Scrypt vs X11 vs SHA-256 - The Bitcoin News

The case for Litecoin

High Level Reasons:
Bitcoin vs Litecoin (Basics)
1) Litecoin(Scrypt) vs sha256(Bitcoin) Litecoin is more Asic proof
2) Litecoin has faster transactions/faster mining/more coins
1) MtGox is supposedly introducing Midas (faster trading engine) early december, and they said they will support litecoin after that
2) BTCChina ceo is bobby lee, brother of charlie lee, who is the creator of litecoin.
3) BtcChina recently had a survey of adding LTC
4) Bitpay has been dabbling with LTC mentions in their twitter
5) Charlie lee works at coinbase and has said he is working to get them to implement LTC
6) Max Keiser recently interviewed Karl Gray who has 200,000K BTC(about 200 million USD), and he is super bullish on LTC, saying it should be at $50 within 6 months.
7) Many are wondering how to even buy LTC because it is not necessarily the easiest thing to buy.
8) The other top chinese exchanges all take it, OKcoin recently topped MtGox for a little in overall volume
9) LTC trading volume is growing exponentially. wiki searches are growing exponentially. google trends for litecoin and buy litecoin are growing exponentially
10) LTC has hit a ratio of 3.6% to BTC, which is about 2.75x current value relative to bitcoin
Basically, be on the lookout for major exchange adoption, then a payment processor, and we will see probably 3-6% of BTC. Note that I mentioned the ratio, and not USD. If BTC/USD tanks, LTC/USD likely will too. Given the more distributed exchanges, increased awareness, and that supply does not seem to be matching demand, it seems unlikely that BTC will crash very much. Thus , we can probably see LTC at around $30-$50 in 3 months.
My advice. If you buy litecoin, expect extreme volatility for the next 1 year of up to -70%. If you cannot handle that volatility, reduce your exposure. Otherwise, enjoy the ride and be a part of history
To buy litecoin :
submitted by erichlin to litecoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: Sha256 vs Scrypt /r/hashflare

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: Sha256 vs Scrypt /hashflare submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Blockchain Dictionary for Newbies

Blockchain Glossary: From A-Z
51% Attack
When more than half of the computing power of a cryptocurrency network is controlled by a single entity or group, this entity or group may issue conflicting transactions to harm the network, should they have the malicious intent to do so.
Cryptocurrency addresses are used to send or receive transactions on the network. An address usually presents itself as a string of alphanumeric characters.
Short form for ‘Application Specific Integrated Circuit’. Often compared to GPUs, ASICs are specially made for mining and may offer significant power savings.
Bitcoin is the first decentralised, open source cryptocurrency that runs on a global peer to peer network, without the need for middlemen and a centralised issuer.
Blocks are packages of data that carry permanently recorded data on the blockchain network.
A blockchain is a shared ledger where transactions are permanently recorded by appending blocks. The blockchain serves as a historical record of all transactions that ever occurred, from the genesis block to the latest block, hence the name blockchain.
Block Explorer
Block explorer is an online tool to view all transactions, past and current, on the blockchain. They provide useful information such as network hash rate and transaction growth.
Block Height
The number of blocks connected on the blockchain.
Block Reward
A form of incentive for the miner who successfully calculated the hash in a block during mining. Verification of transactions on the blockchain generates new coins in the process, and the miner is rewarded a portion of those.
Central Ledger
A ledger maintained by a central agency.
The successful act of hashing a transaction and adding it to the blockchain.
Consensus is achieved when all participants of the network agree on the validity of the transactions, ensuring that the ledgers are exact copies of each other.
Also known as tokens, cryptocurrencies are representations of digital assets.
Cryptographic Hash Function
Cryptographic hashes produce a fixed-size and unique hash value from variable-size transaction input. The SHA-256 computational algorithm is an example of a cryptographic hash.
A decentralised application (Dapp) is an application that is open source, operates autonomously, has its data stored on a blockchain, incentivised in the form of cryptographic tokens and operates on a protocol that shows proof of value.
Decentralised Autonomous Organizations can be thought of as corporations that run without any human intervention and surrender all forms of control to an incorruptible set of business rules.
Distributed Ledger
Distributed ledgers are ledgers in which data is stored across a network of decentralized nodes. A distributed ledger does not have to have its own currency and may be permissioned and private.
Distributed Network
A type of network where processing power and data are spread over the nodes rather than having a centralised data centre.
This refers to how easily a data block of transaction information can be mined successfully.
Digital Signature
A digital code generated by public key encryption that is attached to an electronically transmitted document to verify its contents and the sender’s identity.
Double Spending
Double spending occurs when a sum of money is spent more than once.
Ethereum is a blockchain-based decentralised platform for apps that run smart contracts, and is aimed at solving issues associated with censorship, fraud and third party interference.
The Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) is a Turing complete virtual machine that allows anyone to execute arbitrary EVM Byte Code. Every Ethereum node runs on the EVM to maintain consensus across the blockchain.
Forks create an alternate version of the blockchain, leaving two blockchains to run simultaneously on different parts of the network.
Genesis Block
The first or first few blocks of a blockchain.
Hard Fork
A type of fork that renders previously invalid transactions valid, and vice versa. This type of fork requires all nodes and users to upgrade to the latest version of the protocol software.
The act of performing a hash function on the output data. This is used for confirming coin transactions.
Hash Rate
Measurement of performance for the mining rig is expressed in hashes per second.
Hybrid PoS/PoW
A hybrid PoS/PoW allows for both Proof of Stake and Proof of Work as consensus distribution algorithms on the network. In this method, a balance between miners and voters (holders) may be achieved, creating a system of community-based governance by both insiders (holders) and outsiders (miners).
Mining is the act of validating blockchain transactions. The necessity of validation warrants an incentive for the miners, usually in the form of coins. In this cryptocurrency boom, mining can be a lucrative business when done properly. By choosing the most efficient and suitable hardware and mining target, mining can produce a stable form of passive income.
Multi-signature addresses provide an added layer of security by requiring more than one key to authorize a transaction.
A copy of the ledger operated by a participant of the blockchain network.
Oracles work as a bridge between the real world and the blockchain by providing data to the smart contracts.
Peer to Peer
Peer to Peer (P2P) refers to the decentralized interactions between two parties or more in a highly-interconnected network. Participants of a P2P network deal directly with each other through a single mediation point.
Public Address
A public address is the cryptographic hash of a public key. They act as email addresses that can be published anywhere, unlike private keys.
Private Key
A private key is a string of data that allows you to access the tokens in a specific wallet. They act as passwords that are kept hidden from anyone but the owner of the address.
Proof of Stake
A consensus distribution algorithm that rewards earnings based on the number of coins you own or hold. The more you invest in the coin, the more you gain by mining with this protocol.
Proof of Work
A consensus distribution algorithm that requires an active role in mining data blocks, often consuming resources, such as electricity. The more ‘work’ you do or the more computational power you provide, the more coins you are rewarded with.
Scrypt is a type of cryptographic algorithm and is used by Litecoin. Compared to SHA256, this is quicker as it does not use up as much processing time.
SHA-256 is a cryptographic algorithm used by cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. However, it uses a lot of computing power and processing time, forcing miners to form mining pools to capture gains.
Smart Contracts
Smart contracts encode business rules in a programmable language onto the blockchain and are enforced by the participants of the network.
Soft Fork
A soft fork differs from a hard fork in that only previously valid transactions are made invalid. Since old nodes recognize the new blocks as valid, a soft fork is essentially backward-compatible. This type of fork requires most miners upgrading in order to enforce, while a hard fork requires all nodes to agree on the new version.
Solidity is Ethereum’s programming language for developing smart contracts.
A test blockchain used by developers to prevent expending assets on the main chain.
Transaction Block
A collection of transactions gathered into a block that can then be hashed and added to the blockchain.
Transaction Fee
All cryptocurrency transactions involve a small transaction fee. These transaction fees add up to account for the block reward that a miner receives when he successfully processes a block.
Turing Complete
Turing complete refers to the ability of a machine to perform calculations that any other programmable computer is capable of. An example of this is the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM).
A file that houses private keys. It usually contains a software client which allows access to view and create transactions on a specific blockchain that the wallet is designed for.
submitted by Tokenberry to NewbieZone [link] [comments]

A look into the future regarding Decentralization,ASIC resistance and Vertcoin and other crypto currency (Long Post)

