Password Hashing: Scrypt, Bcrypt and ARGON2 by Michele ...
Scrypt ASIC vs. SHA 256: Explaining the Options for 2018
Crypto Mining: SHA-256 or Scrypt – A Guide for Miners ...
Mining algorithms (Proof of Work): SHA-256, Scrypt ...
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 Speculation 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 : https://coinaxis.com/index.php/entry/how-to-buy-litecoin-coinaxis
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. Address Cryptocurrency addresses are used to send or receive transactions on the network. An address usually presents itself as a string of alphanumeric characters. ASIC Short form for ‘Application Specific Integrated Circuit’. Often compared to GPUs, ASICs are specially made for mining and may offer significant power savings. Bitcoin 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. Block Blocks are packages of data that carry permanently recorded data on the blockchain network. Blockchain 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. Confirmation The successful act of hashing a transaction and adding it to the blockchain. Consensus 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. Cryptocurrency 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. Dapp 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. DAO 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. Difficulty 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 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. EVM 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. Fork 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. Hash 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 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 Multi-signature addresses provide an added layer of security by requiring more than one key to authorize a transaction. Node A copy of the ledger operated by a participant of the blockchain network. Oracles 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 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 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 Solidity is Ethereum’s programming language for developing smart contracts. Testnet 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). Wallet 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.
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: https://medium.com/@jimmysong/uasf-bip148-scenarios-and-game-theory-9530336d953e ). 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: (CPU and GPU)->FPGA->ASICs. 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 :).
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. Ref: https://blockgen.net/sha256-vs-scrypt-vs-x11-algorithms/ 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?
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:
CryptoNote is the technology/application layeframe behind Monero/Aeon/etc
CryptoNight is the hashing algorithm used by CryptoNote
If you compare the mining between Aeon and Monero on the same hardware, youll see a higher Hash/s number on Aeon (does not mean you earn automatically more by mining on aeon since different algorithm have different approach of proof of work).
EDIT: Changed ethereum algo according to YellowOnion's comment
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)
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...
Get LTC while it is still so cheap and make a profit as it grows being an early adopter is a great way to reap rewards.
Diversifying into another blockchain is a great way to diversify your risk that in the unlikely event something will happen to the bitcoin blockchain.
Confirmation times are faster (yes that means you need more confirmations but for small transactions which don't need much trust but convenience this is great.) litecoin is backed by a different hashing algorithm than bitcoin which makes is harder to 51% than other altcoins because asic's cant just be pointed at it.
Trading between blockchains is harder to trace making it more anonymous than just using bitcoin
Trading between crypto currencies is fast and a great way to arbitrage the price differences on different exchanges
Trading between crypto currencies is not regulated by FINCEN and so allot of people that never want to have their crypto currency touch FIAT currency again would like to trade between crypto currencies.
Litecoin is the oldest, longest running and most trusted altcoin.
hundreds of thousands of people hold litecoin and would like to spend them at your store.
Litecoin has been allot more stable than bitcoin making it easy to accept at your store as crypto currency without going through a payment processor.
Businesses that accept litecoin will be getting allot of free press as they will be mentioned in news articles that talk about the rise of litecoin.
It does no harm to accept litecoin as you will only make your market larger if you do. There are millions of litecoin out there ready to be spent so accepting them can only be a good thing for your business.
Litecoin is being developed by a lot of amazing developers and also have the bitcoin developers by proxy and it is based on the bitcoin protocol.
The litecoins founder is not anonymous and is an ex google employee now working at one of the biggest bitcoin companies coinbase which might incorporate litecoin in the future.
Instant world wide transfer of wealth that can be anonymous if needed.
Available on mac,PC,android and Linux
Litecoin is a great investment opportunity because it can double in value very easily. While bitcoin has to go to almost $300 to double your investment litecoin only has to go to $5 here is a good post on why litecoin is way undervalued http://www.reddit.com/litecoin/comments/1bpml0/litecoin_4x_undervalued_at_4/ I think that anyone that buys litecoin bellow $5 is going to be very wealthy in a few years.
It is important that bitcoin has competition. Even a decentralised currency needs competition with another decentralised currency.
Less fraud, litecoin payments are a great way to stop fraud. if you accept Paypal or credit cards you open your business up to stolen credit cards or Paypal accounts buying from you and then the funds being reversed by CC companies or paypal.
https://kojn-app.com/ Please let me know if there is another is a great way for your business to accept litecoin without opening your self up to the risk of price fluctuations as they convert the litecoin to FIAT at time of purchase.
HERE IS A GREAT ARTICLE TO GIVE THEM http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/08/litecoin/ 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. http://www.thebitpages.com
difficulty adjustment (was: The Nuclear Option: BIP148 + MR POWA) | Henning Kopp | Jul 05 2017
Henning Kopp on Jul 05 2017: Hi,
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. Best Henning 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. Regards, John Hardy john at seebitcoin.com bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
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)
"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, Bitcoin.com, btc" ~ u/randy-lawnmole (176 points, 114 comments)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Reality check: today's minor bug caused the bitcoin.com 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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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"
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"
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.
117 points: seweso's comment in Roger Ver banned for doxing after posting the same thread Prohashing was banned for.
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.
106 points: MagmaHindenburg's comment in bitcoin.com loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
98 points: lon102guy's comment in bitcoin.com loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
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: PaperWallets 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. BTC-e OKCoin for China Kraken Bitfinex Crypto-Trade 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).
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.
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.
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 ...