|submitted by Hellterskelt to bitcoin_is_dead [link] [comments]|
|submitted by Rufflenator to 3bitcoins [link] [comments]|
|submitted by ososru to Bitcoin4free [link] [comments]|
|submitted by Leka213 to CryptocurrencyToday [link] [comments]|
|submitted by ososru to Bitcoin4free [link] [comments]|
|submitted by Rufflenator to 3bitcoins [link] [comments]|
|submitted by ososru to Bitcoin4free [link] [comments]|
|submitted by Rufflenator to 3bitcoins [link] [comments]|
|submitted by _smudger_ to Bitcoin [link] [comments]|
|submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]|
submitted by Bitcoinplaats to bitcoinplaats [link] [comments]
Kepler is a blockchain privacy platform that aims to release the first ever Confidential Assets on a MimbleWimble Blockchain. Our consensus mechanism is Proof-of-Work. If you’d like to see more, please visit our website: https://kepler.network as well as our documentation site at https://docs.kepler.networksubmitted by keplernetwork to KeplerNetwork [link] [comments]
You can check out our LitePaper here: https://keplernetwork.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/KeplerLitepaper.pdf
The Kepler LitePaper mentions:
Let’s begin and explore some of the highlights of the Kepler LitePaper!
Confidential Transactions (CT)CT were designed to restore privacy to blockchain transactions, as the LitePaper mentions, Bitcoin transactions aren’t private, they can be traced using publicly-available tools. The goal for CT is to restore privacy to blockchain transactions.
Native CT on Kepler MWPrivacy has been a major topic in blockchain technology in the past decade, there’s been several technological approaches towards providing true privacy, without sacrificing scalability and functionality. Over time, there was a loss of interest towards privacy technology on blockchain, that is, until MimbleWimble technology came along. Thanks to MimbleWimble, there is a way to improve privacy without sacrificing functionality, and in the meantime, MW allows for better scalability.
Remember, there are no addresses used in Kepler!
Confidential Assets (CA)Perhaps one of the most exciting topics in recent blockchain development, it will allow users to create multiple asset types without exposing both the asset type and transaction amount publicly.
Moving towards the future of PrivacyThe best way to launch Confidential Assets is on a blockchain built for privacy. Having semi-anonymous backbone infrastructure that cannot scale is not a good starting point for development.
CA already in TestnetOur development team has been working for months and plans to launch a working test network soon. We will be release development updates regularly, and we encourage feedback.
WhitePaper coming up soon after the LitePaperWe chose a Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism for a variety of reasons. This article could get lengthy if we go into too much detail, but we’ll discuss this a bit.
An ASIC PoW algorithm is fair for miners, even ones who invested in multiple graphics cards. There will always be a coin for them to mine with their hardware. Hashrate rental services even the playing field for everyone. Most individuals cannot mine as cheap as they rent because of electricity costs. Not to mention the upfront cost of the hardware, shipping, customs and other fees like cooling and electrical work. Renters like using these services because they don’t need to trust their mining pool nor do they have to take custody of their coins or pay exchange fees.
Economic ModelCryptocurrencies are far more divisible than fiat currency. Think of it as a dollar with a million pennies. Finding an economic model that works is something polite society will never stop debating. The trick is to make currency scarce enough so that it has value, but rare enough that so that everyone has access to it.
Yes. You pick a peer and after some setup, create a bitcoin transaction to fund the lightning channel; it’ll then take another transaction to close it and release your funds. You and your peer always hold a bitcoin transaction to get your funds whenever you want: just broadcast to the blockchain like normal. In other words, you and your peer create a shared account, and then use Lightning to securely negotiate who gets how much from that shared account, without waiting for the bitcoin blockchain.
Yes, Lightning is open source. Anyone can review the code (in the same way as the bitcoin code)
Similar to the bitcoin network, no one will ever own or control the Lightning Network. The code is open source and free for anyone to download and review. Anyone can run a node and be part of the network.
No, your bitcoin will never leave the blockchain. Instead your bitcoin will be held in a multi-signature address as long as your channel stays open. When the channel is closed; the final transaction will be added to the blockchain. “Off-chain” is not a perfect term, but it is used due to the fact that the transfer of ownership is no longer reflected on the blockchain until the channel is closed.