Warning: this post is lengthy because it includes details to understand the current development of Crypto and ASIC resistant Cryptos.
I. Decentralization is the fundamental assumption in the block chain security model:
I am glad that the recent Vertcoin price hike have brought more people to the awareness of crypto-currency decentralization. As decentralization is an assumption in satoshi's white paper, and hence the fundamental aspect in block-chain's security model. It appears that the block-chain security model is not complete. As you can see, there is an obvious concentration of computing power appears in bitcoin where one or two ASICs manufactures are controlling more than 51% of the network hash power. In satoshi's white paper, the assumption of 1 CPU,1 vote, does not hold indefinitely. Just 5-6 years after the inception of blockchain, we appear to have such machine based on ASIC, and the phenomenon of 1 ASIC, 1*103 or more votes, and the magnitude is only seem to be increasing.
Centralization defeats the entire security model of any crypto-currency based on block-chain and its variant. As of the time of the writing the bitcoin network and its public ledger's survival is not based on its invulnerability to rewrite, but based on the fact that the ASIC computing powers that secure the network currently lacks incentive to destroy it. When such incentive arrives the result can be catastrophic. As whoever controls the 51% hash power control the power to modify the block chain. In the Segwit 1 fork, there is worry that the bitcoin chain can not survive. (reference this article for a variety of possibility during a fork where miner controls the majority of hash power: ). In segwit 2X fork, some miners wants to make their own copy of of the chain, and in the process destroy the original chain. This upcoming fork is much more threatening than every single bitcoin fork comes before it.
II. CPU/GPU vs FPGA vs ASIC - you must understand the differences to understand the ASIC resistance movement
The decentralization problem is not fully solved yet. the crypto community and its developers are left to fill in the question.
As you can see the current approach is to make hashing algorithm to be hard to realize in ASICs. To fully discuss this approach, we must look at the currently available computing hardware architectures. the list go like this:
The list go from the most general purpose,flexible computing hardware to the least flexible, and specific task computing hardware.
The list also go from the worst raw performance(you can say hash power for crypto) to the best raw performance, given a specific task.
CPU, and to a extend GPU are general purposed hardware that can be programmed to perform all tasks, while ASIC(Application Specific Integrated Circuits) can only perform a specific task. FPGA(Field Programmable Gate Arrays) - sits somewhere in the middle, it can be reprogram to perform a specific task better than CPUs and GPUs but the performance and durability is worse than ASIC.
In therms of computing speed,optimization and hence raw performance on a specific task, the list goes in reverse, this is because hashing algorithms and its calculation can be optimize thru parallelism(I have 10 workers to do 1 task 10 times quicker) and pipe-lining (think factory production pipeline with sequential work stations). CPU and General-Purpose GPUs in our computers exploit parallalism and pipe-lining to a degree, But because they are general hardware, the exploitation is limited because they must accommodate all types of possible computation. ASICs, are develop to only accommodate the required computation in a task, and exploit parallelism and pipe-lining to the extreme, this gives rise to ASICs such as AntMiners, where the performance is more than 3 magnitudes better than CPU and GPU.
III. ASIC resistance, and the movement to keep the crypto decentralize
The ultimate goal of alt-coin development is to fill in the void of satoshi's block-chain security model. The void is , How to keep the network decentralized in terms of hashrate/s?
The obvious answer, the first approach, would be to let the most abundant hardware to perform as well as the least abundant hardware. Thus, make an hashing algorithm so that either a CPU can perform as well as ASICs, or make an algorithm so that it is very very hard(cost prohibited) to develop ASICs for.
It appears that this approach is the most successful at the moment, some memory hard algorithms such as Vertcoin's very own Lyra2REv2 has no ASICs currently available.
But on the longer time frame, the profit driven development of ASICs is a definite trend, ASIC resistance is a constant Spear vs Shield game. Being ASIC resistance is not necessarily equivalent to being decentralized.
There are several ramification of being ASIC resistant. First the algorithm is necessarily more complex and cost more electricity on CPU/GPU to perform. Secondly, Developing ASIC for algorithm such as Lyra2REv2 is hard. Because of this hardness, there are fewer people who can develop this than the amount of people who can develop SHA256*bitcoin ASICs. Maybe in the not too distance future bitmain's monopoly over SHA256 ASICs would end and more of us can purchase a bitcoin ASIC, thus the bitcoin network becomes decentralized again. But because it is harder to develop Lyra2REv2 ASICs, once developed the ASIC monopoly can remain for a very long time enough to destroy the network. Because fewer people can do it, it will be more centralized once developed.
This does not mean that Vertcoin's security model is not good. In fact it is very promising. First the hardness to develop Lyra2REv2 ASIC can be to the point of such extrem that no one is able to figure out over an very long period of time. Second, once developed, the devs promise to hard fork the network again with a new algorithm in their tool bag. because the tool bag is unknown, the ASIC development cycle repeats, possibility over a long time.
So the Vertcoin's hashing algo Lyra2REv2 is among the best of all crypto. combining with the fact that a promised evolution of hashing algo once ASIC appear, I dare to say that the security/decentralization model is the best in crypto.
IV. Further discussion regarding ASICs and Network decentralization and security. paradigm switch regarding ASICs
It is in the profit driven nature that an ASIC would apear,Bitcoin already fell, for a memory hard algo, Scrypt and Scrypt-N is thought to be resistant enough, but ASIC appear, thus LiteCoin and The old Vertcoin falls. Vertcoin later forked and adapt to Lyra2 , and sub sequently Lyra2REv2 and remain the most secure coin.
For the ones used by GroestleCoin(Groestl), Decred(Blake256), SteinCoin(Stein256) , although there is no ASICs, but over an infinite horizon, the ASIC will appear this coins can all flop over night, if they do not adapt to the changes , Like what Vertcoin can do.
I think in the infinitely long term, there are 2 solution.
1st the same as Vertcoin, Keep ASICs out, and keep evolving the unknown puzzle bag for replacement if ASICs appear.
2nd, Amend the algorithm so that the theoretical upper bound in the speed up from ASIC is low. This requires making most calculations sequential and none-associative, with a slow bottle neck. thus parallal and pipe-lining machine can not take too much advantage. After that make ASIC development an open source, community movement, so that the entire community is guarantee to enjoy the advancement in ASICs. This would guarantee that the advantage from a new novel asic is small compare to what the community have, and limit the degree of concentration of hash power. ASIC can also benefit the network by reducing power consumption and increase transaction speed.
V. Conclusion
The current security model of Bitcoin is flawed and Vertcoin's solution is the current best at tackling the security concern. The promise of evolution of Vertcoin's Lyra2REv2 can be a viable long term solution to the Spear vs Shield game of ASICs. Nonetheless, I think we are making good progress of filling the void. I hope the future decentralization solution of Vertcoin can evolve past the paradigm of strictly ASIC resistance, and considering community driven and fair distribution of ASICs. I hope everyone in crypto can participate in this discussion.
Disclosure: I hold Vertcoin, 100% of my porfolio :).
submitted by bntyjx to vertcoin [link] [comments]

DASH Instamine to compare, DASH being first mover advantage in X11 & personal opinions

Dear dashpay community
For those that doubt or question Dashes integrity compared to Bitcoin, regarding the instamine and Evan Duffield having too much Dash on the pre-mine event.
If you think about Bitcoin, We didn't know for a long time and we are still not 100% sure of the creators Identity as some are doubting Craig Wright, because Satoshi Nakamoto sounds a Japanese name.
As for DASH at least we know who the creator is from the start and what he plans to do with it, regarding the fact that its ‘not’ his coins but like a business account, putting it towards more DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) in the name of DASH.
Irrespective of what he has in DASH, compare that to the roughly 10% that Satoshi Nakamoto has, technically Satoshi could, if he wanted to, dump his coins, crashing the market overnight!.
But at least the amount Evan has wouldn’t shake the market as much as Satoshi Nakamoto, as Evans dashes volume is far less and his identity is at least known, so people wouldn’t forgive him easily if he turned rogue, which I believe is highly unlikely. In my opinion (Ive heard his speech on DASH Detailed) he is a passionate man who created DASH out of a vision and necessity to combat the many problems he see’s in Bitcoin.
Also, if you think about it, there is technically nothing stopping any very large investor shorting out, shocking the charts moving the market downwards, possibly triggering panic selling scaring the 'Longers' to exit, pushing price down even further; so I don't see why Evan should be singled out compared to anyone else.
In my opinion, ‘aggressive’ speculators are annoying to a asset if there are too many as they create heavy volatility on the market charts. They are ‘Shorters’ (as I like to call it) in it for ‘shorts’ for quick and often greedy profit (Though they are the ones that take the greatest investment risks and therefore get burned easily). The ‘Longers’ on the other hand are the ones that bring stability to the market charts, they are in it for... 1: Because they care about DASH, 2: They see it as ‘currency of the future’ and therefore want to see there purchasing power rise with deflation (Compared to the rubbish Inflation of national fiat currencies) & 3: They want to give it ‘value’ to show and help attract new comers to DASH. I'm proud to say I'm a ‘Longer’ on DASH!.
It very important to note DASH is not a ‘copy’ of Bitcoin in terms of its Algorithm (Though its still PoW), having a first mover advantage in which the X11 was specifically created for DASH. X11 is much MORE secure than the NSA’s SHA256 algorithm.
DASH has got new innovative ideas progressing much faster in percentage in a short space of time of its existence compared to Bitcoins progression over the last 8 ¼ years of its existence.
Its not impossible, but I could see some Bitcoin Devs defecting to develop for DASH, because of this ongoing scaling debate; though I wouldn’t like to see that, as I still love Bitcoin, but love DASH also.
If theres anything inaccurate with what Ive said please mention.
Thoughts and opinions?
submitted by TXJQQVRF to dashpay [link] [comments]

TIL: CryptoNote vs CryptoNight

Intro TIL
Since im utterly bored and at the same time always fascinated to learn about cryptocurrency, I will post sometimes a TIL (Today I Learned) in this subreddit to enlighten some people and also learn some stuff myself. If this isnt liked by the community or mods, just tell me to stop;)
Else I want to keep the subreddit alive by posting.
CryptoNote vs CryptoNight
CryptoNote is the name of the cryptocurrency technology (application layer) that Monero (and Aeon, and various others) is based on. CryptoNight is the name of the hash function that is used in the CryptoNote Proof-of-Work algorithm. CryptoNight-Lite is a modification of CryptoNight that uses half as much memory and fewer hash rounds, used in Aeon.
So basically CryptoNight is the algorithm for Monero and CryptoNight-Lite is the algorithm for AEON.
Different coins use different algorithms, here some examples: SHA256 (bitcoin), Scrypt (litecoin), Ethhash/Dagger-hashimoto (ethereum)
Rough and simple summary:
EDIT: Changed ethereum algo according to YellowOnion's comment
submitted by thehihoguy to Aeon [link] [comments]

