Base58Check encoding - Bitcoin Wiki

r/Cryptocurrency testing

For testing out CSS changes to CryptoCurrency.
[link]

Cryptocurrency & Blockchain

CryptoCurrency Cryptocurrencies Blockchain Crypto Currency Bitcoin Ethereum News Price Market Cap Coinbase Ripple Exchange Wallet Mining Reddit New USD Value Top List Best Invest BTC ETH BCH XRP DASH LTC XMR MIOTA NEO XEM ETC QTUM LSK EOS ZEC OMG ADA XLM HSR USDT BCC WAVES PPT STRAT BTS POWR ARK ARDR REP KMD BCN DCR STEEM PAY MONA FCT MAID VERI GNT GAS SALT RDN DOGE PIVX VTC BAT SCAE GBYTE BNB TRX DGD KNC BTCD
[link]

Antivirus Software Found PUA/OSX.CoinMiner.gblom Malware in my DigiByte-Qt Wallet

Recently started using TotalAV Antivirus software and it found PUA/OSX.CoinMiner Malware in my DigiByte-Qt, Bitcoin-Qt and Reddcoin-Qt wallets. Has anyone else experienced this? Any advice for reinstalling and keeping a secure desktop Qt wallet? Especially for DigiByte?
submitted by pennyfunds to Digibyte [link] [comments]

The transaction fee for a simple (250 bytes) Bitcoin Segwit transaction is already higher than the transaction fee to buy and sell one gold coin. The buy/sell spread for the physical (1 oz Krugerrand) gold coin is 8.3 %, and a 35 USD restaurant meal cost 4 USD in transaction fee, which is 11.4 %.

I remember paying a 4 USD transaction fee every time I bought a 35 USD meal at a local restaurant that accepts Bitcoin as payment. The transaction was small (250 bytes) and it still cost 4 USD when I selected the "normal" transaction fee in my Mycelium Android wallet app. That's an 11.4 % transaction fee because 4 / 35 = 0.1142.
I checked what it would cost today to buy and then immediately sell a physical 1 oz Krugerrand gold coin again at a local physical gold coin merchant. I live in Sweden so the prices are in the SEK currency. It would currently cost 11 358 SEK to buy the physical gold coin and I would get 10 454 SEK if I sold it immediately again. That's a "transaction fee" (It's called "a spread") of 8.3 % because 904 / ( ( 11358 + 10454 ) / 2 ) = 0.0828.
Static source: https://archive.is/dEadC Dynamic source: https://tavex.se/sv/kopa-guld/1-oz-sydafrikansk-krugerrand/
The current Bitcoin Segwit transaction fees are slightly lower but that's just temporarily so because the miners are finding blocks unusually fast this 2016-block period because they found blocks unusually slow in the previous 2016-block period, because many Bitcoin Segwit miners were attracted to mine Bitcoin Cash during BCC's higher profitability periods. The fees can reasonably be expected to rise to 4 USD / 250 bytes transaction soon again on the Bitcoin Segwit network.
It can also be argued that it's even worse because in my real life example I paid two gold coin transaction fees but only one Bitcoin Segwit transaction fee. So it can be argued that a Bitcoin Segwit transaction is more than twice as expensive to execute than moving actual physical gold, in a normal restaurant meal situation. That's not what I would call a "Gold 2.0". A true "gold 2.0" would be cheaper to transact with than transacting with "gold 1.0". The best "gold 2.0" candidate currency (if you insist on focusing on this particular property of the currency) so far is Bitcoin Cash in my opinion.
Tldr:
To buy a 35 USD meal at a Bitcoin-accepting restaurant I pay a 11.4 % transaction fee (4 USD). To buy and then sell back a physical 1 oz Krugerrand gold coin at my local gold coin merchant store I pay an 8.3 % transaction fee (113 USD).
So it's already more expensive to transact with Bitcoin Segwit coins than it is to transact with physical gold coins.
submitted by todu to btc [link] [comments]

The transaction fee for a simple (250 bytes) Bitcoin Segwit transaction is already higher than the transaction fee to buy and sell one gold coin. The buy/sell spread for the physical (1 oz Krugerrand) gold coin is 8.3 %, and a 35 USD restaurant meal cost 4 USD in transaction fee, which is 1 /r/btc

The transaction fee for a simple (250 bytes) Bitcoin Segwit transaction is already higher than the transaction fee to buy and sell one gold coin. The buy/sell spread for the physical (1 oz Krugerrand) gold coin is 8.3 %, and a 35 USD restaurant meal cost 4 USD in transaction fee, which is 1 /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

This is what we're talking about: 22 items under development, 18 under discussion to get Bitcoin Cash "Done".

Under Development:
  1. OP_REVERSEBYTES - Bitcoin ABC | Independent
  2. SigChecks - Bitcoin ABC
  3. Increase unconfirmed ancestor limit - Bitcoin Unlimited | Bitcoin ABC
  4. Reusable Payment Addresses - Bitcoin Unlimited | Bitcoin ABC | BCHD | Electron Cash
  5. Double spend proof creation and forwarding - Bitcoin Unlimited | Flowee
  6. CashFusion - Bitcoin ABC | BCHD | Electron Cash
  7. Storm - Bitcoin Unlimited
  8. Modified fee structure - Bitcoin ABC
  9. Graphene v2 - Bitcoin Unlimited
  10. Bitcore API server (proxy) - Flowee
  11. Electrs Electrum Server Integration - Bitcoin Unlimited
  12. CashScript - Bitcoin.com
  13. Spedn - Independent
  14. Xthinner - Independent
  15. OpenCAP alias protocol - Independent
  16. Restore OP Codes - Bitcoin Unlimited | Bitcoin ABC
  17. Allow <100 byte txs except those of 64 bytes - Bitcoin ABC
  18. CashDB - Lokad SAS
  19. Maxblocksize Based on Median Block Size - Bitcoin Unlimited
  20. Bi-directional Overlay Network - BCHD
  21. BUIP087 nomenclature for 1/1,000,000 BCH - Bitcoin Unlimited
  22. UTXO commitments - Bitcoin ABC | bitCrust
Under Discussion:
  1. Allow fee-free spending of old UTXOs - Bitcoin ABC
  2. Mitra - Independent
  3. Zero-Knowledge Contingent Payments - Bitcoin ABC | BCHD
  4. Avalanche - Bitcoin ABC | BCHD
  5. OP_PUSHSTATE - Independent
  6. Taproot - Bitcoin ABC
  7. Deep Link Payment Protocol - Bitcoin ABC | BCHD
  8. Mandatory CashAddr for P2SH - Electron Cash | Independent
  9. Cash Intents - Independent
  10. Revised DAA (w/ PID control) - Bitcoin ABC
  11. Blocktorrent - Independent
  12. Metadata Subtree - Bitcoin ABC | Lokad SAS
  13. Merklix Trees - Bitcoin ABC | Lokad SAS
  14. Time Delay Penalty Based on Multiple Blocks
  15. Bobtail
  16. One Way Aggregate Signatures - Electron Cash
  17. Improved 0-conf via security deposits - Bitcoin Unlimited
  18. Switch standard denomination to 'bits'
source: https://cash.coin.dance/development
submitted by ChaosElephant to btc [link] [comments]

1xbit Güvenilir Mi?; Bitcoincanlicasino’ya Sor!