Example: A and B have a channel. 1 BTC each. A sends B 0.5 BTC. B sends back 0.25 BTC. Balance should be A = 0.75, B = 1.25. If A gets disconnected, B can publish the first Tx where the balance was A = 0.5 and B = 1.5. If the node B does in fact attempt to cheat by publishing an old state (such as the A=0.5 and B=1.5 state), this cheat can then be detected on-chain and used to steal the cheaters funds, i.e., A can see the closing transaction, notice it's an old one and grab all funds in the channel (A=2, B=0). The time that A has in order to react to the cheating counterparty is given by the CheckLockTimeVerify (CLTV) in the cheating transaction, which is adjustable. So if A foresees that it'll be able to check in about once every 24 hours it'll require that the CLTV is at least that large, if it's once a week then that's fine too. You definitely do not need to be online and watching the chain 24/7, just make sure to check in once in a while before the CLTV expires. Alternatively you can outsource the watch duties, in order to keep the CLTV timeouts low. This can be achieved both with trusted third parties or untrusted ones (watchtowers). In the case of a unilateral close, e.g., you just go offline and never come back, the other endpoint will have to wait for that timeout to expire to get its funds back. So peers might not accept channels with extremely high CLTV timeouts. -- Source
Tiny payments are possible: since fees are proportional to the payment amount, you can pay a fraction of a cent; accounting is even done in thousandths of a satoshi. Payments are settled instantly: the money is sent in the time it takes to cross the network to your destination and back, typically a fraction of a second.
Yes, but not in theory. You could make a poorer lightning network without it, which has higher risks when establishing channels (you might have to wait a month if things go wrong!), has limited channel lifetime, longer minimum payment expiry times on each hop, is less efficient and has less robust outsourcing. The entire spec as written today assumes segregated witness, as it solves all these problems.
No, for now. For the first version of the protocol, if you wanted to send a normal bitcoin transaction using your channel, you have to close it, send the funds, then reopen the channel (3 transactions). In future versions, you and your peer would agree to spend out of your lightning channel funds just like a normal bitcoin payment, allowing you to use your lightning wallet like a normal bitcoin wallet.
Not really. Anyone can set up a node, and so it’s a race to the bottom on fees. In practice, we may see the network use a nominal fee and not change very much, which only provides an incremental incentive to route on a node you’re going to use yourself, and not enough to run one merely for fees. Having clients use criteria other than fees (e.g. randomness, diversity) in route selection will also help this.
Lightning is already being tested on the Mainnet Twitter Link but as for a specific date, Jameson Lopp says it best
Nope, because there is no custody ever involved. It's just like forwarding packets. -- Source
Furthermore, the Lightning Network scales not with the transaction throughput of the underlying blockchain, but with modern data processing and latency limits - payments can be made nearly as quickly as packets can be sent. -- Source
Each exchange will get to decide and need to implement the software into their system, but some ideas have been outlined here: Google Doc - Lightning Exchanges
Note that by virtue of the usual benefits of cost-less, instantaneous transactions, lightning will make arbitrage between exchanges much more efficient and thus lead to consistent pricing across exchange that adopt it. -- Source
According to Rusty's calculations we should be able to store 1 million nodes in about 100 MB, so that should work even for mobile phones. Beyond that we have some proposals ready to lighten the load on endpoints, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. -- Source
No you'd remember the information from the last time you started the app and only sync the differences. This is not yet implemented, but it shouldn't be too hard to get a preliminary protocol working if that turns out to be a problem. -- Source
Lightning is based on participants in the network running lightning node software that enables them to interact with other nodes. This does not require being a full bitcoin node, but you will have to run "lnd", "eclair", or one of the other node softwares listed above.
All lightning wallets have node software integrated into them, because that is necessary to create payment channels and conduct payments on the network, but you can also intentionally run lnd or similar for public benefit - e.g. you can hold open payment channels or channels with higher volume, than you need for your own transactions. You would be compensated in modest fees by those who transact across your node with multi-hop payments. -- Source
Sure, you can help write up educational material. You can learn and read more about the tech at http://dev.lightning.community/resources. You can test the various desktop and mobile apps out there (Lightning Desktop, Zap, Eclair apps). -- Source
No -- Source
lit doesn't depend on having your own full node -- it automatically connects to full nodes on the network. -- Source
LND uses a light client mode, so it doesn't require a full node. The name of the light client it uses is called neutrino
Upon opening a channel, the two endpoints first agree on a reserve value, below which the channel balance may not drop. This is to make sure that both endpoints always have some skin in the game as rustyreddit puts it :-)
For a cheat to become worth it, the opponent has to be absolutely sure that you cannot retaliate against him during the timeout. So he has to make sure you never ever get network connectivity during that time. Having someone else also watching for channel closures and notifying you, or releasing a canned retaliation, makes this even harder for the attacker. This is because if he misjudged you being truly offline you can retaliate by grabbing all of its funds. Spotty connections, DDoS, and similar will not provide the attacker the necessary guarantees to make cheating worthwhile. Any form of uncertainty about your online status acts as a deterrent to the other endpoint. -- Source
You typically want to have more than one channel open at any given time for redundancy's sake. And we imagine open and close will probably be automated for the most part. In fact we already have a feature in LND called autopilot that can automatically open channels for a user.