Thinking in Systems: A Cryptocurrency Primer

I recently wrote a text post Success to the Successful (or: why the moon is not far enough). In that post I explained Success to the Successful, an example of what is know as a system archetype, a recurring pattern that systems often take on.
I first came across the idea of system archetypes in the book Thinking in Systems: A Primer by Donella Meadows. I would like to use one chapter of this book to analyse cryptocurrencies, as it provides a convenient basis for comparison. I will focus on Dash and Bitcoin because I think this is the illuminating pair to compare, but I will mention others as they become relevant.
Donella Meadows describes a system as a set of things—people, cells, molecules, or whatever—interconnected in such a way that they produce their own behavior over time (p2), and as an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something (p11).
Chapter 6 of this book is titled Leverage Points—Places to Intervene in a System. I will work through them in turn, briefly explain each, and use them to analyse cryptocurrencies. With any luck, this will also show ways to synthesise a cryptocurrency, ie consciously choose properties that meet intended goals. The leverage points are presented in reverse order, that is to say, point 12 is the weakest intervention point, and point 1 is the strongest.
12. Numbers—Constants and parameters such as subsidies, taxes standards
The essence of this point is that changing the tax rate from 18% to 25% or 13% makes no significant change to the was a system works. Donella Meadows says that numbers are dead last on the list of powerful interventions – diddling with the details, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
This means that it is of no real importance that Bitcoin has a 10 minute average block time, whereas Dash and Litecoin have an average of 2.5 minutes, or that Bitcoin uses SHA256 whereas Litecoin uses scrypt. It also means that the debate between (what is now) Bitcoin Core, XT, and Classic, over whether to have 1, 8, or 2MB blocks, the debate which has stalled Bitcoin development for longer than I can now remember, is over the least important part of the system. Meadows might have also called the block size limit debate in Bitcoin re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
11. Buffers—The size of stabilizing stocks relative to their flows
In a bathtub, the tub is a buffer (or stock), whereas the tap and sinkhole are flows.
Dash has an interesting type of financial stock with its masternode collateral. A large amount of DASH is held by long-term holders to enable the decentralised masternode network, and acts as a sort of saving account for operators. But Meadows says this is a low-leverage point – whether collateral is specifically 1000 DASH, 100 DASH or 10 DASH is probably not significant.
10. Stock-and-Flow Structures—Physical systems and their nodes of intersection
This covers things like plumbing systems and road layouts. What is connected to what can significantly change how a system behaves, as a broken water pipe or a poorly-placed road quickly shows.
Cryptocurrencies don't have many significant physical stock and flow structures. The main one that springs to mind is the location of Bitcoin miners near hydroelectric power stations and other renewable power sources. Proof-of-stake mining removes that physical structure, but I won't consider that further as most top cryptocurrencies are proof-of-stake.
There is another type of structure, which is informational. This actually comes under the higher-leverage point 6. Information Flows, however I will describe them here, as they are revenant to points in between.
Dash has two very powerful structures that Bitcoin lacks.
First, Dash has proof-of-stake voting. Dash is able to collect the opinions of masternode operators (ie large stakeholders), and broadcast them in a verifiable way to the entire network. Bitcoin has no comparable system. It is like large BTC holders are each locked in their own room with only shouting loudly as a means of communication, while large DASH holders have internet connections and videoconferencing.
Second, Dash voting forms part of its treasury system, and controls a flow of money to development projects, which covers all activities that Dash needs. It can increase or decrease these flows at will. Bitcoin development is funded out of deep pockets, and is not necessarily driven by what holders want (as the previous structure is missing). In my mind I see this as a kind of hybrid structure: while technically it is informational (cryptocurrency money is pure information), it behaves in many ways like a flow of gold coins.
9. Delays—The lengths of time relative to the rates of system changes
Delays are the time it takes for one part of a system to react to another. They are the source of oscillations. Business suffers natural booms and busts because (for one reason), the time it takes to build up a business, means that by the time it is fully operational, the market may be oversaturated, and some will be forced to close down. Delays that are too short cause overcompensation, common on car dealer forecourts that routinely over- or under-order new stock. On a shorter scale, this is the source of flash-crashes in the stock market. Long delays make long-term planning impossible, for example building the correct number of power plants.
Mining hardware is extremely sensitive to delay – planning R&D and installation of mining hardware is fraught with uncertainty due to the long time scales involved.
Dash has enormously reduced one kind of delay: consensus formation. Thanks to the structure explained above, it is possible within hours or days to establish consensus of opinion among masternode operators, holding some together some 60% of the currency. For example the 2MB-blocksize proposal was resolved in a few hours. What Donella Meadows describes as diddling with the details was resolved as quickly as such a triviality should be.
8. Balancing Feedback Loops—The strengths of the feedbacks relative to the impacts they are trying to correct
A balancing loop is a structure that tries to correct a system that strays from its goal. For example: a thermostat keeping a room at a comfortable temperature; democratic voting keeping a political party from runaway despotism. Balancing loops are important because reinforcing loops are very powerful, and can throw a system out of control, like a steam engine running faster and faster until it explodes.
Thanks to its treasury system, Dash has a unique balancing feedback loop: the masternode network can cut funding to any project at will. That means that if – say – the Dash Core team adopted the same 1MB block size policy as Bitcoin Core, in defiance of the previous vote, the masternode network can bring the system back into control by cutting funding to Dash Core. This would not be the end of the matter (another Core team would be required to replace them), but it would start to resolve the problem with a much lower delay.
7. Reinforcing Feedback Loops—The strength of the gain of driving loops
This was the topic of the earlier post Success to the Successful (or: why the moon is not far enough), so I would suggest reading that for more detail, as I believe it is a distinguishing feature of Dash among top cryptocurrencies today.
To summarise, Dash has a loop where wise masternode voting funds successful projects, which increase the utility of Dash, which increases the price of DASH, which increases the value of the monthly development budget, which increases Dash's capacity to fund successful projects. Bitcoin does not have this loop: a rising price of BTC does not enable Bitcoin to develop itself more successfully, because development is not paid for with BTC, and it does in any case not have the structure to direct funds based on past success. Dash is inherently more able to develop itself than Bitcoin; it is already developing faster, and its development is accelerating thanks to this loop.
6. Information Flows—The structure of who does and does not have access to information
This is covered under 10. Stock-and-Flow Structures to make the flow of this post easier to read. But note that Meadows considered Information Flows as higher-leverage points, higher even than Balancing Feedback Loops and Reinforcing Feedback Loops.
5. Rules—Incentives, punishments, constraints
This covers everything from the physical laws of nature, through codes of laws enforced by courts, to the rules of trivial board games or casual agreements between friends.
Cryptocurrencies have some very hard rules. For example, to spend any BTC or DASH etc, you must be able to sign a valid transaction transferring the money from you to someone else. No amount of begging or pleading will sway the laws of cryptography, any more than begging or pleading can change the force of gravity.
The rules of the cryptocurrency block reward determine the incentives of participants in a cryptocurrency.
Bitcoin allocates 100% of the block reward to the miner of that block: there is a very strong incentive to mine Bitcoin blocks. However, there is no corresponding incentive for running a Bitcoin node. By splitting the block reward 45% to miners and 45% to masternode operators, Dash has ~4500 masternodes to Bitcoin's ~5500 nodes, despite the currency having a market cap somewhere around 1% of Bitcoin's. Also, Bitcoin has a balancing loop, whereby the more popular Bitcoin becomes, the higher the cost of running a node becomes, and so the lower the net incentive. Only companies and individuals who need to verify every transaction will run a Bitcoin node; with Dash, people will also run nodes because they are paid to do so.
One area where Dash is perhaps lacking in this section is punishments. Dash has an incentive that people are paid to do projects to develop Dash, and funding can be withdrawn if they fail to deliver, but they are not punished if they deceive or defraud. As Donella Meadows put 5. Rules quite high up the list, this suggests that adding punishments to negligently managed or fraudulent development projects might be a high-leverage intervention.
Meadows says that power over rules is real power. Who gets to decide the rules of a blockchain, decides the fate of a cryptocurrency. Who in Bitcoin, and who in Dash, decides whether blocks will be only 1MB in size, or whether they can be larger? In Dash, this is transparent, bearing in mind the complexities we considered earlier. In Bitcoin, it is considerably less so.
4. Self-organisation—The power to add, change, or evolve system structure
This covers evolution, the adaptation of an immune system, ants building a hive, DNA building an ant, members of a society agreeing on its laws.
This point is key why capitalism is superior to communism at generating economic development: the minds of everyone working as an entrepreneur, able to startup up and shut down businesses as they sense real demand, will always outpace the abilities of a central planner with limited information and limited capacity to process it. Simply, it creates a bigger, more adaptable brain out society, a more powerful mind to design and provide infrastructure, goods and services.
Dash has a layer of self-organisation at a higher level than businesses running on the blockchain. The treasury system works like a circulatory system, providing money to its DAO employees like nutrition to vital functions. This enables Dash to create development teams, marketing teams, market research teams, R&D teams, forum moderation teams and so on. The treasury lets Dash participants self-organise into a nervous system, and function as a viable, self-sustaining organisation.
3. Goals—The purpose or function of a system
The goal of a system is what it tries to achieve. The goal of a thermostat is the temperature it wants to maintain the room at. The goal of a political party is to get elected. The goal of a football team is to win the game.
What is the goal of Bitcoin? The Bitcoin whitepaper defines it as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. What is the goal of Monero? The Monero website defines it as is a secure, private, untraceable currency. Dash? Well, Dash is digital cash – citation needed :)
Note that the block size debate in Bitcoin is really a debate over its goal – is it peer-to-peer cash, or is it a digital settlement layer for a Lightning Network? Dash has a consensus structure to confirm its goal, it has information and money flows to decide and fund its path to its goal, it has balancing loops to keep it in check. Dash has a clear goal; the goal of Bitcoin right now looks simply undefined. It's not clear who is in a position to define it. But Donella Meadows puts Goals way up the list of leverage points at number 3, so this matters enormously.
2. Paradigms—The mind-set out of which the system–its goals, structures, rules, delays, parameters–arises
At this point we may be stepping out of the sphere of any one individual cryptocurrency. What do we want as money? Do we want debt-money created by private institutions? Do we want hard money like gold? Do we want to return to peer-to-peer credit? Do we want centrally-planned money, or market-driven money?
I won't attempt to answer any questions here.
1. Transcending Paradigms
This is the idea to stay unattached, to realise that no one paradigm is true. Maybe the head of a central bank will come to understand the advantages of cryptocurrency systems; maybe a die-hard libertarian will appreciate the positive role regulation and government intervention can have in financial systems. Meadows describes this as to let go into not-knowing. For me it is to accept that everyone has their own mindset and the goals that this entails, and they come to this mindset through experiences no less real or valid than one's own.
At this point we have completely escaped the petty squabbling of 1MB vs 2MB blocks, and opened a discussion on what paradigm of money will best suit the needs of the modern world. That is a debate I think not even Donella Meadows would find easy to resolve.

