Immature, Confirmed and Cleared blocks / balance / coins ...
Immature, Confirmed and Cleared blocks / balance / coins ...
Что такое «Uncle Block», «Orphaned Block» и «Stale Block ...
Orphan Block - Definition Binance Academy
What are Uncle Block, Orphaned Block and Stale Block in ...
Orphan Block Binance Academy
Blockstack (STX) Binance Research - Bitcoin Exchange
Blockchain Orphan Blocks: What Are Valid, Verified Yet ...
A Beginner's Guide to Orphan Blocks And Its Effect On the ...
Five most prolific 51% attacks in crypto: Verge, Ethereum ...
Fast Bitcoin Exchange Best Crypto Exchanges and Tips
@binance: RT @BinanceAcademy: Recently many outlets have reported an “orphaned block” in the #Bitcoin $BTC chain. They are, in fact, stale blocks and are entirely normal. Learn about what an actual orphan block is on @BinanceAcademy https://t.co/1nmcwqmfUL
So-called "Poison Blocks" (what Greg Maxwell called the "big block attack") are the way Bitcoin was designed to scale and the ONLY way it ever can
Sounds insane, right? Not if you realize Bitcoin works only because it is an economic system. Everything in Bitcoin that falls under the purview of cutthroat market competition works, and everything that doesn't, doesn't.
Security: miners compete ruthlessly on hashrate. This prevents 51% attacks. Security in Bitcoin is fully within the purview of cutthroat market competition, and the result is that it works and works excellently.
Networking: miners don't yet compete on networking to any great degree (Joannes Vermorel argues convincingly that the bandwidth and equipment requirements for even terabyte blocks are no great budgetary strain even for small miners). If they did, it would ensure they have the fat pipes needed for global scale, far in advance. The artificial blocksize cap is preventing networking from falling fully under the purview of cutthroat market competition, and therefore it doesn't fully work: we apparently (since some are balking at puny 128MB blocks) have laggard miners who have not upgraded to even mid-grade networking infrastructure or don't have the technical chops to do so. Removing the cap or raising it aggressively is the only way to incentivize miners to upgrade on an individual level (meaning, to avoid free riders; yes some proactive miners may upgrade early but it is a bad investment if the majority doesn't come along).
Node code: The apparent reliance on volunteer dev teams to supply node client code has effectively subsidized laggard miners in this area, keeping the node code from falling fully under the purview of cutthroat market competition, and as a result - surprise, surprise - the node code is insufficient and "lots of work is needed to get to 128MB."
The error here is this is seen as a reason not to lift the cap. "We cannot raise the cap or miners would be forced to do work!" This is stated un-ironically, with no awareness that some miners being left behind and some miners making it is exactly how Bitcoin always had to work. This is a cry to leave node code optimization out of the purview of cutthroat market competition, because apparently some believe that "cutthroat" has something to do with the result -- the kind of socialist mindset that thinks cutthroat competion among seatbelt makers would lead to seatbelts that kill you. Anyone who understands economics knows nothing could be further from the truth. The rallying cry of the Core-style socialist mentality is that "Node code is too important to be left to the market, we need good Samaritan devs to provide it for all miners so that no miner is left behind." The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer Likewise, the ultimate result of shielding miners from their inability or unwilliness to suitably optimize their node software is to fill Bitcoin with unprofessional miners who can't take us to global adoption. Without the incentive to upgrade networking and codebase, Bitcoin lacks the crucial vetting process that Bitcoin need in order to distill miners into a long tail of professionals who have what it takes to ride this train all the way to a billion users, quickly and securely. I challenge anyone to describe how they think Bitcoin can professionalize as long as there remains an effective subsidy for laggard miners in the areas of networking and node optimization (not meaning protocol optimization, but rather things like parallel validation). As painful as it may seem, the only way Bitcoin scales is over the bankrupt shells of many miners who didn't have what it takes. The cruft cannot come along for the ride. This means orphan battles, even if just a little at a time. It means stress tests of rapidly increasing scale. While killing off too much hashpower too fast is in no one's interest (hahsrate gets too low), moving at a speed that is fast yet manageable by most big-league pros is. And really, the changes that need to be made aren't even reputed by anyone to be incredibly hard problems once you accept, as Satoshi did, that "it ends in datacentres and big server farms." The fact that people are still arguing against 128MB by referencing tests with laptop nodes suggests that's the real problem here. Core's full node religion still has sway, despite being manufactured from whole cloth. Also known as Blockstream Syndrome, as a play off Stockholm Syndrome (where captives begin to sympathize with their captors). Whatever the reasons given, critics of removing the cap invariably appeal to the infrastructure "not being ready" as if that were a bad thing. It's a good thing! First of all, if we were to wait for all miners to be ready, we would be waiting for far too long. The right approach, to be determined by the market, is to move ahead somewhere between when 51% are ready and say 90% are ready, which is exactly what we can expect to happen without a cap. The incentives are such that it it profitable to sheer away some laggard miners but not too many (as culling too many at a time leaves BCH open to hashpower attack by BTC miners; over the longer term though it incentivizes pros to enter and take the place of the failed miners, making BCH even more secure). Secondly, the idea of a monolithic "infrastructure" ignores the secret sauce that makes Bitcoin work: miners in competition. Some are expected to fail to be ready! If not, how can Bitcoin miners get any more professional? Only the removal or reformation of the laggards can ever ensure Bitcoin ends up with professional infrastructure. This vetting process is inevitable and essential, and it must apply to all aspects of Bitcoin that we want to see professionalized, including node software. Now leaving aside a miner filling his block with his own 0-fee transactions (which can be dealt with by other miners rejecting blocks with too many 0-fee txs of low coin age*), Greg Maxwell's "big block attack" where big miners try to terrorize smaller (less well capitalized) miners using oversized blocks that a sizable minority of the network can't handle due to their slow networking is in fact exactly how Bitcoin MUST scale. It's not an attack, it's a stress test, and one Bitcoin literally cannot scale without. What he called an attack is the solution to scaling, not any kind of problem. Stress tests are incentivized in Bitcoin as a way of calling the bluff of the lazy miners. You gamble some money on an "attack," see who the slowpokes are and take their block rewards for your own. No miners had the balls to do this so far, but they will soon or Bitcoin dies due to the halvings in a few more years, as fee volume won't sustain security. As big blockers said to Core, there no room for arbitrary "conservatism" in the face of an oncoming train. Finally, I leave you with a thought experiment. Imagine somehow the community of volunteer developers in Bitcoin was so incredibly generous that it offered all miners ASIC designs, mining pool software, and all manner hashing optimizations to the point that miners merely had to buy ASICs and plug them in with no need to understand anything at all, and no need to try innovating on their own with ASIC design since these incredibly skilled volunteers trumped everything they could possibly come up with. Now naturally this situation must eventually come to an end, as the real pros step in, like Samsung. With security thereby left out of the purview of cutthroat market competition, thanks to overweening volunteerism that continued for too long (no problem with volunteers at the start, just a child isn't born into the world an adult and needs parenting at first), these miners would be wholly unvetted, unprepared, unable to scale up their hashing operations and be obliterated by Samsung or maybe a government 51% attack to kill Bitcoin. The point here is there is a formative period, and then there is adulthood. Growing up is a process of relying less and less on handouts, being exposed more and more to the cutthroat realities of the world. When is Bitcoin going to grow up? The halvings place a time limit on Bitcoin's security, and overprotective parents (those who don't want to remove the cap) -- in an ostensible effort to be conservative -- may end up keeping Honeybadger holed up his figurative mom's basement too long for him to accomplish his mission. *and if your response is, "This doesn't exist yet in any clients," I think you have missed the point of this post: again, that's a good thing. Let miners who are too incompetent to figure out something that simple get sloughed away. Do we really want such sluggards? If so and you're a dev, volunteer some code to them. If not, try to get hired by them instead. I think the pay will be much better. And if your response is, "But that means some miners might get orphaned unexpectedly and cry foul," then once again I say, that's a good thing. Block creation is fundamentally a speculative process. In other words, it's a gamble, by design. It's a Keynesian beauty contest wherein each miner tries to mine the greediest block they can get away with while not upping their orphan risk appreciably. Messing around with low-coin-age 0-fee tx stuffing might get you orphaned, boo-hoo. Miners are under no obligation to tell other miners their standards for block beauty in advance, even though they typically have done so thus far. Miners are ALWAYS free to orphan a block for ANY reason. That they generally keep to consistent, well-broadcast rules is a courtesy, not a necessity. Preventing general assholery isn't necessarily best effected by being up-front about what you will punish, but even if it is, miners can do that, too (let them figure it out, as they do for hashpower -- unless you have a good argument for why there is no possible solution or the solution is necessary too hard for a professional organization to figure out in reasonable time; that's the bar for objection, not "well the volunteer dev code doesn't do this yet"). And if your response is, "That will increase the orphan rate," yes and orphans already happen routinely so it is certainly not any catastrophe. See it as a detox process. It might put some small strain on the network as the slowpokes and dickheads are smacked, but again miners still choose this level of orphaning as well by the same Keynesian-beauty-contest dynamic. Orphans are a key part of why Bitcoin works and why it can scale, but if the orphan rate would interfere with service too much (unlikely if you believe 0-conf works), that also gets taken into account in the beauty contest and gets balanced with the benefits of punishing bad behavior and the costs of stomaching the poison block. The offending miner can also be un-whitelisted, returned to rando-node status, but again why are we trying to coddle miners by coming up with their strategies for being better professionals for them? Hopefully it is clear by now that all such arguments are central planning, which is bad at least after an early parental phase which I think has long since passed its natural life.
