How to set up a bitcoin ASIC miner Get Started Bitcoin.com

Gulden [NLG] - Constant development - In wallet Staking/Mining/Dex

Official Website / Official Slack
About Gulden:
How to setup a Witness (Staking) Gulden was founded in April 2014 based on the Litecoin codebase. In 2015 the Litecoin codebase is abandoned and Gulden switched to the Bitcoin codebase. After years of development it can be said that Gulden now has its own codebase. Gulden started with a 10% premine that was spent entirely on development. The current developments are now paid by part of the mining reward. The direction of the developments are determined by the Gulden advisory board (GAB). The GAB consists of 9 members and is elected each year from the members of the community. Anyone can stand for election. Voting for candidates is recorded and done through the Gulden blockchain. Gulden would like to become a generally accepted means of payment. To this end, the development is aimed at making the wallets as user-friendly as possible.
What makes Gulden unique:
- PoW2 - Proof of work + Witness/Staking - SegSig (Segregated Signature) - SIGMA (Semi Iterated Global Memory Argon) - Linking (Control your mobile wallet from your desktop wallet) - Wallet accounts - Unity (Unified codebase) - Delta (Difficulty Algorithm) - Sonic (Fast Sync)
Features of Gulden explained:
PoW2: Gulden does not use a standard PoW consensus model, but the in-house developed PoW2 model. This is a combination of PoW and Witness. Miners control the transactions and the Witness controls the miners. In order to get the same chance of success for a double spend as for the single transaction approval systems it is therefore necessary not to control >50% of the mining power or >50% of the number of coins in witness accounts but to own more than 71% of both systems. (0.71 * 0.71 = 0.5 so 50% chance).
Because many Gulden owners have their Gulden fixed in witness, it is difficult to get a 71% majority in witness. There are now more than 100 million Gulden in witness. In order to get a 71% majority, an attacker has to secure an additional 220 million Gulden in witness. Apart from the fact that this is almost impossible, the price of the Gulden would go up sky high if so much Gulden had to be bought by the attacker. And because the attacker has to lock the Gulden, it looks like a bank robber who is going to rob his own bank. So such an attack is theoretically possible, but not possible in reality.
Anyone can become a witness: by locking an amount of Gulden in a Witness account in the desktop wallet for a certain amount of time. Depending on the weighting of the witness account (chosen duration and amount in the account) the witness earns rewards. The advantage of this system is that the Gulden blockchain can withstand 51% attacks without relying heavily on energy-guzzling PoW miners or vulnerable standard PoS systems. Transactions can be safely accepted after one confirmation instead of the standard 3-6 confirmations.

  1. PoW2 Whitepaper simply explained PoW² explored — A post-launch look at some of the security implications How to setup a Witness
SIGMA: Since October 17, 2019, the Gulden team has implemented the Sigma algorithm and since then it is possible to mine Gulden solo without additional equipment. The algorithm is asic resistant and can be done on a normal desktop computer using it’s CPU. One can simply use this CPU mining algorithm by creating a mining account in the desktop wallet and start mining Gulden.
SegSig - Segregated Signature - Detailed article still to be published but was implemented with PoW2. Advantages of Segregated Signature: 1. 58% space saving on all transactions. More then twice the bitcoin SegWit implementation. 2. 58% increased transaction throughput. No block size or frequency changes needed. 3. Overhaul to the transaction script system which allowed us to implement PoW² and SegSig as clean as possible along with other benefits.

Please take your time and read the technicals on this coin as its truly phenomenal and seriously under valorised and recognised. Barely any effort has been made to market its potential but you can judge yourself. Read the PoW2 Whitepaper or the short version PoW2 simply explained
The Official Website and Official Slack chatroom.
submitted by mainpmf to CryptoMoonShots [link] [comments]

[ANN][ANDROID MINING][AIRDROP] NewEnglandcoin: Scrypt RandomSpike

New England
New England 6 States Songs: https://www.reddit.com/newengland/comments/er8wxd/new_england_6_states_songs/
NewEnglandcoin
Symbol: NENG
NewEnglandcoin is a clone of Bitcoin using scrypt as a proof-of-work algorithm with enhanced features to protect against 51% attack and decentralize on mining to allow diversified mining rigs across CPUs, GPUs, ASICs and Android phones.
Mining Algorithm: Scrypt with RandomSpike. RandomSpike is 3rd generation of Dynamic Difficulty (DynDiff) algorithm on top of scrypt.
1 minute block targets base difficulty reset: every 1440 blocks subsidy halves in 2.1m blocks (~ 2 to 4 years) 84,000,000,000 total maximum NENG 20000 NENG per block Pre-mine: 1% - reserved for dev fund ICO: None RPCPort: 6376 Port: 6377
NewEnglandcoin has dogecoin like supply at 84 billion maximum NENG. This huge supply insures that NENG is suitable for retail transactions and daily use. The inflation schedule of NengEnglandcoin is actually identical to that of Litecoin. Bitcoin and Litecoin are already proven to be great long term store of value. The Litecoin-like NENG inflation schedule will make NewEnglandcoin ideal for long term investment appreciation as the supply is limited and capped at a fixed number
Bitcoin Fork - Suitable for Home Hobbyists
NewEnglandcoin core wallet continues to maintain version tag of "Satoshi v0.8.7.5" because NewEnglandcoin is very much an exact clone of bitcoin plus some mining feature changes with DynDiff algorithm. NewEnglandcoin is very suitable as lite version of bitcoin for educational purpose on desktop mining, full node running and bitcoin programming using bitcoin-json APIs.
The NewEnglandcoin (NENG) mining algorithm original upgrade ideas were mainly designed for decentralization of mining rigs on scrypt, which is same algo as litecoin/dogecoin. The way it is going now is that NENG is very suitable for bitcoin/litecoin/dogecoin hobbyists who can not , will not spend huge money to run noisy ASIC/GPU mining equipments, but still want to mine NENG at home with quiet simple CPU/GPU or with a cheap ASIC like FutureBit Moonlander 2 USB or Apollo pod on solo mining setup to obtain very decent profitable results. NENG allows bitcoin litecoin hobbyists to experience full node running, solo mining, CPU/GPU/ASIC for a fun experience at home at cheap cost without breaking bank on equipment or electricity.
MIT Free Course - 23 lectures about Bitcoin, Blockchain and Finance (Fall,2018)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP63UUkfL0onkxF6MYgVa04Fn
CPU Minable Coin Because of dynamic difficulty algorithm on top of scrypt, NewEnglandcoin is CPU Minable. Users can easily set up full node for mining at Home PC or Mac using our dedicated cheetah software.
Research on the first forked 50 blocks on v1.2.0 core confirmed that ASIC/GPU miners mined 66% of 50 blocks, CPU miners mined the remaining 34%.
NENG v1.4.0 release enabled CPU mining inside android phones.
Youtube Video Tutorial
How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in Windows 10 Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdOoPvAjzlE How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in Windows 10 Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHnRJvJRzZg
How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in macOS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj7NLMeNSOQ
Decentralization and Community Driven NewEnglandcoin is a decentralized coin just like bitcoin. There is no boss on NewEnglandcoin. Nobody nor the dev owns NENG.
We know a coin is worth nothing if there is no backing from community. Therefore, we as dev do not intend to make decision on this coin solely by ourselves. It is our expectation that NewEnglandcoin community will make majority of decisions on direction of this coin from now on. We as dev merely view our-self as coin creater and technical support of this coin while providing NENG a permanent home at ShorelineCrypto Exchange.
Twitter Airdrop
Follow NENG twitter and receive 100,000 NENG on Twitter Airdrop to up to 1000 winners
Graphic Redesign Bounty
Top one award: 90.9 million NENG Top 10 Winners: 500,000 NENG / person Event Timing: March 25, 2019 - Present Event Address: NewEnglandcoin DISCORD at: https://discord.gg/UPeBwgs
Please complete above Twitter Bounty requirement first. Then follow Below Steps to qualify for the Bounty: (1) Required: submit your own designed NENG logo picture in gif, png jpg or any other common graphic file format into DISCORD "bounty-submission" board (2) Optional: submit a second graphic for logo or any other marketing purposes into "bounty-submission" board. (3) Complete below form.
Please limit your submission to no more than two total. Delete any wrongly submitted or undesired graphics in the board. Contact DISCORD u/honglu69#5911 or u/krypton#6139 if you have any issues.
Twitter Airdrop/Graphic Redesign bounty sign up: https://goo.gl/forms/L0vcwmVi8c76cR7m1
Milestones
Roadmap
NENG v1.4.0 Android Mining, randomSpike Evaluation https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/NENG_2020_Q3_report/NENG_2020_Q3_report.pdf
RandomSpike - NENG core v1.3.0 Hardfork Upgrade Proposal https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/2020Q1_Report/Scrypt_RandomSpike_NENGv1.3.0_Hardfork_Proposal.pdf
NENG Security, Decentralization & Valuation
https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/2019Q2_report/NENG_Security_Decentralization_Value.pdf
Whitepaper v1.0 https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/whitepaper_v1.0/NENG_WhitePaper.pdf
DISCORD https://discord.gg/UPeBwgs
Explorer
http://www.findblocks.com/exploreNENG http://86.100.49.209/exploreNENG http://nengexplorer.mooo.com:3001/
Step by step guide on how to setup an explorer: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/nengexplorer
Github https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin
Wallet
Android with UserLand App (arm64/armhf), Chromebook (x64/arm64/armhf): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.5
Linux Wallet (Ubuntu/Linux Mint, Debian/MX Linux, Arch/Manjaro, Fedora, openSUSE): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.3
MacOS Wallet (10.11 El Capitan or higher): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.2
Android with GNUroot on 32 bits old Phones (alpha release) wallet: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0
Windows wallet: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.3.0.1
addnode ip address for the wallet to sync faster, frequently updated conf file: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/cheetah_cpumineblob/mastenewenglandcoin.conf-example
How to Sync Full Node Desktop Wallet https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/comments/er6f0q/how_to_sync_full_node_desktop_wallet/
TWITTER https://twitter.com/newenglandcoin
REDDIT https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/
Cheetah CPU Miner Software https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/cheetah_cpuminer
Solo Mining with GPU or ASIC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52187727#msg52187727
How to Run Two Full Node in Same Desktop PC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53581449#msg53581449
ASIC/GPU Mining Pools Warning to Big ASIC Miners Due to DynDiff Algo on top of Scrypt, solo mining is recommended for ASIC/GPU miners. Further more, even for mining pools, small mining pool will generate better performance than big NENG mining pool because of new algo v1.2.x post hard fork.
The set up configuration of NENG for scrypt pool mining is same as a typical normal scrypt coin. In other word, DynDiff on Scrypt algo is backward compatible with Scrypt algo. Because ASIC/GPU miners rely on CPU miners for smooth blockchain movement, checkout bottom of "Latest News" section for A WARNING to All ASIC miners before you decide to dump big ASIC hash rate into NENG mining.
(1) Original DynDiff Warning: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48324708#msg48324708 (2) New Warning on RandomSpike Spike difficulty (244k) introduced in RandomSpike served as roadblocks to instant mining and provide security against 51% attack risk. However, this spike difficulty like a roadblock that makes big ASIC mining less profitable. In case of spike block to be mined, the spike difficulty immediately serve as base difficulty, which will block GPU/ASIC miners effectively and leave CPU cheetah solo miners dominating mining almost 100% until next base difficulty reset.
FindBlocks http://findblocks.com/
CRpool http://crpool.xyz/
Cminors' Pool http://newenglandcoin.cminors-pool.com/
SPOOL https://spools.online/
Exchange
📷
https://shorelinecrypto.com/
Features: anonymous sign up and trading. No restriction or limit on deposit or withdraw.
The trading pairs available: NewEnglandcoin (NENG) / Dogecoin (DOGE)
Trading commission: A round trip trading will incur 0.10% trading fees in average. Fees are paid only on buyer side. buy fee: 0.2% / sell fee: 0% Deposit fees: free for all coins Withdraw fees: ZERO per withdraw. Mining fees are appointed by each coin blockchain. To cover the blockchain mining fees, there is minimum balance per coin per account: * Dogecoin 2 DOGE * NewEnglandcoin 1 NENG
Latest News Aug 30, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.5 Released for Android/Chromebook Upgrade with armhf, better hardware support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg55098029#msg55098029
Aug 11, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.4 Released for Android arm64 Upgrade / Chromebook Support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54977437#msg54977437
Jul 30, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.3 Released for Linux Wallet Upgrade with 8 Distros https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54898540#msg54898540
Jul 21, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.2 Released for MacOS Upgrade with Catalina https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54839522#msg54839522
Jul 19, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.1 Released for MacOS Wallet Upgrade https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54830333#msg54830333
Jul 15, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0 Released for Android Mining, Ubuntu 20.04 support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54803639#msg54803639
Jul 11, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0 Android Mining, randomSpike Evaluation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54777222#msg54777222
Jun 27, 2020 - Pre-Announce: NENG v1.4.0 Proposal for Mobile Miner Upgrade, Android Mining Start in July 2020 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54694233#msg54694233
Jun 19, 2020 - Best Practice for Futurebit Moonlander2 USB ASIC on solo mining mode https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54645726#msg54645726
Mar 15, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG v1.3.0.1 Released for better wallet syncing https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54030923#msg54030923
Feb 23, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG Core v1.3.0 Relased, Hardfork on Mar 1 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53900926#msg53900926
Feb 1, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike Proposal Published- NENG 1.3.0 Hardfork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53735458#msg53735458
Jan 15, 2020 - NewEnglandcoin Dev Team Expanded with New Kickoff https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53617358#msg53617358
Jan 12, 2020 - Explanation of Base Diff Reset and Effect of Supply https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/comments/envmo1/explanation_of_base_diff_reset_and_effect_of/
Dec 19, 2019 - Shoreline_tradingbot version 1.0 is released https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5121953.msg53391184#msg53391184
Sept 1, 2019 - NewEnglandcoin (NENG) is Selected as Shoreline Tradingbot First Supported Coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52331201#msg52331201
Aug 15, 2019 - Mining Update on Effect of Base Difficulty Reset, GPU vs ASIC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52169572#msg52169572
Jul 7, 2019 - CPU Mining on macOS Mojave is supported under latest Cheetah_Cpuminer Release https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg51745839#msg51745839
Jun 1, 2019 - NENG Fiat project is stopped by Square, Inc https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg51312291#msg51312291
Apr 21, 2019 - NENG Fiat Project is Launched by ShorelineCrypto https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50714764#msg50714764
Apr 7, 2019 - Announcement of Fiat Project for all U.S. Residents & Mobile Miner Project Initiation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50506585#msg50506585
Apr 1, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50417196#msg50417196
Mar 27, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50332097#msg50332097
Mar 17, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50208194#msg50208194
Feb 26, 2019 - Community Project - NewEnglandcoin Graphic Redesign Bounty Initiated https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49931305#msg49931305
Feb 22, 2019 - Dev Policy on Checkpoints on NewEnglandcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49875242#msg49875242
Feb 20, 2019 - NewEnglandCoin v1.2.1 Released to Secure the Hard Kork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49831059#msg49831059
Feb 11, 2019 - NewEnglandCoin v1.2.0 Released, Anti-51% Attack, Anti-instant Mining after Hard Fork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49685389#msg49685389
Jan 13, 2019 - Cheetah_CpuMiner added support for CPU Mining on Mac https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49218760#msg49218760
Jan 12, 2019 - NENG Core v1.1.2 Released to support MacOS OSX Wallet https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49202088#msg49202088
Jan 2, 2019 - Cheetah_Cpuminer v1.1.0 is released for both Linux and Windows https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49004345#msg49004345
Dec 31, 2018 - Technical Whitepaper is Released https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48990334#msg48990334
Dec 28, 2018 - Cheetah_Cpuminer v1.0.0 is released for Linux https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48935135#msg48935135
Update on Dec 14, 2018 - NENG Blockchain Stuck Issue https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48668375#msg48668375
Nov 27, 2018 - Exclusive for PC CPU Miners - How to Steal a Block from ASIC Miners https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48258465#msg48258465
Nov 28, 2018 - How to CPU Mine a NENG block with window/linux PC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48298311#msg48298311
Nov 29, 2018 - A Warning to ASIC Miners https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48324708#msg48324708
Disclosure: Dev Team Came from ShorelineCrypto, a US based Informatics Service Business offering Fee for service for Coin Creation, Coin Exchange Listing, Blockchain Consulting, etc.
submitted by honglu69 to NewEnglandCoin [link] [comments]

Mining and Dogecoin - Some FAQs

Hey shibes,
I see a lot of posts about mining lately and questions about the core wallet and how to mine with it, so here are some facts!
Feel free to add information to that thread or correct me if I did any mistake.