I hope this analysis proves useful to someone. If it has peeked anyone's interested, I wholeheartedly recommend reading the whole of Thinking in Systems, which is both short and accessible to anyone with an inquisitive mind.
(Apologies for any errors, I've typed this quickly in a few spare hours)
submitted by ashmoran to dashpay [link] [comments]

September is litecoin acceptance drive month. If you love litecoin and want to see it gain value and acceptance then join in. The plan is to have everyone that holds litecoin to contact at least 4 businesses or exchanges this month. Thats only 1 a week! Click to see talking points.

The network effect is super important and litecoin has the second largest network effect under bitcoin but it is still very small. Those of us that are early adopters (if you have litecoin now then you are an early adopter) and want to see their net worth grow in value have to put a bit of work in to get other people to accept this great currency. I have been in Crypto currencies since bitcoin was at $0.80 cents I really feel for many reasons that litecoin is an important part of crypto moving forward and that it is needed just as much as bitcoin.
If you need some convincing talking points to why companies and exchanges should accept litecoin then...
If you have anymore talking points then please add them below.
Remember we don't need to go on about the differences between LTC and BTC but also why it is good to accept crypto currencies in General.
Post your successes bellow and if you get people that sound a little interested maybe mention them here so we can show them more love. :)
EDIT :great point from @maliciousbanana I have edited his post a bit. If malicious organisations with enough resources to mount an attack on the BTC blockchain appeared, they could not use the same hardware against LTC because the hash algorithms used are different (SHA256 vs SCRYPT) so that organisation will need double the resources to attack both networks which is very very unlikely. This is why diversification into litecoin lowers your risk of unseen problems.
EDIT you can find businesses that where open minded enough to accept bitcoin here.
submitted by anarcoin to litecoin [link] [comments]

difficulty adjustment (was: The Nuclear Option: BIP148 + MR POWA) | Henning Kopp | Jul 05 2017

Henning Kopp on Jul 05 2017:
I would also highly advise finding a simple and robust difficulty adjustment
that occurs every block instead of bitcoin/litecoin's 2016 block use.
I also thought about this some time ago. But note that this implies
that forks grow with the same block frequency as the main chain. Thus
the longest chain rule becomes irrelevant, since all chains will have
the same length (in expectancy). Rather, the chain with most work is
the true one.
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 02:02:08PM +0000, Troy Benjegerdes via bitcoin-dev wrote:
The fastest way to triple Bitcoin capacity is to split the network into
two or three different blockchains. We encourage forks of software, why
are blockchains somehow different?
Yes, this is risky, and probably volatile.
I honestly don't expect lots of people with large amounts of money
invested (exchanges, financial institutions, etc) to go along with
something like this, and that say 90% of the wealth with stay concentrated
in whatever chain has the majority SHA256 hashpower.
But as a game-theory excercise to see who's theories actually work?
I highly encourage a real-world test of all these theories.
I would also highly advise finding a simple and robust difficulty adjustment
that occurs every block instead of bitcoin/litecoin's 2016 block use.
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:18:36AM +0000, John Hardy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
This idea is highly contentious as it would guarantee a viable chain of Bitcoin with SegWit activated whether BIP148 gained sufficient support or not. I am not necessarily advocating it - just putting it out for discussion. While the downside is that it could permanently split the network, the upside is that it could heap additional pressure on miners to follow the BIP148 chain and ensure a minimally disruptive upgrade. This is pure game theory.
MR POWA (Mining Reactive Proof of Work Addition) is a method to introduce an additional proof of work to a blockchain in response to a detected mining behaviour.
In the case of BIP148, the criteria for activation could be when the software detects a non-BIP148 compliant chain that is 144 blocks (24 hours) ahead of a BIP148 compliant chain.
At this stage the software would change its consensus rules (hard fork) to do two things:
  • Lower the difficulty for existing PoW method (SHA256).
  • Introduce a second POW method, such as Scrypt or Ethash, that is incompatible with SHA256 hardware but already has an established mining industry for altcoins.
The difficulty should be low, and blocks will initially be found much more quickly than every 10 minutes until the difficulty adjusts. Each method would have its own difficulty. It could be a requirement that POW methods alternate to neutralise attacks from the other chain.
This would guarantee SegWit activation. Anybody who is already running a BIP148 node could just as easily run a BIP148 + MR POWA node. This could not realistically be supported by Core and would have to be implemented in a grassroots movement, similar to BIP148.
Ideally, it would just force the miners to follow the BIP148 chain (or risk the value of their hardware being hurt) and the code would never be activated. MR POWA would mean BIP148 miners would no longer need to ?hold their nerve? as they would be guaranteed a viable chain and rewarded for their early support.
John Hardy
john at
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at

Henning Kopp
Institute of Distributed Systems
Ulm University, Germany
Office: O27 - 3402
Phone: +49 731 50-24138
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: btc top posts from 2017-01-09 to 2017-02-07 22:40 PDT

Period: 29.80 days
Submissions Comments
Total 999 28052
Rate (per day) 33.52 904.13
Unique Redditors 409 2067
Combined Score 56126 117584

