Bitcoin Recapitulation on Trilema - A blog by Mircea Popescu.

12-03 23:22 - 'Integration is bad for Bitcoin' (trilema.com) by /u/seahonky removed from /r/Bitcoin within 1690-1700min

Integration is bad for Bitcoin
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: seahonky
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

A Sovereign Bitcoiner's Manifesto

Yesterday a post of mine got a good amount of attention in this, my favourite, sub. So I have decided to post it here in full...
More than mildly, it annoys us that we have the tools to be truly sovereign and yet we continue to submit our ourselves, and our bitcoin, to centralised authorities.
"Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age"; yet KYC is demanded before we can trade.
"Not your keys, not your coins"; yet millions of bitcoin sit in the vaults of custodial exchanges and wallets.
For monetary liberty to be widespread it must be part of the social contract. We must come together to deploy decentralised systems that maintain Bitcoin's promise of sovereignty. These tools already exist and they are improving.

Awakening Our Inner Apex Predator

When Satoshi genetically engineered bitcoin, he spliced DNA from organisms that never survived (B-money, Hashcash, Bit gold). This gives bitcoin an incredible amount of survivability and fierceness. It makes it the apex predator of money.
Billions of dollars in cryptocurrency is traded, lent and borrowed on platforms that have self-custody and no KYC. Billions of dollars in cryptocurrency but not bitcoin. This decentralised financial system is called DeFi. Many Bitcoiners deny, ignore and attack DeFi because it is an invention, a mutation, that occurred on Ethereum. This reflexive defensiveness ignores a fundamental truth about Bitcoin: If any technology can provide value for Bitcoin, Bitcoin will simply adopt it. A nuanced view of DeFi recognises that it is composed both of valuable decentralisation but also of cancerous ponzis and evolutionary dead-ends. We will adopt DeFi where it improves Bitcoin DID (Defense-in-Depth) and cauterise the rest.

Defense-in-Depth

Bitcoin maintains its sovereignty through technological, cryptographic means. First and foremost, private keys provide the only means of control and ownership. Second, and most famously, Proof of Work defends the network against attack.
Attackers, however, are not limited to attacking the cryptography or the hashpower in order to limit our sovereignty. They route around and seek any weak links. "Trusted third parties are security holes". We increase the perimeter of defence by eliminating these trusted third parties.

Ethereum is Bitcoin’s Testnet

We will splice the DNA of DeFi into Bitcoin. We will increase Bitcoin's defense perimeter. The tools already exist. Ethereum is our testnet. Let it provide the radioactive pool where mutations are many. Let us observe it as it moves fast and breaks things. We will adopt it's best tools and learn to defend against its worst.
Rootstock, a Bitcoin sidechain, can be our CRISPR in this genetic adoption. We will splice the code from Ethereum dapps and improve upon them.

Cypherpunk Rouges

Cypherpunks write code, share code, review code and copy code. Sovereign individuals use this code. Like the X-men's Rouge, Bitcoiners will absorb the superpowers of others. I have been working on a DeFi dapp for decentralised bitcoin trading and lending. Hopefully you will join me, or better yet, compete with me.
"Those who would give up Liberty, to purchase a little temporary convenience, will have neither Liberty nor convenience." That will be our code.
Onwards.
submitted by OroroThePickpocket to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

06-18 17:01 - 'Mircea Popescu: 'To the DAO and the Ethereum community: Fuck you.' ["I have carefully examined the code of The DAO and decided to participate after finding the feature where splitting is rewarded with additional E...' (trilema.com) by /u/eragmus removed from /r/Bitcoin within 19-24min

Mircea Popescu: 'To the DAO and the Ethereum community: Fuck you.' ["I have carefully examined the code of The DAO and decided to participate after finding the feature where splitting is rewarded with additional ETH. I have rightfully claimed 3,641,694 ETH."]
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: eragmus
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Trilema - There's a one Bitcoin reward for the death of Pieter Wuille. Details below.

submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

News: Cooking Mama and blockchain, the Halvening and Bitcoin Cash, Simple Assurance of Future Litigation, Kraken, Craig Wright: Craigness

News: Cooking Mama and blockchain, the Halvening and Bitcoin Cash, Simple Assurance of Future Litigation, Kraken, Craig Wright: Craigness submitted by dgerard to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Era Swap Network White Paper

Era Swap Network White Paper

Era Swap Network

White Paper



DISCLAIMER
This Whitepaper is for Era Swap Network. Its purpose is solely to provide prospective community members with information about the Era Swap Ecosystem & Era Swap Network project. This paper is for information purposes only and does not constitute and is not intended to be an offer of securities or any other financial or investment instrument in any jurisdiction.
The Developers disclaim any and all responsibility and liability to any person for any loss or damage whatsoever arising directly or indirectly from (1) reliance on any information contained in this paper, (2) any error, omission or inaccuracy in any such information, or (3) any action resulting therefrom
Digital Assets are extremely high-risk, speculative products. You should be aware of the risks involved and fully consider before participating in Digital assets whether it’s appropriate for you. You should only participate if you are an experienced investor with sophisticated knowledge of financial markets and you fully understand the risks associated with digital assets. We strongly advise you to take independent professional advice before making any investment or participating in any way. You should check what rules and protections apply to your respective jurisdictions before investing or participating in any way. The Creators & community will not compensate you for any losses from trading, investment or participating in any way. You should read whitepaper carefully before participating and consider whether these products are right for you.