You downloaded the core wallet

Great! After a decade it probably synced and now you are wondering how to get coins? Bad news: You don't get coins by running your wallet, even running it as a full node. Check what a full node is here.
Maybe you thought so, because you saw a very old screenshot of a wallet, like this (Version 1.2). This version had a "Dig" tab where you can enter your mining configuration. The current version doesn't have this anymore, probably because it doesn't make sense anymore.

You downloaded a GPU/CPU miner

Nice! You did it, even your antivirus system probably went postal and you started covering all your webcams... But here is the bad news again: Since people are using ASIC miners, you just can't compete with your CPU hardware anymore. Even with your more advanced GPU you will have a hard time. The hashrate is too high for a desktop PC to compete with them. The blocks should be mined every 1 minute (or so) and that's causing the difficulty to go up - and we are out... So definitly check what is your hashrate while you are mining, you would need about 1.5 MH/s to make 1 Doge in 24 hours!

Mining Doge

Let us start with a quote:
"Dogecoin Core 1.8 introduces AuxPoW from block 371,337. AuxPoW is a technology which enables miners to submit work done while mining other coins, as work on the Dogecoin block chain."
- langerhans
What does this mean? You could waste your hashrate only on the Dogecoin chain, probably find never a block, but when, you only receive about 10.000 Dogecoins, currently worth about $25. Or you could apply your hashrate to LTC and Doge (and probably even more) at the same time. Your change of solving the block (finding the nonce) is your hashrate divided by the hashrat in sum - and this is about the same for Doge and LTC. This means you will always want to submit your work to all chains available!

Mining solo versus pool

So let's face it - mining solo won't get you anywhere, so let's mine on a pool! If you have a really bad Hashrate, please consider that: Often you need about $1 or $2 worth of crypto to receive a payout (without fees). This means, you have to get there. With 100 MH/s on prohashing, it takes about 6 days, running 24/7 to get to that threshold. Now you can do the math... 1 MH/s = 1000 KH/s, if you are below 1 MH/s, you probably won't have fun.

Buying an ASIC

You found an old BTC USB-miner with 24 GH/s (1 GH/s = 1000 MH/s) for $80 bucks - next stop lambo!? Sorry, bad news again, this hashrate is for SHA-256! If you want to mine LTC/Doge you will need a miner using scrypt with quite lower numbers on the hashrate per second, so don't fall for that. Often when you have a big miner (= also loud), you get more Hashrate per $ spent on the miner, but most will still run on a operational loss, because the electricity is too expensive and the miners will be outdated soon again. Leading me to my next point...

Making profit

You won't make money running your miner. Just do the math: What if you would have bougth a miner 1 year ago? Substract costs for electricity and then compare to: What if you just have bought coins. In most cases you would have a greater profit by just buying coins, maybe even with a "stable" coin like Doges.

Cloud Mining

Okay, this was a lot of text and you are still on the hook? Maybe you are desperated enough to invest in some cloud mining contract... But this isn't a good idea either, because most of such contracts are scams based on a ponzi scheme. You often can spot them easy, because they guarantee way to high profits, or they fake payouts that never happened, etc.
Just a thought: If someone in a subway says to you: Give me $1 and lets meet in one year, right here and I give you $54,211,841, you wouldn't trust him and if some mining contract says they will give you 5% a day it is basically the same.
Also rember the merged mining part. Nobody would offer you to mine Doges, they would offer you to buy a hashrate for scrypt that will apply on multiple chains.

Alternative coins

Maybe try to mine a coin where you don't have ASICs yet, like Monero and exchange them to Doge. If somebody already tried this - feel free to add your thoughts!

Folding at Home (Doge)

Some people say folding at home (FAH - https://www.dogecoinfah.com/) still the best. I just installed the tool and it says I would make 69.852 points a day, running on medium power what equates to 8 Doges. It is easy, it was fun, but it isn't much.
Thanks for reading
_nformant
submitted by _nformant to dogecoin [link] [comments]

Coinbase clears up misconceptions about ASICs, ASIC-resistance and how Proof of work works in new blogpost

Edit this post and my other cross-posts here are being heavily downvote brigaded by the very aggressive and forceful monero community. In the last couple days alone I have lost more than 100 comment karma, from over 1100 to 948, to these aggressive individuals seeking to manipulate the narrative, and 'lean on me' to stop posting information they don't like. This thread itself had roughly 14-17 upvotes. Now 5-8. Proof that I'm being vote brigaded is that I have nearly 3 times the donuts in Ethtrader than I have comment and post karma, COMBINED! This is despite the fact that I rarely post there. Which shows that most people appreciate my posts, but the monero community wants to hide that and control the narrative!
If you look at my comment karma by sub breakdown, visible in this comment here, you can clearly see that if you sum up my comment karma, I should have around ~2200. In dashpay alone I have 1300 comment karma. Yet if you hover over my username, I only have 906. This is due to vote brigading and is damning proof of it.
They refuse to allow discussions to take place naturally because their coin is not very good. Its very slow, you can only spend your funds once every 20 minutes (!!!), and its privacy was severely broken in the past, Monero Privacy Protections Aren't as Strong as They Seem | WIRED , and they are using intimidation and breaking the rules of reddit by massively downvoting my posts and comments to hide this information, like bullies and thugs would do.
Guess what guys? I don't care! TAKE MY COMMENT KARMA DOWN TO 0!! THAT JUST PROVES THAT YOU'RE LOSERS WHO CAN'T ACCEPT THE TRUTH AND THEREFORE MUST RELY ON CENSORSHIP AND COERCION. I WILL NEVER STOP TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR COIN AND YOUR TOXIC COMMUNITY, SO DO YOUR WORST!
https://blog.coinbase.com/how-coinbase-views-proof-of-work-security-f4ba1a139da0
There has been a lot of discussion both in btc and the greater cryptocurrency community alike about the importance of POW and how it relates to the economic incentives that undergrid the day-to-day operation of cryptocurrency networks. I believe because so many people do not truly understand the innovation of POW that they become easily confused and fall for scams like POS and ASIC-resistance. Luckily, Coinbase has explained some of their rationale behind their decisions to accept certain coins after a certain number of blockchain confirmations.
Different cryptocurrencies add to their blockchains in different ways. In cryptocurrencies that utilize proof of work, the blockchain is extended by a process known as mining. Miners bundle newly announced transactions together into data structures called blocks, which are added to the blockchain.
A miner attempts to add a block by solving a proof of work puzzle unique to the proposed block. If the miner can find a solution to the puzzle, the miner will announce the block and its solution to the rest of the network. The rest of the network will recognize the valid proof of work solution and consider the proposed block as the most recent addition to the blockchain. Notice that there is no permission required for a miner to produce a block, a fact that allows miners to enter and leave the network at will.
Seems pretty standard, right?
Claim one: It is a security feature for a particular coin’s mining operations to be the dominant application of the hardware used to mine that coin.
This is important as we have seen for smaller coins with larger coins with the same mining hardware. As we've seen with BCH, its possible for larger coins to 'attack' coins with less hashpower, which is why the fliippening is so important for us as a community. As soon as the market prices in the fact that BCH has a superior user experience to BTC, then the miners will 'flip' their hashrate to BCH and BTC will maintain a minority position.
I contend, however, that for this to happen, we first need accurate pricing mechanisms so that when we assess how the market is responding, we are not being mislead by exchange price manipulation which I contend is very heavy currently in this thread: The REAL reason for the price decline or the anatomy of a shakedown! Exchange price manipulation is behind the recent 'decline'. If we use fair value instead to price our coins, we can see an actual, objective comparison. For example, BCH is now only $294.9 to BTC's $9,068.75 or only 3%, but how much of this is exchange manipulation? According to fair value, BCH is actually worth $528.24 while traditional BTC is only worth $6,096.09 for a ratio of ~9% which is 3 times better than exchange price would have you believe!
Owners of the hardware lose the value of their investment if the primary application of the hardware loses value.
Hardware owners are incentivized to consider the long term success of the main application of their hardware. The longer the lifetime of their equipment, the more invested they become in the long-term success of the hardware’s primary application. At time of writing, Bitcoin ASICs are beginning to have significantly longer useful lifespans as efficiency increases of newer models are diminishing.
Another thing they point out is that ASIC resistance is a fool's game:
Algorithm changes to “brick ASICs” simply allow the massive general purpose computational resources of the entire world to mine, and potentially disrupt, a cryptocurrency at will. Coins that have implemented “ASIC-resistant” algorithms have been, empirically, very susceptible to 51% attacks for this very reason. Notable examples of ASIC-resistant coins that have been successfully 51% attacked include BTG, VTC, and XVG. To date, there is not a single case where a coin that dominates its hardware class has been subject to a 51% double spend attack.
As I pointed out earlier this year in this thread, Further evidence that, despite what's detractors desperately want you to believe, fair value is accurately tracking the wealth in the market in real time! Monero's fair value decreases by 40% as miners leave network, Monero also was under a unique, far worse form of 51% attack this year that nearly completely destroyed their community. As further evidence I was correct above, only fair value accurately reflected the change in Monero's worth. The price, on the other hand, remained sky-high. This is heavy evidence of exchange price manipulation and another reason why ASIC resistance doesn't work.
By actively forcing and keeping ASICs off the network, the monero community continued building an ASIC-free ecosystem and economy based on low-hash CPU and GPUs. Which meant that when an asic was actually developed as we know they always will be that economy would be destroyed. You went from a 'large' community of solo miners on CPUs and GPUs to a single entity getting the majority of the hashrate and bankrupting the entire community. This happened wtih every coin when they moved to ASICs. The difference with Monero? Monero's move to ASICs will have been artificially delayed until the community is so large that the introduction will BANKRUPT the majority of economic participants mining! This is worse than a traditional 51% attack and it succinctly summarizes why ASIC resistance is bad idea.
The main takeway:
No algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant
For any particular computational problem, hardware specialized to solving specifically that problem will always be more efficient than general purpose hardware. In addition to the advantages of writing application-level logic directly into the circuitry, specialized hardware does not need to be burdened by other requirements of general purpose hardware, such as security isolation, clock interrupts, context switching, and other tasks required to support multiple applications. Thus, no proof-of-work algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant.
Empirically, ASIC-resistant algorithms have repeatedly failed to prevent the development of ASICs. Prominent examples include scrypt (LTC), equihash (ZEC, BTG), ethhash (ETH), and cryptonite[sic] (XMR).
So the takeaways from this are:
  1. If we want to have accurate, objective pricing information, we must use fair value to levelize the supplies between different coins, and to remove false price influences like Tether, whale movements and the fact that exchanges price all coins in BTC, which allows BTC the uncanny ability to move and negatively affect the entire market.
  2. ASIC-resistance is and always has been a fool's game. ASICs are a natural progression of cryptocurrencies that have grown sufficiently in size and popularity, and 'resisting' this move is a form of arrested development akin to 'puberty-resistance' or 'potty-training-resistance'. Its just nonsensical.
In order to make money in cryptocurrencies, we have to keep our heads on straight and not be swept away by popular opinion without good cause. ASIC-resistance is a red-herring that does nothing be destroy the value on your chain. Luckily, most communities like ZCash, Dash, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin accept and understand this basic fact. Thanks for reading!
submitted by thethrowaccount21 to ethfinance [link] [comments]

Coinbase clears up misconceptions about ASICs, ASIC-resistance and how Proof of work works in new blogpost