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 3835 points, 41 submissions: Egon_1
    1. "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority" (529 points, 262 comments)
    2. Charlie Shrem: "Oh cmon. @gavinandresen is the reason we are all here today. Stop attacking people, ...." (256 points, 61 comments)
    3. The core developers don't care about you. Let's fire them by hard fork to Bitcoin unlimited! (231 points, 83 comments)
    4. Bitcoin Core Hashrate Below 80% (211 points, 27 comments)
    5. "Bitcoin is an P2P electronic cash system, not digital gold. If Bitcoin's usefulness as cash is undermined, its value will be undermined too." (198 points, 196 comments)
    6. I like these ads (194 points, 25 comments)
    7. "ViaBTC Transaction Accelerator already help more than 5K delayed transactions got confirmed." (142 points, 27 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Unlimited: Over 800 PH/s (128 points, 21 comments)
    9. ViaBTC produces ZERO empty block in the last month. Best in SPV base mining pool. (117 points, 2 comments)
    10. New ATL (All Time Low) For Bitcoin Core Blocks (114 points, 59 comments)
  2. 2876 points, 24 submissions: ydtm
    1. The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE? (354 points, 116 comments)
    2. BU-SW parity! 231 vs 231 of the last 1000 blocks! Consensus will always win over censorship! MARKET-BASED blocksize will always win over CENTRALLY-PLANNED blocksize! People want blocksize to be determined by the MARKET - not by Greg Maxwell & his 1.7MB anyone-can-spend SegWit-as-a-soft-fork blocks. (271 points, 66 comments)
    3. The number of blocks being mined by Bitcoin Unlimited is now getting very close to surpassing the number of blocks being mined by SegWit! More and more people are supporting BU's MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE - because BU avoids needless transaction delays and ultimately increases Bitcoin adoption & price! (185 points, 80 comments)
    4. "Notice how anyone who has even remotely supported on-chain scaling has been censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed from any area of Core influence. Community, business, Hearn, Gavin, Jeff, XT, Classic, Coinbase, Unlimited, ViaBTC, Ver, Jihan,, btc" ~ u/randy-lawnmole (176 points, 114 comments)
    5. "Why is Flexible Transactions more future-proof than SegWit?" by u/ThomasZander (175 points, 110 comments)
    6. "You have to understand that Core and their supporters eg Theymos WANT a hardfork to be as messy as possible. This entire time they've been doing their utmost to work AGAINST consensus, and it will continue until they are simply removed from the community like the cancer they are." ~ u/singularity87 (170 points, 28 comments)
    7. Blockstream/Core don't care about you. They're repeatedly crippling the network with their DEV-CONTROLLED blocksize. Congestion & delays are now ROUTINE & PREDICTABLE after increased difficulty / time between blocks. Only we can fix the network - using MARKET-CONTROLLED blocksize (Unlimited/Classic) (168 points, 60 comments)
    8. 3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer (146 points, 59 comments)
    9. This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price. (143 points, 97 comments)
    10. Now that BU is overtaking SW, r\bitcoin is in meltdown. The 2nd top post over there (sorted by "worst first" ie "controversial") is full of the most ignorant, confused, brainwashed comments ever seen on r\bitcoin - starting with the erroneous title: "The problem with forking and creating two coins." (142 points, 57 comments)
  3. 2424 points, 31 submissions: realistbtc
    1. Remember this picture ? It was a very strong and cool message from around 2014 . Well, sadly it's not true anymore. But it was universally liked in the Bitcoin space , and probably brought here some of us . I remember even luke-jr reposting it somewhere (oh , the hypocrysis!! ). (249 points, 55 comments)
    2. Emin Gun Sirer on Twitter ' My take is the exact opposite: we are now finding out that Segwit isn't necessary and we can get the same benefits via simpler means. " (248 points, 46 comments)
    3. Gavin Andresen on Twitter : ' The purpose of a consensus system is to arrive at one outcome. Participating means accepting the result even if you initially disagree. ' (204 points, 56 comments)
    4. enough with the blockstream core propaganda : changing the blocksize IS the MORE CAUTIOUS and SAFER approach . if it was done sooner , we would have avoived entirely these unprecedented clycles of network clogging that have caused much frustrations in a lot of actors (173 points, 15 comments)
    5. Gavin Andresen on Twitter - 'This can't be controversial... can it? - a definition of Bitcoin' (136 points, 38 comments)
    6. adam back on twitter "contentious forks are bad idea for confidence & concept of digital scarcity. wait for the ETFs. profit. mean time deploy segwit & lightning" - no! a corrupt company like blockstream with a washed out ex cypherpunk like adam are what's bad for Bitcoin . (122 points, 115 comments)
    7. "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" - if you stray from that , you don't get to keep calling it Bitcoin. call it blockstreamcoin, adamcoin, gregcoin, theymoscoin or whatever and go fork off yourself . (112 points, 19 comments)
    8. soon 21 will have to change the scale , because 180 satoshi/KB won't be enough anymore - madness - feel free to send your complaints to greg maxwell CTO of blockstream (112 points, 31 comments)
    9. PSA : if you use a ledger wallet , you risk paying an absurdly high free - see here : 10$ for a 225 bytes 150$ tx - but remember , it's all fine for your elitist and gregonomic friends at blockstream (109 points, 111 comments)
    10. Luke 'the liar' Dashjr : ' My BIP draft didn't make progress because the community opposes any block size increase hardfork ever. ' -- yes , he wrote exactly that !! (96 points, 33 comments)
  4. 2129 points, 43 submissions: increaseblocks
    1. After failing to get 10K bitcoins for stolen NSA exploits, Shadow Brokers post farewell message, dump a cache of Windows hacking tools online (181 points, 23 comments)
    2. Coinbase and the IRS (146 points, 69 comments)
    3. Ryan X. Charles on Twitter - There is a leadership gap in bitcoin left by technical community members who didn't listen to miners, businesses or users. (117 points, 44 comments)
    4. Blockstream Core developer says you should "pay a $5 fee" to get your transaction to go through! (116 points, 32 comments)
    5. $2.50 transaction FEE paid on $37 transaction, still unconfirmed for 24 hours!! (109 points, 37 comments)
    6. Blockstream shareholder gives a little more insight into the company (107 points, 33 comments)
    7. Finished setting up my Unlimited full node. Took just over 24 hrs to sync with a 5 yr old laptop and standard U.S. connection + $50 1TB hard drive! (96 points, 46 comments)
    8. Matt Corallo/TheBlueMatt leaves Blockstream to go work for Chaincode Labs... is the Blockstream house of cards beginning to crumble? (86 points, 175 comments)
    9. 53,000 transactions in the backlog! (75 points, 79 comments)
    10. Doctor ₿ Goss on Twitter: Spending a year on #segwit instead of coordinating blocksize increase may not have been wise. Money that doesn't work is worthless (70 points, 11 comments)
  5. 1590 points, 9 submissions: parban333
    1. Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. (566 points, 87 comments)
    2. nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided. greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin. (400 points, 207 comments)
    3. Remember: while the blockstream trolls take Peter R out of context, Peter Todd really think Bitcoin should have a 1%/security tax via inflation. (146 points, 92 comments)
    4. So, Alice is causing a problem. Alice is then trying to sell you a solution for that problem. Alice now tell that if you are not buying into her solution, you are the cause of the problem. Replace Alice with Greg & Adam.. (139 points, 28 comments)
    5. SegWit+limited on-chain scaling: brought to you by the people that couldn't believe Bitcoin was actually a sound concept. (92 points, 47 comments)
    6. Remember: the manipulative Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, want to fool every newcomer that doesn't know better into thinking that he practically invented Bitcoin. (91 points, 22 comments)
    7. Not only segwit support is laughable at the moment for something targeting 95% adoption, but it's actually diminishing. Wallet devs and people that spent resources implementing that ridiculous contraption must feel a bit silly at the moment.... (83 points, 143 comments)
    8. It's ironic that blockstream's concerns about hard forks security are what's actually caused concerns about hard forks security. (46 points, 5 comments)
    9. The Intercept - "Hidden loopholes allow FBI agents to infiltrate political and religious groups" - Just something to consider, right? (27 points, 2 comments)
  6. 1471 points, 10 submissions: sandakersmann
    1. Charlie Shrem on Twitter: "If we don't implement bigger blocks ASAP, Paypal will be cheaper than #bitcoin. I already pay a few dollars per tx. Stop hindering growth." (472 points, 254 comments)
    2. Olivier Janssens on Twitter: "Do you like Bitcoin? Then you like an unlimited block size. The limit was put in place as a temp fix and was never hit before last year." (252 points, 189 comments)
    3. Ryan X. Charles on Twitter: "Bigger blocks will allow more people access to every aspect of bitcoin, enhancing decentralization" (213 points, 179 comments)
    4. Is Bitcoin Unlimited Headed for Activation? (149 points, 38 comments)
    5. Marius Kjærstad on Twitter: "High fees push real economy out of #Bitcoin and makes price driven by speculation. Result is a lower real economy floor to catch the knife." (132 points, 37 comments)
    6. No Primary Litecoin Pool Will Upgrade to Segwit, Says LTC1BTC's Founder (103 points, 60 comments)
    7. Charlie Shrem: "Bitcoin is been built to appreciate or die. That's how it is. It has to continue to grow. If it doesn't grow then it's just gonna go away." (76 points, 15 comments)
    8. G. Andrew Stone & Andrew Clifford: Bitcoin Unlimited (Episode 166) (36 points, 1 comment)
    9. Joseph VaughnPerling on Twitter: "#SegWit on $LTC's safe b/c low TX vol. AnyoneCanSpend TX UTXO unlikely to hit 51% attack cost. On $BTC it'd be insidiously fatal. @SegWit" (21 points, 8 comments)
    10. Bitcoin Plummets After China Launches "Market Manipulation" Investigations Of Bitcoin Exchanges (17 points, 0 comments)
  7. 1408 points, 7 submissions: BeijingBitcoins
    1. LOL - /bitcoin user claims that people aren't being actively silenced; is actively silenced. (307 points, 142 comments)
    2. Reality check: today's minor bug caused the pool to miss out on a $12000 block reward, and was fixed within hours. Core's 1MB blocksize limit has cost the users of bitcoin >$100k per day for the past several months. (270 points, 173 comments)
    3. Satoshi: "The eventual solution will be to not care how big [block size] gets." (250 points, 75 comments)
    4. Top post on /bitcoin about high transaction fees. 709 comments. Every time you click "load more comments," there is nothing there. How many posts are being censored? The manipulation of free discussion by /bitcoin moderators needs to end yesterday. (229 points, 91 comments)
    5. Bitcoin Unlimited blocks at all time high! (143 of last 1000) (191 points, 56 comments)
    6. Censored in bitcoin: "Bitcoin Core hashrate reaches 79.7%" (91 points, 61 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Transaction Fees - All Time (70 points, 18 comments)
  8. 1235 points, 40 submissions: chinawat
    1. Julian Assange just used the bitcoin block number 447506 as a proof of life. (199 points, 42 comments)
    2. "$3000 donated anonymously to the @internetarchive in bitcoin just now. Made our day!" -- Brewster Kahle on Twitter (97 points, 3 comments)
    3. ‘Barclays took my £440,000 and put me through hell’ | Money (76 points, 22 comments)
    4. Venezuelan Police Arrest Eight Bitcoin Miners in Two Weeks, and the Country's Leading Bitcoin Exchange Suspends Operations (52 points, 2 comments)
    5. The Path To $10,000 Bitcoin (46 points, 11 comments)
    6. How Deutsche Bank Made a $462 Million Loss Disappear (44 points, 6 comments)
    7. "The plan (#mBTC units) has been discussed amongst local #Chinese exchanges, & we believe it will appease the regulators, w/ "lower" prices." -- Bobby Lee on Twitter (43 points, 36 comments)
    8. "Everyone knows that we need to reduce the max block size, but is a one-time drop to 300 kB really the best way?" -- theymos (40 points, 68 comments)
    9. Buy bitcoin from any 7-11 in the Philippines (36 points, 0 comments)
    10. The Race Is On for a Bitcoin ETF (31 points, 14 comments)
  9. 1010 points, 17 submissions: 1and1make5
    1. Last 1000 Blocks - Bitcoin Unlimited overtakes soft-fork-segwit signaling (165 points, 25 comments)
    2. Again: Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization - Roger Ver (101 points, 59 comments)
    3. cnLedger on Twitter - "@todu77 Contacted http://BTC.TOP . A different logic was used when dealing w/ (very occasional) empty blc. They'll update to BU only" (94 points, 6 comments)