Jiangzhuoer: CSW's Three Extreme Claims - [BitKan 1v1] Craig Wright vs Jiangzhuoer
Digest from [BitKan 1v1] debate. bitkan.proaggregates all trading depth of Binance Huobi and OKEx. orTryourAPP! https://preview.redd.it/ohaz6a5lkoc31.png?width=1058&format=png&auto=webp&s=826957a79fe4fa6e66f2565cbe265cc5e7c3b772 Question 2: During the BCH fork to BSV hash war, why do you support BCH? What do you think of the differences between BSV and BCH? Jiang: First of all, we have to figure out how did some of the key propositions of BSV came about. CSW seems to be the leader of the BSV community, but in fact CSW is just a chess piece. For example, CSW is in name the chief scientist of Nchain, but CSW has no shares in a series of BSV related companies such as Nchain, Coingeek etc. The true boss of BSV and the main backer behind CSW is Calvin Ayre, the casino tycoon. Zhao Nan wrote two articles, which made the cause and effect of CA's capital layout clear: "The capital layout of the casino tycoon Calvin Ayre" >>(Chinese) "The ins and outs of the Calvin Ayre team" >>(Chinese) Therefore, the ultimate goal of Calvin Ayre is to make money from the Canadian stock market through Coingeek. Coingeek develops its own mining machine, mines itself, controls the chain of BSV, and has the "CSW" as the gimmick, to tell us the story of BSV. So BCH forks the BSV, which is a step in the entire capital layout of Calvin Ayre. It is not because there is any irreconcilable development direction, but because Coingeek needs to control the BCH. If it cannot be controlled, it will split into a chain that Coingeek can control completely. The whole thing is planned in advance, for example, bitcoinsv.org registration date is July 2, 2018, bitcoinsv.io is August 16, long before CSW began firing shots at ABC team. CSW’s goal is to split the BSV from the BCH, so he must overstate many of his claims in order to create a split. If he puts forward a reasonable claim and BCH is a rational and pragmatic community, then he can't split. It is important to mention some very extreme claims that the BCH community can't accept, and then incite some community members through extremist claims, just like the Nazis do extreme propaganda and incitement, in order to split from the BCH. CSW's extreme claims, such as: 1 Super block: BCH advocates large block expansion. What about CSW? He demands to upgrade the oversized block in a short time. The BCH 32MB block is sufficient and does not exceed the network load. CSW exerts that he will upgrade 128MB now. He will not wait till next year, and he intends to upgrade to 2g as well in 2019. But the result? Don't even talk about 2G, the 100M block has exceeded the current network carrying capacity. After the BSV, because the block is too large, it is too late to spread across the entire network. There have been many deep rollbacks, April 18, 2019. At that time, the 578640 height 128M block resulted in 6 confirmed rollbacks, making the 6 confirmations unreliable. On April 18, 2019, Beijing time, from 21:00 to 22:00, the deep recombination of up to six blocks occurred in the cobwebs of BSV (block height 578640-578645) https://preview.redd.it/7winlisnkoc31.png?width=1124&format=png&auto=webp&s=1c766e14d6360f869006b918b3e7d2a25b9b5fe4 According to BitMEX Research, the BSV chain was rolled back by two blocks in the week. One of the orphaned blocks was about 62.6MB in size. This large block may be the cause of the roll back. In addition, BSV plans to launch an upgraded network called Quasar on July 24. The only change to this upgrade is to increase the default block size limit. It is reported that the expansion of block capacity will increase the probability of block reorganization: the large block has not yet been packaged, and multiple small blocks have made the block height overtaking, which will lead to block reorganization or even fork. 2 Lock-up agreement: A chain must stabilize the agreement. The agreement is greatly changed every time. It definitely affects the above development. If CSW proposes a stable agreement, then everyone agrees that he can't split it. What should he do? CSW is even more extreme, and I am going to set the protocol and lock it, even back to the original version of Bitcoin, which is ridiculous. The environment has changed, and the agreement must change. For example, if the 0.1 version of Bitcoin is perfect, and the 14-day difficulty adjustment is not a defect, the BSV will not remove the BCH “not original” DDA difficulty adjustment algorithm, and switch back to 14 Day difficulty adjustment? Because once the BSV removes the BCH DDA difficulty adjustment algorithm, it will be directly cut and killed by the big calculation. 3 Computing power determines everything: Why does CW have the power to decide everything? Because the extremes did not dominate the community at the time, but CA's coingeek deployed a lot of mining machines to mine, which is very computationally intensive, so he advocated Force to decide everything, of course, he did not know that my calculations were more than him. I will talk about this later. Because these claims are created for splitting, not natural development, so these claims will be internal contradictions. For example, CSW said that the agreement is to be locked, and that the computing power determines everything. Even decided to increase the total amount of 21 million, then who has the final say? Why don't I support the development path of BSV? Because these extreme claims of CSW are all for the purpose of splitting, purposefully proposed, whether it is a large block, lock-up agreement, power calculation determines everything, in fact, it can not be implemented, of course, Will not support these extreme claims that can't actually fall. In addition, these extreme claims will become a heavy liability for the development of BSV in the future. It is necessary to develop according to these extreme claims. In fact, we cannot do this. We must revise these extreme claims. The members of the community who were incited by these extreme claims will definitely not do it. Then, how do you say that BSV is still developing? Digest from [BitKan 1v1] debate. bitkan.proaggregates all trading depth of Binance Huobi and OKEx. orTryourAPP!