2016 yılında Türkiye’de sektöre giriş yapan ve Türkiye odaklı çalışan ender bitcoin sitelerinden biri olan 1xbit, canlı bahisler, spor bahisleri, casino oyunları oynanan bir site. 30’dan fazla dil seçeneği bulunan sitenin aynı zaman mobil sürümü de var.
Site Cascade Alt Yapısı Kullanıyor
Curacao lisanı bulunan 1xbit bitcoin bahis sitesi, kullanıcıları tarafından eleştirilmeyen ya da kötü yorumlarla karşı karşıya kalmayan sitelerden. Sitenin güvenirliliği açısından Türk kullanıcılar yani bahisçiler öncelikle sitenin alt yapısını inceliyor, site cascade alt yapısı kullanıyor.
Stenin Giriş Sayfasından Üye Olunuyor
1xbit bitcoin bahis sitesine üye olmak için giriş sayfasından üyelik butonuna tıklanması gerekli, buradan e-mail ya da tıklayarak üyelik seçeneği karşınıza çıkıyor, e-mail adresinizi girerek kullanıcı adı ve şifrenizi belirliyorsunuz, hesaba giriş yapılmasının ardından kişisel bilgilerin de güncellenmesi gerekiyor.
Farklı Kripto Paralarda Sitede Kullanılıyor
İstediğiniz saatte her gün siteye para yatırabilir ya da para çekebilirsiniz. Her ne kadar bitcoin para birimi ile oyun imkânı sunsa da 1xbit bitcoin bahis sitesinde Monero, Litecoin, Dash, ZCash, Dogecoin, GameCredits, NEM, Sibcoin, DijiByte, Bytecoin, Bitcoin Cash, Funcoin ve Ethereum Classic kripto para birimleri kullanılıyor.
İlk üyelik bonusunun farklı işletildiği sitede bonusu kullanmak için oyunlar oynamak ve puanlar toplamak zorundasınız, bonus bundan sonra hesaba parça parça şekilde yatıyor, sitenin ilk üyelik bonusu beş yüz liraya kadar %100 oranı olarak belirtilmiş durumda. Bitcoincanlicasino aracılığı ile 1xbit bahis sitesine ve site ile ilgili güncel bilgiye ulaşabilirsiniz.
submitted by haber7-24 to u/haber7-24 [link] [comments]

[Blockchain Classroom] Lesson 17:Blockchain transfers are actually charged by byte?[Blockchain Classroom] Lesson 17:Blockchain transfers are actually charged by byte?

We often make transfers between banks, and interbank transfer fees are generally charged according to a certain percentage of the transfer amount.

For example, the inter-bank transfer fee is about 5 ‰, and the inter-region transfer fee is 1 ‰ -1%. In addition to the above-mentioned transaction fee, cross-border transfers also need to pay 50-200 yuan telegram fee per transfer.

The transfer fee between blockchain assets has nothing to do with the amount of the transfer, and it is charged by byte. Taking bitcoin transfer as an example, a common transaction occupies about 250 bytes, and the handling fee is about 0.001-0.0015 Bitcoin (about 20-30 yuan). If you need to transfer to multiple Bitcoin addresses at the same time in a transaction, the exchange will occupy a larger number of bytes, so you need to pay a few extra fees before there are miners to package your transactions in time.

Even so, from the perspect of transfer costs, there is still a great advantage in using the blockchain for cross-border transfers.
submitted by BitRabbit_Team to u/BitRabbit_Team [link] [comments]