    4. Controlling your own wealth as a basic human right - Brian Armstrong (93 points, 30 comments)
    5. Last 1000 Blocks - 20% of the Bitcoin mining network supports Bitcoin Unlimited (89 points, 4 comments)
    6. current hashrate: ~100 Ph/s (71 points, 5 comments)
    7. Throwback Thursday: mined their first BU block 1 month ago with ~31 Ph/s, today they have ~149 Ph/s (68 points, 6 comments)
    8. Epicenter Bitcoin 166 - G. Andrew Stone & Andrew Clifford: Bitcoin Unlimited (63 points, 50 comments)
    9. Coinbase Obtains the Bitlicense (53 points, 19 comments)
    10. Fun fact (doesn't mean anything): In the last 24 hours more blocks have signaled support for Bitcoin Unlimited than soft-fork-segwit (53 points, 5 comments)
  10. 984 points, 20 submissions: seweso
    1. Bitcoin unlimited is an expression of freedom. And freedom will always be misconstrued by paternalists/statists as something dangerous. (120 points, 64 comments)
    2. My hope for Bitcoin Unlimited is not to force a hardfork upon everyone, but to break through the censorship, to open minds. (106 points, 88 comments)
    3. Core threatening a POW change makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. (97 points, 58 comments)
    4. "We will run a SegWit release in production by the time [a 2MB hardfork] is released in a version of Bitcoin Core." (94 points, 84 comments)
    5. Blocked by Peter Todd for pointing out he started the propaganda war with his slippery slope video. (92 points, 41 comments)
    6. I can't wait to spend everyone's SegWit funds on a hard-forked >1Mb chain. ~ Seweso (72 points, 72 comments)
    7. BashCo putting his Bitcoin ignorance on display by stating "60,000 #Bitcoin transactions don't just magically appear out of thin air. #spam" (66 points, 12 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Core developers discussing and deciding on Bitcoin economics again (47 points, 13 comments)
    9. Reaction to: why-bitcoin-unlimiteds-emergent-consensus-gamble (46 points, 9 comments)
    10. "@seweso Show me an instance where core pushed out a change and cost miners a block reward." ~ I can do that ;) (37 points, 6 comments)
  11. 883 points, 16 submissions: Shock_The_Stream
    1. Emin Gün Sirer: Finally getting to the crux of the battle. LN/Segwit/fee-market are a synonym for "high fees." Nothing about this tech requires high fees. (155 points, 78 comments)
    2. BTC.TOP !! - New Alltime High for BU blocks @199 ! BTC.TOP alone just mined 4 BU blocks within 47 minutes (115 points, 26 comments)
    3. The great halvening of Samson's Segwit Pool: Mission accomplished! 1 yr: 12.50%, 6 month: 11.10%, 1 month: 7.83%, 1week: 6.67%, 4 days: 6% (107 points, 56 comments)
    4. Surpise: SegWit SF becomes more and more centralized - around half of all Segwit signals come from Bitfury ... (107 points, 45 comments)
    5. BS of the week by Rusty Russell: "If segwit doesn't activate, something is badly broken in Bitcoin" (102 points, 97 comments)
    6. Slush pool: Incredible bad luck for the Bitcoin Unlimited voters (43 points, 26 comments)
    7. The Bitfury Attack (43 points, 38 comments)
    8. 799! Jiang Zhuo'er teared down this wall! (40 points, 13 comments)
    9. Did Slush just stop mining segwit with the 'don't care' voters? (39 points, 36 comments)
    10. Fortune favours the bold: BTC.TOP with 300% luck today (30 points, 2 comments)
  12. 754 points, 10 submissions: AQuentson
    1. Price Shoots Up as Miners Checkmate and Bitcoin Unlimited Surpasses Segwit. (113 points, 28 comments)
    2. One Transaction Will Cost $400 if Bitcoin Hits $10,000 According to Jameson Lopp (104 points, 39 comments)
    3. Bitcoin Core Developer: Satoshi's Design Doesn't Work (100 points, 78 comments)
    4. Wow! Had no idea the BitcoinMarkets subreddit is completely censored. (90 points, 29 comments)
    5. F2Pool Will Not Upgrade Its Bitcoin Pool to Segwit "Anytime Soon" (89 points, 21 comments)
    6. The Bitcoin Market Needs Big Blocks, Says Founder of BTC.TOP Mining Pool (82 points, 21 comments)
    7. Almost $1 Billion Worth of Bitcoins Stuck in Transaction Backlog (72 points, 8 comments)
    8. ViaBTC's Hashrate Increases to 12 Percent (58 points, 2 comments)
    9. “The protocol debate is not my priority." - Jihan Wu, Bitmain's Founder (24 points, 13 comments)
    10. Wow! Almost $1 Billion Worth of Bitcoin is Stuck, Can't Move - What Happens if no Block is Found in One Hour (as has happened before) Will Bitcoin Literally Break Down? (22 points, 14 comments)
  13. 744 points, 10 submissions: BobsBurgers3Bitcoin
    1. Bitcoin Unlimited 1.0.0 has been released (274 points, 130 comments)
    2. Censored in r\Bitcoin: "35.8 Cents: Average Transaction Fee so far in 2017. The Average Transaction Fee in 2016 was 16.5 Cents" (260 points, 123 comments)
    3. 35.8 Cents: Average Transaction Fee so far in 2017. The Average Transaction Fee in 2016 was 16.5 Cents (74 points, 18 comments)
    4. Former Fed Employee Fined $5,000 for Using Computer for Bitcoin (37 points, 5 comments)
    5. Bitcoin: Why It Now Belongs in Every Portfolio (26 points, 0 comments)
    6. Bitcoin is 'a great hedge against the system' and could be the new gold (18 points, 1 comment)
    7. Bitcoin Will Change Money Like the Internet Changed Video (15 points, 0 comments)
    8. Is Warren Buffett Wrong About Bitcoin? (14 points, 3 comments)
    9. Bitseed Review – A Plug & Play Full Bitcoin Node (13 points, 2 comments)
    10. Bitcoin is soaring (and Business Insider does not change the title of the almost identical article published 3 weeks ago by the same author) (13 points, 1 comment)
  14. 732 points, 10 submissions: specialenmity
    1. Fantasy land: Thinking that a hard fork will be disastrous to the price, yet thinking that a future average fee of > $1 and average wait times of > 1 day won't be disastrous to the price. (209 points, 70 comments)
    2. "Segwit is a permanent solution to refuse any blocksize increase in the future and move the txs and fees to the LN hubs. The chinese miners are not as stupid as the blockstream core devaluators want them to be." shock_the_stream (150 points, 83 comments)
    3. In response to the "unbiased" ELI5 of Core vs BU and this gem: "Core values trustlessness and decentralization above all. Bitcoin Unlimited values low fees for on-chain transactions above all else." (130 points, 45 comments)
    4. Core's own reasoning doesn't add up: If segwit requires 95% of last 2016 blocks to activate, and their fear of using a hardfork instead of a softfork is "splitting the network", then how does a hardfork with a 95% trigger even come close to potentially splitting the network? (96 points, 130 comments)
    5. luke-jr defines "using bitcoin" as running a full node. Dictates that the cost of moving money ( a transaction) should exceed "using bitcoin". Hah (38 points, 17 comments)
    6. If it's not activating that is a strong evidence that the claims of it being dire were and continue to be without substance. nullc (36 points, 23 comments)
    7. I'm more concerned that bitcoin can't change than whether or not we scale in the near future by SF or HF (26 points, 9 comments)
    8. "The best available research right now suggested an upper bound of 4MB. This figure was considering only a subset of concerns, in particular it ignored economic impacts, long term sustainability, and impacts on synchronization time.." nullc (20 points, 4 comments)
    9. At any point in time mining pools could have increased the block reward through forking and yet they haven't. Why? Because it is obvious that the community wouldn't like that and correspondingly the price would plummet (14 points, 14 comments)
    10. The flawed mind of jstolfi (13 points, 17 comments)
  15. 708 points, 7 submissions: knight222
    1. BTC.TOP operator: “We have prepared $100 million USD to kill the small fork of CoreCoin, no matter what POW algorithm, sha256 or scrypt or X11 or any other GPU algorithm. Show me your money. We very much welcome a CoreCoin change to POS.” (241 points, 252 comments)
    2. For those who missed it, this is how the hardfork with Bitcoin Unlimited will happen. (173 points, 79 comments)
    3. Blocks mined with Bitcoin Unlimited reaching 18% (133 points, 28 comments)
    4. Bitcoin Unlimited is less than 1% away from outpacing Segwit for the last 1000 blocks mined (90 points, 44 comments)
    5. BU nodes peaked in the last days (28 points, 6 comments)
    6. Blockstream never tried to compromise but they will (too late). This is why: (22 points, 4 comments)
    7. BTC.TOP is having a good day (21 points, 6 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. Adrian-X (3622 points, 821 comments)
  2. H0dl (3157 points, 563 comments)
  3. Bitcoinopoly (2732 points, 345 comments)
  4. knight222 (2319 points, 361 comments)
  5. MeTheImaginaryWizard (2043 points, 429 comments)
  6. Ant-n (1818 points, 387 comments)
  7. todu (1756 points, 265 comments)
  8. seweso (1742 points, 328 comments)
  9. awemany (1690 points, 401 comments)
  10. Shock_The_Stream (1647 points, 217 comments)
  11. Helvetian616 (1578 points, 206 comments)
  12. Egon_1 (1478 points, 162 comments)
  13. realistbtc (1299 points, 95 comments)
  14. BitcoinIsTehFuture (1231 points, 139 comments)
  15. LovelyDay (1226 points, 196 comments)
  16. thcymos (1172 points, 117 comments)
  17. BeijingBitcoins (1098 points, 58 comments)
  18. Yheymos (1061 points, 69 comments)
  19. steb2k (1058 points, 238 comments)
  20. ydtm (987 points, 132 comments)
  21. dontcensormebro2 (975 points, 106 comments)
  22. chinawat (972 points, 223 comments)
  23. increaseblocks (934 points, 73 comments)
  24. segregatedwitness (921 points, 101 comments)
  25. Annapurna317 (874 points, 146 comments)
  26. DaSpawn (817 points, 162 comments)
  27. insette (808 points, 91 comments)
  28. TanksAblazment (803 points, 150 comments)
  29. blockstreamcoin (787 points, 133 comments)
  30. MeatsackMescalero (774 points, 95 comments)
  31. satoshis_sockpuppet (745 points, 126 comments)
  32. BitcoinXio (739 points, 50 comments)
  33. jstolfi (734 points, 183 comments)
  34. singularity87 (720 points, 90 comments)
  35. Richy_T (704 points, 163 comments)
  36. redlightsaber (690 points, 138 comments)
  37. Leithm (686 points, 74 comments)
  38. ErdoganTalk (668 points, 252 comments)
  39. BitcoinPrepper (665 points, 89 comments)
  40. reddaxx (664 points, 105 comments)
  41. r1q2 (660 points, 110 comments)
  42. papabitcoin (653 points, 79 comments)
  43. 2ndEntropy (632 points, 76 comments)
  44. FormerlyEarlyAdopter (608 points, 92 comments)
  45. Coolsource (595 points, 116 comments)
  46. Peter__R (589 points, 43 comments)
  47. timepad (570 points, 62 comments)
  48. Rawlsdeep (564 points, 109 comments)
  49. themgp (560 points, 46 comments)
  50. ForkiusMaximus (558 points, 89 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. by parban333 (566 points, 87 comments)
  2. "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority" by Egon_1 (529 points, 262 comments)
  3. Charlie Shrem on Twitter: "If we don't implement bigger blocks ASAP, Paypal will be cheaper than #bitcoin. I already pay a few dollars per tx. Stop hindering growth." by sandakersmann (472 points, 254 comments)
  4. nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided. greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin. by parban333 (400 points, 207 comments)
  5. The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE? by ydtm (354 points, 116 comments)
  6. LOL - /bitcoin user claims that people aren't being actively silenced; is actively silenced. by BeijingBitcoins (307 points, 142 comments)
  7. Massive censorship on "/bitcoin" continues by BitcoinIsTehFuture (296 points, 123 comments)
  8. Charlie Shrem on Twitter: "You can talk about anything in BTC and it won't be auto deleted" by BitcoinXio (291 points, 69 comments)
  9. Bitcoin Unlimited blocks exceed Core for first time, 232 vs. 231 of last 1,000 by DNVirtual (282 points, 84 comments)
  10. As relevant as it's always been by iopq (276 points, 15 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 151 points: nicebtc's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
  2. 123 points: 1DrK44np3gMKuvcGeFVv's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
  3. 117 points: cryptovessel's comment in nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided. greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin.
  4. 117 points: seweso's comment in Roger Ver banned for doxing after posting the same thread Prohashing was banned for.
  5. 113 points: BitcoinIsTehFuture's comment in Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons.
  6. 106 points: MagmaHindenburg's comment in loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
  7. 98 points: lon102guy's comment in loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
  8. 97 points: bigboi2468's comment in contentious forks vs incremental progress
  9. 92 points: vbuterin's comment in [Mark Friedenbach] There is a reason we are generally up in arms about "abusive" data-on-blockchain proposals: it is because we see the potential of this tech!
  10. 89 points: Peter__R's comment in contentious forks vs incremental progress
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats (Donate)
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