Edit this post and my other cross-posts here are being heavily downvote brigaded by the very aggressive and forceful monero community. In the last couple days alone I have lost more than 100 comment karma, from over 1100 to 948, to these aggressive individuals seeking to manipulate the narrative, and 'lean on me' to stop posting information they don't like.
This thread itself had roughly 8-10 upvotes. Now 0-1. If you look at my comment karma by sub breakdown, visible in this comment here, you can clearly see that if you sum up my comment karma, I should have around ~2200. Yet if you hover over my username, I only have 906. This is due to vote brigading and is damning proof of it.
They refuse to allow discussions to take place naturally because their coin is not very good. Its very slow, you can only spend your funds once every 20 minutes (!!!), and its privacy was severely broken in the past, Monero Privacy Protections Aren't as Strong as They Seem | WIRED , and they are using intimidation and breaking the rules of reddit by massively downvoting my posts and comments to hide this information, like bullies and thugs would do.
Guess what guys? I don't care! TAKE MY COMMENT KARMA DOWN TO 0!! THAT JUST PROVES THAT YOU'RE LOSERS WHO CAN'T ACCEPT THE TRUTH AND THEREFORE MUST RELY ON CENSORSHIP AND COERCION. I WILL NEVER STOP TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR COIN AND YOUR TOXIC COMMUNITY, SO DO YOUR WORST!
https://blog.coinbase.com/how-coinbase-views-proof-of-work-security-f4ba1a139da0
There has been a lot of discussion both in btc and the greater cryptocurrency community alike about the importance of POW and how it relates to the economic incentives that undergrid the day-to-day operation of cryptocurrency networks. I believe because so many people do not truly understand the innovation of POW that they become easily confused and fall for scams like POS and ASIC-resistance. Luckily, Coinbase has explained some of their rationale behind their decisions to accept certain coins after a certain number of blockchain confirmations.
Different cryptocurrencies add to their blockchains in different ways. In cryptocurrencies that utilize proof of work, the blockchain is extended by a process known as mining. Miners bundle newly announced transactions together into data structures called blocks, which are added to the blockchain.
A miner attempts to add a block by solving a proof of work puzzle unique to the proposed block. If the miner can find a solution to the puzzle, the miner will announce the block and its solution to the rest of the network. The rest of the network will recognize the valid proof of work solution and consider the proposed block as the most recent addition to the blockchain. Notice that there is no permission required for a miner to produce a block, a fact that allows miners to enter and leave the network at will.
Seems pretty standard, right?
Claim one: It is a security feature for a particular coin’s mining operations to be the dominant application of the hardware used to mine that coin.
This is important as we have seen for smaller coins with larger coins with the same mining hardware. As we've seen with BCH, its possible for larger coins to 'attack' coins with less hashpower, which is why the fliippening is so important for us as a community. As soon as the market prices in the fact that BCH has a superior user experience to BTC, then the miners will 'flip' their hashrate to BCH and BTC will maintain a minority position.
I contend, however, that for this to happen, we first need accurate pricing mechanisms so that when we assess how the market is responding, we are not being mislead by exchange price manipulation which I contend is very heavy currently in this thread: The REAL reason for the price decline or the anatomy of a shakedown! Exchange price manipulation is behind the recent 'decline'. If we use fair value instead to price our coins, we can see an actual, objective comparison. For example, BCH is now only $294.9 to BTC's $9,068.75 or only 3%, but how much of this is exchange manipulation? According to fair value, BCH is actually worth $528.24 while traditional BTC is only worth $6,096.09 for a ratio of ~9% which is 3 times better than exchange price would have you believe!
Owners of the hardware lose the value of their investment if the primary application of the hardware loses value.
Hardware owners are incentivized to consider the long term success of the main application of their hardware. The longer the lifetime of their equipment, the more invested they become in the long-term success of the hardware’s primary application. At time of writing, Bitcoin ASICs are beginning to have significantly longer useful lifespans as efficiency increases of newer models are diminishing.
Another thing they point out is that ASIC resistance is a fool's game:
Algorithm changes to “brick ASICs” simply allow the massive general purpose computational resources of the entire world to mine, and potentially disrupt, a cryptocurrency at will. Coins that have implemented “ASIC-resistant” algorithms have been, empirically, very susceptible to 51% attacks for this very reason. Notable examples of ASIC-resistant coins that have been successfully 51% attacked include BTG, VTC, and XVG. To date, there is not a single case where a coin that dominates its hardware class has been subject to a 51% double spend attack.
As I pointed out earlier this year in this thread, Further evidence that, despite what's detractors desperately want you to believe, fair value is accurately tracking the wealth in the market in real time! Monero's fair value decreases by 40% as miners leave network, Monero also was under a unique, far worse form of 51% attack this year that nearly completely destroyed their community. As further evidence I was correct above, only fair value accurately reflected the change in Monero's worth. The price, on the other hand, remained sky-high. This is heavy evidence of exchange price manipulation and another reason why ASIC resistance doesn't work.
By actively forcing and keeping ASICs off the network, the monero community continued building an ASIC-free ecosystem and economy based on low-hash CPU and GPUs. Which meant that when an asic was actually developed as we know they always will be that economy would be destroyed. You went from a 'large' community of solo miners on CPUs and GPUs to a single entity getting the majority of the hashrate and bankrupting the entire community. This happened wtih every coin when they moved to ASICs. The difference with Monero? Monero's move to ASICs will have been artificially delayed until the community is so large that the introduction will BANKRUPT the majority of economic participants mining! This is worse than a traditional 51% attack and it succinctly summarizes why ASIC resistance is bad idea.
The main takeway:
No algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant
For any particular computational problem, hardware specialized to solving specifically that problem will always be more efficient than general purpose hardware. In addition to the advantages of writing application-level logic directly into the circuitry, specialized hardware does not need to be burdened by other requirements of general purpose hardware, such as security isolation, clock interrupts, context switching, and other tasks required to support multiple applications. Thus, no proof-of-work algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant.
Empirically, ASIC-resistant algorithms have repeatedly failed to prevent the development of ASICs. Prominent examples include scrypt (LTC), equihash (ZEC, BTG), ethhash (ETH), and cryptonite[sic] (XMR).
So the takeaways from this are:
  1. If we want to have accurate, objective pricing information, we must use fair value to levelize the supplies between different coins, and to remove false price influences like Tether, whale movements and the fact that exchanges price all coins in BTC, which allows BTC the uncanny ability to move and negatively affect the entire market.
  2. ASIC-resistance is and always has been a fool's game. ASICs are a natural progression of cryptocurrencies that have grown sufficiently in size and popularity, and 'resisting' this move is a form of arrested development akin to 'puberty-resistance' or 'potty-training-resistance'. Its just nonsensical.
In order to make money in cryptocurrencies, we have to keep our heads on straight and not be swept away by popular opinion without good cause. ASIC-resistance is a red-herring that does nothing be destroy the value on your chain. Luckily, most communities like ZCash, Dash, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin accept and understand this basic fact. Thanks for reading!
submitted by thethrowaccount21 to CryptoTechnology [link] [comments]

Coinbase clears up misconceptions about ASICs, ASIC-resistance and how Proof of work works in new blogpost

Edit this post and my other cross-posts here are being heavily downvote brigaded by the very aggressive and forceful monero community. In the last couple days alone I have lost more than 100 comment karma, from over 1100 to 948, to these aggressive individuals seeking to manipulate the narrative, and 'lean on me' to stop posting information they don't like.
This thread itself had roughly 5 upvotes before. Now 0-1. If you look at my comment karma by sub breakdown, visible in this comment here, you can clearly see that if you sum up my comment karma, I should have around ~2200. In dashpay alone I have 1300 comment karma. Yet if you hover over my username, I only have 906. This is due to vote brigading and is damning proof of it.
Another proof that I'm being vote brigaded is that I have nearly 3 times more donuts (6,700) in Ethtrader than I have comment and post karma, COMBINED! 'Donuts' are like a separate karma system just for eth where you are rewarded by your participation level. This number comes about despite the fact that I rarely post here. Which shows that most people actually do appreciate my posts, but the monero community wants to hide that and control the narrative!
They refuse to allow discussions to take place naturally because their coin is not very good. Its very slow, you can only spend your funds once every 20 minutes (!!!), and its privacy was severely broken in the past, Monero Privacy Protections Aren't as Strong as They Seem | WIRED , and they are using intimidation and breaking the rules of reddit by massively downvoting my posts and comments to hide this information, like bullies and thugs would do.
Guess what guys? I don't care! TAKE MY COMMENT KARMA DOWN TO 0!! THAT JUST PROVES THAT YOU'RE LOSERS WHO CAN'T ACCEPT THE TRUTH AND THEREFORE MUST RELY ON CENSORSHIP AND COERCION. I WILL NEVER STOP TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR COIN AND YOUR TOXIC COMMUNITY, SO DO YOUR WORST!
https://blog.coinbase.com/how-coinbase-views-proof-of-work-security-f4ba1a139da0
There has been a lot of discussion both in btc and the greater cryptocurrency community alike about the importance of POW and how it relates to the economic incentives that undergrid the day-to-day operation of cryptocurrency networks. I believe because so many people do not truly understand the innovation of POW that they become easily confused and fall for scams like POS and ASIC-resistance. Luckily, Coinbase has explained some of their rationale behind their decisions to accept certain coins after a certain number of blockchain confirmations.
Different cryptocurrencies add to their blockchains in different ways. In cryptocurrencies that utilize proof of work, the blockchain is extended by a process known as mining. Miners bundle newly announced transactions together into data structures called blocks, which are added to the blockchain.
A miner attempts to add a block by solving a proof of work puzzle unique to the proposed block. If the miner can find a solution to the puzzle, the miner will announce the block and its solution to the rest of the network. The rest of the network will recognize the valid proof of work solution and consider the proposed block as the most recent addition to the blockchain. Notice that there is no permission required for a miner to produce a block, a fact that allows miners to enter and leave the network at will.
Seems pretty standard, right?
Claim one: It is a security feature for a particular coin’s mining operations to be the dominant application of the hardware used to mine that coin.
This is important as we have seen for smaller coins with larger coins with the same mining hardware. As we've seen with BCH, its possible for larger coins to 'attack' coins with less hashpower, which is why the fliippening is so important for us as a community. As soon as the market prices in the fact that BCH has a superior user experience to BTC, then the miners will 'flip' their hashrate to BCH and BTC will maintain a minority position.
I contend, however, that for this to happen, we first need accurate pricing mechanisms so that when we assess how the market is responding, we are not being mislead by exchange price manipulation which I contend is very heavy currently in this thread: The REAL reason for the price decline or the anatomy of a shakedown! Exchange price manipulation is behind the recent 'decline'. If we use fair value instead to price our coins, we can see an actual, objective comparison. For example, BCH is now only $294.9 to BTC's $9,068.75 or only 3%, but how much of this is exchange manipulation? According to fair value, BCH is actually worth $528.24 while traditional BTC is only worth $6,096.09 for a ratio of ~9% which is 3 times better than exchange price would have you believe!
Owners of the hardware lose the value of their investment if the primary application of the hardware loses value.
Hardware owners are incentivized to consider the long term success of the main application of their hardware. The longer the lifetime of their equipment, the more invested they become in the long-term success of the hardware’s primary application. At time of writing, Bitcoin ASICs are beginning to have significantly longer useful lifespans as efficiency increases of newer models are diminishing.
Another thing they point out is that ASIC resistance is a fool's game:
Algorithm changes to “brick ASICs” simply allow the massive general purpose computational resources of the entire world to mine, and potentially disrupt, a cryptocurrency at will. Coins that have implemented “ASIC-resistant” algorithms have been, empirically, very susceptible to 51% attacks for this very reason. Notable examples of ASIC-resistant coins that have been successfully 51% attacked include BTG, VTC, and XVG. To date, there is not a single case where a coin that dominates its hardware class has been subject to a 51% double spend attack.
As I pointed out earlier this year in this thread, Further evidence that, despite what's detractors desperately want you to believe, fair value is accurately tracking the wealth in the market in real time! Monero's fair value decreases by 40% as miners leave network, Monero also was under a unique, far worse form of 51% attack this year that nearly completely destroyed their community. As further evidence I was correct above, only fair value accurately reflected the change in Monero's worth. The price, on the other hand, remained sky-high. This is heavy evidence of exchange price manipulation and another reason why ASIC resistance doesn't work.
By actively forcing and keeping ASICs off the network, the monero community continued building an ASIC-free ecosystem and economy based on low-hash CPU and GPUs. Which meant that when an asic was actually developed as we know they always will be that economy would be destroyed. You went from a 'large' community of solo miners on CPUs and GPUs to a single entity getting the majority of the hashrate and bankrupting the entire community. This happened wtih every coin when they moved to ASICs. The difference with Monero? Monero's move to ASICs will have been artificially delayed until the community is so large that the introduction will BANKRUPT the majority of economic participants mining! This is worse than a traditional 51% attack and it succinctly summarizes why ASIC resistance is bad idea.
The main takeway:
No algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant
For any particular computational problem, hardware specialized to solving specifically that problem will always be more efficient than general purpose hardware. In addition to the advantages of writing application-level logic directly into the circuitry, specialized hardware does not need to be burdened by other requirements of general purpose hardware, such as security isolation, clock interrupts, context switching, and other tasks required to support multiple applications. Thus, no proof-of-work algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant.
Empirically, ASIC-resistant algorithms have repeatedly failed to prevent the development of ASICs. Prominent examples include scrypt (LTC), equihash (ZEC, BTG), ethhash (ETH), and cryptonite[sic] (XMR).
So the takeaways from this are:
  1. If we want to have accurate, objective pricing information, we must use fair value to levelize the supplies between different coins, and to remove false price influences like Tether, whale movements and the fact that exchanges price all coins in BTC, which allows BTC the uncanny ability to move and negatively affect the entire market.
  2. ASIC-resistance is and always has been a fool's game. ASICs are a natural progression of cryptocurrencies that have grown sufficiently in size and popularity, and 'resisting' this move is a form of arrested development akin to 'puberty-resistance' or 'potty-training-resistance'. Its just nonsensical.
In order to make money in cryptocurrencies, we have to keep our heads on straight and not be swept away by popular opinion without good cause. ASIC-resistance is a red-herring that does nothing be destroy the value on your chain. Luckily, most communities like ZCash, Dash, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin accept and understand this basic fact. Thanks for reading!
submitted by thethrowaccount21 to btc [link] [comments]

Vertcoin Mining AMA

What is Vertcoin?

Vertcoin was created in 2014. It is a direct hedge against long term mining consensus centralization on the Bitcoin mining network. Vertcoin achieves its mining consensus solely through Graphics Cards as they are the most abundant / widely available consensus devices that produce a reasonable amount of hashrate. This is done using a mining algorithm that deliberately geared against devices like ASICs, FPGAs and CPUs (due to botnets) making them extremely inefficient. Consensus distribution over time is the most important aspect of a blockchain and should not be taken lightly. It is critical that you understand what blockchain specifications mean/do to fully understand Vertcoin.

Mining Vertcoin

When users of our network send each other Vertcoin, their transactions are secured by a process called mining. Miners will compose a so-called block out of the pending transactions, and need to perform a large number of computations called hashes in order to produce the Proof-of-Work. With this Proof-of-Work, the block is accepted by the network and the transactions in it become confirmed.
Mining is essentially a race. Whoever finds a valid Proof-of-Work and gets the block propagated over more than half of the Vertcoin network first, wins this race and is allowed to reward themselves with the block reward. The block reward is how new Vertcoin come in circulation. This block reward started at 50 VTC when Vertcoin was launched, and halves every four years. The current block reward is 25 VTC.
Vertcoin's One Click Miner: https://github.com/vertcoin-project/One-Click-Minereleases
Learn more about mining here: https://vertcoin.org/mine/
Specification List:
· Launch date: Jan 11, 2014
· Proof-Of-Work (Consensus Mechanism)
· Total Supply: 84,000,000 Vertcoin
· Preferred Consensus Device: GPU
· Mining Algorithm: Lyra2REv3 (Made by Vertcoin)
· Blocktime: 2.5 minutes
· SegWit: Activated
· Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm: Kimoto Gravity Well (Every Block)
· Block Halving: 4 year interval
· Initial Block Reward: 50 coins
· Current Block Reward: 25 coin
More spec information can be found here: https://vertcoin.org/specs-explained/

Why Does Vertcoin Use GPUs Then?

