submitted by CelesOS to u/CelesOS [link] [comments]
The consensus mechanism is one of the important elements of the blockchain and the core rule of the normal operation of the distributed ledger. It is mainly used to solve the trust problem between people and determine who is responsible for generating new blocks and maintaining the effective unification of the system in the blockchain system. Thus, it has become an everlasting research hot topic in blockchain.
This article starts with the concept and role of the consensus mechanism. First, it enables the reader to have a preliminary understanding of the consensus mechanism as a whole; then starting with the two armies and the Byzantine general problem, the evolution of the consensus mechanism is introduced in the order of the time when the consensus mechanism is proposed; Then, it briefly introduces the current mainstream consensus mechanism from three aspects of concept, working principle and representative project, and compares the advantages and disadvantages of the mainstream consensus mechanism; finally, it gives suggestions on how to choose a consensus mechanism for blockchain projects and pointed out the possibility of the future development of the consensus mechanism.
First, concept and function of the consensus mechanism
1.1 Concept: The core rules for the normal operation of distributed ledgers
1.2 Role: Solve the trust problem and decide the generation and maintenance of new blocks
1.2.1 Used to solve the trust problem between people
1.2.2 Used to decide who is responsible for generating new blocks and maintaining effective unity in the blockchain system
1.3 Mainstream model of consensus algorithm
Second, the origin of the consensus mechanism
2.1 The two armies and the Byzantine generals
2.1.1 The two armies problem
2.1.2 The Byzantine generals problem
2.2 Development history of consensus mechanism
2.2.1 Classification of consensus mechanism
2.2.2 Development frontier of consensus mechanism
Third, Common Consensus System
Fourth, Selection of consensus mechanism and summary of current situation
4.1 How to choose a consensus mechanism that suits you
4.1.1 Determine whether the final result is important
4.1.2 Determine how fast the application process needs to be
4.1.2 Determining the degree to which the application requires for decentralization
4.1.3 Determine whether the system can be terminated
4.1.4 Select a suitable consensus algorithm after weighing the advantages and disadvantages
4.2 Future development of consensus mechanism
Last lecture review: Chapter 1 Concept and Function of Consensus Mechanism plus Chapter 2 Origin of Consensus Mechanism
Last lecture review: Chapter 3 Common Consensus Mechanisms
Chapter 3 Common Consensus Mechanisms (Part 2)
Figure 6 Summary of relatively mainstream consensus mechanisms
Source: Hasib Anwar, "Consensus Algorithms: The Root Of The Blockchain Technology"
The picture above shows 14 relatively mainstream consensus mechanisms summarized by a geek Hasib Anwar, including PoW (Proof of Work), PoS (Proof of Stake), DPoS (Delegated Proof of Stake), LPoS (Lease Proof of Stake), PoET ( Proof of Elapsed Time), PBFT (Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance), SBFT (Simple Byzantine Fault Tolerance), DBFT (Delegated Byzantine Fault Tolerance), DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph), Proof-of-Activity (Proof of Activity), Proof-of- Importance (Proof of Importance), Proof-of-Capacity (Proof of Capacity), Proof-of-Burn ( Proof of Burn), Proof-of-Weight (Proof of Weight).
Next, we will mainly introduce and analyze the top ten consensus mechanisms of the current blockchain.
Delegated Byzantine fault tolerance. The improved Byzantine fault-tolerant algorithm makes it suitable for blockchain systems. The system consists of nodes, delegators (who can approve blocks), and speakers (who proposes the next block). It is a consensus algorithm that guarantees fault tolerance implemented inside the NEO blockchain.
In this mechanism, there are two participants: the professional bookkeeper "bookkeeping node" and the ordinary users in the system.
Ordinary users vote based on the proportion of holding stake to determine the bookkeeping node. When a consensus is required, a spokesperson is randomly selected from these bookkeeping nodes to draw up a plan, and then other bookkeeping nodes will vote basing on the Byzantine fault tolerance algorithm.That is, majority principle. If more than 66% of the nodes agree to the spokesperson’ plan, a consensus is reached; otherwise, the spokesperson is re-elected and the voting process is repeated.
-Representative application: Neo, etc.
Proof of authority. That is, certified by some accredited accounts, these accredited accounts are called "validators". The software that the verifier runs that supports the verifier to place transactions in blocks.
-Representative applications: VeChain, etc.
Directed acyclic graph. Each newly added unit in the DAG is not only added to the long chain block, but added to all the previous blocks, verifying each new unit and confirming its parent unit and the parent unit of the parent unit, and gradually confirming until the genesis unit. As the hash of its parent unit is included in its own unit, the blockchains of all transactions are connected to each other to form a graph-like structure with time.
In the DAG network, each node can be a trader and a validator, because the transaction processing in DAG is done by the transaction node itself. Taking IOTA as an example, IOTA’s Tangle led
ger does not need to pay transaction fees while ensuring high-speed transaction processing. However, it does not mean that the transaction is free, because in this ledger, the initiation of each transaction needs to verify the other two random transactions first, and connect the transaction initiated by itself to these two transactions, so the responsibility that miners on the blockchain bear is distributed to all traders. The DAG method of processing transactions can be called asynchronous processing mode.
Figure 10 The difference between the traditional blockchain structure and the DAG structure
-Representative applications: IOTA, etc.
Proof of elapsed time. That is, it is usually used in a permissioned blockchain network. It can determine the mining rights of the block holders in the network. The permissioned blockchain network requires any prospective participants to verify their identity before joining. According to the principles of the fair lottery system, each node is equally likely to become the winner.
Each participating node in the network must wait for a randomly selected period, and the first node to complete the set waiting time will get a new block. Each node in the blockchain network will generate a random waiting time and sleep for a set time. The node that wakes up first, that is, the node with the shortest waiting time, wakes up and submits a new block to the blockchain, and then broadcasts the necessary information to the entire peer-to-peer network. The same process will be repeated to find the next block.
Proof of stake velocity. Proposed by Reddcoin, drawing on the concept of "money circulation speed" in economics, it mainly allocates bookkeeping rights based on the coin age of nodes participating in the competition.