Frequency will depend whether the funds are needed on-chain or more useful on LN. -- Source
You don't really set up a "node" in the sense that anyone with more than one channel can automatically be a node and route payments. Fees on LN can be set by the node, and can change dynamically on the network. -- Source
Yes but it has to be implemented in the Lightning software being used. -- Source
You won't have to do anything. With autopilot enabled, it'll automatically open and close channels based on the availability of the network. -- Source
They say birds of a feather flock together and apparently that now includes butterflies. I recently came across a new crypto/hardware company, AMMBR, doing an ICO that contains at least 7 former members of the infamous Butterfly Labs company in varying capacities.submitted by techknowledgy to Buttcoin [link] [comments]
Interestingly enough, my curiosity was
I’m now going to connect the dots for you to the people associated with SCAMMBR to show beyond a reasonable doubt that they are a quasi-reincarnation of BFL.
If you go to their website, www.ammbr.com, you can see their team members. Here are some of note:
1.) FORMER BFL Chief Technology Officer: Nasser Ghoseiri
Nasser was the Iranian living in France and one of the three named defendants in the case brought against BFL by the FTC which BFL lost.
SCAMMBR CONNECTION: Senior IT Consultant
2.) FORMER BFL VP of Marketing: Jeff Ownby
Jeff is the infamous character who pulled the trick of buying Buttcoin.org surreptitiously and then chanigng the negative articles to positive. Jeff isn’t listed on the official site, but he’s always worked behind the scenes from my experience as he was never listed as a BFL employee either. While he doesn’t list BFL on his LinkedIn profile, it’s fairly obvious when you read his experience at ForceStream.
SCAMMBR CONNECTION: VP of Marketing
3.) FORMER BFL Marketing Manager: Jurie Pieterse
Jurie is Jeff’s right-hand man and took over my position after it changed hands once since I left. Wherever Jeff goes, Jurie seems to follow, even on one of their new ventures: https://coinclaim.io/team
(ALSO NAMED IN COURT DOCUMENTS FROM FTC CASE TRANSCRIPTS)
SCAMMBR CONNECTION: Chief Marketing Officer
4.) FORMER BFL PRODUCT DESIGN CONSULTANT: Jason Aspinall
Jason was brought in at BFL when the redesign of the BitForce series needed to be done due to heat issues and for a variety of other design issues.
SCAMMBR CONNECTION: Electro-Mechanical Design & Testing Engineer
5.) FORMER BFL PCB DESIGNEMANUFACTURER: Ankur Patel
BFL used Ankur Patel and his company PCB Overnight for their boards in the miners. These boards suffered numerous problems and could not be produced in the quantity needed.
SCAMMBR CONNECTION: Head of PROCUREMENT
Guess who else is on the team? After checking out their team page, I saw a photo with a few familiar faces. Wanna know who they are?
NOTABLE FIGURES IN PIC:
1.) Third from the left is The Infamous Josh Zerlan, aka Inaba, aka u/NitroWolf, aka BagO’Dicks, former VP of Product Dev at BFL, and now apparently consulting or a part of SCAMMBR according to the “Projects” section of his LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/josh-zerlan-a4140478/
2.) Four spots to the right of Josh is The Infamous Dave “The Knife” Mcclain, aka "THE MOLE", former BFL Account Manager, who seems to be a part of it as well as he is pictured on their website with their team in a photo which also includes Josh. Not sure what he does there as he has little understanding of cryptocurrency or just about any technical development since the VCR.
BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!
SCAMMBR was originally founded in 2017.
However it had two main issues which found itself on the dead coin list until it was recently resurrected, one being lack of interest/exchange listings and the other being a major security vulnerability in the smart contract, and the third being that anything BFL touches turns to shit.
ISSUE ONE: According to the Coinopsy link above, among other interesting reasons, they proclaimed that: “Ammbr was founded in 2017 and is not trading on any exchanges. Was added to the dead coins list due to the fact they did not reach any exchanges after one year and they canceled the ICO.”
ISSUE TWO:THE SCAMMBR SMART CONTRACT BUG:
While this bug affected many ERC-20 contracts, on July 8th, 2018, “John Wick Security Lab revealed highly risky transactions in AMMBR(AMR) contract. It contains an integer overflow bug that could be made use of by hackers calling batchTransfer(), resulting in transferring out tokens without limits.”