TABLE OF CONTENT

· Abstract
· Introduction to Era Swap Network
· Development Overview
· Era Swap Utility Platform
· Alpha-release Development Plan
· Era Swap Network Version 1: Specification
· Bunch Structure: 10
· Converting ES-ERC20 to ES-Na:
· Conclusion:
· Era Swap Ecosystem
· Social Links

Abstract

The early smart contracts of Era Swap Ecosystem like TimeAlly, Newly Released Tokens, Assurance, BetDeEx of Era Swap Ecosystem, are deployed on Ethereum mainnet. These smart contracts are finance-oriented (DeFi), i.e. most of the transactions are about spending or earning of Era Swap tokens which made paying the gas fees in Ether somewhat intuitive to the user (withdrawal charges in bank, paying tax while purchasing burgers) but transactions that are not token oriented like adding a nominee or appointee voting also needs Ether to be charged. As more Era Swap Token Utility platform ideas kept appending to the Era Swap Main Whitepaper, more non-financial transaction situations arise like updating status, sending a message, resolving a dispute and so on. Paying extensively for such actions all day and waiting for the transaction to be included in a block and then waiting for enough block confirmations due to potential chain re-organizations is counter-intuitive to existing free solutions like Facebook, Gmail. This is the main barrier that is stopping Web 3.0 from coming to the mainstream.
As alternatives to Ethereum, there are few other smart contract development platforms that propose their own separate blockchain that features for higher transaction throughput, but they compromise on decentralization for improving transaction speeds. Moreover, the ecosystem tools are most advancing in Ethereum than any other platform due to the massive developer community.
With Era Swap Network, the team aims to achieve scalability, speed and low-cost transactions for Era Swap Ecosystem (which is currently not feasible on Ethereum mainnet), without compromising much on trustless asset security for Era Swap Community users.

Introduction to Era Swap Network

Era Swap Network (ESN) aims to solve the above-mentioned problems faced by Era Swap Ecosystem users by building a side-blockchain on top of Ethereum blockchain using the Plasma Framework.
Era Swap Network leverages the Decentralisation and Security of Ethereum and the Scalability achieved in the side-chain, this solves the distributed blockchain trilema. In most of the other blockchains, blocks are a collection of transactions and all the transactions in one block are mined by a miner in one step. Era Swap Network will consist of Bunches of Blocks of Era Swap Ecosystem Transactions.

Decentralization

Layer 2


Scalable and Secure

A miner mines all the blocks in a bunch consequently and will commit the bunch-root to the ESN Plasma Smart Contract on Ethereum mainnet.

Development Overview
Initially, we will start with a simple Proof-of-Authority (PoA) based consensus of EVM to start the development and testing of Era Swap Ecosystem Smart Contracts as quickly as possible on the test-net. We will call this as an alpha-release of ESN test-net and only internal developers will work with this for developing smart contracts for Era Swap Ecosystem. User’s funds in a Plasma implementation with a simple consensus like PoA are still secured as already committed bunch-roots cannot be reversed.
Eventually, we want to arrive on a more control-decentralized consensus algorithm like Proof-of-Stake (PoS) probably, so that even if the chain operator shuts down their services, a single Era Swap Ecosystem user somewhere in the world can keep the ecosystem alive by running software on their system and similarly more people can join to decentralize the control further. In this PoS version, we will modify the Parity Ethereum client in such a way, that at least 50% of transaction fees collected will go to the Luck Pool of NRT Smart Contract on Ethereum mainnet and rest can be kept by miner of the blocks/bunch of blocks if they wish. After achieving such an implementation, we will release this as a beta version to the community for testing the software on their computers with Kovan ERC20 Era Swaps (Ethereum test-net).

Era Swap Decentralised Ecosystem
Following platforms are to be integrated:
  1. Era Swap Token Contract (adapted ERC20 on Ethereum) The original asset will lie on Ethereum to avoid loss due to any kind of failure in ESN.
  2. Plasma Manager Contract (on Ethereum) To store ESN bunch headers on Ethereum.
  3. Reverse Plasma Manager Contract (on ESN) Bridge to convert ES to ES native and ES native to ES. User deposits ES on Mainnet Plasma, gives proof on ESN and gets ES native credited to their account in a decentralised way.
  4. NRT Manager Contract (on Ethereum or on ESN) If it is possible to send ES from an ESN contract to luck pool of NRT Manager Contract on Ethereum, then it’s ok otherwise, NRT Manager will need to be deployed on ESN for ability to add ES to luck pool.
  5. Era Swap Wallet (React Native App for managing ESs and ES natives) Secure wallet to store multiple private keys in it, mainly for managing ES and ES native, sending ES or ES native, also for quick and easy BuzCafe payments.
  6. TimeAlly (on Ethereum or on ESN) On whichever chain NRT Manager is deployed, TimeAlly would be deployed on the same chain.
  7. Assurance (on Ethereum or on ESN) On whichever chain NRT Manager is deployed, TimeAlly would be deployed on the same chain.
  8. DaySwappers (on ESN) KYC manager for platform. For easily distributing rewards to tree referees.
  9. TimeSwappers (on ESN) Freelance market place with decentralised dispute management.
  10. SwappersWall (on ESN) Decentralised social networking with power tokens.
  11. BuzCafe (on ESN) Listing of shops and finding shops easily and quick payment.
  12. BetDeEx (on ESN) Decentralised Prediction proposals, prediction and results.
  13. DateSwappers (on ESN) Meeting ensured using cryptography.
  14. ComputeEx (on Ethereum / centralised way) Exchange assets.
  15. Era Swap Academy (on ESN / centralised way) Learn. Loop. Leap. How to implement ES Academy is not clear. One idea is if content is constantly being modified, then subscription expired people will only have the hash of old content while new content hash is only available to people who have done Dayswapper KYC and paid for the course. Dayswapper KYC is required because this way people won’t share their private keys to someone else.
  16. Value of Farmers (tbd) The exchange of farming commodities produced by farmers in VoF can be deposited to warehouses where the depositors will get ERC721 equivalent tokens for their commodities (based on unique tagging).
  17. DeGameStation (on ESN) Decentralised Gaming Station. Games in which players take turns can be written in Smart Contract. Games like Chess, Poker, 3 Patti can be developed. Users can come to DeGameStation and join an open game or start a new game and wait for other players to join.