PoSV also allocates accounting rights according to the coin age of the nodes participating in the competition, but modifies the coin age calculation formula to a function of exponential decay of growth rate. Taking Reddcoin as an example, Reddcoin sets the half-life of the coin age growth rate to 1 month. Assuming that the unit token can accumulate 1CoinDay coin age on the first day, only 0.5CoinDay coin age can be accumulated on the 31st day, and only 0.25CoinDay coin age can be accumulated on the 61st day, and so on. In this way, the nodes are encouraged to use the token to conduct a transaction after holding the token for a period of time, thereby restarting the calculation of the coin age and increasing the circulation speed of the token in the network.
-Representative applications: Reddcoin, etc.
Table 2 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of current mainstream consensus mechanisms
Source: network resources
Chapter 4 Summary of the Selection and Status Quo of Consensus Mechanism
4.1 How to choose a consensus mechanism that suits you
Step 1: Determine whether the final result is important
For some applications, the end result is very important. If you are building a new payment system that can support very small amounts, it is acceptable for the transaction result to change. Similarly, if you are creating a new distributed social network, 100% guarantee that the status is updated immediately is not particularly necessary. On the contrary, if you are creating a new distributed protocol, the final result is critical to the user experience. For example, Bitcoin has a final confirmation time of about 1 hour, Ethereum has a final confirmation time of about 6 minutes, and Tendermint Core only has a final confirmation time of 1 second.
Step 2: Determine how fast the application process needs to be
If you are building a game, is it reasonable to wait 15 seconds before each action? Due to the low block processing time of Ethereum, games built on it will cause poor user experience due to Ethereum's throughput. However, the application for the transfer of housing property rights can be run on Ethereum. Use the Cosmos SDK to build an application that allows developers to freely use Tendermint Core. It has a short block processing time and high throughput, and is capable of processing 10,000 transactions per second. You can reduce the required communication overhead and speed up the application by setting the maximum number of validators for the application.
Step 3: Determine the application's demand for decentralization
Some applications such as games may not require very high censorship resistance as a by-product of decentralization. In theory, does it really matter that the validator can create a cartel in the game and reverse the transaction result for profit? If it is not important, a blockchain such as EOS may be more suitable for your needs because of the fast transaction speed and free fees. However, some applications such as autonomous banks are more powerful and decentralized. Although Ethereum is considered to be decentralized, some supporters claim that Ethereum's mining pool is an important part of centralized platform, although there are actually only 11 validators (mining pools). One of the major benefits of building your own blockchain instead of building on a smart contract platform is that you can customize the way the application completes verification. However, it is difficult to build your own blockchain, so the Cosmos SDK is very useful, you can easily build your own blockchain and customize the degree of decentralization you need.
Step 4: Determine whether the system can be terminated
If you are building a new application similar to a distributed ride-sharing service, then ensuring 24/7 service must be the first priority, even if there are occasional errors in accounting similar to transactions. One of the properties of Tendermint Core is that if there is a disagreement between network validators, the network will suspend operations instead of proceeding erroneous transactions. Applications such as decentralized exchanges require correctness at all costs-if there is a problem, it is far better to suspend trading on the decentralized exchange than there may be trading problems.
Summary: Choose a suitable consensus algorithm after weighing the advantages and disadvantages
All in all, there is no single best consensus algorithm. Each consensus algorithm has its own value and advantages. You need to have your own judgments and choices. However, by understanding the relevant processes of the consensus mechanism, including proposals and agreements, and establishing a framework to consider the types of consensus algorithms that your application may require, you should be able to make wiser decisions.
4.2 Future development of consensus mechanism
The consensus algorithm is one of the core elements of the blockchain. Although there are more than 30 consensus mechanisms listed in the article, there are still many niche consensus mechanisms that may not be discussed. As the blockchain technology is gradually known and accepted by the public, more and more newer and better consensus algorithms may appear in the future, which may be brand-new consensus algorithms, and more should be improvement and optimization version based on the current consensus algorithm.
After 2016 and 2017 years’ fast development, the current consensus algorithm does not have a recognized evaluation standard, but is generally more biased towards fairness and decentralization, as well as some technical related issues, such as energy consumption and scalability , Fault tolerance and security, etc. However, blockchain technology must be combined with requirements and application scenarios, and the consensus mechanism algorithm and incentive mechanism are inseparable. How to customize a suitable consensus mechanism according to the characteristics of your own project and optimize the current consensus mechanism will become the future direction of consensus mechanism development
As the first DPOW financial blockchain operating system, CelesOS adopts consensus mechanism 3.0 to break through the "impossible triangle", which can provide high TPS while also allowing for decentralization. Committed to creating a financial blockchain operating system that embraces supervision, providing services for financial institutions and the development of applications on the supervision chain, and formulating a role and consensus ecological supervision layer agreement for supervision.
The CelesOS team is dedicated to building a bridge between blockchain and regulatory agencies/financial industry. We believe that only blockchain technology that cooperates with regulators will have a real future. We believe in and contribute to achieving this goal.
submitted by D-platform to u/D-platform [link] [comments]
1. What is Bitcoin (BTC)?
2. Bitcoin’s core featuresFor a more beginner’s introduction to Bitcoin, please visit Binance Academy’s guide to Bitcoin.
Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) modelA UTXO transaction works like cash payment between two parties: Alice gives money to Bob and receives change (i.e., unspent amount). In comparison, blockchains like Ethereum rely on the account model.
Nakamoto consensusIn the Bitcoin network, anyone can join the network and become a bookkeeping service provider i.e., a validator. All validators are allowed in the race to become the block producer for the next block, yet only the first to complete a computationally heavy task will win. This feature is called Proof of Work (PoW).
The probability of any single validator to finish the task first is equal to the percentage of the total network computation power, or hash power, the validator has. For instance, a validator with 5% of the total network computation power will have a 5% chance of completing the task first, and therefore becoming the next block producer.
Since anyone can join the race, competition is prone to increase. In the early days, Bitcoin mining was mostly done by personal computer CPUs.
As of today, Bitcoin validators, or miners, have opted for dedicated and more powerful devices such as machines based on Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (“ASIC”).