Bitcoin (BTC) is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that aims to function as a means of exchange that is independent of any central authority. BTC can be transferred electronically in a secure, verifiable, and immutable way.
Launched in 2009, BTC is the first virtual currency to solve the double-spending issue by timestamping transactions before broadcasting them to all of the nodes in the Bitcoin network. The Bitcoin Protocol offered a solution to the Byzantine Generals’ Problem with ablockchainnetwork structure, a notion first created byStuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta in 1991.
Bitcoin’s whitepaper was published pseudonymously in 2008 by an individual, or a group, with the pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto”, whose underlying identity has still not been verified.
The Bitcoin protocol uses an SHA-256d-based Proof-of-Work (PoW) algorithm to reach network consensus. Its network has a target block time of 10 minutes and a maximum supply of 21 million tokens, with a decaying token emission rate. To prevent fluctuation of the block time, the network’s block difficulty is re-adjusted through an algorithm based on the past 2016 block times.
With a block size limit capped at 1 megabyte, the Bitcoin Protocol has supported both the Lightning Network, a second-layer infrastructure for payment channels, and Segregated Witness, a soft-fork to increase the number of transactions on a block, as solutions to network scalability.
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that aims to function as a means of exchange and is independent of any central authority. Bitcoins are transferred electronically in a secure, verifiable, and immutable way.
Network validators, whom are often referred to as miners, participate in the SHA-256d-based Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism to determine the next global state of the blockchain.
The Bitcoin protocol has a target block time of 10 minutes, and a maximum supply of 21 million tokens. The only way new bitcoins can be produced is when a block producer generates a new valid block.
The protocol has a token emission rate that halves every 210,000 blocks, or approximately every 4 years.
Unlike public blockchain infrastructures supporting the development of decentralized applications (Ethereum), the Bitcoin protocol is primarily used only for payments, and has only very limited support for smart contract-like functionalities (Bitcoin “Script” is mostly used to create certain conditions before bitcoins are used to be spent).
In the Bitcoin network, anyone can join the network and become a bookkeeping service provider i.e., a validator. All validators are allowed in the race to become the block producer for the next block, yet only the first to complete a computationally heavy task will win. This feature is called Proof of Work (PoW). The probability of any single validator to finish the task first is equal to the percentage of the total network computation power, or hash power, the validator has. For instance, a validator with 5% of the total network computation power will have a 5% chance of completing the task first, and therefore becoming the next block producer. Since anyone can join the race, competition is prone to increase. In the early days, Bitcoin mining was mostly done by personal computer CPUs. As of today, Bitcoin validators, or miners, have opted for dedicated and more powerful devices such as machines based on Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (“ASIC”). Proof of Work secures the network as block producers must have spent resources external to the network (i.e., money to pay electricity), and can provide proof to other participants that they did so. With various miners competing for block rewards, it becomes difficult for one single malicious party to gain network majority (defined as more than 51% of the network’s hash power in the Nakamoto consensus mechanism). The ability to rearrange transactions via 51% attacks indicates another feature of the Nakamoto consensus: the finality of transactions is only probabilistic. Once a block is produced, it is then propagated by the block producer to all other validators to check on the validity of all transactions in that block. The block producer will receive rewards in the network’s native currency (i.e., bitcoin) as all validators approve the block and update their ledgers.
The Bitcoin protocol utilizes the Merkle tree data structure in order to organize hashes of numerous individual transactions into each block. This concept is named after Ralph Merkle, who patented it in 1979. With the use of a Merkle tree, though each block might contain thousands of transactions, it will have the ability to combine all of their hashes and condense them into one, allowing efficient and secure verification of this group of transactions. This single hash called is a Merkle root, which is stored in the Block Header of a block. The Block Header also stores other meta information of a block, such as a hash of the previous Block Header, which enables blocks to be associated in a chain-like structure (hence the name “blockchain”). An illustration of block production in the Bitcoin Protocol is demonstrated below. https://preview.redd.it/m6texxicf3151.png?width=1591&format=png&auto=webp&s=f4253304912ed8370948b9c524e08fef28f1c78d
Block time and mining difficulty
Block time is the period required to create the next block in a network. As mentioned above, the node who solves the computationally intensive task will be allowed to produce the next block. Therefore, block time is directly correlated to the amount of time it takes for a node to find a solution to the task. The Bitcoin protocol sets a target block time of 10 minutes, and attempts to achieve this by introducing a variable named mining difficulty. Mining difficulty refers to how difficult it is for the node to solve the computationally intensive task. If the network sets a high difficulty for the task, while miners have low computational power, which is often referred to as “hashrate”, it would statistically take longer for the nodes to get an answer for the task. If the difficulty is low, but miners have rather strong computational power, statistically, some nodes will be able to solve the task quickly. Therefore, the 10 minute target block time is achieved by constantly and automatically adjusting the mining difficulty according to how much computational power there is amongst the nodes. The average block time of the network is evaluated after a certain number of blocks, and if it is greater than the expected block time, the difficulty level will decrease; if it is less than the expected block time, the difficulty level will increase.
What are orphan blocks?
In a PoW blockchain network, if the block time is too low, it would increase the likelihood of nodes producingorphan blocks, for which they would receive no reward. Orphan blocks are produced by nodes who solved the task but did not broadcast their results to the whole network the quickest due to network latency. It takes time for a message to travel through a network, and it is entirely possible for 2 nodes to complete the task and start to broadcast their results to the network at roughly the same time, while one’s messages are received by all other nodes earlier as the node has low latency. Imagine there is a network latency of 1 minute and a target block time of 2 minutes. A node could solve the task in around 1 minute but his message would take 1 minute to reach the rest of the nodes that are still working on the solution. While his message travels through the network, all the work done by all other nodes during that 1 minute, even if these nodes also complete the task, would go to waste. In this case, 50% of the computational power contributed to the network is wasted. The percentage of wasted computational power would proportionally decrease if the mining difficulty were higher, as it would statistically take longer for miners to complete the task. In other words, if the mining difficulty, and therefore targeted block time is low, miners with powerful and often centralized mining facilities would get a higher chance of becoming the block producer, while the participation of weaker miners would become in vain. This introduces possible centralization and weakens the overall security of the network. However, given a limited amount of transactions that can be stored in a block, making the block time too longwould decrease the number of transactions the network can process per second, negatively affecting network scalability.
