hin und wichtige News! 💰 $60 ByBit Bonus: https://www.bybit.com/app/register?affiliate_id=1873&language=en&group_id=466&gr... Blockchain wallet: https://blockchain.info/fr/wallet/#/login Coinbase Wallet: https://www.coinbase.com/join/5a87ecac52a16c066e6760c3 Link: http://www.groupfa... Bitcoin Mining with your PC - http://bit.ly/2xxaahI Get paid for the computing power of your PC. Generates cryptocurrency and pays you bitcoins or real-world... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue Close. This video is unavailable. Binance : https://goo.gl/8pVwn8 Coinbase : https://goo.gl/S75Bsd ##### ##### More random Crypto Links below... ##### ##### Bitcoin and other crypto mining MinerGate ... Support Me On Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/TheModernInvestor ----- Protect And Sto...