This can be seen in this tweet by SCAMMBR where they had to change the smart contract:
WE'RE NOT DONE YET! SAVE THE BEST FOR LAST!
After doing further research on the SCAMMBR website, because nothing BFL is involved with is ever like it seems, I found some suspect/fake/front companies and astroturfing.
By all accounts, that sub is highly suspected of astroturfing by shills, employees and their families. Very few posts concern the actual project and the mods are mostly absent. All of the posts repeat the same lines or hashtags, but no comments. Mod u/Jory- doesn't post much in cryptocurrency subs, while u/AMMBRPlatform has never posted.
BLACKBIRD WALLET IS THE BFL BITSAFE:
This is one of my favorite finds as it didn't occur to me until after doing most of my research, but then it clicked suddenly that I knew the design.
SCAMMBRTECH posted on Bitcointalk on 7/16/18 regarding a new mobile wallet that has yet to come to market, the Blackbird Hardware Wallet. I had never heard of it and apparently, they wanted $299 for it from their shop. Which is...ridiculous. But let's compare the Blackbird Wallet to the BFL Bitsafe that was never released:
PHOTO FROM BLACKBIRD WALLET WEBSITE:
PHOTO OF BFL BITSAFE THAT WAS NEVER RELEASED FROM BFL WEBSITE:
So there you have it folks. Fuck these guys. I spent way to much time on this shit.
|submitted by asis27912393 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]|
Jeff Garzik and Sergio Lerner (security expert) already said upgrading to 2mb is safe.JustSomeBadAdvice:
Gorgamin wrote:Can you quantify the decrease in security that is likely/possible from raising the maximum block size allowed from 1MB to 2MB?The problem is that no one has any way to realistically estimate how transaction fees will change with larger block sizes, and ultimately all of the security will soon come from transaction fees. Here's a reply I added lower down the thread: This is the tragedy of the commons at play. Individuals are demanding lower transaction fees because they want to pay less, but they ignore what the transaction fees pay for.
An average 600 byte transaction will cost the network around 6 cents to store for the next few hundred years. I calculated that from S3 storage and bandwidth prices, assumed the price of storage and bandwidth continued to drop by 1.5% per year, and assumed we stay at ~5000 full history Bitcoin nodes, and changing the assumptions don't change much since most of the cost comes within the next 15 years anyway.
But more importantly, transaction fees are needed to pay for miners to secure the network from attackers. As the Bitcoin network grows more popular and stable, it will become a bigger target for countries or high net worth organizations that want to manipulate it like a stock. If they amass a huge sum of money and short the Bitcoin net worth for X% of its total value, there needs to be enough mining power to make a 51% attack (mining farm built for the purposes of driving down the price to profit from the short) not viable. There can only be enough mining power if the total sum of transaction fees picks up where the block reward drops off.
There's a way to estimate the mining rewards versus the total Bitcoins that would have to be shorted to be a viable attack. The price of Bitcoin drops out of the equation and within 5 years the total number of Bitcoins becomes (effectively) static as well, so that leads to this rough estimation table: https://i.imgur.com/M03YcXa.png
Our current transaction fees are ~100 btc per day. If they don't increase, someone would only have to gain a profit of 2% of the total net worth to justify building a mining farm that would 51% attack the currency. With leveraged shorting and high-net-worth organizations, that's fucking nothing. We start to be in real danger if transaction fees haven't increased by ~2028.
The biggest supercomputer on Earth doesn't work for free unfortunately. If you don't own any mining equipment (which is expensive) or run a node, you can't complain.to which FantomLancer responded, and had post [removed]:
It is not a good argument or analogy. The price is now dis-attached due to a civil war on how to scale, which is a serious problem that deserves som attention, not some simple phrase about supercomputers.BashCo wrote:
Segwit will provide a substantial increase to on chain scaling but is being blocked for political reasons. Bitcoin won't be ready for primetime for at least a few more years.to which WiseAsshole responded and had post [removed]:
No it won't. Miners are not adopting it. It stalled at 24%, just like Bitcoin stalled at 1mb.Chillingniples had this post [removed]:
I also feel this way. when I got into the community in 2012 there was way more wildly optimistic idealism. It felt like we were really onto something revolutionary here. The longer I have stuck around the more I realized 99 percent of the community is here for self gain. It's a little sad now that when i hear people talking about how btc is going to help all these third world populations and etc, & I can plainly see there are zero solutions in that regard at the moment, that people are saying these things out of greed. They really don't care about people in third world countries. they mainly just want their btc to be worth more. I started my btc journey a very naive idealist, totally convinced we'd soon have our own huge bitcoin economy where people have finally decided to stop supporting the petro dollar and funding the war machine etc etc... but now I realize that idea sounds batshit insane to most people (even a lot of people involved with btc) and not to mention would be an extremely dangerous and volatile thing to attempt to do on a societal scale.approx- had this post [removed]:
56MB blocks are not unfeasible for the future. Bandwidth is doubling roughly every 18 months. Other computer hardware is still progressing as well. 8MB blocks are completely feasible TODAY. 56MB blocks should be feasible within 5 years.nthterm had this post [removed]:
Ultimately, we need adjustable block sizes (adjustable without hard forks) so that it can adapt to current hardware/bandwidth availability.