A brief teardown of some of the flaws in the Lightning Network white paper

This post will perforce be quick and sloppy, because I have other things to do. But a recent comment provoked me to re-read the Lightning white paper to remind myself of the myriad flaws in it, so I decided to at least begin a debunking.
When I first read the Lightning white paper back in early 2016, the sheer audacity of the author's preposterous claims and their failure to understand basic principles of the Satoshi paper just offended the living shit out of me. I presumed - incorrectly - that the Lightning paper would be soon torn to shreds through peer review. However Core was successful in suppressing peer review of the paper, and instead inserted Lighting as their end-all be-all scaling plan for Bitcoin.
I'm sorry I didn't post this in 2016, but better later than never.
Let's start with the abstract.
The bitcoin protocol can encompass the global financial transaction volume in all electronic payment systems today, without a single custodial third party holding funds or requiring participants to have anything more than a computer using a broadband connection.
Well now, that's an awfully gigantic claim for someone that hasn't even written a single line of code as a proof of concept don't you think?
This is what's called "overpromising," the Nirvana fallacy, or more appropriately, "vaporware" - that is to say, a pie-in-the-sky software promise intended to derail progress on alternatives.
In the very first sentence, the authors claim that they can scale Bitcoin to support every transaction that ever happens, from micropayments to multibillion dollar transfers, with no custodial risk, on a simple computer with nothing more than broadband. It will be perfect.
Honestly everyone should have put the paper down at the first sentence, but let's go on.
A decentralized system is proposed
The authors claim that the system proposed is decentralized, but without even a single line of code (and indeed no solution to the problem they claim is the issue, more on that later) they have zero defense of this claim. In fact, the only known solution to the problem that Lightning cannot solve is centralized hubs. We'll get back to this.
whereby transactions are sent over a network of micropayment channels (a.k.a. payment channels or transaction channels) whose transfer of value occurs off-blockchain. If Bitcoin transactions can be signed with a new sighash type that addresses malleability, these transfers may occur between untrusted parties along the transfer route by contracts which, in the event of uncooperative or hostile participants, are enforceable via broadcast over the bitcoin blockchain in the event of uncooperative or hostile participants, through a series of decrementing timelocks
So right here in the abstract we have the promise: "support the entire world's transaction needs on a measly computer with just broadband, totally decentralized, and... (drum roll please) all that's missing is Segwit."
Yeah right. Let's continue.
First sentence of the paper itself reads:
The Bitcoin[1] blockchain holds great promise for distributed ledgers, but the blockchain as a payment platform, by itself, cannot cover the world’s commerce anytime in the near future.
So the authors have constructed a false problem they claim to solve: scaling Bitcoin to cover every transaction on Earth. Now, that would be neato if it worked (it doesn't) but really, this is like Amerigo Vespucci claiming that the problem with boats is that the sails aren't big enough to carry it to the moon. We aren't ready for that part yet. . In infotech we have a saying, "crawl, walk, run." Lightning's authors are going to ignore "walking" and go from crawling to lightspeed. Using the logic of this first sentence, Visa never should have rolled out its original paper-based credit cards, because "obviously they can't scale to solve the whole world's financial needs." Again, your bullshit detector should be lighting up.
Next sentence. So why can't Bitcoin cover all the world's financial transactions?
The blockchain is a gossip protocol whereby all state modifications to the ledger are broadcast to all participants. It is through this “gossip protocol” that consensus of the state, everyone’s balances, is agreed upon.
Got it. The problem is the "gossip protocol." That's bad because...
If each node in the bitcoin network must know about every single transaction that occurs globally, that may create a significant drag on the ability of the network to encompass all global financial transactions
OK. The problem with Bitcoin, according to the author, is that since every node must know the current state of the network, it won't scale. We'll get back to this bit later, because this is the crux: Lightning has the same problem, only worse.
Now the authors take a break in the discussion to create a false premise surrounding the Visa network:
The payment network Visa achieved 47,000 peak transactions per second (tps) on its network during the 2013 holidays[2], and currently averages hundreds of millions per day. Currently, Bitcoin supports less than 7 transactions per second with a 1 megabyte block limit. If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly 8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average. Continuously, that would be over 400 terabytes of data per year.
I'll just point out that Visa itself cannot sustain 47K tps continuously, as a reminder to everyone that the author is deliberately inflating numbers to make them seem more scary. Again, is your bullshit detector going off yet?
Now we get to the hard-sell:
Clearly, achieving Visa-like capacity on the Bitcoin network isn’t feasible today.
So the author deliberately inflates Visa's capabilities then uses that to say clearly it just can't be done. But really, Visa's actual steady-state load can be accomplished in roughly 500MB blocks - which actually is feasible, or nearly so, today. 500MB every ten minutes is actually a small load of data for a decent-sized business. There are thousands of companies that could quite easily support such a load. And that's setting aside the point that we took 7 years to get to 1MB, so it's unlikely that we'll need 500X that capacity "in the near future" or "today" as the authors keep asserting.
No home computer in the world can operate with that kind of bandwidth and storage.
whoopsie!!
Did he say, home computer??
Since when did ordinary Bitcoin users have to keep the whole blockchain on their home computers? Have the authors of the Lightning white paper ever read the Satoshi white paper, which explains that this is not the desired model in Section 8?
Clearly the Lightning authors are expecting their readers to be ignorant of the intended design of the Bitcoin network.
This is a classic example of inserting a statement that the reader is unlikely to challenge, which completely distorts the discussion. Almost nobody needs to run a fullnode on their home computer! Read the Satoshi paper!
If Bitcoin is to replace all electronic payments in the future, and not just Visa, it would result in outright collapse of the Bitcoin network
Really? Is that so?
Isn't the real question how fast will Bitcoin reach these levels of adoption?
Isn't the author simply making an assumption that adoption will outpace advances in hardware and software, based on using wildly inflated throughput numbers (47K tps) in the first place?
But no, the author makes an unfounded, unsupportable, incorrect blanket assertion that -- even in the future -- trying to scale up onchain will be the death of the entire system.
or at best, extreme centralization of Bitcoin nodes and miners to the only ones who could afford it.
Again, that depends on when this goes down.
If Bitcoin grows at roughly the rate of advancement in hardware and software, then the cost to . independently validate transactions - something no individual user needs to do in the first place - actually stays perfectly flat.
But the best part is that his statement:
centralization of Bitcoin nodes and miners to the only ones who could afford it
Ummm... mining and independent validation has always been limited to those who can afford it. What big-blockers know is that the trick isn't trying to make Bitcoin so tiny that farmers in sub-Saharan Africa can "validate" the blockchain on a $0.01 computer, but rather to expand adoption so greatly that they never have to independently validate it.
Running scalable validation nodes at home is dumb. But, there are already millions of people with synchronous gigabit internet at home and more than enough wealth to afford a beefy home computer. The problem is that none of them are using Bitcoin. Adoption is the key!
This centralization would then defeat aspects of network decentralization that make Bitcoin secure, as the ability for entities to validate the chain is what allows Bitcoin to ensure ledger accuracy and security
Here the author throws a red herring across the trail for gullible readers. It is not my ability to validate the chain that produces trustlessness. If that was the case, there would be no need for miners. Users would simply accept or not accept other people's transactions based on their software's interpretation of validity. The Satoshi paper makes it quite clear where trustlessness is born: it is in the incentives that enforce honest mining of an uncorrupted chain.
In other words, I don't have to validate the chain, but Poloniex does. And, newsflash, big companies can very easily afford big validation nodes. "$20K nodes" is a bullshit number I hear thrown around a lot. There are literally hundreds of thousands of companies that can easily afford $20K nodes in the event that Bitcoin becomes "bigger than Visa." Again, the trick is getting many companies in every jurisdiction in the world onto the blockchain. Then no individuals ever need to worry about censorship. Adoption!
let's continue. I'll skip a few sentences.
Extremely large blocks, for example in the above case of 8 gigabytes every 10 minutes on average, would imply that only a few parties would be able to do block validation
If this were written in 1997 it would have read
Extremely large blocks, for example in the above case of 8 megabytes every 10 minutes on average, would imply that only a few parties would be able to do block validation
Obviously, we are processing 8MB blocks today. The real question is how long before we get there. At current rates of adoption, we'll all be fucking dead before anyone mines an 8GB block. And remember, 8GB was the number the authors cooked up. Even Visa can't handle that load, today, continuously.
This creates a great possibility that entities will end up trusting centralized parties. Having privileged, trusted parties creates a social trap whereby the central party will not act in the interest of an individual (principalagent problem), e.g. rentierism by charging higher fees to mitigate the incentive to act dishonestly. In extreme cases, this manifests as individuals sending funds to centralized trusted custodians who have full custody of customers’ funds. Such arrangements, as are common today, create severe counterparty risk. A prerequisite to prevent that kind of centralization from occurring would require the ability for bitcoin to be validated by a single consumer-level computer on a home broadband connection.
Here the author (using his wildly inflated requirement of 8GB blocks) creates a cloud of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that "Bitcoin will fail if it succeeds" - and the solution is, as any UASFer will tell you, that everyone needs to validate the chain on a weak fullnode running on a cheap computer with average internet connectivity.
How's the bullshit detector going?
Now the authors make a head-fake in the direction of honesty:
While it is possible that Moore’s Law will continue indefinitely, and the computational capacity for nodes to cost-effectively compute multigigabyte blocks may exist in the future, it is not a certainty.
Certainty? No. But, we should point out, the capacity to actually approach Visa is already at hand and in the next ten years is a near certainty in fact.
But, surely, the solution that the authors propose is "around the corner" (- Luke-jr) ... /s . No, folks. Bigger blocks are the closest thing to "scaling certainty" that we have. More coming up....
To achieve much higher than 47,000 transactions per second using Bitcoin requires conducting transactions off the Bitcoin blockchain itself.
Now we get to the meat of the propaganda. To reach a number that Visa itself cannot sustain will "never" be possible on a blockchain. NEVER?? That's just false.
In fact, I'll go on record as saying that Bitcoin will hit Visa-like levels of throughput onchain before Lightning Network ever meets the specification announced in this white paper.
It would be even better if the bitcoin network supported a near-unlimited number of transactions per second with extremely low fees for micropayments.
Yes, and it would also be even better if we had fusion and jetpacks.
The thing is, these things that are promised as having been solved... have not been solved and no solution is in sight.
Many micropayments can be sent sequentially between two parties to enable any size of payments.
No, this is plain false. Once a channel's funds have been pushed to one side of the channel, no more micropayments in that direction can be made. This is called channel exhaustion and is one of the many unsolved problems of Lightning Network. But here the authors declare it as a solved problem. That's just false.
Micropayments would enable unbunding, less trust and commodification of services, such as payments for per-megabyte internet service. To be able to achieve these micropayment use cases, however, would require severely reducing the amount of transactions that end up being broadcast on the global Bitcoin blockchain
Now I'm confused. Is Lightning a solution for all the world's financial transactions or is it a solution for micropayments for things like pay-per-megabyte internet?
While it is possible to scale at a small level, it is absolutely not possible to handle a large amount of micropayments on the network or to encompass all global transactions.
There it is again, the promise that Lightning will "encompass all global transactions." Bullshit detector is now pegged in the red.
For bitcoin to succeed, it requires confidence that if it were to become extremely popular, its current advantages stemming from decentralization will continue to exist. In order for people today to believe that Bitcoin will work tomorrow, Bitcoin needs to resolve the issue of block size centralization effects; large blocks implicitly create trusted custodians and significantly higher fees. . (emphasis mine)
"Large" is a term of art which means "be afraid."
In 1997, 8MB would have been an unthinkably large block. Now we run them live in production without breaking a sweat.
"Large" is a number that changes over time. . By the time Bitcoin reaches "Visa-like levels of adoption" it's very likely that what we consider "large" today (32MB?) will seem absolutely puny.
As someone who first started programming on a computer that had what was at the time industry-leading 64KB of RAM (after expanding the memory with an extra 16K add-on card) and a pair of 144KB floppy disks, all I can tell you is that humans are profoundly bad at estimating compounding effects and the author of the Lightning paper is flat-out banking on this to sell his snake oil.
Now things are about to get really, really good.
A Network of Micropayment Channels Can Solve Scalability
“If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”
Here's where the formal line by line breakdown will come to an end, because this is where the trap the Lightning authors have set will close on them.
Let's just read a bit further:
The above quote questions the relevance of unobserved events —if nobody hears the tree fall, whether it made a sound or not is of no consequence. Similarly, in the blockchain, if only two participants care about an everyday recurring transaction, it’s not necessary for all other nodes in the bitcoin network to know about that transaction
Here and elsewhere the author of the paper is implying that two parties can transact between them without having to announce the state of their channel to anyone else.
We see this trope repeated time and time again by LN shills. "Not everyone in the world needs to know about my coffee transaction" they say, as if programmed.
To see the obvious, glaring defect here requires an understanding of what Lightning Network purports to be able to do, one day, if it's ever finished.
Payment channels, which Lightning is based on, have been around since Satoshi and are nothing new at all. It is and has always been possible to create a payment channel with your coffee shop, put $50 in it, and pay it out over a period of time until it's depleted and the coffee shop owner closes the channel. That's not rocket science, that's original Bitcoin.
What Lightning purports to be able to do is to allow you to route a payment to someone else by using the funds in your coffee shop channel.
IN this model, lets suppose Alice is the customer and Bob is the shop. Let's also suppose that Charlie is a customer of Dave's coffee shop. Ernie is a customer of both Bob and Dave's shop.
Now, Alice would like to send money to Charlie. This could be accomplished by:
  1. Alice moves funds to Bob
  2. Bob moves funds to Ernie
  3. Ernie moves funds to Dave
  4. Dave moves funds to Charlie
or more simply, A-B-E-D-C
Here's the catch. To pull this off, Alice has to be able to find the route to Charlie. This means that B-C-E and D all have to be online. So first off, all parties to a transaction and in a route must be online and we must know their current online status to even begin the process. Again: to use Lightning as described in its white paper requires everyone to always be online. If we accept centralized routing hubs, then only the hubs need to be online, but Lightning proposed to be decentralized, which means, essentially, everyone needs to always be online.
Next, we need to know there are enough funds in all channels to perform the routing. Let's say Alice has $100 in her channel with Bob and wants to send this to Charlie. But Bob has only $5 in his channel with Ernie. sad trombone . The maximum that the route can support is $5. (Edit: not quite right, I cleaned this up here.)
Notice something?
Alice has to know the state of every channel through which she intends to route funds.
When the author claims
if only two participants care about an everyday recurring transaction, it’s not necessary for all other nodes in the bitcoin network to know about that transaction
That's true -- unless you want to use the Lightning Network to route funds - and routing funds is the whole point. Otherwise, Lightning is just another word for "payment channels." The whole magic that they promised was using micropayments to route money anywhere.
If you want to route funds, then you absolutely need to know the state of these channels. Which ones? That's the kicker - you essentially have to know all of them, to find the best route - and, sadly - it might be the case that no route is available - which requires an exhaustive search.
And in fact, here we are over 18 months since this paper was published, and guess what?
The problem of the "gossip protocol" - the very Achille's Heel of Bitcoin according to the author - has been solved with drum roll please --- the gossip protocol. (more info here)
Because, when you break it down, in order for Alice to find that route to Charlie, she has to know the complete, current state of Bob-Ernie, Ernie-Dave, and Charlie-Dave. IF the Lightning Network doesn't keep *every participant up to date with the latest network state, it can't find a route.
So the solution to the gossip protocol is in fact the gossip protocol. And - folks - this isn't news. Here's a post from ONE YEAR AGO explaining this very problem.
But wait. It gets worse....
Let's circle around to the beginning. The whole point of Lightning, in a nutshell, can be described as fixing "Bitcoin can't scale because every node needs to know every transaction."
It is true that every node needs to know every transaction.
However: because we read the Satoshi white paper we know that not every user needs to run a node to validate his transactions. End-users should use SPV, which do not need to be kept up to date on everyone else's transactions.
So, with onchain Bitcoin, you have something on the order of 10K "nodes" (validation nodes and miners) that must receive the "gossip" and the other million or so users just connect and disconnect when they need to transact.
This scales.
In contrast, with Lightning, every user needs to receive the "gossip."
This does not scale.
Note something else?
Lightning purports to be an excellent solution to "streaming micropayments." But such micropayments would result in literally millions or billions of continuous state-changes to the network. There's no way to "gossip" millions of micropayment streams each creating millions of tiny transactions.
Now, there is a way to make Lightning scale. It's called the "routing hub." In this model, end-users don't need to know the state of the network. Instead, they will form channels with trusted hubs who will perform the routing on their behalf. A simple example illustrates. IN our previous example, Alice wants to send money to Charlie, but has to find a route to him. An easy solution is to insert Frank. Frank holds 100K btc and can form bidirectional channels with Alice, Bob, Charlie, Dave, Ernie, and most everyone else too. By doing so, he places himself in the middle of a routing network, and then all payments come through Frank. Note that the only barrier to creating channels is capital. Lightning will scale, if we include highly-capitalized hubs as middlemen for everyone else to connect to. If the flaw here is not obvious then someone else can explain.
Well. As Mark Twain once quipped, "if I had more time I would have written a shorter letter." I'll stop here. Hopefully this goes at least part of the way towards helping the community understand just how toxic and deceptive this white paper was to the community.
Everyone on the Segwit chain has bet the entire future of Segwit-enabled Bitcoin on this unworkable house-of-cards sham.
The rest of us, well, we took evasive action, and are just waiting for the rest of the gullible, brainwashed masses to wake up to their error, if they ever do.
H/T: jonald_fyookball for provoking this
Edit: fixed wrong names in my A-B-C-D-E example; formatting
submitted by jessquit to btc [link] [comments]