ASIC’s (Manufactuer Monopoly)
If mining were just a spade sure, use the most powerful equipment which would be an ASIC. The problem is ASICs are not widely available, and just happen to be controlled by a monopoly in China.
So, you want the most widely available tool that produces a fair amount of hashrate, which currently manifests itself as a Graphics Card.
CPUs would be great too but unfortunately there are viruses that take over hundreds of thousands of computers called Botnets (they’re almost as bad as ASICs).

Mining In Pools

Because mining is a race, it’s difficult for an individual miner to acquire enough computational power to win this race solo. Therefore there’s a concept called pool-mining. With pool-mining, miners cooperate in finding the correct Proof-of-Work for the block, and share the block reward based on the work contributed. The amount of work contributed is measured in so-called shares. Finding the Proof-of-Work for a share is much easier than finding it for a block, and when the cooperating miners find the Proof-of-Work for the block, they distribute the reward based on the number of shares each miner found. Vertcoin always recommends using P2Pool to keep mining as decentralized as possible.
How Do I Get Started?
If you want to get started mining, check out the Mine Vertcoin page.

Vertcoin just forked to Lyra2REv3 and we are currently working on Verthash

Verthash is and was under development before we decided to hard fork to Lyra2REv3. While Verthash would’ve resulted in the same effect for ASICs (making them useless for mining Vertcoin), the timeline was incompatible with the desire to get rid of ASICs quickly. Verthash is still under development and tries to address the outsourcability problem.
Verthash is an I/O bound algorithm that uses the blockchain data as input to the hashing algorithm. It therefore requires miners to have all the blockchain data available to them, which is currently about 4 GB of data. By making this mining data mandatory, it will become harder for auto profit switching miners — like the ones that rent out their GPU to Nicehash — because they will need to keep a full node running while mining other algorithms for the moment Verthash becomes more profitable — the data needs to be available immediately since updating it can take a while.
Over the past month, we have successfully developed a first implementation of Verthash in the Vertcoin Core code base. Within the development team we have run a few nodes on Testnet to test the functionality — and everything seems to work properly. The next step is to build out the GPU miners for AMD and Nvidia. This is a NOETA at the moment, since we’re waiting on GPU developers which are in high demand. Once the miners are ready, we’ll be releasing the Vertcoin 0.15 beta that hardforks the testnet together with the miners for the community to have a testrun. Given the structural difference between Lyra2RE and Verthash, we’ll have to run the testnet for a longer period than we did with the Lyra2REv3 hard fork. We’ll have to make sure the system is reliable before hardforking our mainnet. So the timeline will be longer than with the Lyra2REv3 hard fork.
Some people in the community have voiced concerns about the fact that Verthash development is not being done “out in the open”, i.e.: the code commits are not visible on Github. The main two reasons for us to keep our cards to our chest at this stage are: (1) only when the entire system including miners has been coded up can we be sure the system works, we don’t want to release preliminary stuff that doesn’t work or isn’t secure. Also (2) we don’t want to give hardware manufacturers or mining outsourcing platforms a head start on trying to defeat the mechanisms we’ve put in place.

Links and Resources

· Twitter: https://twitter.com/Vertcoin
· Donations: vertcoin.org/donate
· Join our Discord: https://discord.gg/vertcoin
· Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/vertcoin/
· Official Website: https://vertcoin.org/
· Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/vertcoin
· Vertcoin Talk: https://soundcloud.com/vertcoin-talk
· Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/vertcoin
submitted by Canen01 to gpumining [link] [comments]

Coinbase clears up misconceptions about ASICs, ASIC-resistance and how Proof of work works in new blogpost

Edit this post and my other cross-posts here are being heavily downvote brigaded by the very aggressive and forceful monero community. In the last couple days alone I have lost more than 100 comment karma, from over 1100 to 948, to these aggressive individuals seeking to manipulate the narrative, and 'lean on me' to stop posting information they don't like.
If you look at my comment karma by sub breakdown, visible in this comment here, you can clearly see that if you sum up my comment karma, I should have around ~2200. In dashpay alone I have 1300 comment karma. Yet if you hover over my username, I only have 906. This is due to vote brigading and is damning proof of it.
https://blog.coinbase.com/how-coinbase-views-proof-of-work-security-f4ba1a139da0
There has been a lot of discussion both in btc and the greater cryptocurrency community alike about the importance of POW and how it relates to the economic incentives that undergrid the day-to-day operation of cryptocurrency networks. I believe because so many people do not truly understand the innovation of POW that they become easily confused and fall for scams like POS and ASIC-resistance. Luckily, Coinbase has explained some of their rationale behind their decisions to accept certain coins after a certain number of blockchain confirmations.
Different cryptocurrencies add to their blockchains in different ways. In cryptocurrencies that utilize proof of work, the blockchain is extended by a process known as mining. Miners bundle newly announced transactions together into data structures called blocks, which are added to the blockchain.
A miner attempts to add a block by solving a proof of work puzzle unique to the proposed block. If the miner can find a solution to the puzzle, the miner will announce the block and its solution to the rest of the network. The rest of the network will recognize the valid proof of work solution and consider the proposed block as the most recent addition to the blockchain. Notice that there is no permission required for a miner to produce a block, a fact that allows miners to enter and leave the network at will.
Seems pretty standard, right?
Claim one: It is a security feature for a particular coin’s mining operations to be the dominant application of the hardware used to mine that coin.
This is important as we have seen for smaller coins with larger coins with the same mining hardware. As we've seen with BCH, its possible for larger coins to 'attack' coins with less hashpower, which is why the fliippening is so important for us as a community. As soon as the market prices in the fact that BCH has a superior user experience to BTC, then the miners will 'flip' their hashrate to BCH and BTC will maintain a minority position.
I contend, however, that for this to happen, we first need accurate pricing mechanisms so that when we assess how the market is responding, we are not being mislead by exchange price manipulation which I contend is very heavy currently in this thread: The REAL reason for the price decline or the anatomy of a shakedown! Exchange price manipulation is behind the recent 'decline'. If we use fair value instead to price our coins, we can see an actual, objective comparison. For example, BCH is now only $294.9 to BTC's $9,068.75 or only 3%, but how much of this is exchange manipulation? According to fair value, BCH is actually worth $528.24 while traditional BTC is only worth $6,096.09 for a ratio of ~9% which is 3 times better than exchange price would have you believe!
Owners of the hardware lose the value of their investment if the primary application of the hardware loses value.
Hardware owners are incentivized to consider the long term success of the main application of their hardware. The longer the lifetime of their equipment, the more invested they become in the long-term success of the hardware’s primary application. At time of writing, Bitcoin ASICs are beginning to have significantly longer useful lifespans as efficiency increases of newer models are diminishing.
Another thing they point out is that ASIC resistance is a fool's game:
Algorithm changes to “brick ASICs” simply allow the massive general purpose computational resources of the entire world to mine, and potentially disrupt, a cryptocurrency at will. Coins that have implemented “ASIC-resistant” algorithms have been, empirically, very susceptible to 51% attacks for this very reason. Notable examples of ASIC-resistant coins that have been successfully 51% attacked include BTG, VTC, and XVG. To date, there is not a single case where a coin that dominates its hardware class has been subject to a 51% double spend attack.
As I pointed out earlier this year in this thread, Further evidence that, despite what's detractors desperately want you to believe, fair value is accurately tracking the wealth in the market in real time! Monero's fair value decreases by 40% as miners leave network, Monero also was under a unique, far worse form of 51% attack this year that nearly completely destroyed their community. As further evidence I was correct above, only fair value accurately reflected the change in Monero's worth. The price, on the other hand, remained sky-high. This is heavy evidence of exchange price manipulation and another reason why ASIC resistance doesn't work.
By actively forcing and keeping ASICs off the network, the monero community continued building an ASIC-free ecosystem and economy based on low-hash CPU and GPUs. Which meant that when an asic was actually developed as we know they always will be that economy would be destroyed. You went from a 'large' community of solo miners on CPUs and GPUs to a single entity getting the majority of the hashrate and bankrupting the entire community. This happened wtih every coin when they moved to ASICs. The difference with Monero? Monero's move to ASICs will have been artificially delayed until the community is so large that the introduction will BANKRUPT the majority of economic participants mining! This is worse than a traditional 51% attack and it succinctly summarizes why ASIC resistance is bad idea.
The main takeway:
No algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant
For any particular computational problem, hardware specialized to solving specifically that problem will always be more efficient than general purpose hardware. In addition to the advantages of writing application-level logic directly into the circuitry, specialized hardware does not need to be burdened by other requirements of general purpose hardware, such as security isolation, clock interrupts, context switching, and other tasks required to support multiple applications. Thus, no proof-of-work algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant.
Empirically, ASIC-resistant algorithms have repeatedly failed to prevent the development of ASICs. Prominent examples include scrypt (LTC), equihash (ZEC, BTG), ethhash (ETH), and cryptonite[sic] (XMR).
So the takeaways from this are:
  1. If we want to have accurate, objective pricing information, we must use fair value to levelize the supplies between different coins, and to remove false price influences like Tether, whale movements and the fact that exchanges price all coins in BTC, which allows BTC the uncanny ability to move and negatively affect the entire market.
  2. ASIC-resistance is and always has been a fool's game. ASICs are a natural progression of cryptocurrencies that have grown sufficiently in size and popularity, and 'resisting' this move is a form of arrested development akin to 'puberty-resistance' or 'potty-training-resistance'. Its just nonsensical.
In order to make money in cryptocurrencies, we have to keep our heads on straight and not be swept away by popular opinion without good cause. ASIC-resistance is a red-herring that does nothing be destroy the value on your chain. Luckily, most communities like ZCash, Dash, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin accept and understand this basic fact. Thanks for reading!
submitted by thethrowaccount21 to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

Coinbase clears up misconceptions about ASICs, ASIC-resistance and how Proof of work works in new blogpost

Edit this post and my other cross-posts here are being heavily downvote brigaded by the very aggressive and forceful monero community. In the last couple days alone I have lost more than 100 comment karma, from over 1100 to 948, to these aggressive individuals seeking to manipulate the narrative, and 'lean on me' to stop posting information they don't like. This thread itself had roughly 8-10 upvotes. Now 3-5.
Further proof that I'm being vote brigaded is that I have nearly 3 times the donuts in Ethtrader than I have comment and post karma, COMBINED! This is despite the fact that I rarely post there. Which shows that most people appreciate my posts, but the monero community wants to hide that and control the narrative!
If you look at my comment karma by sub breakdown, visible in this comment here, you can clearly see that if you sum up my comment karma, I should have around ~2200. In dashpay alone I have 1300 comment karma. Yet if you hover over my username, I only have 906. This is due to vote brigading and is damning proof of it.
They refuse to allow discussions to take place naturally because their coin is not very good. Its very slow, you can only spend your funds once every 20 minutes (!!!), and its privacy was severely broken in the past, Monero Privacy Protections Aren't as Strong as They Seem | WIRED , and they are using intimidation and breaking the rules of reddit by massively downvoting my posts and comments to hide this information, like bullies and thugs would do.
Guess what guys? I don't care! TAKE MY COMMENT KARMA DOWN TO 0!! THAT JUST PROVES THAT YOU'RE LOSERS WHO CAN'T ACCEPT THE TRUTH AND THEREFORE MUST RELY ON CENSORSHIP AND COERCION. I WILL NEVER STOP TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR COIN AND YOUR TOXIC COMMUNITY, SO DO YOUR WORST!
https://blog.coinbase.com/how-coinbase-views-proof-of-work-security-f4ba1a139da0
There has been a lot of discussion both in btc and the greater cryptocurrency community alike about the importance of POW and how it relates to the economic incentives that undergrid the day-to-day operation of cryptocurrency networks. I believe because so many people do not truly understand the innovation of POW that they become easily confused and fall for scams like POS and ASIC-resistance. Luckily, Coinbase has explained some of their rationale behind their decisions to accept certain coins after a certain number of blockchain confirmations.
Different cryptocurrencies add to their blockchains in different ways. In cryptocurrencies that utilize proof of work, the blockchain is extended by a process known as mining. Miners bundle newly announced transactions together into data structures called blocks, which are added to the blockchain.
A miner attempts to add a block by solving a proof of work puzzle unique to the proposed block. If the miner can find a solution to the puzzle, the miner will announce the block and its solution to the rest of the network. The rest of the network will recognize the valid proof of work solution and consider the proposed block as the most recent addition to the blockchain. Notice that there is no permission required for a miner to produce a block, a fact that allows miners to enter and leave the network at will.
Seems pretty standard, right?
Claim one: It is a security feature for a particular coin’s mining operations to be the dominant application of the hardware used to mine that coin.
This is important as we have seen for smaller coins with larger coins with the same mining hardware. As we've seen with BCH, its possible for larger coins to 'attack' coins with less hashpower, which is why the fliippening is so important for us as a community. As soon as the market prices in the fact that BCH has a superior user experience to BTC, then the miners will 'flip' their hashrate to BCH and BTC will maintain a minority position.
I contend, however, that for this to happen, we first need accurate pricing mechanisms so that when we assess how the market is responding, we are not being mislead by exchange price manipulation which I contend is very heavy currently in this thread: The REAL reason for the price decline or the anatomy of a shakedown! Exchange price manipulation is behind the recent 'decline'. If we use fair value instead to price our coins, we can see an actual, objective comparison. For example, BCH is now only $294.9 to BTC's $9,068.75 or only 3%, but how much of this is exchange manipulation? According to fair value, BCH is actually worth $528.24 while traditional BTC is only worth $6,096.09 for a ratio of ~9% which is 3 times better than exchange price would have you believe!
Owners of the hardware lose the value of their investment if the primary application of the hardware loses value.
Hardware owners are incentivized to consider the long term success of the main application of their hardware. The longer the lifetime of their equipment, the more invested they become in the long-term success of the hardware’s primary application. At time of writing, Bitcoin ASICs are beginning to have significantly longer useful lifespans as efficiency increases of newer models are diminishing.
Another thing they point out is that ASIC resistance is a fool's game:
Algorithm changes to “brick ASICs” simply allow the massive general purpose computational resources of the entire world to mine, and potentially disrupt, a cryptocurrency at will. Coins that have implemented “ASIC-resistant” algorithms have been, empirically, very susceptible to 51% attacks for this very reason. Notable examples of ASIC-resistant coins that have been successfully 51% attacked include BTG, VTC, and XVG. To date, there is not a single case where a coin that dominates its hardware class has been subject to a 51% double spend attack.
As I pointed out earlier this year in this thread, Further evidence that, despite what's detractors desperately want you to believe, fair value is accurately tracking the wealth in the market in real time! Monero's fair value decreases by 40% as miners leave network, Monero also was under a unique, far worse form of 51% attack this year that nearly completely destroyed their community. As further evidence I was correct above, only fair value accurately reflected the change in Monero's worth. The price, on the other hand, remained sky-high. This is heavy evidence of exchange price manipulation and another reason why ASIC resistance doesn't work.
By actively forcing and keeping ASICs off the network, the monero community continued building an ASIC-free ecosystem and economy based on low-hash CPU and GPUs. Which meant that when an asic was actually developed as we know they always will be that economy would be destroyed. You went from a 'large' community of solo miners on CPUs and GPUs to a single entity getting the majority of the hashrate and bankrupting the entire community. This happened wtih every coin when they moved to ASICs. The difference with Monero? Monero's move to ASICs will have been artificially delayed until the community is so large that the introduction will BANKRUPT the majority of economic participants mining! This is worse than a traditional 51% attack and it succinctly summarizes why ASIC resistance is bad idea.
The main takeway:
No algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant
For any particular computational problem, hardware specialized to solving specifically that problem will always be more efficient than general purpose hardware. In addition to the advantages of writing application-level logic directly into the circuitry, specialized hardware does not need to be burdened by other requirements of general purpose hardware, such as security isolation, clock interrupts, context switching, and other tasks required to support multiple applications. Thus, no proof-of-work algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant.
Empirically, ASIC-resistant algorithms have repeatedly failed to prevent the development of ASICs. Prominent examples include scrypt (LTC), equihash (ZEC, BTG), ethhash (ETH), and cryptonite[sic] (XMR).
So the takeaways from this are:
  1. If we want to have accurate, objective pricing information, we must use fair value to levelize the supplies between different coins, and to remove false price influences like Tether, whale movements and the fact that exchanges price all coins in BTC, which allows BTC the uncanny ability to move and negatively affect the entire market.
  2. ASIC-resistance is and always has been a fool's game. ASICs are a natural progression of cryptocurrencies that have grown sufficiently in size and popularity, and 'resisting' this move is a form of arrested development akin to 'puberty-resistance' or 'potty-training-resistance'. Its just nonsensical.
In order to make money in cryptocurrencies, we have to keep our heads on straight and not be swept away by popular opinion without good cause. ASIC-resistance is a red-herring that does nothing be destroy the value on your chain. Luckily, most communities like ZCash, Dash, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin accept and understand this basic fact. Thanks for reading!
submitted by thethrowaccount21 to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Coinbase clears up misconceptions about ASICs, ASIC-resistance and how Proof of work works in new blogpost