Alpha-release Development Plan
  1. Deploying Parity Node customized according to Era Swap Whitepaper with PoA consensus.
  2. Setting up Plasma Smart Contracts.
  3. Creating a bridge for ERC20 Swap from Ethereum test-net to ESN alpha test-net.

Alpha Version
Era Swap Network Version 1 : Specification
The Version 1 release of ESN plans to fulfill the requirements for political decentralisation and transparency in dApps of Era Swap Ecosystem using Blockchain Technology. After acquiring sufficient number of users, a version 2 construction of ESN will be feasible to enable administrative decentralization, such that the Era Swap Ecosystem will be run and managed by the Era Swap Community and will no longer require the operator to support for it's functioning.
Era Swap Network (ESN) Version 1 will be a separate EVM-compatible sidechain attached to Ethereum blockchain as it’s parent chain. ESN will achieve security through Plasma Framework along with Proof-of-Authority consensus for faster finality. The idea behind plasma framework is to avoid high transaction fees and high transaction confirmation times on Ethereum mainnet by instead doing all the ecosystem transactions off-chain and only post a small information to an Ethereum Smart Contract which would represent hash of plenty of ecosystem transactions. Also, to feature movement of Era Swap Tokens from Ethereum blockchain to ESN using cryptographic proof, reverse plasma of Ethereum on ESN will be implemented.
Also, submitting hash of each ESN blocks to ESN Plasma Smart Contract on Ethereum would force ESN to have a block time equal to or more than Ethereum’s 15 second time as well as it would be very much costly for operator to post lot of hashes to an Ethereum Smart Contract. This is why, merkle root of hashes of bunch of blocks would instead be submitted to ESN Plasma Smart Contact on Ethereum.
Actors involved in the ESN:
  1. Block Producer Nodes Lesser the number of nodes, quicker is the block propagation between block producers which can help quick ecosystem transactions. We find that 7 block producers hosted on different could hosting companies and locations reduces the risk of single point of failure of Era Swap Ecosystem and facilitates 100% uptime of dApps. Block Producer Nodes will also be responsible to post the small information to the Blockchain.
  2. Block Listener Nodes Rest of the nodes will be Block Listeners which will sync new blocks produced by the block producer nodes. Plenty of public block listener nodes would be setup in various regions around the world for shorter ping time to the users of Era Swap Ecosystem. Users would submit their Era Swap Ecosystem transactions to one of these public nodes, which would relay them to rest of the Era Swap Network eventually to the block producer nodes which would finalize a new block including the user transaction.
  3. Bunch Committers This will be an instance in the block producers which will watch for new blocks confirmed on ESN and will calculate bunch merkle roots and will submit it to ESN Plasma Smart Contract. This instance will also post hash of new Ethereum blocks to ESN (after about 10 confirmations) for moving assets between both the blockchain.
  4. Users These will be integrating with dApps which would be connected to some public ESN nodes or they can install a block listner node themselves. They can sign and send transactions to the node which they are connected to and then that node will relay their transactions to block producer nodes who would finalise a block including their transaction.

Bunch Structure

A Bunch Structure in Smart Contract will consist of the following:
• Start Block Number: It is the number of first ESN block in the bunch.
• Bunch Depth: It is Merkle Tree depth of blocks in the bunch. For e.g. If bunch depth is 3, there would be 8 blocks in the bunch and if bunch depth is 10, there would be 1024 blocks in the bunch. Bunch depth of Bunches on ESN Plasma Contract is designed to be variable. During the initial phases of ESN, it would be high, for e.g. 15, to avoid ether expenditure and would be decreased in due course of time.
• Transactions Mega Root: This value is the merkle root of all the transaction roots in the bunch. This is used by Smart Contract to verify that a transaction was sent on the chain.
• Receipts Mega Root: This value is the merkle root of all the receipt roots in the bunch. This is used to verify that the transaction execution was successful.
• Timestamp: This value is the time when the bunch proposal was submitted to the smart contract. After submission, there is a challenge period before it is finalised.