Proof of Work secures the network as block producers must have spent resources external to the network (i.e., money to pay electricity), and can provide proof to other participants that they did so.
With various miners competing for block rewards, it becomes difficult for one single malicious party to gain network majority (defined as more than 51% of the network’s hash power in the Nakamoto consensus mechanism). The ability to rearrange transactions via 51% attacks indicates another feature of the Nakamoto consensus: the finality of transactions is only probabilistic.
Once a block is produced, it is then propagated by the block producer to all other validators to check on the validity of all transactions in that block. The block producer will receive rewards in the network’s native currency (i.e., bitcoin) as all validators approve the block and update their ledgers.
Block productionThe Bitcoin protocol utilizes the Merkle tree data structure in order to organize hashes of numerous individual transactions into each block. This concept is named after Ralph Merkle, who patented it in 1979.
With the use of a Merkle tree, though each block might contain thousands of transactions, it will have the ability to combine all of their hashes and condense them into one, allowing efficient and secure verification of this group of transactions. This single hash called is a Merkle root, which is stored in the Block Header of a block. The Block Header also stores other meta information of a block, such as a hash of the previous Block Header, which enables blocks to be associated in a chain-like structure (hence the name “blockchain”).
An illustration of block production in the Bitcoin Protocol is demonstrated below.
Block time and mining difficultyBlock time is the period required to create the next block in a network. As mentioned above, the node who solves the computationally intensive task will be allowed to produce the next block. Therefore, block time is directly correlated to the amount of time it takes for a node to find a solution to the task. The Bitcoin protocol sets a target block time of 10 minutes, and attempts to achieve this by introducing a variable named mining difficulty.
Mining difficulty refers to how difficult it is for the node to solve the computationally intensive task. If the network sets a high difficulty for the task, while miners have low computational power, which is often referred to as “hashrate”, it would statistically take longer for the nodes to get an answer for the task. If the difficulty is low, but miners have rather strong computational power, statistically, some nodes will be able to solve the task quickly.
Therefore, the 10 minute target block time is achieved by constantly and automatically adjusting the mining difficulty according to how much computational power there is amongst the nodes. The average block time of the network is evaluated after a certain number of blocks, and if it is greater than the expected block time, the difficulty level will decrease; if it is less than the expected block time, the difficulty level will increase.
What are orphan blocks?In a PoW blockchain network, if the block time is too low, it would increase the likelihood of nodes producingorphan blocks, for which they would receive no reward. Orphan blocks are produced by nodes who solved the task but did not broadcast their results to the whole network the quickest due to network latency.
It takes time for a message to travel through a network, and it is entirely possible for 2 nodes to complete the task and start to broadcast their results to the network at roughly the same time, while one’s messages are received by all other nodes earlier as the node has low latency.
Imagine there is a network latency of 1 minute and a target block time of 2 minutes. A node could solve the task in around 1 minute but his message would take 1 minute to reach the rest of the nodes that are still working on the solution. While his message travels through the network, all the work done by all other nodes during that 1 minute, even if these nodes also complete the task, would go to waste. In this case, 50% of the computational power contributed to the network is wasted.
The percentage of wasted computational power would proportionally decrease if the mining difficulty were higher, as it would statistically take longer for miners to complete the task. In other words, if the mining difficulty, and therefore targeted block time is low, miners with powerful and often centralized mining facilities would get a higher chance of becoming the block producer, while the participation of weaker miners would become in vain. This introduces possible centralization and weakens the overall security of the network.
However, given a limited amount of transactions that can be stored in a block, making the block time too longwould decrease the number of transactions the network can process per second, negatively affecting network scalability.
3. Bitcoin’s additional features
Segregated Witness (SegWit)Segregated Witness, often abbreviated as SegWit, is a protocol upgrade proposal that went live in August 2017.
SegWit separates witness signatures from transaction-related data. Witness signatures in legacy Bitcoin blocks often take more than 50% of the block size. By removing witness signatures from the transaction block, this protocol upgrade effectively increases the number of transactions that can be stored in a single block, enabling the network to handle more transactions per second. As a result, SegWit increases the scalability of Nakamoto consensus-based blockchain networks like Bitcoin and Litecoin.
SegWit also makes transactions cheaper. Since transaction fees are derived from how much data is being processed by the block producer, the more transactions that can be stored in a 1MB block, the cheaper individual transactions become.
The legacy Bitcoin block has a block size limit of 1 megabyte, and any change on the block size would require a network hard-fork. On August 1st 2017, the first hard-fork occurred, leading to the creation of Bitcoin Cash (“BCH”), which introduced an 8 megabyte block size limit.
Conversely, Segregated Witness was a soft-fork: it never changed the transaction block size limit of the network. Instead, it added an extended block with an upper limit of 3 megabytes, which contains solely witness signatures, to the 1 megabyte block that contains only transaction data. This new block type can be processed even by nodes that have not completed the SegWit protocol upgrade.
Furthermore, the separation of witness signatures from transaction data solves the malleability issue with the original Bitcoin protocol. Without Segregated Witness, these signatures could be altered before the block is validated by miners. Indeed, alterations can be done in such a way that if the system does a mathematical check, the signature would still be valid. However, since the values in the signature are changed, the two signatures would create vastly different hash values.
For instance, if a witness signature states “6,” it has a mathematical value of 6, and would create a hash value of 12345. However, if the witness signature were changed to “06”, it would maintain a mathematical value of 6 while creating a (faulty) hash value of 67890.
Since the mathematical values are the same, the altered signature remains a valid signature. This would create a bookkeeping issue, as transactions in Nakamoto consensus-based blockchain networks are documented with these hash values, or transaction IDs. Effectively, one can alter a transaction ID to a new one, and the new ID can still be valid.
This can create many issues, as illustrated in the below example:
Since the transaction malleability issue is fixed, Segregated Witness also enables the proper functioning of second-layer scalability solutions on the Bitcoin protocol, such as the Lightning Network.
Lightning NetworkLightning Network is a second-layer micropayment solution for scalability.
Specifically, Lightning Network aims to enable near-instant and low-cost payments between merchants and customers that wish to use bitcoins.