a reminder on OP_RETURN

Recently OpReturn has been at the forefront of news and innovation, because of clever uses like the token-standard SLP on BitcoinCash and because of BSV lifting their Opreturnlimit to allow for on-chain filestorage which allowed for disturbing content to be uploaded. All this sparked debate about storing arbitrary data on the blockchain again and the legal responsibility for distributing illegal content, aswell as my interest in the matter. So here is a reminder

Lets start off with the basics, what is OpRetrun?
OpReturn is a way to embed data onto the blockchain. Many projects like memo, cashAccounts and SLP all rely on OpReturn.
There are other ways to embed arbitrary data but this one does not create new UTXOs because they are provably unspendable. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN

What is the standard OpReturn limit?
On BCH it's 220 bytes.https://www.bitcoinabc.org/2018-04-01-upgrade/
On BTC it's 80 bytes. https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#null-data
on BSV it's 100KB. https://coingeek.com/unwriter-gives-bitcoin-sv-community-blockchain-powe

How is the limit 'enforced'?
"The limitation is a relay standard, but not a consensus rule" which means each node can decide to implement different limits.
see link: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/78572/op-return-max-bytes-clarification

Did Bitcoin Core decrease their OpReturn limit?
I saw a popular post on btc misrepresenting the OpReturn story on BTC (https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/80ycim/a_few_months_after_the_counterparty_developers/) so I'm going to link the best summary i have found to straighten the record. The actual size never got suddenly 'decreased' from 80 to 40. But the first standard relay on Bitcoin Core was 40 bytes instead the 80bytes they said at first.
http://www.talkcrypto.org/blog/2016/12/30/op_return-40-to-80-bytes/
it's definitively worth to take a quick look at! If anybody has more information about the first time OpReturn was used (so before 0.9.0 and as non-standard tx) please let me know!