Converting ES-ERC20 to ERC-NA and BACK

On Ethereum Blockchain, the first class cryptocurrency is ETH and rest other tokens managed by smart contracts are second class. On ESN, there is an advancement to have Era Swaps as the first class cryptocurrency. This cryptocurrency will feature better user experience and to differentiate it from the classic ERC20 Era Swaps, it will be called as Era Swap Natives (ES-Na). According to the Era Swap Whitepaper, maximum 9.1 Million ES will exist which will be slowly released in circulation every month.
Era Swaps will exist as ES-ERC20 as well as in form of ES-Na. One of these can be exchanged for the other at 1:1 ratio.
Following is how user will convert ES-ERC20 to ES-Na:
  1. User will give allowance to a Deposit Smart Contract, and following that call deposit method to deposit tokens to the contract.
  2. On transaction confirmation, user will paste the transaction hash on a portal which will generate a Proof of Deposit string for the user. This string is generated by fetching all the transactions in the Ethereum Block and generating a Transaction Patricia Merkle Proof to prove that user’s transaction was indeed included in the block and the Receipts Patricia Merkle Proof to confirm that the user’s transaction was successful.
  3. Using the same portal, user will submit the generated proofs to a Smart Contract on ESN, which would release funds to user. Though, user will have to wait for the Etheruem block roots to be posted to ESN after waiting for confirmations which would take about 3 minutes. Once, it’s done user’s proofs will be accepted and will receive exact amount of ES- Na on ESN.
Following is how user will convert ES-Na to ES-ERC20:
  1. ES-Na being first class cryptocurrency, user will simply send ES-Na to a contract.
  2. User will paste the transaction hash on a portal which will generate a Proof of Deposit for the user. Again ES-Na being first class cryptocurrency, Transaction Patricia Merkle Proof is enough to prove that user’s transaction was indeed included in the block. Another thing which will be generated is the block inclusion proof in the bunch.
  3. User will have to wait for the bunch confirmation to the Plasma Smart Contract and once it’s done, user can send the proof to the Plasma Smart Contract to receive ES-ERC20.

HARD Exit

Since the blocks are produced and transactions are validated by few block producers, it exposes a possibility for fraud by controlling the block producer nodes. Because ESN is based on the Plasma Model, when failure of sidechain occurs or the chain halts, users can hard exit their funds directly from the Plasma Smart Contract on Ethereum by giving a Proof of Holdings.

HOld ES Tokens Swapping with New ES Tokens

The old ES Tokens will be valueless as those tokens will not be accepted in ESN because of NRT (New Released Tokens) and TimeAlly contracts on mainnet which is causing high gas to users, hence reducing interactions. Also, there was an event of theft of Era Swap Tokens and after consensus from majority of holders of Era Swap Tokens; it was decided to create a new contract to reverse the theft to secure the value of Era Swap Tokens of the community. Below is the strategy for swapping tokens:
TimeAlly and TSGAP: Majority of Era Swap Community have participated in TimeAlly Smart Contract in which their tokens are locked for certain period of time until which they cannot move them. Such holders will automatically receive TimeAlly staking of specific durations from the operator during initialization of ESN.
Liquid Tokens: Holders of Liquid Era Swap Tokens have to transfer the old tokens to a specified Ethereum wallet address managed by team. Following that, team will audit the token source of the holder (to eliminate exchange of stolen tokens) and send new tokens back to the wallet address.

Post-Genesis Tokens Return Program

Primary asset holding of Era Swap tokens will exist on Ethereum blockchain as an ERC20 compatible standard due to the highly decentralised nature of the blockchain. Similar to how users deposit tokens to an cryptocurrency exchange for trading and then withdraw the tokens back, users will deposit tokens to ESN Contract to enter Era Swap Ecosystem and they can withdraw it back from ESN Contract for exiting from ecosystem network. The design of the token system will be such that, it will be compatible with the future shift (modification or migration of ESN version 1) to ESN version 2, in which an entirely new blockchain setup might be required.
To manage liquidity, following genesis structure will be followed:

Holder ES-ERC20 ES-Na
Team Wallet 1.17 billion (Circulating Supply) 0
Locked in Smart Contract 7.93 billion (pending NRT releases) 9.1 billion
Though it looks like there are 9.1 * 2 = 18.2 Billion ES, but the cryptographic design secures that at any point in time at least a total of 9.1 billion ES (ES-ERC20 + ES-Na) will be locked. To unlock ES-Na on ESN, an equal amount of ES-ERC20 has to be locked on Ethereum and vice-versa.
9.1 billion ES-ERC20 will be issued by ERC20 smart contract on Ethereum Blockchain, out of which the entire circulating supply (including liquid and TimeAlly holdings) of old ES will be received to a team wallet.
TimeAlly holdings of all users will be converted to ES-Na and distributed on ESN TimeAlly Smart Contract by team to the TimeAlly holders on their same wallet address.
Liquid user holdings will be sent back to the users to the wallet address from which they send back old ES tokens (because some old ES are deposited on exchange wallet address).
ES-Na will be issued in the genesis block to an ESN Manager Smart Contract address. It will manage all the deposits and withdrawals as well as NRT releases.

Attack Vectors


Following are identified risks to be taken care of during the development of ESN:
Network Spamming: Attackers can purchase ES from the exchange and make a lot of transactions between two accounts. This is solved by involving gas fees. A setting of 200 nanoES minimum gas price will be set, which can be changed as per convenience.
DDoS: Attackers can query public nodes for computationally heavy output data. This will overload the public node with requests and genuine requests might get delayed. Block producers RPC is private, so they will continue to produce blocks. To manage user’s denial of service, the provider in dApps needs to be designed in such a way such that many public nodes will be queried simple information (let’s say latest block number) and the one which response quickly to user will be selected.
AWS is down: To minimize this issue due to cloud providers down, there will be enough nodes on multiple cloud providers to ensure at least one block producer is alive.
User deposit double spending: User deposits ES on Ethereum, gets ES-Na on ESN. Then the issue happens that there are re-org on ETH mainnet and the user’s transaction is reversed. Since ETH is not a fixed chain and as per PoW 51% attack can change the blocks. As Ethereum is now enough mature and by statistics forked blocks are at most of height 2. So it is safe to consider 15 confirmations.
Exit Game while smooth functioning: User starts a hard exit directly from Plasma Smart Contract on Ethereum, then spends his funds from the plasma chain too. To counter this, the exit game will be disabled, only when ESN halts, i.e. fails to submit block header within the time the exit game starts. This is because it is difficult to mark user’s funds as spent on ESN.
Vulnerability in Ecosystem Smart Contracts: Using traditional methods to deploy smart contracts results in a situation where if a bug is found later, it is not possible to change the code. Using a proxy construction for every ecosystem smart contract solves this problem, and changing a proxy can be given to a small committee in which 66% of votes are required, this is to prevent a malicious change of code due to compromising of a single account or similar scenario.
ChainID replay attacks: Using old and traditional ways to interact with dApps can cause loss to users, hence every dApp will be audited for the same.