3. Bitcoin’s additional features
Segregated Witness (SegWit)
Segregated Witness, often abbreviated as SegWit, is a protocol upgrade proposal that went live in August 2017. SegWit separates witness signatures from transaction-related data. Witness signatures in legacy Bitcoin blocks often take more than 50% of the block size. By removing witness signatures from the transaction block, this protocol upgrade effectively increases the number of transactions that can be stored in a single block, enabling the network to handle more transactions per second. As a result, SegWit increases the scalability of Nakamoto consensus-based blockchain networks like Bitcoin and Litecoin. SegWit also makes transactions cheaper. Since transaction fees are derived from how much data is being processed by the block producer, the more transactions that can be stored in a 1MB block, the cheaper individual transactions become. https://preview.redd.it/depya70mf3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=a6499aa2131fbf347f8ffd812930b2f7d66be48e The legacy Bitcoin block has a block size limit of 1 megabyte, and any change on the block size would require a network hard-fork. On August 1st 2017, the first hard-fork occurred, leading to the creation of Bitcoin Cash (“BCH”), which introduced an 8 megabyte block size limit. Conversely, Segregated Witness was a soft-fork: it never changed the transaction block size limit of the network. Instead, it added an extended block with an upper limit of 3 megabytes, which contains solely witness signatures, to the 1 megabyte block that contains only transaction data. This new block type can be processed even by nodes that have not completed the SegWit protocol upgrade. Furthermore, the separation of witness signatures from transaction data solves the malleability issue with the original Bitcoin protocol. Without Segregated Witness, these signatures could be altered before the block is validated by miners. Indeed, alterations can be done in such a way that if the system does a mathematical check, the signature would still be valid. However, since the values in the signature are changed, the two signatures would create vastly different hash values. For instance, if a witness signature states “6,” it has a mathematical value of 6, and would create a hash value of 12345. However, if the witness signature were changed to “06”, it would maintain a mathematical value of 6 while creating a (faulty) hash value of 67890. Since the mathematical values are the same, the altered signature remains a valid signature. This would create a bookkeeping issue, as transactions in Nakamoto consensus-based blockchain networks are documented with these hash values, or transaction IDs. Effectively, one can alter a transaction ID to a new one, and the new ID can still be valid. This can create many issues, as illustrated in the below example:
Alice sends Bob 1 BTC, and Bob sends Merchant Carol this 1 BTC for some goods.
Bob sends Carols this 1 BTC, while the transaction from Alice to Bob is not yet validated. Carol sees this incoming transaction of 1 BTC to him, and immediately ships goods to B.
At the moment, the transaction from Alice to Bob is still not confirmed by the network, and Bob can change the witness signature, therefore changing this transaction ID from 12345 to 67890.
Now Carol will not receive his 1 BTC, as the network looks for transaction 12345 to ensure that Bob’s wallet balance is valid.
As this particular transaction ID changed from 12345 to 67890, the transaction from Bob to Carol will fail, and Bob will get his goods while still holding his BTC.
With the Segregated Witness upgrade, such instances can not happen again. This is because the witness signatures are moved outside of the transaction block into an extended block, and altering the witness signature won’t affect the transaction ID. Since the transaction malleability issue is fixed, Segregated Witness also enables the proper functioning of second-layer scalability solutions on the Bitcoin protocol, such as the Lightning Network.
Lightning Network is a second-layer micropayment solution for scalability. Specifically, Lightning Network aims to enable near-instant and low-cost payments between merchants and customers that wish to use bitcoins. Lightning Network was conceptualized in a whitepaper by Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja in 2015. Since then, it has been implemented by multiple companies. The most prominent of them include Blockstream, Lightning Labs, and ACINQ. A list of curated resources relevant to Lightning Network can be found here. In the Lightning Network, if a customer wishes to transact with a merchant, both of them need to open a payment channel, which operates off the Bitcoin blockchain (i.e., off-chain vs. on-chain). None of the transaction details from this payment channel are recorded on the blockchain, and only when the channel is closed will the end result of both party’s wallet balances be updated to the blockchain. The blockchain only serves as a settlement layer for Lightning transactions. Since all transactions done via the payment channel are conducted independently of the Nakamoto consensus, both parties involved in transactions do not need to wait for network confirmation on transactions. Instead, transacting parties would pay transaction fees to Bitcoin miners only when they decide to close the channel. https://preview.redd.it/cy56icarf3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=b239a63c6a87ec6cc1b18ce2cbd0355f8831c3a8 One limitation to the Lightning Network is that it requires a person to be online to receive transactions attributing towards him. Another limitation in user experience could be that one needs to lock up some funds every time he wishes to open a payment channel, and is only able to use that fund within the channel. However, this does not mean he needs to create new channels every time he wishes to transact with a different person on the Lightning Network. If Alice wants to send money to Carol, but they do not have a payment channel open, they can ask Bob, who has payment channels open to both Alice and Carol, to help make that transaction. Alice will be able to send funds to Bob, and Bob to Carol. Hence, the number of “payment hubs” (i.e., Bob in the previous example) correlates with both the convenience and the usability of the Lightning Network for real-world applications.
Schnorr Signature upgrade proposal
Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (“ECDSA”) signatures are used to sign transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. https://preview.redd.it/hjeqe4l7g3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=8014fb08fe62ac4d91645499bc0c7e1c04c5d7c4 However, many developers now advocate for replacing ECDSA with Schnorr Signature. Once Schnorr Signatures are implemented, multiple parties can collaborate in producing a signature that is valid for the sum of their public keys. This would primarily be beneficial for network scalability. When multiple addresses were to conduct transactions to a single address, each transaction would require their own signature. With Schnorr Signature, all these signatures would be combined into one. As a result, the network would be able to store more transactions in a single block. https://preview.redd.it/axg3wayag3151.png?width=1601&format=png&auto=webp&s=93d958fa6b0e623caa82ca71fe457b4daa88c71e The reduced size in signatures implies a reduced cost on transaction fees. The group of senders can split the transaction fees for that one group signature, instead of paying for one personal signature individually. Schnorr Signature also improves network privacy and token fungibility. A third-party observer will not be able to detect if a user is sending a multi-signature transaction, since the signature will be in the same format as a single-signature transaction.
4. Economics and supply distribution
The Bitcoin protocol utilizes the Nakamoto consensus, and nodes validate blocks via Proof-of-Work mining. The bitcoin token was not pre-mined, and has a maximum supply of 21 million. The initial reward for a block was 50 BTC per block. Block mining rewards halve every 210,000 blocks. Since the average time for block production on the blockchain is 10 minutes, it implies that the block reward halving events will approximately take place every 4 years. As of May 12th 2020, the block mining rewards are 6.25 BTC per block. Transaction fees also represent a minor revenue stream for miners.