Lightning Network was conceptualized in a whitepaper by Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja in 2015. Since then, it has been implemented by multiple companies. The most prominent of them include Blockstream, Lightning Labs, and ACINQ.
A list of curated resources relevant to Lightning Network can be found here.
In the Lightning Network, if a customer wishes to transact with a merchant, both of them need to open a payment channel, which operates off the Bitcoin blockchain (i.e., off-chain vs. on-chain). None of the transaction details from this payment channel are recorded on the blockchain, and only when the channel is closed will the end result of both party’s wallet balances be updated to the blockchain. The blockchain only serves as a settlement layer for Lightning transactions.
Since all transactions done via the payment channel are conducted independently of the Nakamoto consensus, both parties involved in transactions do not need to wait for network confirmation on transactions. Instead, transacting parties would pay transaction fees to Bitcoin miners only when they decide to close the channel.
One limitation to the Lightning Network is that it requires a person to be online to receive transactions attributing towards him. Another limitation in user experience could be that one needs to lock up some funds every time he wishes to open a payment channel, and is only able to use that fund within the channel.
However, this does not mean he needs to create new channels every time he wishes to transact with a different person on the Lightning Network. If Alice wants to send money to Carol, but they do not have a payment channel open, they can ask Bob, who has payment channels open to both Alice and Carol, to help make that transaction. Alice will be able to send funds to Bob, and Bob to Carol. Hence, the number of “payment hubs” (i.e., Bob in the previous example) correlates with both the convenience and the usability of the Lightning Network for real-world applications.
Schnorr Signature upgrade proposalElliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (“ECDSA”) signatures are used to sign transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain.
However, many developers now advocate for replacing ECDSA with Schnorr Signature. Once Schnorr Signatures are implemented, multiple parties can collaborate in producing a signature that is valid for the sum of their public keys.
This would primarily be beneficial for network scalability. When multiple addresses were to conduct transactions to a single address, each transaction would require their own signature. With Schnorr Signature, all these signatures would be combined into one. As a result, the network would be able to store more transactions in a single block.
The reduced size in signatures implies a reduced cost on transaction fees. The group of senders can split the transaction fees for that one group signature, instead of paying for one personal signature individually.
Schnorr Signature also improves network privacy and token fungibility. A third-party observer will not be able to detect if a user is sending a multi-signature transaction, since the signature will be in the same format as a single-signature transaction.
4. Economics and supply distributionThe Bitcoin protocol utilizes the Nakamoto consensus, and nodes validate blocks via Proof-of-Work mining. The bitcoin token was not pre-mined, and has a maximum supply of 21 million. The initial reward for a block was 50 BTC per block. Block mining rewards halve every 210,000 blocks. Since the average time for block production on the blockchain is 10 minutes, it implies that the block reward halving events will approximately take place every 4 years.
As of May 12th 2020, the block mining rewards are 6.25 BTC per block. Transaction fees also represent a minor revenue stream for miners.
submitted by tkeycoin to Tkeycoin_Official [link] [comments]
Version 1.3.0 is a powerful update to TkeySpace that our team has been carefully preparing. since version 1.2.0, we have been laying the foundation for implementing new features that are already available in the current version.
Who cares about the security and privacy of their assets is an update for you.
TkeySpace — was designed to give You full control over your digital assets while maintaining an exceptional level of security, which is why there is no personal data in the wallet: phone number, the email address that could be compromised by hackers — no identity checks and other hassles, just securely save the backup phrase consisting of 12 words.
Briefly about the TkeySpace 1.3.0 update :
Code optimization and switching to AndroidXA lot of work has been done on optimizing the code to speed up the application, improving the logic, synchronization speed, calculating the hash of cryptocurrencies, and successfully switching to AndroidX.
New section: Privacy
TORStarting with the current update, the TkeySpace wallet can communicate via the TOR network, includes new privacy algorithms, and supports 59 different currencies.
Tor is a powerful privacy feature for those who own large assets or live in places where the Internet is heavily censored.
Tor technology provides protection against traffic analysis mechanisms that compromise not only Internet privacy, but also the confidentiality of trade secrets, business contacts, and communications in General.When you enable TOR settings, all outgoing traffic from the wallet will be encrypted and routed through an anonymous network of servers, periodically forming a chain through the Tor network, which uses multi-level encryption, effectively hiding any information about the sender: location, IP address, and other data.
This means that if your provider blocks the connection, you can rest easy — after all, by running this function, you will get an encrypted connection to the network without restrictions.
In TOR mode, the wallet may work noticeably slower and in some cases, there may be problems with the network, due to encryption, some blockchain browsers may temporarily not work. However, TOR encryption is very important when Internet providers completely block traffic and switching to this mode, you get complete freedom and no blocks for transactions.
Confidentiality of transactions (the Blockchain transaction)The wallet can change the model of a standard transaction, mixing inputs and outputs, making it difficult to identify certain cryptocurrencies. In the current update, you can select one of several modes for the transaction privacy level: deterministic lexicographic sorting or shuffle mode.
Mode: Lexicographic indexingImplemented deterministic lexicographic sorting using hashes of previous transactions and output indexes for sorting transaction input data, as well as values and scriptPubKeys for sorting transaction output data;
We understand that information must remain confidential not only in the interests of consumers but also in higher orders, financial systems must be kept secret to prevent fraud. One way to address these privacy shortcomings is to randomize the order of inputs and outputs.
Lexicographic ordering is a comparison algorithm used to sort two sets based on their Cartesian order within their common superset. Lexicographic order is also often referred to as alphabetical order or dictionary order. The hashes of previous transactions (in reverse byte order) are sorted in ascending order, lexicographically.In the case of two matching transaction hashes, the corresponding previous output indexes will be compared by their integer value in ascending order. If the previous output indexes match, the input data is considered equal.
Shuffle Mode: mixing (random indexing)To learn more about how “shuffle mode” works, we will first analyze the mechanisms using the example of a classic transaction. Current balance Of your wallet: 100 TKEY, coins are stored at different addresses:
x1. Address-contains 10 TKEY. x2. Address-contains 20 TKEY. x3. Address-contains 30 TKEY. x4. Address-contains 15 TKEY. x5. Address-contains 25 TKEY.