Conclusion

Era Swap Network is an EVM-compatible sidechain attached to the Ethereum blockchain through Plasma Framework. This allows off-chain processing of Era Swap Ecosystem transactions and posting only the hash of the bunch to Ethereum. This greatly reduces the high network fee and confirmation time issues faced by the current Era Swap Ecosystem DApps deployed on Ethereum. Also, having a separate EVM-compatible blockchain tailored to Era Swap Ecosystem improves the user experience to a higher extent. Since by design, Plasma Framework makes the Era Swap Network as secure as the Ethereum Network, user's funds on the network would be secure as well.
We believe Era Swap Network will help scale dApps of Era Swap Ecosystem to onboard the increasing numbers of users.


Era Swap Ecosystem
Era Swap Ecosystem consist of multiple interlinked platforms which is powered by Era swap (ES) token, a decentralized utility token to be used on below utility platforms. Users can access the Platforms through Era Swap Life which is the Single Sign on (SSO) gateway to the one world of Era Swap Ecosystem.
Era Swap Life: https://eraswap.life/
TimeAlly DApp -> Decentralized Token Vesting: https://www.timeally.io/
BetDeEx -> Decentralized prediction platform: https://www.betdeex.com/
Swappers Wall -> Social Time Ledgerise: https://timeswappers.com/swapperswall
TimeSwappers -> Global P2P marketplace: https://timeswappers.com/
BuzCafe -> Connects local P2P outlets: https://buzcafe.com/
DaySwappers -> Unique Affiliate Program: https://dayswappers.com/
Era Swap Academy -> E-mart for skill development: https://eraswap.academy/
Value of Farmers (VOF) -> Farming ecosystem: http://valueoffarmers.org/ coming soon
ComputeEx -> P2P lending and borrowing: https://computeex.net/ coming soon
DateSwappers -> Next gen dating: coming soon
Smart Contract address

Era Swap Token (ES)
https://etherscan.io/address/0xef1344bdf80bef3ff4428d8becec3eea4a2cf574#code

Newly Released Token (NRT) https://etherscan.io/address/0x20ee679d73559e4c4b5e3b3042b61be723828d6c#code

TimeAlly DApp
https://etherscan.io/address/0x5630ee5f247bd6b61991fbb2f117bbeb45990876#code

BetDeEx DApp https://etherscan.io/address/0x42225682113E6Ed3616B36B4A72BbaE376041D7c#code
TSGAP DApp
https://etherscan.io/address/0xbad9af4db5401b7d5e8177a18c1d69c35fc03fd3#code

White Paper
Era Swap Whitepaper: https://eraswaptoken.io/pdf/eraswap_whitepaper.pdf
Era Swap Light Paper: https://eraswaptoken.io/pdf/eraswap_lightpaper.pdf

Howey Test
Howey Test: https://eraswaptoken.io/era-swap-howey-test-letter-august7-2018.php

Era Swap SOCIAL LINKS
Telegram: https://t.me/eraswap
Twitter: https://twitter.com/eraswaptec
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/eraswap/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/eraswap/
BitcoinTalk: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5025979.msg45502457
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGCP4f5DF1W6sbCjS6y3T1g
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/eraswap/
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/useEraSwap
Medium: https://medium.com/@eraswap
Tumblr: https://eraswap.tumblr.com/
Mix: https://mix.com/eraswap
Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/eraswapt/
GitHub: https://github.com/KMPARDS/EraSwapSmartContracts
submitted by EraSwap to u/EraSwap [link] [comments]

Bitcoin 2015 so far

I don't know about you guys, but I've noticed that shit in bitcoin-land seems to be moving faster and faster... I browse this sub and a few other communities daily, and I've been making a short note whenever something significant happens. Lots of good, even more bad, probably a lot of stuff that I missed, and plenty of sweet drama :) Here's what I've got for January 2015
(these are not in exact order)
Again, probably lots that I missed, but all in all it's been a pretty balls-to-the-wall last 4 weeks. I don't have time to find references for all of these, but if another redditor wants to do it that would be cool. Here's to another month of madness
tl;dr running out of popcorn, need to buy more.
edit adding in some other items people mentioned below
submitted by cryptonaut420 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Proposal: Make miners prove that they validated (or at a minimum know the full contents of) the block 4 blocks ago