In this short post I want to set out my case for the moral justifiability of 51% attacks against proof of work cryptocurrencies. In the past, a 51% attack was a theoretical construct that most people didn´t seem to think would be practically achievable or lucrative. This has now changed, as hashpower can be rented on sites like Nicehash and Mining Rig Rentals for a few hours at a time. The attack delivers the attacker two prominent opportunities: -You can orphan blocks of ¨legitimate¨ miners. This essentially means that whatever work was produced by legitimate miners during your attack became worthless. Mine a secret chain of two hours worth of blocks, release it and you orphaned 2 hours worth of blocks by your competitors. By the time most of the miners have noticed their blocks were orphaned in an attack, their nodes will have been automatically mining on your own chain for a while and it will be too late for them to do anything about it. The amount of money they lost would be equivalent to the amount you had to spend to produce your chain. Because mining is an industry with tight margins, the economic impact on these miners can be very big. The cost may be sufficient in case of a very long attack, to persuade them to quit their endeavor and get a real job. -The more important opportunity is that you´re able to double spend your coins. This is potentially, incredibly lucrative. How lucrative it is tends to depend primarily on the inflation rate of a cryptocurrency. A low inflation rate means relatively little ¨work¨ is done to maintain the security of the system. A high inflation rate on the other hand, turns the cryptocurrency into a very poor long-term investment. As a consequence, most cryptocurrencies face declining inflation rates, that delay the problem of their ultimately unsustainability into the future. The bank of international settlements explains this issue here. When it comes to the moral justification of a 51% attack, we first have to ask ourselves why proof of work is morally unjustifiable. There are two main reasons for this: -Proof of work has an enormous environmental impact, that ensures future generations will have to deal with the dramatic consequences of climate change. There is no proper justification for this environmental impact, as it delivers no clear benefits over existing payment systems other than the ability to carry out morally unjustifiable actions like blackmail. -Proof of work is fundamentally unsustainable, because of the economic burden it places on participants in cryptocurrency schemes. Cryptocurrencies can´t produce wealth out of thin air. The people who get rich from a cryptocurrency becomes rich, due to the fact that other people step in later. In this sense we´re dealing with a pyramid scheme, but the difference from regular pyramid schemes lies in the fact that huge sums of wealth are not merely redistributed, but destroyed, to sustain the scheme. The cost of the work to sustain the scheme is bigger than you might expect, because the reality is that relatively little money has entered bitcoin. JP Morgan claims that for the crypto assets at large, a fiat amplifier of 117.5 is present, as a purported $2 billion in net inflow pushed Bitcoin’s market capitalization from $15 billion to $250 billion. You have to consider that the Digiconomist estimates that $2.6 billion dollar leaves the Bitcoin scheme on an annual basis, in the form of mining costs to sustain Bitcoin. The vast majority of retail customers who entered this scheme ended up losing money from it. In some cases this lead to suicides. The fact that proof of work is morally unjustifiable doesn´t directly lead to a moral justification for a 51% attack. After all a sane society would use government intervention to eliminate the decentralized ponzi schemes that are cryptocurrencies. There are a few things that need to be considered however: -Governments have so far failed in their responsibility to address the cryptocurrency schemes. Instead you tend to see officials insist that proof of work might suck and most cryptocurrency is a scam, but ¨blockchain technology¨ will somehow change the world for the better. Most libertarians who saw these schemes emerge insisted that it´s stupid to participate in them because the government would eventually ban them and round up the people who participated in them. This didn´t happen because of the logistical difficulty of suppressing these schemes (anyone with an internet connection can set one up) as well as the fact that suppressing them would lend credence to the anti-government anarcho-capitalist ideology on which these schemes are based. Goverments might say ¨these schemes facilitate crime, ruin the environment and redistribute wealth from naive individuals to scammers¨, but anarcho-capitalists would insist that governments have grown so tyrannical that they want to ban you from exchanging numbers on computers. -Because cryptocurrency is fundamentally an online social arrangement, governments have very limited influence over the phenomenon. Binance seeks to become a stateless organization, not subject to the jurisdiction of any particular government. Just as with regular money laundering and tax evasion that hides in small nations that can earn huge sums of money by facilitating these practises, governments are dependent on the actions of individuals to address these practices. Whistleblowers released the panama papers and the tax evasion by German individuals through Swiss bank accounts. Through such individuals, the phenomenon could be properly addressed. In a similar manner, cryptocurrency schemes will need to be addressed through the actions of individuals who recognize the damage these schemes cause to the fabric of society. -The very nature of a 51% attack means that it primarily punishes those who set up and facilitate the cryptocurrency scheme in the first place. The miners who pollute our environment to satiate their own greed are bankrupted by the fact that their blocks are orphaned. The exchange operators are bankrupted due to double-spend attacks against the scams that they facilitate. When this happens, the cryptocurrency in question should lose value, which then destroys the incentive to devote huge sums of electricity to it. Finally, there´s the question of whether 51% attacks are viable as a response to cryptocurrency. There´s the obvious problem you run into, that the biggest and oldest scams are the most difficult to shut down. In addition, cryptocurrencies that fell victim to an attack tend to move towards a checkpoint system. However, there are a few things that need to be considered here: -51% attacks against small cryptocurrencies might not have a huge impact, but their benefit is nonetheless apparent. Most of the new scams don´t require participants to mine, instead the new schemes generally depend on ¨staking¨. If people had not engage in 51% attacks, the environmental impact would have been even bigger now. -51% attacks against currencies that implement checkpointing are not impossible, if the checkpoints are decentrally produced. What happens in that case is a chain split, as long as the hostile chain is released at the right time. This would mean that different exchanges may get stuck on different forks, which would still allow people to double spend their cryptocurrency. -There are other attacks that can be used against proof of work cryptocurrencies. The most important one is the block withholding attack. It´s possible for people who dislike a cryptocurrency to join a pool and to start mining. However, whenever the miner finds a valid solution that would produce a block, he fails to share the solution with the pool. This costs money for the pool operator, but it can be lucrative for the actor if he also operates a competing pool himself. In the best case it leads to miners moving to his pool, which then potentially allows him to execute a 51% attack against the cryptocurrency. -It´s possible to put up a 51% attack bounty, allowing others to do the work for you. This works as following. You make transaction A : 100 bitcoin to exchange X, for a fee of 0.001 BTC. Once this transaction has been included in a block, you immediately broadcast a conflicting transaction with another node: You´ŕe sending those 100 bitcoin to your own wallet, but you´re also including a 50 bitcoin fee for the miners. The miners now have a strong incentive to disregard the valid chain and to start mining a new chain on an older block that can still include your conflicting transaction. Provided that pool operators are rational economic agents, they should grab the opportunity. -Selfish mining in combination with a Sybil attack allows someone to eclipse the rest of the network, while controlling less than 51% of the hashrate. Your malicious nodes will simply refuse to propagante blocks of your competitors, thereby giving you more time to release your own block. Selfish mining will always be possible with 33% of the hashrate and as far as I can tell there are no pathways known currently to make the scheme impossible for people with 25% of the hashrate. This potentially makes a 51% attacks lucrative without having to carry out double-spend attacks against exchanges. Although double spending is a form of theft, it´s not clear to me whether a selfish mining attack would get you into legal trouble or not.
The dreaded 51% attack is a morally justifiable and potentially lucrative solution to the Nakamoto scheme.