Edit this post and my other cross-posts here are being heavily downvote brigaded by the very aggressive and forceful monero community. In the last couple days alone I have lost more than 100 comment karma, from over 1100 to 948, to these aggressive individuals seeking to manipulate the narrative, and 'lean on me' to stop posting information they don't like.
Proof that I'm being vote brigaded is that I have nearly 3 times more donuts in Ethtrader than I have comment and post karma, COMBINED! This is despite the fact that I rarely post here. Which shows that most people actually do appreciate my posts, but the monero community wants to hide that and control the narrative!
This thread itself had roughly 10-12 upvotes before. Now 2-4. If you look at my comment karma by sub breakdown, visible in this comment here, you can clearly see that if you sum up my comment karma, I should have around ~2200. In dashpay alone I have 1300 comment karma. Yet if you hover over my username, I only have 906. This is due to vote brigading and is damning proof of it.
https://blog.coinbase.com/how-coinbase-views-proof-of-work-security-f4ba1a139da0
There has been a lot of discussion both in btc and the greater cryptocurrency community alike about the importance of POW and how it relates to the economic incentives that undergrid the day-to-day operation of cryptocurrency networks. I believe because so many people do not truly understand the innovation of POW that they become easily confused and fall for scams like POS and ASIC-resistance. Luckily, Coinbase has explained some of their rationale behind their decisions to accept certain coins after a certain number of blockchain confirmations.
Different cryptocurrencies add to their blockchains in different ways. In cryptocurrencies that utilize proof of work, the blockchain is extended by a process known as mining. Miners bundle newly announced transactions together into data structures called blocks, which are added to the blockchain.
A miner attempts to add a block by solving a proof of work puzzle unique to the proposed block. If the miner can find a solution to the puzzle, the miner will announce the block and its solution to the rest of the network. The rest of the network will recognize the valid proof of work solution and consider the proposed block as the most recent addition to the blockchain. Notice that there is no permission required for a miner to produce a block, a fact that allows miners to enter and leave the network at will.
Seems pretty standard, right?
Claim one: It is a security feature for a particular coin’s mining operations to be the dominant application of the hardware used to mine that coin.
This is important as we have seen for smaller coins with larger coins with the same mining hardware. As we've seen with BCH, its possible for larger coins to 'attack' coins with less hashpower, which is why the fliippening is so important for us as a community. As soon as the market prices in the fact that BCH has a superior user experience to BTC, then the miners will 'flip' their hashrate to BCH and BTC will maintain a minority position.
I contend, however, that for this to happen, we first need accurate pricing mechanisms so that when we assess how the market is responding, we are not being mislead by exchange price manipulation which I contend is very heavy currently in this thread: The REAL reason for the price decline or the anatomy of a shakedown! Exchange price manipulation is behind the recent 'decline'. If we use fair value instead to price our coins, we can see an actual, objective comparison. For example, BCH is now only $294.9 to BTC's $9,068.75 or only 3%, but how much of this is exchange manipulation? According to fair value, BCH is actually worth $528.24 while traditional BTC is only worth $6,096.09 for a ratio of ~9% which is 3 times better than exchange price would have you believe!
Owners of the hardware lose the value of their investment if the primary application of the hardware loses value.
Hardware owners are incentivized to consider the long term success of the main application of their hardware. The longer the lifetime of their equipment, the more invested they become in the long-term success of the hardware’s primary application. At time of writing, Bitcoin ASICs are beginning to have significantly longer useful lifespans as efficiency increases of newer models are diminishing.
Another thing they point out is that ASIC resistance is a fool's game:
Algorithm changes to “brick ASICs” simply allow the massive general purpose computational resources of the entire world to mine, and potentially disrupt, a cryptocurrency at will. Coins that have implemented “ASIC-resistant” algorithms have been, empirically, very susceptible to 51% attacks for this very reason. Notable examples of ASIC-resistant coins that have been successfully 51% attacked include BTG, VTC, and XVG. To date, there is not a single case where a coin that dominates its hardware class has been subject to a 51% double spend attack.
As I pointed out earlier this year in this thread, Further evidence that, despite what's detractors desperately want you to believe, fair value is accurately tracking the wealth in the market in real time! Monero's fair value decreases by 40% as miners leave network, Monero also was under a unique, far worse form of 51% attack this year that nearly completely destroyed their community. As further evidence I was correct above, only fair value accurately reflected the change in Monero's worth. The price, on the other hand, remained sky-high. This is heavy evidence of exchange price manipulation and another reason why ASIC resistance doesn't work.
By actively forcing and keeping ASICs off the network, the monero community continued building an ASIC-free ecosystem and economy based on low-hash CPU and GPUs. Which meant that when an asic was actually developed as we know they always will be that economy would be destroyed. You went from a 'large' community of solo miners on CPUs and GPUs to a single entity getting the majority of the hashrate and bankrupting the entire community. This happened wtih every coin when they moved to ASICs. The difference with Monero? Monero's move to ASICs will have been artificially delayed until the community is so large that the introduction will BANKRUPT the majority of economic participants mining! This is worse than a traditional 51% attack and it succinctly summarizes why ASIC resistance is bad idea.
The main takeway:
No algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant
For any particular computational problem, hardware specialized to solving specifically that problem will always be more efficient than general purpose hardware. In addition to the advantages of writing application-level logic directly into the circuitry, specialized hardware does not need to be burdened by other requirements of general purpose hardware, such as security isolation, clock interrupts, context switching, and other tasks required to support multiple applications. Thus, no proof-of-work algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant.
Empirically, ASIC-resistant algorithms have repeatedly failed to prevent the development of ASICs. Prominent examples include scrypt (LTC), equihash (ZEC, BTG), ethhash (ETH), and cryptonite[sic] (XMR).
So the takeaways from this are:
  1. If we want to have accurate, objective pricing information, we must use fair value to levelize the supplies between different coins, and to remove false price influences like Tether, whale movements and the fact that exchanges price all coins in BTC, which allows BTC the uncanny ability to move and negatively affect the entire market.
  2. ASIC-resistance is and always has been a fool's game. ASICs are a natural progression of cryptocurrencies that have grown sufficiently in size and popularity, and 'resisting' this move is a form of arrested development akin to 'puberty-resistance' or 'potty-training-resistance'. Its just nonsensical.
In order to make money in cryptocurrencies, we have to keep our heads on straight and not be swept away by popular opinion without good cause. ASIC-resistance is a red-herring that does nothing be destroy the value on your chain. Luckily, most communities like ZCash, Dash, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin accept and understand this basic fact. Thanks for reading!
submitted by thethrowaccount21 to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Searching for the Unicorn Cryptocurrency

Searching for the Unicorn Cryptocurrency
For someone first starting out as a cryptocurrency investor, finding a trustworthy manual for screening a cryptocurrency’s merits is nonexistent as we are still in the early, Wild West days of the cryptocurrency market. One would need to become deeply familiar with the inner workings of blockchain to be able to perform the bare minimum due diligence.
One might believe, over time, that finding the perfect cryptocurrency may be nothing short of futile. If a cryptocurrency purports infinite scalability, then it is probably either lightweight with limited features or it is highly centralized among a limited number of nodes that perform consensus services especially Proof of Stake or Delegated Proof of Stake. Similarly, a cryptocurrency that purports comprehensive privacy may have technical obstacles to overcome if it aims to expand its applications such as in smart contracts. The bottom line is that it is extremely difficult for a cryptocurrency to have all important features jam-packed into itself.
The cryptocurrency space is stuck in the era of the “dial-up internet” in a manner of speaking. Currently blockchain can’t scale – not without certain tradeoffs – and it hasn’t fully resolved certain intractable issues such as user-unfriendly long addresses and how the blockchain size is forever increasing to name two.
In other words, we haven’t found the ultimate cryptocurrency. That is, we haven’t found the mystical unicorn cryptocurrency that ushers the era of decentralization while eschewing all the limitations of traditional blockchain systems.
“But wait – what about Ethereum once it implements sharding?”
“Wouldn’t IOTA be able to scale infinitely with smart contracts through its Qubic offering?”
“Isn’t Dash capable of having privacy, smart contracts, and instantaneous transactions?”
Those thoughts and comments may come from cryptocurrency investors who have done their research. It is natural for the informed investors to invest in projects that are believed to bring cutting edge technological transformation to blockchain. Sooner or later, the sinking realization will hit that any variation of the current blockchain technology will always likely have certain limitations.
Let us pretend that there indeed exists a unicorn cryptocurrency somewhere that may or may not be here yet. What would it look like, exactly? Let us set the 5 criteria of the unicorn cryptocurrency:
Unicorn Criteria
(1) Perfectly solves the blockchain trilemma:
o Infinite scalability
o Full security
o Full decentralization
(2) Zero or minimal transaction fee
(3) Full privacy
(4) Full smart contract capabilities
(5) Fair distribution and fair governance
For each of the above 5 criteria, there would not be any middle ground. For example, a cryptocurrency with just an in-protocol mixer would not be considered as having full privacy. As another example, an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) may possibly violate criterion (5) since with an ICO the distribution and governance are often heavily favored towards an oligarchy – this in turn would defy the spirit of decentralization that Bitcoin was found on.
There is no cryptocurrency currently that fits the above profile of the unicorn cryptocurrency. Let us examine an arbitrary list of highly hyped cryptocurrencies that meet the above list at least partially. The following list is by no means comprehensive but may be a sufficient sampling of various blockchain implementations:
Bitcoin (BTC)
Bitcoin is the very first and the best known cryptocurrency that started it all. While Bitcoin is generally considered extremely secure, it suffers from mining centralization to a degree. Bitcoin is not anonymous, lacks smart contracts, and most worrisomely, can only do about 7 transactions per seconds (TPS). Bitcoin is not the unicorn notwithstanding all the Bitcoin maximalists.
Ethereum (ETH)
Ethereum is widely considered the gold standard of smart contracts aside from its scalability problem. Sharding as part of Casper’s release is generally considered to be the solution to Ethereum’s scalability problem.
The goal of sharding is to split up validating responsibilities among various groups or shards. Ethereum’s sharding comes down to duplicating the existing blockchain architecture and sharing a token. This does not solve the core issue and simply kicks the can further down the road. After all, full nodes still need to exist one way or another.
Ethereum’s blockchain size problem is also an issue as will be explained more later in this article.
As a result, Ethereum is not the unicorn due to its incomplete approach to scalability and, to a degree, security.
Dash
Dash’s masternodes are widely considered to be centralized due to their high funding requirements, and there are accounts of a pre-mine in the beginning. Dash is not the unicorn due to its questionable decentralization.
Nano
Nano boasts rightfully for its instant, free transactions. But it lacks smart contracts and privacy, and it may be exposed to well orchestrated DDOS attacks. Therefore, it goes without saying that Nano is not the unicorn.
EOS
While EOS claims to execute millions of transactions per seconds, a quick glance reveals centralized parameters with 21 nodes and a questionable governance system. Therefore, EOS fails to achieve the unicorn status.
Monero (XMR)
One of the best known and respected privacy coins, Monero lacks smart contracts and may fall short of infinite scalability due to CryptoNote’s design. The unicorn rank is out of Monero’s reach.
IOTA
IOTA’s scalability is based on the number of transactions the network processes, and so its supposedly infinite scalability would fluctuate and is subject to the whims of the underlying transactions. While IOTA’s scalability approach is innovative and may work in the long term, it should be reminded that the unicorn cryptocurrency has no middle ground. The unicorn cryptocurrency would be expected to scale infinitely on a consistent basis from the beginning.
In addition, IOTA’s Masked Authenticated Messaging (MAM) feature does not bring privacy to the masses in a highly convenient manner. Consequently, the unicorn is not found with IOTA.