The topic of how SPV mining is bad has come up several times in the last year. There was a recent proposal to demand that miners prove that they have received all of the contents of a block before they can start mining. There have been various proposals in the same spirit over the years.
I think making miners prove they have the full contents of the block they are trying to build on is a bad idea, because it puts miners at a disadvantage if they cannot rapidly acquire the entire block contents. This task favors centralized players with high bandwidth, low latency connectivity, which is expensive, and the problem gets worse the larger blocks get. Players with poor connectivity will fail to mine profitably because too much of their time will be spent receiving and validating each block.
A similar benefit could be achieved without the negative centralization impact if the miners are asked to provide evidence that they validated a block far enough in the past. For example, if miners were required to provide evidence that they validated a block at height H - 4 when mining the block at height H, then you have a situation where there is a 99.9% chance that the block at H-4 will have been broadcast more than 250 seconds ago. On average, miners would have 30 minutes to receive and validate the H - 4 block.
I do not know exactly what kind of evidence the miners should be asked to provide. It would be nice if the evidence had the following properties:
  1. Showed that they actually validated the block, not just that they knew it. Alternatively, it could maybe just take a similar amount of time as validation takes, so that there is no temporal cost to validating in parallel.
  2. Verifying the evidence would not add much time to the overall block validation step.
  3. Verifying the evidence would not be necessary to perform the rest of the block validation. Like with segwit, nodes could skip this verification if they wanted to.
  4. Was hard to outsource. For example, perhaps the proof could incorporate the header from block H-1, or some of the intermediate mining steps that would only be accessible to someone who was about to solve the block.
The above idea could be implemented with a soft fork, and would create incentives that would practically guarantee that miners would would validate every block as soon as possible.
It would not absolutely enforce that behavior, so theoretically miners could construct a chain 3 blocks long on top of an invalid block before they were forced to prove knowledge of the bad block. I think this would be incredibly unlikely if the above idea were implemented because the cost to behave "properly" would be negligible, and if you misbehave you risk losing a lot of money.
But what if such a chain were produced?
First of all, unless the network is deploying a soft fork, fully validating nodes would not accept the bad block and would not notice the bad chain. As I understand it, the fact that SPV nodes do not validate blocks could cause them to follow this bad chain, however this vulnerability could be improved with a simple fix. When validating nodes serve blocks to SPV nodes, they would include a message to indicate that they have personally validated the block. SPV nodes could be configured to consider a block "provisional" until several nodes indicate that they have validated the block.
My first reaction to this issue was that SPV mining did not present a big problem because miners are incentivized to validate as soon as possible, and discard blocks or chains when they discovered they were invalid. I have changed my mind this weekend and suggest making the changes described above. What I realized, is that while SPV mining is pretty harmless during normal operation, it can be disastrous during a soft fork.
Consider this scenario:
  1. A soft fork is being rolled out, and whatever threshold of miners has been reached. Blocks that do not conform to the soft fork are officially considered invalid.
  2. An un-upgraded miner produces a block that is valid according to the old rules, but invalid according to the new rules.
  3. Even though they indicated that they were ready for the soft fork, a large fraction of the miners are just SPV mining, not actually validating. They do not notice that this block does not obey the rules of the soft fork and they build on it. Call this chain B for bad.
  4. Un-upgraded nodes cannot notice that these blocks are "bad." They see these blocks as confirming transactions.
  5. Miners who have upgraded, and are validating, reject the longest chain and continue working on the soft fork. Call this chain G for good.
  6. Upgraded nodes follow chain G.
  7. The network therefore experiences an unplanned hard fork between chain B and chain G. Eventually all miners will switch to one of the two chains, but it cannot be known ahead of time which chain will win. This is pretty much a worst case scenario.
From the above, part of the personality of a soft-fork becomes more clear to me. During a soft fork, it is impossible for fully validating nodes, if they are not upgraded, to determine whether or not they are on the correct chain. This puts almost all of the power and responsibility on the miners. If they mine without validating during this delicate phase, no one else is positioned well to correct their mistakes. Un-upgraded nodes are effectively turned into SPV clients -- not just for transactions making use of newly rolled out features, but for the question of which chain is valid.
Ideally, miners would:
  1. Receive the solved header for B(N-1)
  2. Start mining B(N) with no transactions
  3. Receive a compact (e.g. bloom filter) message that allows them to include at least some transactions while mining B(N).
  4. Receive the main block B(N-1) absent the SW and do a complete (provisional) update of the UTXO state. Prioritize transactions and start mining a full block.
  5. Receive the segregated witness for B(N-1) and fully validate the block.
  6. Discard the current block and roll back the utxo state if you have discovered that B(N-1) is invalid.
Forcing miners to validate prior to hashing could cause most miners to stop validating at all and outsource the validation job to specialists with low latency internet connections, much like how high frequency trading is done on computers that are physically located close together. This is not a good idea.
submitted by moral_agent to btc [link] [comments]

Views from Argentina pe Trilema - Un blog de Mircea Popescu.

Views from Argentina pe Trilema - Un blog de Mircea Popescu. submitted by TrollHarderer to argentina [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Options Index (^OIX) price sentiment indicator hits all time high ($42.66 / BTC)

The recent purchase of ~36,000 call options has driven the OIX to an all-time high, a very bullish signal for the medium-term bitcoin price. This indicator is based on the average break-even value for bitcoin options purchased in the past week. Over 60,000BTC in market-based bets is currently at risk in the option contracts purchased in the past week, so it's an indicator based on over $2,000,000 in real money bets on the future price of bitcoin. You can read more about how the OIX is calculated here. Which also includes this nifty historical chart of OIX vs. BTC price.
submitted by Bugpowder to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Why does this Timeline End In 2012? Can Someone Please Caulk This Gap?