Addresses in the blockchain are identifiers that you use to send cryptocurrency to another person or to receive digital currency.In a classic transaction, if you need to send, for example, 19 TKEY — 100 TKEY will be sent to the network for “melting” coins, 19 TKEY will be sent to the Recipient, and ~80.9 TKEY will return to the newly generated address for “change” in your wallet.
In the blockchain explorer, you will see the transaction amount in the amount of 100 TKEY, where 80.99999679 TKEY is your change, 19 TKEY is the amount you sent and 0.00000321 is the transaction fee. Thus, in the blockchain search engine, most of your balance is shown in the transaction.
How does the shuffle mode work?Let’s look at a similar example: you have 100 TKEY on your balance, and you need to send 19 TKEY.
x1. Address-contains 10 TKEY. x2. Address-contains 20 TKEY. x3. Address-contains 30 TKEY. x4. Address-contains 15 TKEY. x5. Address-contains 25 TKEY.
You send 19 TKEY, the system analyzes all your addresses and balances on them and selects the most suitable ones for the transaction. To send 19 TKEY, the miners will be given coins with x2. Addresses, for a total of 20 TKEY. Of these, 19 TKEY will be sent to the recipient, and 0.99999679 TKEY will be returned to Your new address as change minus the transaction fee.
In the blockchain explorer, you will see the transaction amount in the amount of 20 TKEY, where 0.99999679 TKEY is Your change, 19 TKEY is the amount you sent and 0.00000321 is the transaction fee.
The shuffle mode has a cumulative effect. with each new transaction, delivery Addresses will be created and the selection of debit addresses/s that are most suitable for the transaction will change. Thus, if you store 1,000,000 TKEY in your wallet and want to send 1 TKEY to the recipient, the transaction amount will not display most of your balance but will select 1 or more addresses for the transaction.
Selecting the recovery method for each digital currency (Blockchain restore)Now you can choose the recovery method for each currency: API + Blockchain or blockchain.
Note: This is not a syncing process, but rather the choice of a recovery method for your wallet. Syncing takes place with the blockchain — regardless of the method you choose.https://preview.redd.it/gxsssuxrttx41.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=cd9fe383618dda0e990e86485652ff95652a8481
What are the differences between recovery methods?
API + BlockchainIn order not to load the entire history of the blockchain, i.e. block and transaction headers, the API helps you quickly get point information about previous transactions. For example, If your transactions are located in block 67325 and block 71775, the API will indicate to the node the necessary points for restoring Your balance, which will speed up the “recovery” process.
As soon as the information is received, communication with the peers takes place and synchronization begins from the control point, then from this moment, all subsequent block loading is carried out through the blockchain. This method allows you to quickly restore Your existing wallet.
‘’-’’ The API server may fail.
BlockchainThis method loads all block headers (block headers + Merkle) starting from the BIP44 checkpoint and manually validates transactions.
‘’+’’ It always works and is decentralized. ‘’-’’ Loading the entire blockchain may take a long time.
Why do I need to switch the recovery method?If when creating a wallet or restoring it, a notification (!) lights up in red near the selected cryptocurrency, then most likely the API has failed, so go to Settings — Security Center — Privacy — Blockchain Restore — switch to Blockchain. Syncing will be successful.
Selecting the address formatYou can choose the address format not only for Bitcoin but also for Litecoin. Legacy, SegWit, Native SegWit. Go to Settings — Manage Wallets — Address Format.
Working at the code level
Enhanced validation of transactions and blocks in the networkDue to the increased complexity in the Tkeycoin network, we have implemented enhanced validation of the tkeycoin consensus algorithm, and this algorithm is also available for other cryptocurrencies.
What is the advantage of the enhanced validation algorithm for the userFirst, the name itself speaks for itself — it increases the security of the network, and second, by implementing the function — we have accelerated the work of the TkeySpace blockchain node, the application consumes even fewer resources than before.
High complexity is converted to 3 bytes, which ensures fast code processing and the least resource consumption on your device.
SynchronizationThe synchronization process has been upgraded. Node addresses are added to the local storage, and instant synchronization with nodes occurs when you log in again.
Checking for double-spendingTkeySpace eliminates “double-spending” in blockchains, which is very valuable in the Bitcoin and Litecoin networks.
For example, using another application, you may be sent a fake transaction, and the funds will eventually disappear from the network and your wallet because this feature is almost absent in most applications.Using TkeySpace — you are 100% sure that your funds are safe and protected from fraudulent transactions in the form of “fake” transactions.
The bloom filter to check for nodesAll nodes are checked through the bloom filter. This allows you to exclude fraudulent nodes that try to connect to the network as real nodes of a particular blockchain.
In practice, this verification is not available in applications, Tkeycoin — decided to follow a new trend and change the stereotypes, so new features such as node verification using the bloom filter and double-spending verification are a kind of innovation in applications that work with cryptocurrencies.
Updating the Binance and Ethereum librariesUpdated Binance and Ethereum libraries for interaction with the TOR network.
Function — to hide the balanceThis function allows you to hide the entire balance from the main screen.
Advanced currency charts and charts without authenticationDetailed market statistics are available, including volumes, both for 1 day and several years. Select the period of interest: 1 day, 7 days, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years.
In version 1.3.0, you can access charts without authentication. You can monitor the cryptocurrency exchange rate without even logging in to the app. If you have a pin code for logging in, when you open the app, swipe to the left and you will see a list of currencies.
NewsIn the market data section — in the tkeyspace added a section with current news of the cryptocurrency market.
Blockchain Explorer for TkeycoinTransaction verification for Tkeycoin is now available directly in the app.
Independent Commission entry for BitcoinTaking into account the large volume of the Bitcoin network, we have implemented independent Commission entry — you can specify any Commission amount.
For other currencies, smart Commission calculation is enabled based on data from the network. The network independently regulates the most profitable Commission for the sender.
New digital currenciesThe TkeySpace wallet supports +59 cryptocurrencies and tokens.