What Is Litecoin & Differences Between Litecoin And Bitcoin

What is Litecoin?
Litecoin (LTC) is the second largest crypto currency only smaller than Bitcoin. Litecoin is the biggest of the so called altcoins and is similar to but with some distinct differences to Bitcoin (BTC). Litecoin was created by Charlie Lee, a former Google employee who goes by the screen name coblee, and was launched on October 7th 2011.
LTC is similar to BTC in that it uses a proof of work blockchain, difficulty adjusts every 2016 blocks, and rewards half about every 4 years.
LTC is different to BTC in that the LTC network aims to process blocks every 2.5 minutes compared to BTCs 10 minutes. This allows for faster confirmation times. LTC aims to produce 84 Million LTCs which is roughly 4 times as many coins as BTC will eventually produce. LTC uses an algorithm called Scrypt, and BTC uses SHA-256. Scrypt is roughly 1000 times slower than SHA256 which is why you see LTC mining speeds quoted in KH/s (Thousand hashes per second) vs BTCs MH/s (Million hashes per second).
LTC was originally designed so that it could be easily mined on CPUs and be resistant to mining on GPUs. With ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits) having taken over the BTC mining world, a common misconception is that Scrypt is ASIC proof. Scrypt is only ASIC resistant just as it was deigned to be GPU resistant. What this all means is that eventually LTC will be able to be mined with ASICs but the increase in speed is not going to be anywhere near what it was with BTC and SHA-256. This fact means that GPU mining will not be wiped out as it was with BTC.
LTC uses addresses very similar to BTC addresses. They are a mix of 33 numbers and letters but always start with a L.
LTC is often described LTC as silver to BTCs gold. While some BTC enthusiasts dislike LTC and say it takes something away from BTC, alot of people disagree. LTC being a smaller and younger coin has the ability to change things and test new ideas. BTC has a much larger user base and larger team of developers so it can be harder to come to a consensus on changes with BTC. Litecoin devs have recently been helping develop both LTC and BTC by contributing bug fixes to the BTC-qt devs for inclusion in the Bitcoin-qt client.
LTCs native client is the Litecoin-qt application which is very similar to the Bitcoin-qt client. Litecoin-qt is available for Linux, Windows and Mac at the official Litecoin website. If you would like to see a guide on how to setup a Litecoin-qt wallet please see How To Create A Litecoin Wallet.
Alot of the same things that exist for BTC exist for LTC. Such as:
Litecoin Block Explorer
Another Block Explorer
Litecoin Wiki
Litecoin Gambling
Litecoin Dice
Litecoin Mining Calculator
There are many exchanges that support trading LTC for other crypto currencies as well as USD. Some (but not all) exchanges are listed below.
OKCoin for China
I do not endorse any of these exchanges. I am only listing them for information purposes only. As with anything in the crypto world please do your own research before doing any type of transaction.
Some links to the LTC community are:
LTC Forums
LTC Google+
And of course the LTC subreddit
A very popular chart website for LTC (and other coins).
submitted by Edwardlots to litecoinforbeginners [link] [comments]

The case for Ethereum: general-purpose vs special-purpose blockchains

Bitcoin and Alt-coins are Special-Purpose Chains

What's the difference between a general-purpose blockchain and a special-purpose blockchain? Let's start with bitcoin, the original special-purpose chain for computing and comparing sha256 hashes. Bitcoin users started the chain by mining on generic x86 (general-purpose) CPUs. But because sha256 hashing is a specific computation, btc mining is now dominated by Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) hardware. Litecoin is another special-purpose chain, except it computes scrypt hashes (some manufacturers are already started shipping scrypt ASIC miners). There's also a Primecoin for computing prime numbers, and a bunch of other special-purpose chains commonly known as alt-coins.

Special-Purpose Chains: Backend and User Perspective

How does it work when we want to use the services provided by separate special-purpose chains? Let's look at the granddaddy of alt-coins, namecoin, which like bitcoin uses sha256 hashes. Additionally, it also provides some standard namecoin script opcodes for associating plaintext pseudonyms with unique addresses (public/private keypairs), so namecoin addresses can register and "own" domain names or identities/handles. Let's say you want to use bitcoins to purchase a namecoin .bit domain that its owner is selling. What does it take to get these two special-purpose blockchains (bitcoin and namecoin) to interact with each other? The immediate option (and the only one available today) is a centralized service running a web server in front of both p2p daemons (as nodes of their respective networks, bitcoind and namecoind). That centralized service is a BTC/NMC exchange, and maybe it has an interface allowing you to register "dot-bit" names (otherwise you'd have to open up two separate wallets - one for each coin). The centralized exchange is a trusted third-party that holds in escrow the BTC and NMC of each user (whose coins could be stolen by a dishonest exchange operator).