The following post by gnarledrose is being replicated because the post has been silently greylisted(for 1.2 hours).
(It was approved by the mods at: 2017-10-17T05:30:26.000Z)
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/76u98g
The original post's content was as follows:
http://trilema.com/2012/the-bitcoin-drama-timeline/
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

Make miners prove that they validated (or at a minimum know the full contents of) the block 4 blocks ago, not 1 block ago

The topic of how SPV mining is bad has come up several times in the last year. There was a recent proposal to demand that miners prove that they have received all of the contents of a block before they can start mining. There have been various proposals in the same spirit over the years.
I think making miners prove they have the full contents of the block they are trying to build on is a bad idea, because it puts miners at a disadvantage if they cannot rapidly acquire the entire block contents. This task favors centralized players with high bandwidth, low latency connectivity, which is expensive, and the problem gets worse the larger blocks get. Players with poor connectivity will fail to mine profitably because too much of their time will be spent receiving and validating each block.
A similar benefit could be achieved without the negative centralization impact if the miners are asked to provide evidence that they validated a block far enough in the past. For example, if miners were required to provide evidence that they validated a block at height H - 4 when mining the block at height H, then you have a situation where there is a 99.9% chance that the block at H - 4 will have been broadcast more than 250 seconds ago. On average, miners would have 30 minutes to receive and validate the H - 4 block.
I do not know exactly what kind of evidence the miners should be asked to provide. It would be nice if the evidence had the following properties:
  1. Showed that they actually validated the block, not just that they knew it. Alternatively, it could maybe just take a similar amount of time as validation takes, so that there is no temporal cost to validating in parallel.
  2. Verifying the evidence would not add much time to the overall block validation step.
  3. Verifying the evidence would not be necessary to perform the rest of the block validation. Like with segwit, nodes could skip this verification if they wanted to.
  4. Was hard to outsource. For example, perhaps the proof could incorporate the header from block H-1, or some of the intermediate mining steps that would only be accessible to someone who was about to solve the block.
The above idea could be implemented with a soft fork, and would create incentives that would practically guarantee that miners would would validate every block as soon as possible.
It would not absolutely enforce that behavior, so theoretically miners could construct a chain 3 blocks long on top of an invalid block before they were forced to prove knowledge of the bad block. I think this would be incredibly unlikely if the above idea were implemented because the cost to behave "properly" would be negligible, and if you misbehave you risk losing a lot of money.
But what if such a chain were produced?
First of all, unless the network is deploying a soft fork, fully validating nodes would not accept the bad block and would not notice the bad chain. As I understand it, the fact that SPV nodes do not validate blocks could cause them to follow this bad chain, however this vulnerability could be improved with a simple fix. When validating nodes serve blocks to SPV nodes, they would include a message to indicate that they have personally validated the block. SPV nodes could be configured to consider a block "provisional" until several nodes indicate that they have validated the block.
My first reaction to this issue was that SPV mining did not present a big problem because miners are incentivized to validate as soon as possible, and discard blocks or chains when they discovered they were invalid. I have changed my mind this weekend and suggest making the changes described above. What I realized, is that while SPV mining is pretty harmless during normal operation, it can be disastrous during a soft fork.
Consider this scenario:
  1. A soft fork is being rolled out, and whatever threshold of miners has been reached. Blocks that do not conform to the soft fork are officially considered invalid.
  2. An un-upgraded miner produces a block that is valid according to the old rules, but invalid according to the new rules.
  3. Even though they indicated that they were ready for the soft fork, a large fraction of the miners are just SPV mining, not actually validating. They do not notice that this block does not obey the rules of the soft fork and they build on it. Call this chain B for bad.
  4. Un-upgraded nodes cannot notice that these blocks are "bad." They see these blocks as confirming transactions.
  5. Miners who have upgraded, and are validating, reject the longest chain and continue working on the soft fork. Call this chain G for good.
  6. Upgraded nodes follow chain G.
  7. The network therefore experiences an unplanned hard fork between chain B and chain G. Eventually all miners will switch to one of the two chains, but it cannot be known ahead of time which chain will win. This is pretty much a worst case scenario.
From the above, part of the personality of a soft-fork becomes more clear to me. During a soft fork, it is impossible for fully validating nodes, if they are not upgraded, to determine whether or not they are on the correct chain. This puts almost all of the power and responsibility on the miners. If they mine without validating during this delicate phase, no one else is positioned well to correct their mistakes. Un-upgraded nodes are effectively turned into SPV clients -- not just for transactions making use of newly rolled out features, but for the question of which chain is valid.
Ideally, miners would:
  1. Receive the solved header for H - 1
  2. Start mining H with no transactions
  3. Receive a compact message that allows them to include at least some transactions while mining H.
  4. Receive the main block H - 1 absent the SW and do a complete (provisional) update of the UTXO state. Prioritize transactions and start mining a full block.
  5. Receive the segregated witness for H -1 and fully validate the block.
  6. Discard the current block and roll back the utxo state if you have discovered that H - 1 is invalid.
Forcing miners to validate prior to hashing could cause most miners to stop validating at all and outsource the validation job to specialists with low latency internet connections, much like how high frequency trading is done on computers that are physically located close together. This is not a good idea.
Why is introducing anything that allows miners to "make progress" toward solving a block a deadly sin, but this proposal, which allows certain miners (especially the one who solved the last block and already has it and knows that it is valid) to get a head start is a-ok?
submitted by moral_agent to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Interesting statistics on bitcoin businessess

I was browsing through the Bitcoin section of polimedia.us and came across this pretty interesting article: http://polimedia.us/trilema/2013/the-best-investments-in-the-history-of-bitcoin/. It basically shows the effects of investing 1 Bitcoin into some of the top Bitcoin shares, definitely something you guys would be interested in!
submitted by matthew_boyd to BitcoinStocks [link] [comments]

The sad state of Bitcoin code (What is this ?)

http://trilema.com/2016/the-sad-state-of-bitcoin-code/#selection-7.0-7.29
What is this talking about exactly ?
submitted by Liquid00 to btc [link] [comments]

Full disclosure : 4096 RSA key in the strongset factored. on Trilema - A blog by Mircea Popescu.