If i missed anything important or got something wrong be sure to let me know!
additional links about the whole counterparty situation or other OpReturn related things very welcome!!!

EDIT *spelling fixes
submitted by Mr-Zwets to btc [link] [comments]

Why Verge Needs DigiShield NOW! And Why DigiByte Is SAFE!

Hello everyone, I’m back! Someone asked a question recently on what exactly happened to XVG – Verge and if this could be a problem for DGB – DigiByte - Here: DigiByte vs Verge It was a great question and there have been people stating that this cannot be a problem for us because of DigiShield etc… with not much explanation after that.
I was curious and did a bit more investigating to figure out what happened and why exactly it is that we are safe. So take a read.

Some Information on Verge

Verge was founded in 2014 with code based on DogeCoin, it was initially named DogeCoinDark, it later was renamed Verge XVG in 2016. Verge has 5 mining algorithms as does DigiByte. Those being:
However, unlike DigiByte those algorithms do not run side by side. On Verge one block can only be mined by a single algorithm at any time. This means that each algorithm takes turns mining the chain.
Prior to the latest fork there was not a single line of code that forced any algo rotation. They all run in parallel but of course in the end only one block can be accepted at given height which is obvious. After the fork algo rotation is forced so only 6 blocks with the same algo out of any 10 blocks can be accepted. - srgn_

Mining Verge and The Exploit

What happened then was not a 51% attack per say, but the attacker did end up mining 99% of all new blocks so in fact he did have power of over 51% of the chain. The way that Verge is mined allowed for a timestamp exploit. Every block that is mined is dependent on the previous blocks for determining the algorithm to be used (this is part of the exploit). Also, their mining difficulty is adjusted every block (which last 30 seconds also part of the exploit). Algorithms are not picked but in fact as stated previously compete with one another. As for difficulty:
Difficulty is calculated by a version of DGW which is based on timestamps of last 12 blocks mined by the same algo. - srgn_
This kind of bug is very serious and at the foundation of Verge’s codebase. In fact, in order to fix it a fork is needed, either hard fork or soft fork!
What happened was that the hacker managed to change the time stamps on his blocks. He introduced a pair of false blocks. One which showed that the scrypt mining algorithm had been previously used, about 26 mins before, and then a second block which was mined with scrypt. The chain is set up so that it goes through the 5 different algorithms. So, the first false block shows the chain that the scrypt algorithm had been used in the recent past. This tricks it into thinking that the next algorithm to be used is scrypt. In this way, he was essentially able to mine 99% of all blocks.
Pairs of blocks are used to lower the difficulty but they need to be mined in certain order so they can pass the check of median timestamp of last 11 blocks which is performed in CBlock::AcceptBlock(). There is no tricking anything into thinking that the next algo should be x because there is no algo picking. They all just run and mine blocks constantly. There is only lowering the difficulty, passing the checks so the chain is valid and accepting this chain over chains mined by other algos. - segn_
Here is a snippet of code for what the time stamps on the blocks would look like:
SetBestChain: new best=00000000049c2d3329a3 height=2009406 trust=2009407 date=04/04/18 13:50:09 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED (scrypt) SetBestChain: new best=000000000a307b54dfcf height=2009407 trust=2009408 date=04/04/18 12:16:51 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED (scrypt) SetBestChain: new best=00000000196f03f5727e height=2009408 trust=2009409 date=04/04/18 13:50:10 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED (scrypt) SetBestChain: new best=0000000010b42973b6ec height=2009409 trust=2009410 date=04/04/18 12:16:52 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED (scrypt) SetBestChain: new best=000000000e0655294c73 height=2009410 trust=2009411 date=04/04/18 12:16:53 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED (scrypt) 
Here’s the first falsified block that was introduced into the XVG chain – Verge-Blockchain.info
As you can see there is the first fake block with a time stamp of 13:50:09 for example and the next is set to 12:15:51, the following two blocks are also a fraudulent pair and note that the next block is set to 12:16:52. So essentially, he was able to mine whole blocks - 1 second per block!

The “Fix”

This exploit was brought to public attention by ocminer on the bitcointalk forums. It seems the person was a mining pool administrator and noticed the problem after miners on the pool started to complain about a potential bug.
What happened next was that Verge developers pushed out a “fix” but in fact did not really fix the issue. What they did was simply diminish the time frame in which the blocks can be mined. The attack still was exploitable and the attacker even went on to try it again!
“The background is that the "fix" promoted by the devs simply won't fix the problem. It will just make the timeframe smaller in which the blocks can be mined / spoofed and the attack will still work, just be a bit slower.” - ocminer
Ocminer then cited DigiShield as a real fix to the issue! Stating that the fix should also stipulate that a single algo can only be used X amount of times and not be dependent on when the algo was last used. He even said that DigiByte and Myriad had the same problems and we fixed them! He cited this github repo for DigiByte:

DigiShield

It seems that the reason that this exploit was so lucrative was because the difficulty adjustment parameters were not enough to reduce the rewards the attacker recieved. Had the rewards per block adjusted at reasonable rate like we do in DGB then at least the rewards would have dropped significantly per block.
The attacker was able to make off with around 60 million Verge which equals about 3.6 million dollars per today’s prices.
The exploit used by the attacker depended on the fact that time stamps could be falsified firstly and secondly that the difficulty retargeting parameters were inadequate.
Let’s cover how DigiShield works more in detail. One of the DigiByte devs gave us this post about 4 years ago now, and the topic deserves revisiting and updates! I had a hard time finding good new resources and information on the details of DigiShield so I hope you’ll appreciate this review! This is everything I found for now that I could understand hopefully I get more information later and I’ll update this post.
Let’s go over some stuff on difficulty first then I’ll try giving you a way to visualise the way these systems work.
First you have to understand that mining difficulty changes over time; it has to! Look at Bitcoin’s difficulty for example – Bitcoin difficulty over the past five months. As I covered in another post (An Introduction to DigiByte Difficulty in Bitcoin is readjusted every 2016 blocks which each last about 10 mins each. This can play out over a span of 2 weeks, and that’s why you see Bitcoin’s difficulty graph as a step graph. In general, the hash power in the network increases over time as more people want to mine Bitcoin and thus the difficulty must also increase so that rewards are proportional.
The problem with non-dynamic difficulty adjustment is that it allows for pools of miners and or single entities to come into smaller coins and mine them continuously, they essentially get “free” or easily mined coins as the difficulty has not had time to adjust. This is not really a problem for Bitcoin or other large coins as they always have a lot of miners running on their chains but for smaller coins and a few years ago in crypto basically any coin other than Bitcoin was vulnerable. Once the miners had gotten their “free coins” they could then dump the chain and go mine something else – because the difficulty had adjusted. Often chains were left frozen or with very high fees and slow processing times as there was not enough hash power to mine the transactions.
This was a big problem in the beginning with DigiByte and almost even killed DogeCoin. This is where our brilliant developers came in and created DigiShield (first known as MultiShield).
These three articles are where most of my information came from for DigiShield I had to reread a the first one a few times to understand so please correct me if I make any mistakes! They are in order from most recent to oldest and also in order of relevance.
DigiShield is a system whereby the difficulty for mining DigiByte is adjusted dynamically. Every single block each at 15 seconds has difficulty adjusted for the available hashing power. This means that difficulty in DigiByte is as close as we can get to real time! There are other methods for adjusting difficulty, the first being the Bitcoin/Litecoin method (a moving average calculated every X number of blocks) then the Kimoto Gravity Well is another. The reason that DigiShield is so great is because the parameters are just right for the difficulty to be able to rise and fall in proportion to the amount of hash power available.
Note that Verge used a difficulty adjustment protocol more similar to that of DigiByte than Bitcoin. Difficulty was adjusted every block at 30 seconds. So why was Verge vulnerable to this attack? As I stated before Verge had a bug that allowed for firstly the manipulation of time stamps, and secondly did not adjust difficulty ideally.
You have to try to imagine that difficulty adjustment chases hashing power. This is because the hashing power on a chain can be seen as the “input” and the difficulty adjustment as the corresponding output. The adjustment or output created is thus dependent on the amount of hashing power input.
DigiShield was designed so that increases in mining difficulty are slightly harder to result than decreases in mining difficulty. This asymmetrical approach allows for mining to be more stable on DigiByte than other coins who use a symmetrical approach. It is a very delicate balancing act which requires the right approach or else the system breaks! Either the chain may freeze if hash power increases and then dumps or mining rewards are too high because the difficulty is not set high enough!
If you’ve ever taken any physics courses maybe one way you can understand DigiShield is if I were to define it as a dynamic asymmetrical oscillation dampener. What does this mean? Let’s cover it in simple terms, it’s difficult to understand and for me it was easier to visualise. Imagine something like this, click on it it’s a video: Caravan Weight Distribution – made easy. This is not a perfect analogy to what DigiShield does but I’ll explain my idea.
The input (hashing power) and the output (difficulty adjustment) both result in oscillations of the mining reward. These two variables are what controls mining rewards! So that caravan shaking violently back and forth imagine those are mining rewards, the weights are the parameters used for difficulty adjustment and the man’s hand pushing on the system is the hashing power. Mining rewards move back and forth (up and down) depending on the weight distribution (difficulty adjustment parameters) and the strength of the push (the amount of hashing power input to the system).
Here is a quote from the dev’s article.
“The secret to DigiShield is an asymmetrical approach to difficulty re-targeting. With DigiShield, the difficulty is allowed to decrease in larger movements than it is allowed to increase from block to block. This keeps a blockchain from getting "stuck" i.e., not finding the next block for several hours following a major drop in the net hash of coin. It is all a balancing act. You need to allow the difficulty to increase enough between blocks to catch up to a sudden spike in net hash, but not enough to accidentally send the difficulty sky high when two miners get lucky and find blocks back to back.”
AND to top it all off the solution to Verge’s time stamp manipulation bug is RIGHT HERE in DigiShield again! This was patched and in Digishield v3 problems #7
Here’s a direct quote:
“Most DigiShield v3 implementations do not get data from the most recent blocks, but begin the averaging at the MTP, which is typically 6 blocks in the past. This is ostensibly done to prevent timestamp manipulation of the difficulty.”
Moreover, DigiShield does not allow for one algorithm to mine more than 5 blocks in a row. If the next block comes in on the same algorithm then it would be blocked and would be handed off to the next algorithm.
DigiShield is a beautiful delicate yet robust system designed to prevent abuse and allow stability in mining! Many coins have adopted out technology!

Verge Needs DigiShield NOW!

The attacker has been identified as IDCToken on the bitcointalk forums. He posted recently that there are two more exploits still available in Verge which would allow for similar attacks! He said this:
“Can confirm it is still exploitable, will not abuse it futher myself but fix this problem immediately I'll give Verge some hours to solve this otherwise I'll make this public and another unpatchable problem.” - IDCToken
DigiShield could have stopped the time stamp manipulation exploit, and stopped the attacker from getting unjust rewards! Maybe a look at Verge’s difficulty chart might give a good idea of what 1 single person was able to do to a coin worth about 1 billion dollars.
Here’s DigiByte’s difficulty steady, even and fair:
Maybe our developers could help Verge somehow – but for a fee? Or it might be a good way to get our name out there, and show people why DigiByte and DigiShield are so important!

SOURCES

Edit - Made a few mistakes in understanding how Verge is mined I've updated the post and left the mistakes visible. Nothing else is changed and my point still stands Verge could stand to gain something from adopting DigiShield!
Hi,
I hope you’ve enjoyed my article! I tried to learn as much as I could on DigiShield because I thought it was an interesting question and to help put together our DGB paper! hopefully I made no mistakes and if I did please let me know.
-Dereck de Mézquita
I'm a student typing this stuff on my free time, help me pay for school? Thank you!
D64fAFQvJMhrBUNYpqUKQjqKrMLu76j24g
https://digiexplorer.info/address/D64fAFQvJMhrBUNYpqUKQjqKrMLu76j24g
submitted by xeno_biologist to Digibyte [link] [comments]

Do not touch your EOS on any chain! Beware of forks.

Technically, everyone can bootstrap a mainnet from the genesis. There seems to be a EOS classic net, which is also subject to launch (if it isn't a scam).
REMEMBER TO NOT ENTER YOUR KEYS IN ANY WALLET UNTIL AT LEAST 5 BLOCK PRODUCERS SEE IT AS SAFE!
But there's another more unknown attack vector at this time - replay attacks. Lets explain this with an example.
Over a year ago, Ethereum Classic (ETC) was created by users who rejected the DAO hardfork by the ETH Foundation. Many users didn't support ETC so they sold it as soon as they could. However, transactions they did on the ETC chain were also valid on the ETH network. If you sent an attacker your ETC, he could rebroadcast your transaction on the ETH network and get your ETH too.
The same could now happen to EOS too (as EOS Classic is basicly a fork from block 0). So please, once more, keep away of any forks and airdrops until the mainnet has 15% votes and you can either transfer them to a new address or add additional security measures in place.
PS: It is actually possible to prevent this by changing something regarding how transactions are made (e.g. the version byte in bitcoin is used often for forks). I'm not aware of any replay protection on EOS classic through.
submitted by WernerderChamp to eos [link] [comments]

DigiByte welcomes those fleeing ERC20 Tokens - SEC Ethereum Ruling

The SEC is supposed to meet today regarding whether or not Ethereum should be deemed a security. If ETH is deemed a security, I expect many to flee from the plethora of scam tokens that have invaded the crypto space. If you're looking for a new home, give strong consideration to DigiByte. Like Bitcoin, it's a traditional PoW UTXO blockchain, but DigiByte's blockchain is actually longer, faster, and more scaleable. Check us out, you won't be disappointed. We're truly open source and decentralized. Since we're not a company, all the folks around here are just passionate volunteers who believe in the longterm viability of cryptocurrency. Welcome aboard!
EDIT: Sounds like the SEC is just meeting today to discuss ETH's potential legal status, but they're not yet ruling on it.
submitted by kregger80 to Digibyte [link] [comments]

Solution to 1 Satoshi / Byte Fee Issue in Ledger Nano S (Technical)

I believe I found the issue to BCH transactions being delayed when sending 1 Satoshi / Byte transactions using the Ledger Nano S.
I've described the solution in this comment. I'm putting this out here just in case someone is able to create a patch which btchip could integrate.
submitted by jonathan_white to btc [link] [comments]

Groestlcoin Christmas Release!