no. stop pricing out the poounbanked. we don't need to maintain HW requirements of running a node at 2008 levels indefinitely. The unbanked don't need to be able to run a node to make onchain transactions. If you moderately scale bitcoin so that it can accomodate increased user adoption, then # of global nodes will increase due to a larger user base. capiche?eqleric had this post [removed]:
Good thing someone along the line has the ability to convert it to $4800, huh? To most people, saying "my 5 btc transaction only cost .00025 btc" is meaningless. In short, it's only clean money because someone went through those channels that you're mocking to convert itXanather had this post [removed]:
Its not a "global censorship resistant payment system". Its P2P money as defined by the whitepaper. Censorship exists on many of the communication mediums that discuss bitcoin.chinacrash had this post [removed]:
If Core was serious about bitcoin we would already have a date for a blocksize increase.bunny4u15 had this post [removed]:
There is a bit wrong, it's a soft fork... https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5apvv1/if2mbwasconcededbyblockstreamcoretomorrow/. SegWit is the problem.
Sigominer S3 mines Equihash Algorithm as it is a Proof-of-Work algorithm devised by Alex Biryukov and Dmitry Khovratovich. It is based on a computer science and cryptography concept called the Generalized Birthday Problem.Proof-of-work means that miners compete against each other using processing power to produce a new block on the chain. The first miner that succeeds completing the proper ... Antminer S3. Description. Model Antminer S3 from Bitmain mining SHA-256 algorithm with a maximum hashrate of 478Gh/s for a power consumption of 366W. Profitability . Period /day /month /year; Income: $0.07 (0 BTC) $2.20 (0.0001 BTC) $26.37 (0.002 BTC) Electricity-$1.05-$31.62-$379.47: Profit -$0.98-$29.43-$353.10: Exchange rate 1 BTC = $13,050.73 ... Top-Angebote für Bitcoin Miner online entdecken bei eBay. Top Marken Günstige Preise Große Auswahl Je mehr Bitcoin Miners sich in einem Netzwerk befinden, desto schwieriger wird es, Bitcoins zu erzeugen. Bitcoin Mining verbraucht viel Strom. Bei hohen Stromkosten lohnt sich das Mining oftmals nicht. Um Bitcoin Mining zu betreiben, müssen Sie einem Miningpool beitreten, was zusätzliche Kosten verursacht. Für das Mining benötigen Sie entsprechende Hardware. Auch hier kommen Kosten auf Sie ... I’m currently running three AntMiner S3 Bitcoin miners which are powered by two 750 watt power supplies. A little information on these Bitcoin miners each AntMiner S3 is generating around 450 gigahash per second which gives me a grand total of 1.35 terahashes per second. Alright guys, so here’s the overview of the AntMiner setup. I got this set up in my spare bedroom of my house. I have it ...
[index]          
1TH Dragon Bitcoin Miner (ASIC) - Basic Overview, Configuration & Performance Video - Duration: 6 ... Solar Powered BitCoin S3 Bitmain Miner FREE BTC! - Duration: 2:22. T Dub 13,810 views. 2:22 ... How to Set Up a Bitcoin Mining Rig w/ BITMAIN ANTMINER U2 & CGMiner - Duration: 16 ... Bitmain AntMiner S3+ 450Gh/s bis 500Gh/s ASIC Miner BTC Bitcoin Bitmaintech - Duration: 1:20. SkullGold 2,337 ... Bitcoin Mining Hardware - Setting up your Bitmain Antminer S3 - Part 1 - Duration: 4:03. bitcoinminersuk.com 13,905 views. 4:03. Antminer S1 upgrade kit mounting guide - Duration: 4:51. ... This is an experiment using an AntMiner S9 in a fishtank! Please know that this is an experiment and is solely for learning and experimentation purposes. The... Bitmain Antminer S3 bitcoin asic miner unboxing. Specs are Specifications: Hash Rate: 478 GH/s±5% Power Consumption: 366 Watt at the wall Power Efficiency: 0.77 J/GH on wall Power Supply: 12V DC ...