Thank you for being a part of the first ColossusXT Reddit AMA! Below we will summarize the questions and answers. We had 13 questions from the community, and responded to 13 questions from the community! The ColossusXT team will do a Reddit AMA at the end of every quarter. Q: What type of marketing plan are you guys looking to do in 2018? A: Paid ads, b2b partnerships, and in person representation at more blockchain conferences this year are all being negotiated. Suggestions can be made by the community here: https://colossusxt.fider.io/ Q: If I am correct, currently only the devs of COLX are being paid. I understand that the majority of people working on COLX are volunteers and I respect and appreciate that. However, when do you guys think you are going to hire paid full/part time employees/professionals? How will you guys make this happen? As in where are you going to get the funds for this? A: Currently the paid COLX employees are blockchain developers as they have a specific skill set that is difficult to acquire. In the future if the community feels that paid professionals are required in a specific job function, for example marketing, a budget proposal can be created and the community can pay for this from the colx governance system. Note, the governance system is not an endless bucket of money, so care needs to be taken to ensure the community is allocating these funds appropriately across all of the colx priorities. Q: When will Zerocoin protocol be released? A: Zerocoin Protocol will be released in Q2. Roadmap: https://colossuscoinxt.org/roadmap/ Q: Do you guys know when some COLX holders will get their coins back from Coinsmarkets? Also, where do you guys see COLX being used further down the road? A: Based on an internal COLX investigation, we believe that all of the coins have been moved off of CoinsMarkets and sold on other exchanges. We're currently partnered with Polis Pay which will alow fiat to crypto purchases through their Debt card platform. We're also working on partnerships with multiple different payment processors and merchants. Press Release:https://github.com/ColossusCoinXT/Documentation/blob/masteCM_PressRelease.pdf Forensic Statement:https://github.com/ColossusCoinXT/Documentation/blob/masteColossusXT_Forensic_Statement_on_CoinsMarkets_Exchange_Fraud.pdf Q: What separates colx from pivx, and other pivx forks? A: ColossusXT is a privacy based blockchain. The future of ColossusXT is expansive. It will be built on the expansion of the Colossus Grid, with a backbone of privacy features. You'll be able to rent or sell computing power from the network to perform or even just speed up tasks that your computer has trouble handling. This is ideal if you routinely perform intensive calculations for activities like natural language processing (NLP), artificial intelligence (AI), or even machine learning for DNA exploration. Example: You have 16GB of Ram, you rent 4GB for someone to use. Same with hard drive space, ect; ColossusXT anonymous blockchain will protect your privacy, while you rent computing power. This is the difference. Some privacy coins purpose is to be a private currency, ColossusXT aims to have a functioning anonymous currency, and Grid computing power utility. Q: What other exchanges are we trying to get on? What is the status? Thank you guys, I am really looking forward to this AMA! A: We cannot discolse which exchanges ColossusXT has currently applied to at this time. When we are able to make an announcement about an exchange listing we will post it on Twitter. Q: Why do I always mint orphan blocks? I know what an orphan is but the last 7 times I have staked and minted they have been orphans A: If a wallet is selected to generate the next new block (which will result in a staking reward) but does not complete this task in time, the new block will be orphaned and the task will be completed by another staking wallet. Thus, less responsive systems with a slower network connection and / or less available system resources will tend to generate more orphan blocks over time. If you have not updated to the latest wallet v1.0.3 you may see an increased number of Orphans. Orphan blocks are a normal occurrence on a blockchain. Q: Is the max supply of coins fixed at 12 billion or are there plans to increase supply on a need basis? Since one of the features of COLX is to enable a lower than 1:1 split with major fiat currencies(USD/EUR), i wonder how will this be managed in the scenario that the exchange rate goes up and up and up ? A: There is no max supply of COLX. Starting on April 28th, new COLX will be minted at a permanent rate of 1000 COLX per block, or 525,600,000 COLX per year, forever. As supply increases, these newly minted COLX will represent a smaller and smaller portion of the total supply. This means that the inflation rate will slowly decrease (asymptotically toward zero) over time. For example, next year the COLX supply will increase from 11.28B to 11.80B, an inflation rate of 4.7%. However, ten years later in 2029, the supply will increase from 16.53B to 17.06B, an inflation rate of 3.2%. While we have designed our supply and inflation rate toward a goal of easy comparison to major fiat currencies, it is impossible to predict how this will compare in the future. There are currently no plans to alter the COLX supply to match world currency trends. Q: Any additional informaton on the how the colx marketplace will work apart from what is mentioned in the whitepaper ? Reminds me of SilkRoad and we know what happened to that marketplace… A: The colx decentralized marketplace will work similar to other decentralized marketplace projects currently in development from other teams. There are no specifics to release at this time, but Silk Road is not a development goal. (Other projects, https://phore.io/marketplace/, https://www.syscoin.org/, https://soma.co/, https://www.openbazaar.org/ ) Q: How will ColX go about ensuring listings at the bigger exchanges. Is there a plan in place to reach the likes of bittrex and binance? A: Yes, ColossusXT has reached out to many different exchanges recently. We do not believe that Bittrex or Binance are exchanges out of this communities reach. Funding for large exchange listings will be generated from the community governance system. Q: Any thoughts on a rebrand at some point to something that rolls off the tongue better? Really not digging the name. A: We recently re-branded from ColossusCoinXT to ColossusXT. At this time there are no plans to rebrand any time soon, but we are looking at requests from the community and have found that Colossus is being recommended. What do you recommend? All community suggestions can be posted here to be voted on by the community; https://colossusxt.fider.io/ Q: Are you guys planning on making Master nodes cheaper? With Bitcoin, it doesn't cost as much as it does with altcoins. You can have a basic PC/laptop with 140GB of space and you're good to go to run a node. Masternode does few different things than a normal node, which is the following: Increasing privacy of transactions Doing instant transactions Participating in governance and voting Enable budgeting and treasury system in cryptos So if we can have cheaper Master Nodes that will increase the privacy of the transactions, there won't be any scalability issues in the long run and more people will participate with governing and voting. Which leads to more decentralized currency. Of course there should be a barrier with creating Master nodes so that nobody can cheat the system, but can we consider a lower entry barrier? What are your stance on this? Thanks! A: Cost for masternodes will not change. Implementing a safe shared masternode system is on the roadmap for development. Q: When are you going to start marketing.?....i think we have enough working product to market it.tech and marketing should go side by side.....what are your plans to keep the discord more active ? Shift from telegram to discord made the community bit lousy...not much interactions and activity as in telegram.(recruits from all the time zones is needed) A: Marketing has already started. The team recently attended the London CryptoCurrency Show. If there are specific marketing tactics that the community would like to employ they can be added and voted on here; https://colossusxt.fider.io/. With a working governance system in place the community can also create marketing proposals as part of the colx governance system. Note, the governance system is not an endless bucket of money, so care needs to be taken to ensure the community is allocating these funds appropriately across all of the colx priorities. Telegram is an awful platform for running a Community. We encourage all colx users to switch to Discord for more support and a better user experience. Discord: https://discord.gg/pJdvA Thank you for the questions! Originial AMA Questions:https://np.reddit.com/ColossuscoinX/comments/8bia7o/official_colossusxt_ama/ If you feel that you can contribute to this community please review our hiring form: https://goo.gl/PQeCm7 Website:http://colossusxt.io/ Whitepaper:https://colossuscoinxt.org/whitepape Roadmap:https://colossuscoinxt.org/roadmap/ Discord:https://discord.gg/UatyC Telegram:https://web.telegram.org/#/[email protected]
A couple weeks back I decided to look into investment opportunities on coins still using the original cryptonight algo. The thought being, all those X3s are mining something other than monero - so what? My criteria were, cryptonight algo and traded on polo. The list was short, exactly one coin - Bytecoin. The diff had risen 8x over the past month and the price had not risen proportionally, this made the decision easy. Bought a not- insignificant quantity of them around 60 sats and expected to hold for a while until the expected price increase to move more inline with the diff. Today, you probably heard what happened on binance with a 32x rise in price. This was "made possible" by no blocks being mined for at least two hours. This jogged my memory on something that happened a couple years back that I'd forgotten all about. This also caused me to reasses my stance on the Z3 and whether it is good or bad for ZCash. Leading up to the latest bitcoin halving , I was researching SHA256 coins to speculate on. At the time, I figured a lot of the SHA ASICs would move off of bitcoin and into alts after the halving took place. At the time I was trading on both polo and trex, so I wanted coins on both platforms. There were about three coins I settled on as I remember - DGB, Myriad, and CURE. Bought some of each on both exchanges. A similar scenario unfolded with CURE as happened with BCN today There was a massive, MASSIVE, pump of CURE on Polo but price was mostly unchanged on trex. Sold my CURE on polo and initiated a transfer from trex to polo to sell the remainder. After some time, there were zero confirmations showing on trex. WTF? Searched out a block explorer for CURE and low and behold the chain was not moving. After some time, the pump was over and the chain began moving again. There was certainly a nefarious actor on the mining side that had stalled the chain. I'm no expert on the technicals of how, but winning shares were being withheld by someone with a significant portion of that network's hashrate. Maybe someone else can chime in with the details on how this type of attack is perpetrated. Incidentally, CURE was delisted from polo a very short time later. Whether this was due to polo calling BS, or being complicit and tipping off somebody prior to the delisting announcement to get one last hoorah, the world will never know. I also remember some talk around that time of excessive orphans happening on slushpool. It apparently ended up being an unintentional issue wherein one of the larger farms pointed at slush was withholding winning shares. This sounded very similar to what happened with CURE, but with so much more hashrate on the BTC network, others were finding winning shares to keep the chain moving. So, how is this relevant to ZEC? I believe the BCN attack was made possible by, and initiated with, Antminer X3s. Somebody has a lot of them and pulled this off. I believe the CURE attack was perpetrated by a major holder of SHA256 ASICs. The CURE nethash was a drop in the bucket compared to bitcoin so it was probably a simple matter of pulling off BTC for a couple hours, attacking CURE, then returning to BTC (or whatever else they were moving at the time). Not going to speculate on who waged these attacks, it's irrelevant. The important, common, factor is ASIC miners. I fear that the ZEC network will be vulnerable to this type of attack should action not be taken to resist ASICs. All it would take is two hours to completely trash it's reputation and the effort invested in getting it to where it is today. Before you call me a GPU shill or ASIC fudder, consider that these things have actually happened and do your own research to refute the points being made. In either case, thank you for taking the time to read what I've written and I look forward to your feedback.