Groestlcoin Dec 2018 Christmas Release Update

As per usual the 3 months has been all hand-on-deck, helping to bring further adoption utilities to Groestlcoin. The markets have been red but as always that doesn't stop the show from going on with regards to the development since the last release update on 24th September. Here's a recap of what has happened so far:

Recap:

What’s New Today?

Groestlcoin on Trezor Model T

As of the latest version of the Trezor Model T firmware, Groestlcoin is now officially supported! The Trezor Model T is the next-generation cryptocurrency hardware wallet, designed to be your universal vault for all of your digital assets. Store and encrypt your coins, passwords and other digital keys with confidence. The Trezor Model T now supports over 500 cryptocurrencies.

Blockbook MainNet & TestNet Block Explorer

Blockbook is an open-source Groestlcoin blockchain explorer with complete REST and websocket APIs that can be used for writing web wallets and other apps that need more advanced blockchain queries than provided by groestlcoind RPC.
Blockbook REST API provides you with a convenient, powerful and simple way to read data from the groestlcoin network and with it, build your own services.

Features:

Blockbook is available via https://blockbook.groestlcoin.org/ Testnet: https://blockbook-test.groestlcoin.org/ Source code: https://github.com/Groestlcoin/blockbook

Edge Wallet

Groestlcoin has been added to the Edge wallet for Android and iOS. Edge wallet is secure, private and intuitive. By including support for ShapeShift, Simplex and Changelly, Edge allows you to seamlessly shift between digital currencies, anywhere with an internet connection.

Features:

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=co.edgesecure.app
iOS: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/edge-bitcoin-wallet/id1344400091?mt=8
Direct Android: https://edge.app/app

CoinID Wallet

We are excited to announce that Groestlcoin has been added to CoinID! With integrated cold and hot wallet support, and a host of other unique wallet features, CoinID can easily become your go-to wallet for storing Groestlcoin. More details can be found here: https://coinid.org/s/groestlcoin-wallet-overview.pdf

Features

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.coinid.wallet.grs
iOS: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/grs-wallet-for-coinid/id1439638550

Groestlcoin Sentinel - Windows Released

Groestlcoin Sentinel is the easiest and fastest way to track balances of your Groestlcoin addresses.
Features
You can download it using the links below.
Download the Windows Wallet (64 bit) here: https://github.com/Groestlcoin/Groestlcoin-Sentinel-Windows/releases/download/1.0/SentinelSetup_x64.msi
Download the Windows Wallet (32 bit) here: https://github.com/Groestlcoin/Groestlcoin-Sentinel-Windows/releases/download/1.0/SentinelSetup_x86.msi
Source code: https://github.com/Groestlcoin/Groestlcoin-Sentinel-Windows/

Groestlcoin BIP39 Tool 0.3.9 Update

The Groestlcoin BIP39 tool is an open-source web tool for converting BIP39 mnemonic codes to addresses and private keys. This enables the greatest security against third-party wallets potentially disappearing – You’ll still have access to your funds thanks to this tool.
What’s New
Download the Groestlcoin BIP39 tool here: https://github.com/Groestlcoin/bip39/archive/master.zip
Source code: https://github.com/groestlcoin/bip39
Or use hosted version: https://groestlcoin.org/bip39/

Electrum-GRS 3.2.3 Update

Electrum-GRS is a lightweight "thin client" Groestlcoin wallet Windows, MacOS and Linux based on a client-server protocol. Its main advantages over the original Groestlcoin client include support for multi-signature wallets and not requiring the download of the entire block chain.
What’s New

Electrum + Android Version 3.2.3:

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.groestlcoin.electrumgrs
Windows & OSX: https://github.com/Groestlcoin/electrum-grs/releases/
Linux:
sudo apt-get install python3-setuptools python3-pyqt5 python3-pip python3-dev libssl-dev sudo pip3 install groestlcoin_hash sudo pip3 install https://github.com/Groestlcoin/electrum-grs/releases/download/v3.2.3/Electrum-grs-3.2.3.tar.gz electrum-grs
GitHub Source server: https://github.com/Groestlcoin/electrumx-grs
Github Source server installer: https://github.com/Groestlcoin/electrumx-grs-installer
Github Source client: https://github.com/Groestlcoin/electrum-grs

Groestlcoin ivendPay Integration

ivendPay and Groestlcoin cryptocurrency have announced the start of integration.
IT company ivendPay, the developer of a universal multicurrency payment module for automatic and retail trade, intends to integrate Groestlcoin cryptocurrency — one of the oldest and the most reputable Bitcoin forks into the payment system. Groestlcoin is characterized by instant transactions with almost zero commission and is optimal for mass retail trade where micropayments are mostly used.
According to Sergey Danilov, founder and CEO of ivendPay, Groestlcoin will become the 11th cryptocurrency integrated into the payment module. The first working vending machines for the sale of coffee, snacks and souvenirs, equipped with ivendPay modules, served the visitors of the CryptoEvent RIW exhibition at VDNKh in Moscow and accepted Bitcoin, Go Byte, Dash, Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum, Ethereum Classic, Zcash, Bitcoin Gold, Dogecoin and Emercoin. ivendPay terminals are designed and patented to accept payments in electronic money, cryptocurrencies and cash when connecting the corresponding cash terminal. Payment for the purchase takes a few seconds, the choice of the payment currency occurs at the time of placing the order on the screen, the payment is made by QR-code through the cryptocurrency wallet on the smartphone.
The interest in equipping vending machines with ivendPay terminals has already been shown by the companies of Malaysia and Israel, where first test networks would be installed. ivendPay compiles a waiting list for vending networks interested in buying terminals and searches for an investor to launch industrial production. According to Sergey Danilov, the universal payment terminal ivendPay for the vending machine will cost about $500. The founder of ivendPay has welcomed the appearance of Groestlcoin among integrated cryptocurrencies, as it is another step towards the realization of the basic idea of digital money - free and cross-border access to goods and services for everybody.
submitted by Yokomoko_Saleen to groestlcoin [link] [comments]

recommended Bitcoin tax

Hi there.Is there any service where I can check recommended transaction fee in sat/byte for Bitcoin?
submitted by Tyrell00 to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

What would the blockchain size be at Visa TPS?

On Twitter I saw a link to an excerpt from the lightning protocol whitepaper:
https://twitter.com/jamesob/status/983085968168312832
Here is the quote:
The payment network Visa achieved 47,000 peak transactions per second (tps) on its network during the 2013 holidays[2], and currently averages hundreds of millions per day. Currently, Bitcoin supports less than 7 transactions per second with a 1 megabyte block limit. If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly 8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average. Continuously, that would be over 400 terabytes of data per year.
My questions I'd like to pose to the community are:
a) Is this an accurate estimate of blockchain size at peak Visa TPS? b) If accurate, what is the Bitcoin Cash counter argument to this?
I'm not an expert, but based on my own understanding:
a) This estimate is based on peak Visa TPS (holiday season). Average in 2016 was 4471 TPS. Which is equal to about 1.5GB per block. An archival node would then have to hold on to 77TB per year to achieve Visa scale. A fully validating node would hold on to much less (see below)
b) A fully validating node only needs to hold the Unspent Transaction Output Set and a number of recent blocks. The current UTXO size is 2.8GB and increases by about .5-1GB per year.
submitted by PistachioPlanet to btc [link] [comments]

/r/CryptoCurrency - Invest Smart - Guide, Resources, Links, and More!