This is an automatic summary, original reduced by 59%.
As you may or may not know, No Such lAbs has been for a while using BISP hardware to run Phuctor, a RSA key factorization service.
Since there's about 4 million keys in the bundle of publicly known keys that it is processing, if you're even vaguely mathematically literate and even marginally aware of what exactly theoretical RSA promises, you would on the strength of this introduction expect a key to be factored just a little before Elvis comes back as the Queen of England.
Imagine my surprise, and Stan's surprise, and everyone's surprise - including your own once you find that yes, it has broken a pair of keys.
How exactly it got past Pollard-rho and why exactly is 231 a factor in RSA keys is beyond the scope of this writing and sadly something we had not the time to investigate.
The originally intended, civilised process of emailing the victim, keeping things quiet for a while to give them time to update and so on is not practicable : for all we know others unknown are at the current time in possession of the same information we have.
Nevertheless : emergency testing of all deployed RSA key generators must be undertaken now, to verify why exactly they would produce weak keys.
Summary Source | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top five keywords: key#1 time#2 RSA#3 exactly#4 may#5
Post found in /QuantumWeekly, /technology, /linux, /cryptography, /hacking, /Bitcoin, /realtech, /hackernews, /crypto, /techtalktoday, /netsec, /privacy and /techsnap.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic only. Do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]

Today, a 4096 bit RSA key was factored, more coming as we speak.

This is an automatic summary, original reduced by 59%.
As you may or may not know, No Such lAbs has been for a while using BISP hardware to run Phuctor, a RSA key factorization service.
Since there's about 4 million keys in the bundle of publicly known keys that it is processing, if you're even vaguely mathematically literate and even marginally aware of what exactly theoretical RSA promises, you would on the strength of this introduction expect a key to be factored just a little before Elvis comes back as the Queen of England.
Imagine my surprise, and Stan's surprise, and everyone's surprise - including your own once you find that yes, it has broken a pair of keys.
How exactly it got past Pollard-rho and why exactly is 231 a factor in RSA keys is beyond the scope of this writing and sadly something we had not the time to investigate.
The originally intended, civilised process of emailing the victim, keeping things quiet for a while to give them time to update and so on is not practicable : for all we know others unknown are at the current time in possession of the same information we have.
Nevertheless : emergency testing of all deployed RSA key generators must be undertaken now, to verify why exactly they would produce weak keys.
Summary Source | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top five keywords: key#1 time#2 RSA#3 exactly#4 may#5
Post found in /technology, /linux, /cryptography, /hacking, /realtech, /hackernews, /Bitcoin, /techtalktoday and /techsnap.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic only. Do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]

The Trillion Dollar Problem in Crypto - Blockchain Trilemma Explained ETH INTASATO. Agonia in Blockchain. ⚠️ Il trilemma #TCConf19 - Giacomo Zucco - The Bitcoin Trilemma Bitcoin Stuff - Enter the Wardrobe into Narnia How do you solve the blockchain trilemma?

Bitcoin fragmentation xii poses various problems to various other people xiii besides fiatist pretenders, of course, which is why my only other xiv measure as Bitcoin's central bank and only financial, political and ideological authority -- besides killing an early rally back in 2013 xv-- was killing "bitcoin as medium of exchange" nonsense back in ~2016. Nevertheless, problems or no problems ... The Trilemma hypothetically states that all blockchains can be represented to exist at one exact point within a triangle, which is determined by the measure of each of three core blockchain principles. The ideal blockchain would be able to maximize all three elements, thus solving the Trilemma. Bitcoin faces a "trilemma," says a leading researcher. Either it becomes more centralized, loses liquidity, or increases supply beyond 21 million. Zwei Blockchain Projekte am Trilemma – Dreieck. Schauen wir uns anhand von zwei Blockchainprojekten an, wie die elementaren Eigenschaften verteilt sind. Bitcoin. Bitcoin ist ziemlich langsam. Durch die Pools haben auch relativ wenige Leute Einfluss auf die Transaktionshistorie. Das Netzwerk ist also wenig dezentral, wenn man bedenkt wie viele ... Bitcoin bulls have repeatedly claimed that the cryptocurrency price will hit $20,000 shortly. While many analysts believe it would happen, some disagree. Yashu Gola 28 mins ago; Bitcoin Creates Strong Tailwind as Traders Rotate Capital... Bitcoin’s price has begun consolidating following its immense surge seen throughout the past 48 hours Yesterday afternoon, it rallied as high as $13,200

[index] [29544] [7673] [24369] [26250] [6046] [10268] [26622] [26472] [7238] [35981]

The Trillion Dollar Problem in Crypto - Blockchain Trilemma Explained

Agonia in Blockchain. ⚠️ Il trilemma 💥 Zaragast In the cryptoverse. Loading... Unsubscribe from Zaragast In the cryptoverse? Cancel Unsubscribe. Working... Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe ... Algorand Explained: Will the Algorand team be able to solve Blockchain Trilemma? Learn Blockchain, Cryptocurrencies (including Bitcoin, Ethereum & Co.) from first principles with Tom Heats ... In this episode of WTF is, we cover what is known as the Scalability Trilemma. Sparked by the discussion over scalability, the trilemma describes the challenges each blockchain faces when they are ... In this video, I'll be sharing a clip from my Crypto Investing course that explains the concept of the blockchain trilemma. I've described this as the trillion dollar problem, because I believe ... How do you solve the blockchain trilemma? Thank you for watching! In this episode, I chat with Michelle Chuang, Chief Operating Officer at Asensys. In this interview, we discuss scalability and ...

#