CryptocurrenciesTkeycoin (TKEY), Bitcoin (BTC), Litecoin (LTC), Ethereum (ETH), Bitcoin Cash (BCH), DASH, Binance (BNB), EOS.
StablecoinsTrueUSD (TUSD), Tether USD (USDT), USD Coin (USDC), Gemini Dollar (GUSD), STASIS EURO (EURS), Digix Gold Token (DGX), Paxos Standard (PAX), PAX Gold (PAXG), Binance USD (BUSD), EOSDT, Prospectors Gold (PGL).
ERC-20, BEP2, and EOS tokensNewdex (NDX), DigixDAO ERC-20 (DGD), Chainlink ERC-20 (LINK), Decentraland ERC-20 (MANA), EnjinCoin ERC-20 (ENJ), the Native Utility (NUT), 0x Protocol ERC-20 (ZRX), Aelf ERC-20 (ELF), Dawn DAO ERC-20 (AURA), Cashaaa BEP2 (CAS), Bancor ERC-20 (BNT), the Basic Attention Token ERC-20 (BAT), Golem ERC-20 (GNT), Mithril ERC-20 (MITH), MEETONE, NEXO ERC-20, Holo ERC-20 (HOT), Huobi Token ERC-20 (HT), IDEX ERC-20, IDEX Membership ERC-20 (IDXM), Bitcoin BEP2 (BTCB), Waltonchain ERC-20 (WTC), KuCoin Shares ERC-20 (KCS), Kyber Network Crystal ERC-20 (KNC), Loom Network ERC-20 (LOOM), Ripple (XRP), Everipedia (IQ), Loopring ERC-20 (LRC), Maker ERC-20 (MKR), the Status of the ERC-20 (SNT), Ankr Network BEP2 (ANKR), OmiseGO ERC-20 (OMG), ^ american English ERC-20 (^american English), Polymath ERC-20 (POLY), Populous ERC-20 (PPT), Pundi X ERC-20 (NPXS), Parser ERC-20 (REP), Revain ERC-20 (R), Binance ERC20 (BNB-ERC20), Gifto BEP2 (GTO).
Exchange of cryptocurrencyThe “Limitless Crypto Exchange” tab is available for a quick transition to an unlimited exchange in 200 digital currencies — 10,000 currency pairs.
How do I update TkeySpace to version 1.3.0?
Decred has caught a burst of long overdue wind today.submitted by __checkmatey__ to decred [link] [comments]
Below is my thesis on recent price action drivers and why I think Decred is insanely undervalued right now from an on-chain/blockchain mechanics perspective.
This is an expansion on a tweet I put out here https://twitter.com/_Checkmatey_/status/1190349477120552961
Fundamentally, the project is one of the most undervalued assets in the market and I believe the largest information asymmetry next to Bitcoin. The smart money know this. They have been accumulating. Looking at the volume of DCR moving on-chain, we can see a significant amount of DCR moving in 2019 at the current support range. We know that DCR is always on the move due to tickets so when we see high volume nodes like this, it supports the notion of actual accumulation in addition to the usual transaction flow. We have seen similar growth in the median and mean transaction sizes throughout 2019. Larger wallets, larger DCR purchases.
Update: Note how the 2019 volume node, if just looking at USD chart could be attributed to Dec-Apr period or the recent drawdown. However looking against the BTC chart confirms that the dominant accumulation has occurred during the recent period as the BTC price probes the lows. This is what I consider a high volume zone of support characterised by a large transfer of coins (miners selling, accumulating buyers).
On-chain DCR volume profile plotted against price for BTC (black) and USD (blue)
The recent price action drawdown in my opinion is a result of Miners going too hard to fast. ASICs were introduced in early 2018 and we see an explosion in PoW Difficulty. Mining is a leveraged play for DCR and in this case is unlike what occurred for BTC in that it was almost four years until ASICs were on the scene for Bitcoin. This means that Bitcoins naturally high early inflation had time to disperse before ASICs and serious hardware investment came online. ASICs are capital intensive, not hobbyist grade meaning coins mined must necessarily become coins sold.
We can compare the insane growth in Decred mining since Jan 2018 against the market to see this on a relative scale. Mind you, this is a bullish signal. Miners are committing heavy capital to the Decred chain security. They have done their due diligence and have high conviction. That is not something to ignore.
Full tweet on this here https://twitter.com/_Checkmatey_/status/1177650799050133504
Normalised difficulty growth (left) since Jan 2018 and (right) 2019 Year to Date
As miners over-extend without support of price appreciation, they must sell more coins to pay bills. Eventually the weak miners have to capitulate and difficulty ribbon squeezes as mining equipment is switched off. We have seen this play out for Bitcoin where squeezing of the difficulty ribbon indicates a valuable period for accumulation. Willy Woo talks about this here https://woobull.com/introducing-the-difficulty-ribbon-the-best-times-to-buy-bitcoin/.
What happens next is that the strong miners gain an increasing share of the hashrate. Their energy is thus rewarded with more DCR and so they can sell less of their income and Hodl more. This effectively begins to constrain supply rather than the oversaturation during capitulation. Over time this leads to a reversal in price action which further perpetuates the effect.
Price of a scarce asset must appreciate with reduced circulating supply assuming demand relatively remains stable or increases.
Decred total cumulative block subsidy paid (price x block reward DCR) and Difficulty ribbon
This is actually very healthy for Decred. Coins are being distributed by miners en-mass right now, nullifying the risk of miners holding too high of a supply within the staking system leading to centralisation. I would argue that this distribution of coins is one of the most important and bullish signals long term. We know that miners stake as well and thus they are able to generate income on Hodled coins. I expect this to actually soften the degree of miner capitulation as they can turn off power whilst still generating income.
For this reason, I do not suspect we will see photos of mountains of Decred ASICs being thrown out as we saw for Bitcoin in 2018. The machines are simply put on hold until price reverses to justify power consumption. This is a valuable business feasibility case for miners and a feature of long term sustainability in the chain security.
This is where the elegance of Decred resilience steps in.
As miners slow, supply saturates, price drops.
DCR Tickets become cheaper.
Stakeholders step in and accumulation begins.