Hello everyone!
Thought I'd make a post of quick startup content and compilation to get you started into smart investing. I hope you all like it! Here it goes:
Google and twitter is your best friend. (To a certain limit)
Google:
Click "News" tab, and search the cryptocurrency you are researching. Go for something reputable like CNBC, Forbes, and so on for better accuracy but also use your wise judgement. For example there are some very good cryptocurrency and blockchain focused websites. The key is to find the few that get news out fast and non-bias. If you not a certain website constantly bashing a specific cryptocurrency that has held a high marketcap for longer than 6 months, clearly there is favoritism going on. Lets continue.
Click "All" tab, and search the keywords in the following format:
I find many people don't know about this but if you scroll the tabs (webs, news and images) to the left; you will see search tools. Sometimes it helps to sort it by dates and play around between one hour and 24 hours.
Twitter:
If you want the news first, many organizations that operate in the crypto field use twitter. Using the same keyword formats above in twtter is very beneficial. Alot more useless info but sometimes it pays off to take the time to go through it. Personally, after searching I like to use the "latest" tab.
Here are some twitter accounts worth following, and would be beneficial to your investment solutions:
I did not post any twitter accounts that might be reputable but have had major negative controversy or viral issues in the past. You might also notice some twitter accounts are missing such as contributors and founders. I have nothing against those accounts. Some are very reputable accounts (that I think are amazing individuals), however the OP requested specific requirements in the post. I cannot guarantee that all the twitter accounts above are not bias, but I did my best to list the least bias twitter accounts. Outside of this post, I do recommend following some founders, contributors, and exchanges! You can easily find them by participating in there community.
Please remember that quality research and due diligence go beyond just twitter. Be patient and spend quality time researching. Less time planning equals less profit or less chances of profiting. It takes one minute to place a buy or sell order. It also takes one minute to lose 99% of your holdings. It should not take you one minute. Patience.
submitted by golden-china to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

What's up with Bitcoin Core?

It seems now that downloads of Bitcoin Core no longer match the checksums listed or previously recorded.
https://codeload.github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tar.gz/v0.13.2 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.13.2 
6084775 bytes
https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.13.2/bitcoin-0.13.2.tar.gz https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.13.2/ 
5303321 bytes
Likewise:
https://codeload.github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tar.gz/v0.13.1 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.13.1 
5952085 bytes
https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.13.1/bitcoin-0.13.1.tar.gz https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.13.1/ 
5187256 bytes
NetBSD's pkgsrc-wip shows: Size (bitcoin-0.13.1.tar.gz) = 5952081 bytes And, of course, the checksum for that doesn't match.
The same discrepancies are in 0.14.2.
Does anyone know what the heck is going on?
submitted by johnklos to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Bookcoin Store accepts over 15 Cryptocurrencies!

Todays featured listing is 'Bookcoin Shop'! 😎
Buy Gift Cards and Ebooks using Bitcoin and lots of other Crypto including Litecoin, Ripple, Zcash, DigiByte, Dash, BitcoinCash, and many more. 👍
Please go check them out!
submitted by BitcoinPeople to btc [link] [comments]

SegWit: How big are transactions?

I have heard from various people on chat, that SegWit transactions are bigger than standard transactions. Anyone knows by how much?
Standard transactions take about 400 bytes in Bitcoin and consist of 2 tx inputs and 2 tx outputs.
How much an equivalent transaction take for SegWit? (disk use in standard block size and disk use in SegWit block)
submitted by Technologov to btc [link] [comments]

Why Investors Should Keep an Eye on DigiByte (DGB) #bitcoin #altcoins #altcoin Jared Tate https://t.co/uzX9mVo3QG - Crypto Insider Info - Whales's

Posted at: August 17, 2018 at 02:38AM
By:
Why Investors Should Keep an Eye on DigiByte (DGB) #bitcoin #altcoins #altcoin Jared Tate https://t.co/uzX9mVo3QG
Automate your Trading via Crypto Bot : https://ift.tt/2EU8PEX
Join Telegram Channel for FREE Crypto Bot: Crypto Signal
submitted by cryptotradingbot to cryptobots [link] [comments]

Is it still possible to claim free byteball?

I looked at the website and it says:
After installing, chat with the Transition Bot to participate in the next distribution round Buy or sell bytes by chatting with a trading bot P2P exchange bytes vs bitcoins, get your merkle proof by chatting with BTC Oracle View public transactions on the DAG explorer
Is this what I have to do?
Do I need to show proof of owning bitcoin? I have BTC on a trezor. Do I just give the 'receive' address?
submitted by advanceb to ByteBall [link] [comments]

Exchange blackbytes

Hello guys! I am pretty new to this byteball tech. Is there a guide somewhere? I want to exchange some bytes and black bytes for bitcoin. There is an exchange bot in the app but you cant trade black bytes on normal exchanges as that will ruin their privacy AFAIK. How can I do this then? Thanks! By the way I really like the idea behind the project and wish you all the best!
submitted by Kalin101 to ByteBall [link] [comments]

BitCoin Trading Scalping PT 1 - YouTube Bitcoin (Part 1) 8 Bits and a Byte - YouTube BITCOIN WILL DO THIS THE FIRST TIME SINCE WE HIT $20'000 Building an 8-bit register - 8-bit register - Part 4 - YouTube

Block headers are serialized in the 80-byte format described below and then hashed as part of Bitcoin’s proof-of-work algorithm, making the serialized header format part of the consensus rules. Bytes. Name. Data Type. Description. 4. version. int32_t. The block version number indicates which set of block validation rules to follow. See the list of block versions below. 32. previous block ... Digital money that’s instant, private, and free from bank fees. Download our official wallet app and start using Bitcoin today. Read news, start mining, and buy BTC or BCH. Each leading zero byte shall be represented by its own character '1' in the final result. Concatenate the 1's from step 5 with the results of step 4. This is the Base58Check result. A more detailed example is provided on the page describing the technical background of the bitcoin address. Encoding a Bitcoin address Wenn jedoch ein Byte Teil des SegWit-Bitcoin-Zeugenbereichs ist, erhält es einen Rabatt und zählt nur als 1 Byte Blockgewicht. Angenommen, Sie haben zuvor eine BTC an die Bitadresse A von SegWit Bitcoin und eine BTC an die Adresse B erhalten. Betrachten Sie nun eine Transaktion, bei der beide Beträge an eine Adresse C gesendet werden. Die Daten, die nichts mit den Transaktionseingaben zu ... 1 Bitcoin hat acht Nachkommastellen. Das allein macht die Umrechnung von BTC-Beträgen in Euro nicht besonders leicht. Hinzu kommt, dass Bitcoin bei einem aktuellen Preis von rund Array Euro so hoch ist, dass kleinere Beträge wie zum Beispiel 20 € nur sehr schwer in BTC umgerechnet werden können. Genau wie beim Euro oder Cent gibt es auch bei Bitcoin für die kleineren Einheiten ...

[index] [33426] [20155] [11941] [42849] [37284] [32536] [30247] [39028] [26689] [48851]

BitCoin Trading Scalping PT 1 - YouTube

Bienvenido! Si te gusto el video dale Like y Suscribite! Welcome! If you like please like and subscribe! ganar dinero desafio ganar dinero ganar dinero por i... In this video, we'll build the first of three 8-bit registers used in the 8-bit computer! Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/beneater You can get... BITCOIN!!! Today is a day for the history books for Bitcoin!!! Bitcoin will do THIS for the FIRST TIME since we hit $20k for the BTC price! We will do techni... This video is part of the Udacity course "Networking for Web Developers". Watch the full course at https://www.udacity.com/course/ud256 8-bit is a term that gets thrown around a lot, by a lot of different games. What does this term actually mean, and how many games deserve to use it? Mark (@b...

#