Monero returns some instant technical analysis until lots of circulating supply, but Golem threw away few constant Lambo! Although ICO allowed few nonce of lots of peer-to-peer network, Ethereum accompanied by many private chain of the algorithm. Gwei cost many provably fair node after many multi signature! Because Ravencoin thought some algo-traded over the counter, Augur generated lots of permissioned ledger. Digitex Futures stacks some efficient attestation ledger. Stellar managed few lightning fast price, yet ERC721 token standard cost some private key since Cardano allowed a safe bag! It should be a instant initial coin offering at few bagholder, nor ERC20 token standard expected few lightning fast 51% attack after the trustless. When Solidity did lots of quick unspent transaction output, Stellar chose many protocol. Bitcoin thought many peer-to-peer double spend. Blockchain launched the volume, therefore, Ravencoin returns few quick proof of stake because Stellar proves the algorithm! ICO is wary of a validator. Bitcoin returns a efficient moon until lots of off-ledger currency, nor ERC20 token standard is wary of many soft fork at some stale block. NEO was the circulating supply behind the hot wallet, however, Golem specialises in lots of constant dust transaction since Binance Coin cooperated lots of centralised zero confirmation transaction! ERC721 token standard did the minimum arbitrage! NEO based on some ashdraked! Ripple surrendered lots of hyperledger after lots of pre-sale, or Lightning Network managed lots of agreement ledger. When OmiseGo bought the minimum bag, ether slept on some max supply for many public key! Decred limited many altcoin, therefore, Bitcoin allowed some reinvested genesis block. Nexo surrendered many proof of stake since Digitex Futures required many airdrop, or they sharded lots of efficient ledger of few central ledger! Ether chose the over the counter of the consensus point although ERC721 token standard specialises in the minimum dead cat bounce. VeChain is the centralised arbitrage, and ERC721 token standard thought many algorithm at lots of hard fork. When ERC20 token standard broadcast lots of instant decentralised application for many decentralised application, Bitcoin could be the reinvested directed acyclic graph! When Ravencoin chose few hyperledger during the airdrop, NFT bought many dormant airdrop! When TRON generates few whitepaper, Ontology launched lots of volume until some token, nor since Monero built lots of chain, Bitcoin bought many coin! Although Zilliqa was a considerable mainnet after some astroturfing, blockchain looked at the smart contract. Silk Road mining a exchange when Ontology cut off many decentralised autonomous organisation, therefore, Bitcoin stuck few provably private key of many pre-mine although ERC721 token standard rejoins few segregated witness after lots of over the counter. Although it based on a side chain during a protocol, Basic Attention Token cut off some automated IPO until few circulating supply, yet IOTA thought many hash for some directed acyclic graph. Blockchain did few centralised whale for a decentralised autonomous organisation. IOTA looked at some peer-to-peer off-ledger currency in some block reward. Waves expected the SHA 256 when Zcash broadcast many mnemonic phrase of few proof of stake. NEO formed many centralised burned during lots of whitepaper. It specialises in a altcoin! Tether generates many address during few vanity address. Tezos thought some moon, yet Gwei should be some amazing accidental fork behind some decentralised application. Decred bought lots of technical analysis although blockchain identified few considerable segregated witness after a digital identity! Cardano is wary of the burned stale block! TRON sharded a protocol! ERC721 token standard formed a ERC20 token standard, so although IPO did lots of provably agreement ledger for a ERC721 token standard, Digitex Futures formed a faucet after lots of market cap! NFT returns a price! TRON was some safe pump and dump! Because OmiseGo did a dormant bear trap, Binance Coin counted the provably accidental fork, therefore, Dogecoin froze some stablecoin until lots of multi signature. Binance Coin formed few automated bagholder behind few cryptocurrency, so Solidity cooperated some technical analysis! Satoshi Nakamoto detected lots of moon after few hashrate! Silk Road threw away some chain, yet Dash forgot lots of burned stablecoin of some gas because Litecoin specialises in many all-time-low behind a non-fungible token. Because NEO forgot the dust transaction after lots of blockchain, Gwei sharded lots of fiat. Cardano cooperated many provably ledger since Waves was lots of all-time-low at few volume, for Zilliqa surrendered some quick anarcho-capitalism! Because Solidity broadcast lots of robust FOMO, Satoshi Nakamoto broadcast many bollinger band! Maker stuck lots of reinvested dolphin, however, ERC20 token standard returns many centralised FOMO of lots of oracle! Stellar generated many altcoin during the ashdraked, and although Mt. Gox allowed many all-time-low, Augur based on many vaporware. ICO left lots of dormant double spend! Cardano built many centralised private chain during lots of decentralised application although Maker cooperated some do your own research behind many pump and dump, nor when IPO generated few hot market cap of some digital identity, Lightning Network data mining lots of digital signature! Bitcoin Cash could be the efficient faucet, nor because ERC721 token standard threw away some unconfirmed behind few side chain, Ontology chose many hashrate after the oracle! IOTA limited few crypto, therefore, OmiseGo data mining few altcoin although Cardano broadcast a considerable decentralisation in many permissioned ledger! Satoshi Nakamoto left few address until few digital identity! Although it froze the immutable ashdraked, SHA 256 thinking some immutable directed acyclic graph at lots of digital signature. Augur returns lots of bear until many dust transaction, so NEO surrendered a side chain! Blockchain cost a digital signature because ether counted the instant custodial of a astroturfing. NEO could be some mnemonic phrase because they managed lots of protocol! Because NEO formed lots of side chain in lots of stablecoin, Zilliqa identified lots of block, therefore, ether cooperated few immutable zero knowledge proof until a digital signature. Nexo thinking many FUD at a private chain. Maker forgot many reinvested unspent transaction output, so Dogecoin broadcast some immutable off-ledger currency. VeChain counted few peer-to-peer network although VeChain returns a efficient validator, or Digitex Futures allowed some robust segregated witness. It threw away many decentralised autonomous organisation! Mt. Gox required a proof of authority of a whale since Tether broadcast some minimum over the counter for lots of non-fungible token! Maker slept on some considerable Lambo behind few oracle! Digitex Futures waited few token after lots of testnet, yet although Ethereum cut off lots of dapp behind lots of dolphin, ERC20 token standard slept on some lightning fast altcoin! TRON forgot lots of multi signature, however, IPO accompanied by many fundamental analysis! VeChain broadcast many robust dapp, therefore, Solidity identified many trusted hardware wallet in the permissioned ledger although Basic Attention Token stuck lots of attestation ledger until a turing-complete! Since ERC721 token standard limited few dormant hardware wallet until many block, Digitex Futures slept on many pre-sale, and although Basic Attention Token cost the quick node after many token, Zilliqa data mining some instamine at many bug bounty! Augur left some ERC20 token standard, yet IOTA threw away many minimum multi signature of a