A General-Purpose Chain: Backend and User Perspective

So how is using a unified general-purpose chain different from a special-purpose one? On the Ethereum general-purpose chain, each service is provided by some "DApp" (distributed app "hosted" by all ethereum miners). A DApp is an interface to a specific "contract", running at some address on the blockchain. For instance, to register a name, you would open the EtherNames DApp in the ethereum client's built-in browser, type in the name you want to register, and "send" the registration as a transaction with data. There's no need to copy and paste addresses since the Ethereum client provides hooks for seamless wallet access inside every DApp. The registration transaction is sent to the EtherName DApp's contract address, which is running some variant of the namecoin contract code. A specific contract gets initialized at a particular address by some untrusted third-party individual/entity (the DApp author). The contract author is not trusted, all the author does is upload the contract code and pay the initial "gas" fee. The contract code is independently executed and verified by each ethereum miner as part of a single atomic transaction. Atomicity means that the ledger database updates are all-or-nothing, so no user has to worry about the risk of having to pay first because any and all transactions needed to fulfill a contract are guaranteed to occur within the same block, or the contract is broken and won't run at all. Think of Ethereum contracts as interconnected threads in a big web of complex multi-sig transactions of Ethers and contract-specific sub-currencies, all of which run atop the same unified blockchain.

Special-Purpose Chains: Developer Perspective

From the developer's perspective, operating a service that uses two separate special-purpose chains requires maintaining both blockchains (upgrading separate software, providing enough processing power, disk space, and bandwidth for each chain). It also requires maintaining user accounts, as well as wallets on two separate chains (multiplied by the number of users). Hosting a server is needed to run both the namecoin daemon and bitcoin daemon (unless outsourced to a centralized API). The web developer will need to maintain a web server and app stack such as LAMP (Linux Apache Mysql Php) or MEAN (Mongodb Express Angular Node). Finally, the service must hold the users' deposits of bitcoins and namecoins in secure hot wallets and offline cold storage, keeping them safe from hacker thieves. Altogether, every service operator needs to independently maintain a separate full-stack system, which can be a herculean effort.

A General-Purpose Chain: Developer Perspective

A service operating on Ethereum has a DApp backend hosted right on the blockchain, maintained by miners (who earn gas fees). A developer simply authors the contract code and pays the gas fee to initialize it on the blockchain, which is much easier than forking an alt-coin to start yet another genesis block. DApp's do not need a separate API for access and integration by other developers; authors just name functions inside a contract, directly exposing an API (with optional fee-per-use) that enables message calls from any other Ethereum DApp. Also, DApp authors do not need to maintain user accounts, since the users interact with the DApp directly on the blockchain through their ethereum addresses. Nor do DApp authors need to maintain user wallets since private keys stay private in a decentralized system. Unlike the current convention where coins are deposited to a wallet address controlled by some third-party, in a truly decentralized system private keys are only used for signing transactions as inputs to contracts.

Meta-Coins as Feature Specs

Meta-coin protocol extensions like Colored Coins, MasterCoin, and CounterParty work by organizing a group of users who agree to interpret bitcoin transaction data according to some metadata specification, supplementing the base rules of the bitcoin protocol. For example, MasterCoin specifies creating multisig 1-of-n bitcoin transactions and encoding data in the n-minus-1 unused public keys. In the meta-coin approach, each feature or "contract" is specified in the meta-protocol. Two MasterCoin features are registration of a data stream and the creation of a sub-currency, these are baked into the specification and reference client alongside the other features. While you can register new data streams and sub-currencies, if you want to create a new contract that is some kind of a hybrid between a data stream and a sub-currency, such as a call/put option or a Contract For Difference (CFD), it would need to be implemented directly in the reference client, and unlocked as a feature at some future block number. Implementing new features in a meta-coin protocol that doesn't have a scripting language requires specifying them directly in the protocol and must be effected at the organizational level.

Scripts and DApps vs Forks and Features

Embedding a scripting language into a crypto-currency gives it the same kind of extensibility that gamers crave in video games. Scripts empower players to create "mods" and customize their game-world with new levels, characters, and maps. In the crypto-currency world, scripting allows for the extension of a plethora of decentralized features such as trading, lotteries, and ecommerce, all atop a shared, compatible platform. Bitcoin has a scripting language, but with severe limitations including: lack of loops, binary state variables limited to spent or unspent transaction outputs, and blockchain blindness. The difficulty of using bitcoin script has in effect given rise to a landscape of competing alt-coins and meta-coins with incompatible protocols. The preferable route, and vision of Ethereum, is to foster a fully-featured ecosystem of compatible, interacting DApps. Providing a Turing-complete scripting language on a general-purpose blockchain with message calls between contracts stimulates adoption of Ethereum as a shared decentralized Operating System and kernel.

Decentralized House, Decentralized Dealer

Consider the concept of a decentralized lottery. In a semi-decentralized lottery that is merely provably fair, although the operator is not capable of altering any particular dice outcome, he can simply shut down the service immediately after a big winning bet comes in, scamming the user of his money and winnings. But in a fully decentralized lottery, the mechanism for distributing the winnings is written into the contract itself (open-source and audited by users), so no central operator is needed. While writing such a contract in bitcoin script is theoretically possible (see pages 12-15), to my knowledge none has been implemented. In practice, it is easier to create a LottoCoin as a special-purpose alt-chain. In contrast, writing a script on the Ethereum platform for a fully decentralized lottery is not only feasible but relatively easy.


The limitations and difficulties of using bitcoin script to implement decentralized features natively on the bitcoin blockchain has resulted in a fragmented ecosystem of incompatible, competing alt-chains and meta-coins. While it is theoretically possible to use bitcoin script for complex contracts like cross-chain atomic trading, practical implementations of such features have yet to be achieved (to my knowledge). On the other hand, Ethereum focuses on providing an easy-to-use scripting language for implementing advanced contracts on a general-purpose blockchain. Ethereum's extensible platform enables the realization of advanced decentralized features that previously were inaccessible.
submitted by martinBrown1984 to ethereum [link] [comments]

The Purpose of the SCRYPT Mining Algo for Litecoin 2017 HashFlare Scrypt Vs SHA 256 Retirada PT BR GRIDSEED ASIC DUAL LITECOIN (SCRYPT) & BITCOIN (SHA) MINER NOW AT HASHRA.COM Hashflare Decreases Sha-256 and Scrypt Prices Once Again! Is It Now Profitable? TTBIT L1 USB SCRYPT Miner Power Test

At that time, it was thought to be resistant to the newer mining hardware being deployed for Bitcoin mining. Scrypt is a less complex algorithm and does not require such a high hash rate as SHA-256. The block time for Litecoin is only two and a half minutes. However, Scrypt is more memory intensive than SHA-256. The reason is because even though SHA256 requires specialized mining hardwares, there is an incredibly higher amount of SHA256 hashpower on Bitcoin than the computing power of BCH, so it would be ... Whereas bitcoin uses SHA-256, other coins may use the likes of X11, Keccak, or Scrypt-N. All of these algorithms have their own benefits and requirements to keep mining competitive. Below are some of the different mining algorithms to be found today, and how they compare to one another. 3. Scrypt ASIC Miner: Image courtesy of Antminer Scrypt Mining. Scrypt was first introduced in cryptocurrency mining with the introduction of Litecoin. Benefits of the Scrypt algorithm included lower block times than Bitcoin, and ASIC resistance. Ironically, Scrypt was implemented as a solution to Bitcoins GPU mining, which was seen as too centralized for Litecoins developers, thus Scrypt was ... There are several of them. Among them the most famous is the SHA-256, mainly used for mining Bitcoin and its fork Bitcoin Cash. Then there is Scrypt, used by Litecoin and also by the entertaining DOGE. Another famous algorithm is the CryptoNight, used by Monero and dozens of different altcoins.

[index] [25788] [16471] [52404] [10667] [6502] [55915] [38365] [26435] [57299] [19173]

The Purpose of the SCRYPT Mining Algo for Litecoin

Charlie goes on to The Blockchainers and talks about why he chose the Scrypt mining algo as opposed to Bitcoin's SHA-256 as well as the revisionist history of ASIC resistance. You can find the ... 8.01x - Lect 24 - Rolling Motion, Gyroscopes, VERY NON-INTUITIVE - Duration: 49:13. Lectures by Walter Lewin. They will make you ♥ Physics. Recommended for you See here the worlds first ASIC Scrypt miner in action. The Gridseed Infinity Mini USB Miner, capable of both dedicated Litecoin (Scrypt) mining, Bitcoin (SHA-256) mining or even combined. Connected to a raspberry pi zero and powered USB hub. Clock Speed 720(default is 600)getting about 4-4.5 MHS. 9-10 watts LITECOIN: MQScfHtyySfMqd3a4pLuWBuiFiNJoiQEsE ... Explicacion de los algoritmos de minado SHA-256, X11 y SCRYPT Crypto Orell ... DIRECCION DE BITCOIN PARA DONACIONES ... Cómo romper algoritmos de cifrado y la vulnerabilidad de SHA-1 - Duration ...