PascalCoin as a Candidate for the Unicorn Cryptocurrency
Please allow me to present a candidate for the cryptocurrency unicorn: PascalCoin.
According to the website, PascalCoin claims the following:
“PascalCoin is an instant, zero-fee, infinitely scalable, and decentralized cryptocurrency with advanced privacy and smart contract capabilities. Enabled by the SafeBox technology to become the world’s first blockchain independent of historical operations, PascalCoin possesses unlimited potential.”
The above summary is a mouthful to be sure, but let’s take a deep dive on how PascalCoin innovates with the SafeBox and more. Before we do this, I encourage you to first become acquainted with PascalCoin by watching the following video introduction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=F25UU-0W9Dk
The rest of this section will be split into 10 parts in order to illustrate most of the notable features of PascalCoin. Naturally, let’s start off with the SafeBox.
Part #1: The SafeBox
Unlike traditional UTXO-based cryptocurrencies in which the blockchain records the specifics of each transaction (address, sender address, amount of funds transferred, etc.), the blockchain in PascalCoin is only used to mutate the SafeBox. The SafeBox is a separate but equivalent cryptographic data structure that snapshots account balances. PascalCoin’s blockchain is comparable to a machine that feeds the most important data – namely, the state of an account – into the SafeBox. Any node can still independently compute and verify the cumulative Proof-of-Work required to construct the SafeBox.
The PascalCoin whitepaper elegantly highlights the unique historical independence that the SafeBox possesses:
“While there are approaches that cryptocurrencies could use such as pruning, warp-sync, "finality checkpoints", UTXO-snapshotting, etc, there is a fundamental difference with PascalCoin. Their new nodes can only prove they are on most-work-chain using the infinite history whereas in PascalCoin, new nodes can prove they are on the most-work chain without the infinite history.”
Some cryptocurrency old-timers might instinctively balk at the idea of full nodes eschewing the entire history for security, but such a reaction would showcase a lack of understanding on what the SafeBox really does.
A concrete example would go a long way to best illustrate what the SafeBox does. Let’s say I input the following operations in my calculator:
5 * 5 – 10 / 2 + 5
It does not take a genius to calculate the answer, 25. Now, the expression “5 \ 5 – 10 / 2 + 5”* would be forever imbued on a traditional blockchain’s history. But the SafeBox begs to differ. It says that the expression “5 \ 5 – 10 / 2 + 5”* should instead be simply “25” so as preserve simplicity, time, and space. In other words, the SafeBox simply preserves the account balance.
But some might still be unsatisfied and claim that if one cannot trace the series of operations (transactions) that lead to the final number (balance) of 25, the blockchain is inherently insecure.
Here are four important security aspects of the SafeBox that some people fail to realize:
(1) SafeBox Follows the Longest Chain of Proof-of-Work
The SafeBox mutates itself per 100 blocks. Each new SafeBox mutation must reference both to the previous SafeBox mutation and the preceding 100 blocks in order to be valid, and the resultant hash of the new mutated SafeBox must then be referenced by each of the new subsequent blocks, and the process repeats itself forever.
The fact that each new SafeBox mutation must reference to the previous SafeBox mutation is comparable to relying on the entire history. This is because the previous SafeBox mutation encapsulates the result of cumulative entire history except for the 100 blocks which is why each new SafeBox mutation requires both the previous SafeBox mutation and the preceding 100 blocks.
So in a sense, there is a single interconnected chain of inflows and outflows, supported by Byzantine Proof-of-Work consensus, instead of the entire history of transactions.
More concretely, the SafeBox follows the path of the longest chain of Proof-of-Work simply by design, and is thus cryptographically equivalent to the entire history even without tracing specific operations in the past. If the chain is rolled back with a 51% attack, only the attacker’s own account(s) in the SafeBox can be manipulated as is explained in the next part.
(2) A 51% Attack on PascalCoin Functions the Same as Others
A 51% attack on PascalCoin would work in a similar way as with other Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies. An attacker cannot modify a transaction in the past without affecting the current SafeBox hash which is accepted by all honest nodes.
Someone might claim that if you roll back all the current blocks plus the 100 blocks prior to the SafeBox’s mutation, one could create a forged SafeBox with different balances for all accounts. This would be incorrect as one would be able to manipulate only his or her own account(s) in the SafeBox with a 51% attack – just as is the case with other UTXO cryptocurrencies. The SafeBox stores the balances of all accounts which are in turn irreversibly linked only to their respective owners’ private keys.
(3) One Could Preserve the Entire History of the PascalCoin Blockchain
No blockchain data in PascalCoin is ever deleted even in the presence of the SafeBox. Since the SafeBox is cryptographically equivalent to a full node with the entire history as explained above, PascalCoin full nodes are not expected to contain infinite history. But for whatever reason(s) one may have, one could still keep all the PascalCoin blockchain history as well along with the SafeBox as an option even though it would be redundant.
Without storing the entire history of the PascalCoin blockchain, you can still trace the specific operations of the 100 blocks prior to when the SafeBox absorbs and reflects the net result (a single balance for each account) from those 100 blocks. But if you’re interested in tracing operations over a longer period in the past – as redundant as that may be – you’d have the option to do so by storing the entire history of the PascalCoin blockchain.
(4) The SafeBox is Equivalent to the Entire Blockchain History
Some skeptics may ask this question: “What if the SafeBox is forever lost? How would you be able to verify your accounts?” Asking this question is tantamount to asking to what would happen to Bitcoin if all of its entire history was erased. The result would be chaos, of course, but the SafeBox is still in line with the general security model of a traditional blockchain with respect to black swans.
Now that we know the security of the SafeBox is not compromised, what are the implications of this new blockchain paradigm? A colorful illustration as follows still wouldn’t do justice to the subtle revolution that the SafeBox ushers. The automobiles we see on the street are the cookie-and-butter representation of traditional blockchain systems. The SafeBox, on the other hand, supercharges those traditional cars to become the Transformers from Michael Bay’s films.
The SafeBox is an entirely different blockchain architecture that is impressive in its simplicity and ingenuity. The SafeBox’s design is only the opening act for PascalCoin’s vast nuclear arsenal. If the above was all that PascalCoin offers, it still wouldn’t come close to achieving the unicorn status but luckily, we have just scratched the surface. Please keep on reading on if you want to learn how PascalCoin is going to shatter the cryptocurrency industry into pieces. Buckle down as this is going to be a long read as we explore further about the SafeBox’s implications.
Part #2: 0-Confirmation Transactions
To begin, 0-confirmation transactions are secure in PascalCoin thanks to the SafeBox.
The following paraphrases an explanation of PascalCoin’s 0-confirmations from the whitepaper:
“Since PascalCoin is not a UTXO-based currency but rather a State-based currency thanks to the SafeBox, the security guarantee of 0-confirmation transactions are much stronger than in UTXO-based currencies. For example, in Bitcoin if a merchant accepts a 0-confirmation transaction for a coffee, the buyer can simply roll that transaction back after receiving the coffee but before the transaction is confirmed in a block. The way the buyer does this is by re-spending those UTXOs to himself in a new transaction (with a higher fee) thus invalidating them for the merchant. In PascalCoin, this is virtually impossible since the buyer's transaction to the merchant is simply a delta-operation to debit/credit a quantity from/to accounts respectively. The buyer is unable to erase or pre-empt this two-sided, debit/credit-based transaction from the network’s pending pool until it either enters a block for confirmation or is discarded with respect to both sender and receiver ends. If the buyer tries to double-spend the coffee funds after receiving the coffee but before they clear, the double-spend transaction will not propagate the network since nodes cannot propagate a double-spending transaction thanks to the debit/credit nature of the transaction. A UTXO-based transaction is initially one-sided before confirmation and therefore is more exposed to one-sided malicious schemes of double spending.”
Phew, that explanation was technical but it had to be done. In summary, PascalCoin possesses the only secure 0-confirmation transactions in the cryptocurrency industry, and it goes without saying that this means PascalCoin is extremely fast. In fact, PascalCoin is capable of 72,000 TPS even prior to any additional extensive optimizations down the road. In other words, PascalCoin is as instant as it gets and gives Nano a run for its money.
Part #3: Zero Fee
Let’s circle back to our discussion of PascalCoin’s 0-confirmation capability. Here’s a little fun magical twist to PascalCoin’s 0-confirmation magic: 0-confirmation transactions are zero-fee. As in you don’t pay a single cent in fee for each 0-confirmation! There is just a tiny downside: if you create a second transaction in a 5-minute block window then you’d need to pay a minimal fee. Imagine using Nano but with a significantly stronger anti-DDOS protection for spam! But there shouldn’t be any complaint as this fee would amount to 0.0001 Pascal or $0.00002 based on the current price of a Pascal at the time of this writing.
So, how come the fee for blazingly fast transactions is nonexistent? This is where the magic of the SafeBox arises in three ways:
(1) PascalCoin possesses the secure 0-confirmation feature as discussed above that enables this speed.
(2) There is no fee bidding competition of transaction priority typical in UTXO cryptocurrencies since, once again, PascalCoin operates on secure 0-confirmations.
(3) There is no fee incentive needed to run full nodes on behalf of the network’s security beyond the consensus rewards.
Part #4: Blockchain Size
Let’s expand more on the third point above, using Ethereum as an example. Since Ethereum’s launch in 2015, its full blockchain size is currently around 2 TB, give or take, but let’s just say its blockchain size is 100 GB for now to avoid offending the Ethereum elitists who insist there are different types of full nodes that are lighter. Whoever runs Ethereum’s full nodes would expect storage fees on top of the typical consensus fees as it takes significant resources to shoulder Ethereum’s full blockchain size and in turn secure the network. What if I told you that PascalCoin’s full blockchain size will never exceed few GBs after thousands of years? That is just what the SafeBox enables PascalCoin to do so. It is estimated that by 2072, PascalCoin’s full nodes will only be 6 GB which is low enough not to warrant any fee incentives for hosting full nodes. Remember, the SafeBox is an ultra-light cryptographic data structure that is cryptographically equivalent to a blockchain with the entire transaction history. In other words, the SafeBox is a compact spreadsheet of all account balances that functions as PascalCoin’s full node!
Not only does the SafeBox’s infinitesimal memory size helps to reduce transaction fees by phasing out any storage fees, but it also paves the way for true decentralization. It would be trivial for every PascalCoin user to opt a full node in the form of a wallet. This is extreme decentralization at its finest since the majority of users of other cryptocurrencies ditch full nodes due to their burdensome sizes. It is naïve to believe that storage costs would reduce enough to the point where hosting full nodes are trivial. Take a look at the following chart outlining the trend of storage cost.

* https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-cost-per-gigabyte/
As we can see, storage costs continue to decrease but the descent is slowing down as is the norm with technological improvements. In the meantime, blockchain sizes of other cryptocurrencies are increasing linearly or, in the case of smart contract engines like Ethereum, parabolically. Imagine a cryptocurrency smart contract engine like Ethereum garnering worldwide adoption; how do you think Ethereum’s size would look like in the far future based on the following chart?