The Ticket Price hit an ATH of 140+ DCR as Stakeholders begin accumulating and commit capital to secure the chain. The Hybrid PoW/PoS system works as a counter balance. When price is in a strong uptrend, stakeholders are provided an exit to capitalise on gains as miners have a strong case for expanding their operations (PoW dominant security). During price drawdowns, miners drop out and the cheap DCR stimulates Hodlers buying and locking capital which locks down available supply from attackers. An attack would thus drive price higher and the cycle repeats.
As above, showing the total DCR locked in tickets hits an ATH as price drops due to miner capitulation
PermabullNino made the observation that Decred functions as an elegant yet robust accounting system. His discussion on block subsidies are shown in the charts above and linked here https://medium.com/@permabullnino/decred-on-chain-a-look-at-block-subsidies-6f5180932c9b.Decred has a has past, present and future cash flows distributed to those who support it most. This puts Decred security in good hands- Miners 60%- Stakeholders 30%- Builders 10%
Price is currently hovering around the PoW total subsidy paid (red line) and means miners are indeed feeling the squeeze as this is the cost basis of all DCR paid to date. Once you factor in overheads and capital costs, it makes sense we are seeing DCR supply distribution. The last time we saw price dip to this line was early in Decreds history and was followed by a rapid repricing.
We now have three mechanisms at play which will act to constrain supply
My recent work looking at the Decred stock-to-flow model (which does exist and is convincing, contrary to what the Bitcoin maxi community may want to believe), suggests that DCR is in the oversold range. It has deviated by 1.5 standard deviations from the S2F model mean which is near identical to Bitcoin at 50% supply mined. Historically for Bitcoin and Decred, this has been an opportune period for accumulation. More on this discussion in my tweet here https://twitter.com/_Checkmatey_/status/1184159137564889089
Note that Decred, likely due to the smooth issuance and difference in market awareness, is less volatile than Bitcoin. The significant undervaluation of Bitcoin at 50% mined was due to the first 2012 halving where it was a very different and far smaller market. I would expect DCR to be repriced sooner rather than later as the smart money steps in having now developed Bitcoin hindsight.
Standard deviations of DCR and BTC price from the respective stock-to-flow linear regression models
As a final note, if we look at Decred and Bitcoin market valuations plotted against ratio of 21M coins issued, which normalises for coin age, we see a fascinating similarity in these coins trajectory. Bitcoin was worth $127M at 50% coins mined and Decred was worth $180M. Considering we are in a log scale market, this is practically the same. Decred has achieved this value both benefiting from market awareness and size, but also in the face of heavy (albeit generally ill-equipped) alt-coin competition, quite remarkable.
Decred and Bitcoin Market and Realised Caps and S2F models plotted against ratio of 21M coins mined
Given that Decred has such insanely strong fundamentals, has developed a convincing monetary premium in it's short life and traverses the same stock-to-flow path as Bitcoin, I believe there is immense value flying under the markets radar.
The recent price action drawdown can reasonably be attributed to miners over-extending. However based on both prior Decred behaviour and drawing comparisons to Bitcoin history, there is a strong argument to be made that supply will soon be constrained on multiple fronts and the current value is both highly undervalued and being absorbed by the smart money.
Feedback, counter-points and discussions welcome.
Author: Hiro Midassubmitted by bitcoinSCofficial to BitcoinSCofficial [link] [comments]
Bitcoin is by far the most successful cryptocurrency. After ten years of development, the concept of Bitcoin as a community currency has gained widespread acceptance. With the participation of more and more miners, exchanges, developers, and ordinary users, the network effect of Bitcoin is strong and growing. According to the latest data from CoinMarketCap, Bitcoin Dominance accounts for 65.4% of the total market value of cryptocurrency, which is unmatched by any other blockchain project.
However, this huge network effect has not spawned more valuable applications on the Bitcoin network. This is mainly due to the non-Turing complete script of Bitcoin, which cannot support the implementation of complex logic. Although Bitcoin uses non-Turing-complete scripts for security reasons, this undoubtedly sacrifices more possibilities for the Bitcoin ecosystem and hinders the further expansion of its network effect.
Smart contracts are Turing complete and can be used to develop complex DApps. But even though Ethereum and other blockchain projects support smart contracts, the user base and network effects pale in comparison to Bitcoin.
BSC = Bitcoin Users + Smart Contractshttps://preview.redd.it/xmgdkzwx0oq41.jpg?width=1400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=63ab187873f9364779fe5a13506ad2a015c55d73
We propose BSC (Bitcoin Smart Contract) in the whitepaper https://docs.bsc.net/en/bsc_en.pdf BSC will be a hard fork of Bitcoin, inheriting all the transaction history of Bitcoin, and will support smart contracts with unlimited flexibility. With the original user base and network effects of Bitcoin, BSC will enable DApps with real value.
Bitcoin users + smart contracts are likely to bring the entire industry into a new phase. Applications in the original smart contract ecosystem will likely bring qualitative changes with the help of Bitcoin’s network effect:
BTC + Digital Assets. Bitcoin users and developers will be able to issue digital assets similar to ERC-20 on the BSC network. The Bitcoin network effect makes these assets potentially more useful and valuable.
BTC + DeFi. Similar to MakerDAO, decentralized lending and fund custody, stablecoins, etc. will be built on the user base of Bitcoin to gain greater scale and visibility with the leading crypto asset.
BTC + Privacy Protocol. Since Bitcoin assets account for a very high proportion in the entire industry, Bitcoin users’ need for privacy is even more urgent. A smart contract-based privacy protocol can be built in the BSC ecosystem, and Bitcoin users can use this to achieve asset privacy.
BTC + DApp. Bitcoin users can directly create various DApps in the BSC network, such as decentralized exchanges, decentralized games, and decentralized domain name services. These applications are not mainstream now, but given the huge network effect of Bitcoin, there will be more DApps that can prove their value.