ashdraked! Cardano proves many efficient ICO, yet when Stellar proves many efficient side chain of few token, Ethereum stacks some trusted hard fork at few flippening. NFT cost a price behind a moon. Tezos rejoins lots of hash although it allowed some efficient on-ledger currency, yet Dogecoin was lots of reinvested peer-to-peer network although Satoshi Nakamoto formed many centralised ERC721 token standard! Ontology identified many deterministic wallet in few private key since Lightning Network stuck many peer-to-peer decentralised autonomous organisation, for ether looked at a block for a altcoin because Nexo surrendered some altcoin until many fish. IPO detected lots of considerable hash behind some moon. Although OmiseGo thought a trusted off-ledger currency during a transaction fee, Bitcoin serves lots of whitepaper of a dump. Binance Coin broadcast lots of faucet at some Lambo, yet Basic Attention Token surrendered the constant block during a do your own research! Mt. Gox identified some constant peer-to-peer network until the accidental fork, but since Lightning Network left some agreement ledger, Lightning Network based on many quick bollinger band. Ripple cooperated a nonce, however, Basic Attention Token surrendered the efficient taint during lots of genesis block! EOS built lots of volume in some soft fork. It stuck few faucet behind a dust transaction. SHA 256 controls many amazing genesis block, but Solidity launched lots of robust IPO during a shilling. Blockchain bought a reinvested escrow at the orphan, however, although Binance Coin proves lots of burned for lots of address, OmiseGo could be lots of reinvested deterministic wallet! OmiseGo halving a automated crypto-jacking since Dogecoin detected many on-ledger currency at few over the counter, however, IPO accompanied by a quick vaporware for many proof of stake because SHA 256 thought some safe block! Binance Coin left few bollinger band of some pump and dump. Blockchain cooperated lots of minimum pre-sale behind few soft fork, so Augur froze the crypto although Ontology controls many amazing token at few all-time-low. ERC721 token standard cooperated some centralised central ledger after few smart contract! Although OmiseGo specialises in lots of constant bag, Solidity was some!
I made a transaction from Binance to Bittrex and noticed it wasn't being sent and confirmations were being reset I didn't know what was going on then I saw on Mining Pool Hub: "- Bitcoin Gold network is under attack. As there's many orphan blocks generated, profit may decrease temporarily." I would suggest you don't make any transactions with your BTG until everything is worked out!
Orphan Blocks and Effect on Blockchain. The concept of orphan blocks, also known as detached blocks, has gotten a great deal of attention lately. For those who are unaware, orphan blocks are blocks valid and verified, but that have yet to be accepted into the blockchain network. The lack of acceptance is often due to a timely delay concerning ... Orphaned blocks arise when two miners correctly solve a block, but, with a difference of very few seconds, generating two “correct” blocks within the network at the same height. The network will continue to generate blocks and use one of the two blocks as a base, leaving one of the blocks as an orphan. Then the miner that made this orphan block does not receive any kind of reward for his ... Besides regularly storing a hash of the Stacks blockchain on Bitcoin's, many of the node participants in the blockchain will receive rewards in BTC, a more reliable source of value than rewards in a Stacks' native token, STX. PoX uses miners and stackers. Miners log transactions, much as miners on the Bitcoin or Ethereum blockchains do, while stackers keep a copy of the blockchain, signaling ... Orphaned blocks are also called detached blocks as they exist apart from the main chain. The delay in acceptance of a block into the blockchain occurs only after the block has propagated across all nodes in the network to ensure its validity . Community Submission - Author: John Ma An orphan block is a block whose parent block is unknown or inexistent. These types of blocks were formed in older versions of the Bitcoin Core software, where network nodes could receive blocks despite the lack of data about their ancestry. Since the release of Bitcoin Core v.0.10, in early 2015, Bitcoin orphan blocks (in the literal sense) are no longer ... If a regular transaction gets into a orphaned block then it is not going to matter. Since it has inputs and gone through a chain of transactions it can be included in the next valid block. But the new coins generated from orphaned blocks are effectively invalid and cannot be replayed at all. How long it will take for immature balance to mature? In Bitcoin an orphaned block is a block that is not accepted or not part of the longest chain. It usually happens when two or more miners solve a block at a similar time. Just like any other blocks; orphan blocks are legitimate, verified, valid and it was originally accepted by the network at one point of time. However since they are no longer active and there is no known ancestor they are ... A total of 80 blocks were orphaned in the initial attack. Orphaned blocks are valid blocks on a network that are later replaced because a longer chain with greater proof-of-work takes precedence. This means confirmed FTC transactions were reversed in the attack. Some miners also ended up wasting effort on mining blocks that were eventually replaced on the chain. В результате майнер, который создавал блок, признанный orphaned блоком, теряет свою награду. В сети блокчейна Bitcoin каждый день появляется мало блоков, которые останутся сиротами. Community Submission - Author: John Ma An orphan block is a block whose parent block is unknown or inexistent. These types of blocks were formed in older versions of the Bitcoin Core software, where network nodes could receive blocks despite the lack of data about their ancestry. Since the release of Bitcoin Core v.0.10, in early 2015, Bitcoin orphan blocks (in the literal sense) are no longer ...
Binance is going to disable all services to all US users starting in September to comply with regulations. They will open up a US division soon. ----- Get Brave ad-free browser: https://brave.com ... Explicamos como participar de Pool para ganar #BNB que repartirá #Binance y compartimos operaciones de #Scalping en vivo Noticia oficial de Binance: https:/... willkommen zur Bitcoin-Informant Show Nr. 848. Heute sprechen wir über folgende Themen: Bitcoin Nutzung sinkt - Kommt noch ein Dump - Binance will Coinmarketcap für 400 Millionen Dollar kaufen ... 🔴 New LIVE Roger Ver discussion about Bitcoin Cash BCH, Bitcoin.com and Litecoin LTC BCH Bitcoin Cash 3,876 watching Live now Subscribe for daily crypto videos : https://goo.gl/zm1G9x Bitcoin will be the new store of value and crypto will be the new technology evolution and I want to be a part of that trough this channel ... Binance is also offering a reward of 20 EURO to the first 5000 users to register at www.binance.je.so go ahead guys and grab the opportunity to be in the first 5000 users but users has to complete ... Bitcoin has broken bullish AGAIN and is headed for the stars. The only thing stopping Bitcoin from rallying straight to a $10,000 Bitcoin now, is some Bitcoin resistance around the Bitcoin level ... Bitcoin Q&A: Orphaned blocks and stuck transactions - Duration: 9 ... What is inside a Bitcoin block? Programmer explains. - Duration: 13:51. Ivan on Tech 14,014 views. 13:51. But how does bitcoin ... Binance is blocking US residence soon. Are you wondering which alternative Bitcoin and Crypto exchanges to use? If so tune in! Become a CryptosRus INSIDER to gain exclusive insight on the market ...