https://i.redd.it/k57nimdjmo621.png

Ethereum’s future blockchain size is not looking pretty in terms of sustainable security. Sharding is not a fix for this issue since there still needs to be full nodes but that is a different topic for another time.
It is astonishing that the cryptocurrency community as a whole has passively accepted this forever-expanding-blockchain-size problem as an inescapable fate.
PascalCoin is the only cryptocurrency that has fully escaped the death vortex of forever expanding blockchain size. Its blockchain size wouldn’t exceed 10 GB even after many hundreds of years of worldwide adoption. Ethereum’s blockchain size after hundreds of years of worldwide adoption would make fine comedy.
Part #5: Simple, Short, and Ordinal Addresses
Remember how the SafeBox works by snapshotting all account balances? As it turns out, the account address system is almost as cool as the SafeBox itself.
Imagine yourself in this situation: on a very hot and sunny day, you’re wandering down the street across from your house and ran into a lemonade stand – the old-fashioned kind without any QR code or credit card terminal. The kid across you is selling a lemonade cup for 1 Pascal with a poster outlining the payment address as 5471-55. You flip out your phone and click “Send” with 1 Pascal to the address 5471-55; viola, exactly one second later you’re drinking your lemonade without paying a cent for the transaction fee!
The last thing one wants to do is to figure out how to copy/paste to, say, the following address 1BoatSLRHtKNngkdXEeobR76b53LETtpyT on the spot wouldn’t it? Gone are the obnoxiously long addresses that plague all cryptocurrencies. The days of those unreadable addresses will be long gone – it has to be if blockchain is to innovate itself for the general public. EOS has a similar feature for readable addresses but in a very limited manner in comparison, and nicknames attached to addresses in GUIs don’t count since blockchain-wide compatibility wouldn’t hold.
Not only does PascalCoin has the neat feature of having addresses (called PASAs) that amount to up to 6 or 7 digits, but PascalCoin can also incorporate in-protocol address naming as opposed to GUI address nicknames. Suppose I want to order something from Amazon using Pascal; I simply search the word “Amazon” then the corresponding account number shows up. Pretty neat, right?
The astute reader may gather that PascalCoin’s address system makes it necessary to commoditize addresses, and he/she would be correct. Some view this as a weakness; part #10 later in this segment addresses this incorrect perception.
Part #6: Privacy
As if the above wasn’t enough, here’s another secret that PascalCoin has: it is a full-blown privacy coin. It uses two separate foundations to achieve comprehensive anonymity: in-protocol mixer for transfer amounts and zn-SNARKs for private balances. The former has been implemented and the latter is on the roadmap. Both the 0-confirmation transaction and the negligible transaction fee would make PascalCoin the most scalable privacy coin of any other cryptocurrencies pending the zk-SNARKs implementation.
Part #7: Smart Contracts
Next, PascalCoin will take smart contracts to the next level with a layer-2 overlay consensus system that pioneers sidechains and other smart contract implementations.
In formal terms, this layer-2 architecture will facilitate the transfer of data between PASAs which in turn allows clean enveloping of layer-2 protocols inside layer-1 much in the same way that HTTP lives inside TCP.
To summarize:
· The layer-2 consensus method is separate from the layer-1 Proof-of-Work. This layer-2 consensus method is independent and flexible. A sidechain – based on a single encompassing PASA – could apply Proof-of-Stake (POS), Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPOS), or Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) as the consensus system of its choice.
· Such a layer-2 smart contract platform can be written in any languages.
· Layer-2 sidechains will also provide very strong anonymity since funds are all pooled and keys are not used to unlock them.
· This layer-2 architecture is ingenious in which the computation is separate from layer-2 consensus, in effect removing any bottleneck.
· Horizontal scaling exists in this paradigm as there is no interdependence between smart contracts and states are not managed by slow sidechains.
· Speed and scalability are fully independent of PascalCoin.
One would be able to run the entire global financial system on PascalCoin’s infinitely scalable smart contract platform and it would still scale infinitely. In fact, this layer-2 architecture would be exponentially faster than Ethereum even after its sharding is implemented.
All this is the main focus of PascalCoin’s upcoming version 5 in 2019. A whitepaper add-on for this major upgrade will be released in early 2019.
Part #8: RandomHash Algorithm
Surely there must be some tradeoffs to PascalCoin’s impressive capabilities, you might be asking yourself. One might bring up the fact that PascalCoin’s layer-1 is based on Proof-of-Work and is thus susceptible to mining centralization. This would be a fallacy as PascalCoin has pioneered the very first true ASIC, GPU, and dual-mining resistant algorithm known as RandomHash that obliterates anything that is not CPU based and gives all the power back to solo miners.
Here is the official description of RandomHash:
“RandomHash is a high-level cryptographic hash algorithm that combines other well-known hash primitives in a highly serial manner. The distinguishing feature is that calculations for a nonce are dependent on partial calculations of other nonces, selected at random. This allows a serial hasher (CPU) to re-use these partial calculations in subsequent mining saving 50% or more of the work-load. Parallel hashers (GPU) cannot benefit from this optimization since the optimal nonce-set cannot be pre-calculated as it is determined on-the-fly. As a result, parallel hashers (GPU) are required to perform the full workload for every nonce. Also, the algorithm results in 10x memory bloat for a parallel implementation. In addition to its serial nature, it is branch-heavy and recursive making in optimal for CPU-only mining.”
One might be understandably skeptical of any Proof-of-Work algorithm that solves ASIC and GPU centralization once for all because there have been countless proposals being thrown around for various algorithms since the dawn of Bitcoin. Is RandomHash truly the ASIC & GPU killer that it claims to be?
Herman Schoenfeld, the inventor behind RandomHash, described his algorithm in the following:
“RandomHash offers endless ASIC-design breaking surface due to its use of recursion, hash algo selection, memory hardness and random number generation.
For example, changing how round hash selection is made and/or random number generator algo and/or checksum algo and/or their sequencing will totally break an ASIC design. Conceptually if you can significantly change the structure of the output assembly whilst keeping the high-level algorithm as invariant as possible, the ASIC design will necessarily require proportional restructuring. This results from the fact that ASIC designs mirror the ASM of the algorithm rather than the algorithm itself.”
Polyminer1 (pseudonym), one of the members of the PascalCoin core team who developed RHMiner (official software for mining RandomHash), claimed as follows:
“The design of RandomHash is, to my experience, a genuine innovation. I’ve been 30 years in the field. I’ve rarely been surprised by anything. RandomHash was one of my rare surprises. It’s elegant, simple, and achieves resistance in all fronts.”
PascalCoin may have been the first party to achieve the race of what could possibly be described as the “God algorithm” for Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies. Look no further than one of Monero’s core developers since 2015, Howard Chu. In September 2018, Howard declared that he has found a solution, called RandomJS, to permanently keep ASICs off the network without repetitive algorithm changes. This solution actually closely mirrors RandomHash’s algorithm. Discussing about his algorithm, Howard asserted that “RandomJS is coming at the problem from a direction that nobody else is.”
Link to Howard Chu’s article on RandomJS:
https://www.coindesk.com/one-musicians-creative-solution-to-drive-asics-off-monero
Yet when Herman was asked about Howard’s approach, he responded:
“Yes, looks like it may work although using Javascript was a bit much. They should’ve just used an assembly subset and generated random ASM programs. In a way, RandomHash does this with its repeated use of random mem-transforms during expansion phase.”
In the end, PascalCoin may have successfully implemented the most revolutionary Proof-of-Work algorithm, one that eclipses Howard’s burgeoning vision, to date that almost nobody knows about. To learn more about RandomHash, refer to the following resources:
RandomHash whitepaper:
https://www.pascalcoin.org/storage/whitepapers/RandomHash_Whitepaper.pdf
Technical proposal for RandomHash:
https://github.com/PascalCoin/PascalCoin/blob/mastePIP/PIP-0009.md
Someone might claim that PascalCoin still suffers from mining centralization after RandomHash, and this is somewhat misleading as will be explained in part #10.
Part #9: Fair Distribution and Governance
Not only does PascalCoin rest on superior technology, but it also has its roots in the correct philosophy of decentralized distribution and governance. There was no ICO or pre-mine, and the developer fund exists as a percentage of mining rewards as voted by the community. This developer fund is 100% governed by a decentralized autonomous organization – currently facilitated by the PascalCoin Foundation – that will eventually be transformed into an autonomous smart contract platform. Not only is the developer fund voted upon by the community, but PascalCoin’s development roadmap is also voted upon the community via the Protocol Improvement Proposals (PIPs).
This decentralized governance also serves an important benefit as a powerful deterrent to unseemly fork wars that befall many cryptocurrencies.
Part #10: Common Misconceptions of PascalCoin
“The branding is terrible”
PascalCoin is currently working very hard on its image and is preparing for several branding and marketing initiatives in the short term. For example, two of the core developers of the PascalCoin recently interviewed with the Fox Business Network. A YouTube replay of this interview will be heavily promoted.
Some people object to the name PascalCoin. First, it’s worth noting that PascalCoin is the name of the project while Pascal is the name of the underlying currency. Secondly, Google and YouTube received excessive criticisms back then in the beginning with their name choices. Look at where those companies are nowadays – surely a somewhat similar situation faces PascalCoin until the name’s familiarity percolates into the public.
“The wallet GUI is terrible”
As the team is run by a small yet extremely dedicated developers, multiple priorities can be challenging to juggle. The lack of funding through an ICO or a pre-mine also makes it challenging to accelerate development. The top priority of the core developers is to continue developing full-time on the groundbreaking technology that PascalCoin offers. In the meantime, an updated and user-friendly wallet GUI has been worked upon for some time and will be released in due time. Rome wasn’t built in one day.
“One would need to purchase a PASA in the first place”
This is a complicated topic since PASAs need to be commoditized by the SafeBox’s design, meaning that PASAs cannot be obtained at no charge to prevent systematic abuse. This raises two seemingly valid concerns:
· As a chicken and egg problem, how would one purchase a PASA using Pascal in the first place if one cannot obtain Pascal without a PASA?
· How would the price of PASAs stay low and affordable in the face of significant demand?
With regards to the chicken and egg problem, there are many ways – some finished and some unfinished – to obtain your first PASA as explained on the “Get Started” page on the PascalCoin website:
https://www.pascalcoin.org/get_started
More importantly, however, is the fact that there are few methods that can get your first PASA for free. The team will also release another method soon in which you could obtain your first PASA for free via a single SMS message. This would probably become by far the simplest and the easiest way to obtain your first PASA for free. There will be more new ways to easily obtain your first PASA for free down the road.
What about ensuring the PASA market at large remains inexpensive and affordable following your first (and probably free) PASA acquisition? This would be achieved in two ways:
· Decentralized governance of the PASA economics per the explanation in the FAQ section on the bottom of the PascalCoin website (https://www.pascalcoin.org/)
· Unlimited and free pseudo-PASAs based on layer-2 in the next version release.
“PascalCoin is still centralized after the release of RandomHash”
Did the implementation of RandomHash from version 4 live up to its promise?
The official goals of RandomHash were as follow:
(1) Implement a GPU & ASIC resistant hash algorithm
(2) Eliminate dual mining
The two goals above were achieved by every possible measure.
Yet a mining pool, Nanopool, was able to regain its hash majority after a significant but a temporary dip.
The official conclusion is that, from a probabilistic viewpoint, solo miners are more profitable than pool miners. However, pool mining is enticing for solo miners who 1) have limited hardware as it ensures a steady income instead of highly profitable but probabilistic income via solo mining, and 2) who prefer convenient software and/or GUI.
What is the next step, then? While the barrier of entry for solo miners has successfully been put down, additional work needs to be done. The PascalCoin team and the community are earnestly investigating additional steps to improve mining decentralization with respect to pool mining specifically to add on top of RandomHash’s successful elimination of GPU, ASIC, and dual-mining dominance.
It is likely that the PascalCoin community will promote the following two initiatives in the near future:
(1) Establish a community-driven, nonprofit mining pool with attractive incentives.
(2) Optimize RHMiner, PascalCoin’s official solo mining software, for performance upgrades.
A single pool dominance is likely short lived once more options emerge for individual CPU miners who want to avoid solo mining for whatever reason(s).
Let us use Bitcoin as an example. Bitcoin mining is dominated by ASICs and mining pools but no single pool is – at the time of this writing – even close on obtaining the hash majority. With CPU solo mining being a feasible option in conjunction with ASIC and GPU mining eradication with RandomHash, the future hash rate distribution of PascalCoin would be far more promising than Bitcoin’s hash rate distribution.
PascalCoin is the Unicorn Cryptocurrency
If you’ve read this far, let’s cut straight to the point: PascalCoin IS the unicorn cryptocurrency.
It is worth noting that PascalCoin is still a young cryptocurrency as it was launched at the end of 2016. This means that many features are still work in progress such as zn-SNARKs, smart contracts, and pool decentralization to name few. However, it appears that all of the unicorn criteria are within PascalCoin’s reach once PascalCoin’s technical roadmap is mostly completed.
Based on this expository on PascalCoin’s technology, there is every reason to believe that PascalCoin is the unicorn cryptocurrency. PascalCoin also solves two fundamental blockchain problems beyond the unicorn criteria that were previously considered unsolvable: blockchain size and simple address system. The SafeBox pushes PascalCoin to the forefront of cryptocurrency zeitgeist since it is a superior solution compared to UTXO, Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG), Block Lattice, Tangle, and any other blockchain innovations.


THE UNICORN

Author: Tyler Swob
submitted by Kosass to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Mining Profitability: How Long Does it Take to Mine One Bitcoin in 2019?