Compatibility with Bitcoin EcosystemTo provide the huge network effect of Bitcoin, BSC is technically compatible with Bitcoin in terms of the underlying architecture and network parameters:
The infrastructure layer of the BSC adopts the UTXO (Unspent Transaction Output) model that is completely consistent with Bitcoin, supports all script types of Bitcoin, and naturally supports SegWit, multi-sig, etc. Compared with the account model, the UTXO model has certain advantages in terms of security, anonymity, and parallelism, and supports SPV (Simple Payment Verification), which makes it easier to support light wallets.
Due to the consistency of the underlying architecture, BSC is naturally compatible with the Bitcoin ecosystem. For example, all types of Bitcoin wallets, browsers, and Layer-2 protocols (such as the Lightning Network) can directly support BSC, and users have no limits.
Also, the upper limit of the total supply of BSC, the inflation rate, and the halving period are all consistent with Bitcoin. BSC will also inherit all the transaction history data of Bitcoin. Bitcoin users will obtain the equivalent BSC 1: 1. All subsequent BSC coins will be generated by PoW mining, and the development team will not have any pre-mining or pre-allocation of any coins.
Compatibility with Smart ContractsVirtual machines are the execution environment of smart contracts. Based on maintaining the above compatibility with Bitcoin’s underlying infrastructure, BSC has achieved compatibility with EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) by adding additional scripts and intermediate layers, so that it can theoretically support all smart contracts in the Ethereum ecosystem. Popular applications in the Ethereum ecosystem, such as MakerDAO, AZTEC privacy protocol, decentralized stablecoins, etc., can be directly ported to the BSC network. Although these applications have received some attention on Ethereum, restrictions on the Ethereum network has significantly limited their further development. For example, decentralized lending, if you rely on the stability of Bitcoin assets and the participation of Bitcoin users, you will get more room for development.
Mining Algorithm and RewardBSC uses the PoW consensus mechanism. Unlike Bitcoin, BSC uses the newer SHA-3 + Blake2b mining algorithm. Bitcoin’s computing power is mainly controlled by several large Bitcoin mining pools. If BSC used a PoW mining algorithm the same as Bitcoin or any mining algorithm that already has ASIC miners, there would be a good possibility for the network to suffer 51% attacks during the initial startup. To reduce the risk of attack and keep the network sufficiently decentralized, BSC uses the SHA-3 + Blake2b hash algorithm. This algorithm has been verified in projects such as Handshake, and currently, there is no ASIC miner available, which helps ensure the stable development of the BSC network.
As a BSC miner, in addition to the block rewards and transaction fees like Bitcoin, the block rewards will include the gas cost of smart contracts. Every halving of bitcoin brings significant challenges to miners. When the future bitcoin block reward is reduced to zero, whether transaction fees can support miners’ income is still unknown. The introduction of smart contracts will give BSC miners a source of additional revenue, further encourage miners to participate in mining, and protect the security of the network.
Community GovernanceThe BSC project is initiated by the developers from its community, and they no economic benefits. Therefore, the development of the BSC project must rely on a sufficient number of people to recognize its value. To verify interest, BSC will collect digital signatures from the Bitcoin community, and the project will not officially start until it receives signature support for more than 50,000 BTC, as shown on the official website (https://bsc.net/).
After the project was released on Bitcointalk https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5231921.0 , the BSC project gained more and more attention in the Bitcoin community, and the number of signatures collected is steadily increasing, proving that more and more Bitcoin holders have recognized the idea of Bitcoin Smart Contract. From https://bsc.net/
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.submitted by Kosass to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]
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:
(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 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 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’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 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.
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.
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’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:
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.
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?
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.
· 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:
Yet when Herman was asked about Howard’s approach, he responded:
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:
Technical proposal for RandomHash:
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:
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.
Author: Tyler Swob
A typical Bitcoin miner from Bitmain comes at a price of around $1,100.The one interesting thing about Bitmain miners is that they come with a three month warranty. Depending upon the model that you choose, the hash rate of the miner varies from 8 to 14 TH/s. Each model has its own efficiency and depending on that, the profitability of the ASIC miners also varies. There have been reports where ... Nice Miner is a free Bitcoin miner which can be used by the beginners also and is popular as per the bitcoin mining pool and bitcoin mining websites. A USB Bitcoin miner, when connected to the PC with suitable software, performs the mining at a certain hash rate. Best Bitcoin Mining Hardware. The top 10 best Bitcoin mining hardware are: Check your GPU hash rates below. Although an ASIC can be built to provide optimal hashrates on an algorithm, the Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) is much more powerful than the CPU, and more flexible than an ASIC in their application. The GPU is the chip that enables graphics cards (often called GPUs for brevity in mining circles) to perform millions of repetitive calculations at the same time ... Miner Survivability Post-Halving: A Hash Rate Comparison The market for selling hash rate in exchange for Bitcoin ( BTC ) has undergone staggering growth in the epoch since the last halving . There is almost 100 times the level of competition today as there was four years ago, up 125 exahashes from 1.4 exahashes. Mining Hardware Comparison / Mining Hardware „Vergleich“ Im Folgenden haben wir einige Grafikkarten und deren Leistung beim Mining recherchiert. Die Mining-Werte beziehen sich auf Litecoin Mining und Ethereum Mining. Sollten wir noch andere Hashleistungen der unterschiedlichen Grafikkarten (GPU) in Erfahrung bringen, dann finden sich diese im Bereich „Sonstige“. Hinter der Hashleistung ...
[index]          
Nicehash' painful attempt to transition to the new platform and bench-marking RTX 2080 and 2080 ti to compare profitability between the old and the new Niceh... In Bitcoin mining hardware, ASICs were the next step of development after CPUs, GPUs and FPGAs. Capable of easily outperforming the aforementioned platforms for Bitcoin mining in both speed and ... LitecoinPro mining Hashrate & Power consumption on SCRYPT ASICS : LitecoinPro ( LTCP ) using Scrypt algorithm. Power consumption on Watts per hour. Gridseed ... BITCOIN BREAKTHROUGH Series Join us Wecoa.org PepeGold mining Hashrate & Power consumption on SCRYPT ASICS : PepeGold ( PEPGD ) using Scrypt algorithm. Power consumption on Watts per hour. Gridseed Blade purchase link: ./lSAe6 Innosilicon A2 ...