When it comes to Bitcoin (BTC) mining, the major questions on people’s minds are “how profitable is Bitcoin mining” and “how long would it take to mine one Bitcoin?” To answer these questions, we need to take an in-depth look at the current state of the Bitcoin mining industry — and how it has changed — over the last several years.
Bitcoin mining is, essentially, the process of participating in Bitcoin’s underlying security mechanism — known as proof-of-work — to help secure the Bitcoin blockchain. In return, participants receive compensation in bitcoins (BTC).
When you participate in Bitcoin mining, you are essentially searching for blocks by crunching complex cryptographic challenges using your mining hardware. Once a block is discovered, new transactions are recorded and verified within the block and the block discoverer receives the block rewards — currently set at 12.5 BTC — as well as the transactions fees for the transactions included within the block.
Once the maximum supply of 21 million Bitcoins has been mined, no further Bitcoins will ever come into existence. This property makes Bitcoin deflationary, something which many argue will inevitably increase the value of each Bitcoin unit as it becomes more scarce due to increased global adoption.
The limited supply of Bitcoin is also one of the reasons why Bitcoin mining has become so popular. In previous years, Bitcoin mining proved to be a lucrative investment option — netting miners with several fold returns on their investment with relatively little effort.
bitcoin mining hardware
Mining Hardware
The mining hardware you choose will mostly depend on your circumstances — in terms of budget, location and electricity costs. Since the amount of hashing power you can dedicate to the mining process is directly correlated with how much Bitcoin you will mine per day, it is wise to ensure your hardware is still competitive in 2019.
Bitcoin uses SHA256 as its mining algorithm. Because of this, only hardware compatible with this algorithm can be used to mine Bitcoin. Although it is technically possible to mine Bitcoin on your current computer hardware — using your CPU or GPU — this will almost certainly not generate a positive return on your investment and you may end up damaging your device.
The most cost-effective way to mine Bitcoin in 2019 is using application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) mining hardware. These are specially-designed machines that offer much higher performance per watt than typical computers and have been an absolutely essential purchase for anybody looking to get into Bitcoin mining since the first Avalon ASICs were shipped in 2013.
When it comes to selecting Bitcoin mining hardware, there are several main parameters to consider — though the importance of each of these may vary based on personal circumstances and budget.
Performance per Watt
When it comes to Bitcoin mining, performance per watt is a measure of how many gigahashes per watt a machine is capable of and is, hence, a simple measure of its efficiency. Since electricity costs are likely to be one of the largest expenses when mining Bitcoin, it is usually a good idea to ensure that you are getting good performance per watt out of your hardware.
Ideally, your mining hardware would be highly efficient, allowing it to mine Bitcoin with lower energy requirements — though this will need to be balanced with acquisition costs, as often the most efficient hardware is also the most expensive. This means it may take longer to see a return on investment.
In countries with cheap electricity, performance per watt is often less of a concern than acquisition costs and price-performance ratio. In most countries, operating outdated mining hardware is typically cost prohibitive, as energy costs outweigh the income generated by the mining equipment.
However, this may not be the case for those operating in countries with extremely cheap electricity — such as Kuwait and Venezuela — as even older equipment can still be profitable. Similarly, miners with a free energy surplus, such as from wind or solar electric generators, can benefit from the minimal gains offered by still running outdated hardware.
Longevity
The lifetime of mining hardware also plays a critical role in determining how profitable your mining venture will be. It’s always a good idea to do whatever possible to ensure it runs as smoothly as possible.
Since mining equipment tends to run at a full (or almost full) load for extended periods, they also tend to break down and fail more frequently than most electronics — which can seriously damage your profitability. Equipment failure is even more common when purchasing second-hand equipment. Since warranty claims are often challenging, it can often take a long time to receive a warranty replacement.
Price-Performance Ratio
In many cases, one of the major criteria used to select mining hardware is the price-performance ratio — a measure of how much performance a machine outputs per unit price. In the case of cryptocurrency mining hardware, this is commonly expressed as gigahashes per dollar or GH/$.
Under ideal circumstances, the mining hardware would have a high price-performance ratio, ensuring you get a lot of bang for your buck. However, this must also be considered in combination with the acquisition costs and the expected lifetime of the machine — since the absolute most powerful machines are not always the cheapest or the most energy efficient.
Acquisition Costs
Acquisition costs are almost always the biggest barrier to entry for most Bitcoin miners since most top-end mining hardware costs several thousand dollars. This problem is further compounded by the fact that many hardware manufacturers offer discounts for bulk purchases, allowing those with deeper pockets to achieve a better price-performance ratio.
Acquisition costs include all the costs involved in purchasing any mining equipment, including hardware costs, shipping costs, import duties, and any further costs. For example, many ASIC miners do not include a power supply — which can be another considerable expense, since the 1,000W+ power supplies usually required tend to cost several hundred dollars alone.
Ensuring your equipment runs smoothly can also add in additional costs, such as cooling and maintenance expenses. In addition, some miners may want to invest in uninterruptible power supplies to ensure their hardware keeps running — even if the power fails temporarily.
asic mining
Current Generation Hardware
One of the most recent additions to the Bitcoin mining hardware market is the Ebang Ebit E11++, which was released in October 2018. Using a 10nm fabrication process for its processors, the Ebit E11++ is able to achieve one of the highest hash rates on the market at 44TH/s.
In terms of efficiency, the Ebang Ebit E11++ is arguably the best on the market, offering 44TH/s of hash rate while drawing just 1,980W of power, offering 22.2GH/W performance. However, as of writing, the Ebang Ebit E11++ is out of stock until March 31, 2019 — while its price of $2,024 (excluding shipping) may make it prohibitively expensive for those first getting involved with Bitcoin mining.
Another popular choice is the ASICminer 8 Nano, a machine released in October 2018 that offers 44TH/s for $3,900 excluding shipping. The ASICminer 8 Nano draws 2,100W of power, giving it an efficiency of almost 21GH/W — slightly lower than the Ebit E11++ while costing almost double the price. However, unlike the E11++, the 8 Nano is actually in stock and available to purchase.
ASICminer also offers the 8 Nano Pro, a machine launched in mid-2018 that offers 80 TH/s of hash rate for $9,500 (excluding shipping). However, unlike the Ebit E11++ and 8 Nano, the minimum order quantity for the 8 Nano Pro is curiously set at five, meaning you will need to lay out a minimum of $47,500 in order to actually get your hands on one (or five).
While the 8 Nano Pro doesn’t offer the same performance per watt as the Ebit E11+ or AICMiner 8 Nano, it is one of the quieter miners on this list, making it more suitable for a home or office environment. That being said, the ASICminer 8 Nano Pro is easily the most expensive miner per TH on this list — costing a whopping $118.75/TH, compared to the $46/TH offered by the E11++ and $88.64 offered by the 8 Nano.
The latest hardware on this list is the Innosilicon T3 43T, which is currently available for pre-order at $2,279, and estimated to ship in March 2019. Offering 43TH/s of performance at 2,100W, the T3 43T comes in at an efficiency of 20.4GH/W, which is around 10 percent less energy efficient than the Ebit E11++.
The T3 43T also has a minimum order quantity of three units, making the minimum acquisition cost $6837 + shipping for preorders. All in all, the T3 43T is more costly and less efficient than the E11++ but may arrive slightly earlier since Ebang will not ship the E11++ units until at least end March 29, 2019.
Finally, this list would not be complete without including Bitmain’s latest offering, the Antminer S15-28TH/s, which — as its name suggests — offers 28TH/s of hash power while drawing just under 1600W at the wall. The Antminer S15 is one of the only SHA256 miners to use 7nm processors, making it somewhat smaller than some of the other devices on this list.
Like most pieces of top-end Bitcoin mining hardware, the Antminer S15 27TH/s model is currently sold out, with current orders not shipping until mid-February 2019. However, the S15 is offered at a significantly lower price than many of its competitors at just $1020 (excluding shipping), with no minimum quantity restriction. At these rates, the Antminer comes in at just $37.78/TH — though its energy efficiency is a much less impressive 17.5GH/W.
Mining Hardware Mining Hardware Comparison
Performance (GH/W) Price Performance Ratio ($/TH)
Ebang Ebit E11++ 22.2GH/W $46/TH
ASICminer 8 Nano 21GH/W $88.64/TH
ASICminer 8 Nano Pro 19GH/W $118.75/TH
Innosilicon T3 43T 20.4GH/W $53/TH
Antminer S15-28TH/s 17.5GH/W $37.78/TH
How To Select a Good Mining Pool
Mining pools are platforms that allow miners to pool their resources together to achieve a higher collective hash rate — which, in turn, allows the collective to mine more blocks than they would be able to achieve alone.
Typically, these mining pools will distribute block rewards to contributing miners based on the proportion of the hash rate they supply. If a pool contributing a total of 20 TH/s of hash rate successfully mines the next block, a user responsible for 10 percent of this hash rate will receive 10 percent of the 12.5 BTC reward.
Pools essentially allow smaller miners to compete with large private mining organizations by ensuring that the collective hash rate is high enough to successfully mine blocks on regular basis. Without operating through a mining pool, many miners would be unlikely to discover any blocks at all — due to only contributing a tiny fraction of the overall Bitcoin hash rate.
While it is quite possible to be successful mining without a pool, this typically requires an extremely large mining operation and is usually not recommended — unless you have enough hash rate to mine blocks on a regular basis.
Although it is technically possible to discover blocks mining solo and keep the entire 12.5 BTC reward for yourself, the odds of this actually occurring are practically zero — making pool collaboration practically the only way to compete in 2019 and beyond.
Selecting the best pool for you can be a challenging job since the vast majority of pools are quite similar and offer similar features and comparable fees. Because of this, we have broken down the qualities you should be looking for in a new pool into four categories; reputation, hash rate, pool fees, and usability/features:
Reputation
The reputation of a pool is one of the most important factors in selecting the pool that is best for you. Well-reputed pools will tend to be much larger than newer or less well-established pools since few pools with a poor reputation can stand the test of time.
Well-reputed pools also tend to be more transparent about their operation, many of which provide tools to ensure that each user is getting the correct reward based on the hash rate contributed. By using only pools with a great reputation, you also ensure your hash rate is not being used for nefarious purposes — such as powering a 51 percent attack.
When comparing a list of pools that appear suitable for you, it is a wise move to read their user reviews before making your choice — ensuring you don’t end up mining at a pool that steals your hard-fought earnings.
Hash Rate
When it comes to mining Bitcoin, the probability of discovering the next block is directly related to the amount of hashing power you contribute to the network. Because of this, one of the major features you should be considering when selecting your pool is its total hash rate — which is often closely related to the proportion of new blocks mined by the pool
Since the total hash rate of a pool is directly related to how quickly it discovers new blocks, this means the largest pools tend to discover a relative majority of blocks — leading to more regular rewards. However, the very largest pools also tend the have higher fees but often make up for this with sheer success and additional features.
Sometimes, some of the largest pools have a minimum hash rate requirement ù leaving some of the smaller miners left out of the loop. Although smaller pools typically have more relaxed requirements with reduced performance thresholds, these pools may be only slightly more profitable than mining solo.
Pool Fees
When choosing a suitable pool, typically one of the major considerations is its fees. Typically, most pools will charge a small fee that is deducted from your earnings and is usually around 1-2 percent — but sometimes slightly lower or higher.
There are also pools that offer 0 percent fees. However, these are often much smaller than the major pools and tend to make their money in a different way — such as through monthly subscriptions or donations.
Ideally, you will choose the pool that offers the best balance of fees to other features. Usually, the pool with the absolute lowest fees is not the best choice. Additionally, pools with the lowest fees often have the highest withdrawal minimums — making pool hopping uneconomical for most.
Usability and Features
When first starting out with Bitcoin mining, learning how to set up a pool and navigating through the settings can be a challenge. Because of this, several pools target their services to newer users by offering a simple to navigate user interface and providing detailed learning resources and prompt customer support.
However, for more experienced miners, simple pools don’t tend to offer a variety of features needed to maximize profitability. For example, although many mining pools focus their entire hash rate towards mining a single cryptocurrency, some are large enough to offer additional options — allowing users to mine other SHA256 coins such as Bitcoin Cash (BCH) or Fantom if they choose.
These pools are technically more challenging to use and mostly designed for those familiar with mining, happy to hop from coin to coin mining whichever is most profitable at the time. There are even some exchanges that automatically direct their combined hash rate at the most profitable cryptocurrency — taking the guesswork out of the equation.
bitcoin mining pool
Best Mining Pools for 2019
The Bitcoin mining pool industry has a large number of players, but the vast majority of the Bitcoin hash rate is concentrated within just a few pools. Currently, there are dozens of suitable pools to choose from — but we have selected just a few of the best to help get you started on your journey.
Slushpool was the first Bitcoin mining pool released, being launched way back in 2010 under the name “Bitcoin Pooled Mining Server.” Since then, Slushpool has grown into one of the most popular pools around — currently accounting for just under 10 percent of the total Bitcoin hash rate.
Although Slushpool isn’t one of the very largest pools, it does offer a newbie-friendly interface alongside more advanced features for those that need them. The pool has moderately high fees of 2 percent but offers servers in several countries — including the U.S., Europe, China, and Japan — giving it a good balance of fees to features.
BTC.com is another potential candidate for your pool and currently stands as the largest public Bitcoin mining pool. It is responsible for mining around 17 percent of new blocks. Being the largest public mining pool provides users with a sense of security, ensuring blocks are mined regularly and a stable income is made.
Image courtesy of Blockchain.info.
BTC.com is owned by Bitmain, a company that manufacturers mining hardware, and charges a 1.5 percent fees — placing it squarely in the middle-tier in terms of fees. Unlike other platforms, BTC.com uses its own payment structure known as FPPS (Full Pay Per Share), which means miners also receive a share of the transaction fees included within mined blocks — making it slightly more profitable than standard payment per share (PPS) pools.
Another great option is Antpool, a mining pool that supports mining services for 10 different cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, Litecoin (LTC) and Ethereum (ETH). AntPool frequently trades places with BTC.com as the largest Bitcoin mining pool. However, as of this writing, it occupies the title of the third-largest public mining pool.
What sets Antpool apart from other pools is the ability to choose your own fee system — including PPS, PPS+, and PPLNS. If you choose PPLNS, using Antpool is free but you will not receive any transaction fees from any blocks mined. Antpool also offers regular payouts and has a low minimum payout of just 0.001 BTC, making it suitable for smaller miners.
Last on the list of the best Bitcoin mining pools in 2019 is the Bitcoin.com mining pool. Although this is one of the smaller pools available, the Bitcoin.com pool has some redeeming features that make it worth a look. It offers mining contracts, allowing you to test out Bitcoin mining before investing in mining equipment of your own. According to Bitcoin.com, they are the highest paying Pay Per Share (PPS) pool in the world, offering up to 98 percent block rewards as well as automatic switching between BTC and BCH mining to optimize profitability.

Electricity Costs
While your mining hardware is most important when it comes to how much BTC you can earn when mining, your electricity costs are usually the largest additional expense. With electricity costs often varying dramatically between countries, ensuring you are on the best cost-per-KWh plan available will help to keep costs down when mining.
Most commonly, large mining operations will be set up in countries where electricity costs are the lowest — such as Iceland, India, and Ukraine. Since China has one of the lowest energy costs in the world, it was previously the epicenter of Bitcoin mining. However, since the government began cracking down on cryptocurrencies, it has largely fallen out of favor with miners.
Technically, Venezuela is one of the cheapest countries in the world in terms of electricity, with the government heavily subsidizing these energy costs — while Bitcoin offers an escape from the hyperinflation suffered by the Venezuelan bolivar. Despite this, importing mining hardware into the country is a costly endeavor, making it impractical for many people.
Finding ways to lower your electricity costs is one of the best ways to improve your mining profitability. This can include investing in renewable energy sources such as solar, geothermal, or wind — which can yield increased profitability over the long term.
if you are looking to buy bitcoin mining equipment here is some links:

Model Antminer S17 Pro (56Th) from Bitmain mining SHA-256 algorithm with a maximum hashrate of 56Th/s for a power consumption of 2385W.
https://miningwholesale.eu/product/bitmain-antminer-s17-pro-56th-copy/?wpam_id=17
Model Antminer S9K from Bitmain mining SHA-256 algorithm with a maximum hashrate of 14Th/s for a power consumption of 1323W.
https://miningwholesale.eu/product/bitmain-antminer-s9k-14-th-s/?wpam_id=17
Model T2T 30Tfrom Innosilicon mining SHA-256 algorithm with a maximum hashrate of 30Th/s for a power consumption of 2200W.
https://miningwholesale.eu/product/innosilicon-t2t-30t/?wpam_id=17
mining wholesale website:
https://miningwholesale.eu/?wpam_id=17
submitted by mohamadk to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Solo Mining (PIRL) : 1 week experiment Complete Part 3 USB miner solo mining profitability - YouTube How to start Bitcoin mining for beginners (SUPER EASY ... tutorial: Bitcoin mining with CGMiner - YouTube How to BitCoin mine using fast ASIC mining hardware - YouTube

How to Solo Mine Bitcoin The chance of successfully mining Bitcoin (ever solving a block) is very slim [1] these days. Whatever the reason is for you do decide to mine Bitcoin without joining a pool, these are the steps to achieve mining Bitcoin by yourself without joining force with others. How do I solo mine with my asic? Ideally, I'd like my RPI and KNC miner to work together to operate a node and to solo mine. I could never figure out the method to use, and the information I've found so far pretty lacking. I've read hypothetical setups, but no clear way of confirming whether the setup was accurate. If this information could be made to access easier, more people would be ... They are able to mine Bitcoin at a higher hash rate (speed of processing transactions) than CPUs, GPUs and FPGAs. Several manufacturers produce their own ASIC chips and miners. For this part of the Bitcoin mining guide we will use the current top miner on the market the Bitmain AntMiner S9. The following instructions should work for any ASIC that uses cgminer, though from what I’ve read the configuration for bfgminer is nearly identical. The two major components you need in order to solo mine are: A Bitcoin node; Bitcoin hashing hardware (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) First you’ll need to get a full node running. Solo Mining Bitcoin – Hardware. To get your Bitcoin solo mining journey on its way, you will first need to invest in a specialized hardware device. Don’t forget, the days of being able to mine Bitcoin with a basic GPU are over, so you will need to get yourself an ASIC. First and foremost, there is no doubt that by purchasing the most powerful ASIC device available on the market, you will ...

[index] [26149] [38015] [2931] [50047] [21203] [51081] [14871] [34750] [31689] [38611]

Solo Mining (PIRL) : 1 week experiment Complete Part 3

Cpuminer download: https://github.com/pooler/cpuminer/releases As I mentioned in the video, be ready for your antivirus to get upset with this file. This min... Start trading Bitcoin and cryptocurrency here: http://bit.ly/2Vptr2X IMPORTANT!! This method only illustrates how mining works. You will not make any money f... This video will show you how to start bitcoin mining from home. It's very easy and "free" to do if you have a gaming PC. *****... In this video I am documenting Switching from Pool mining to Solo mining via 2miners.com will solo mining get more Pirl coins than mining in a pool? Donate T... In this video I show you how to start mining Bitcoins with CGMiner and an account at your favorite miningpool. Get CGMiner at: https://bitcointalk.org/index....

#