BTCminer: ZTEX FPGA Boards and the Open-Source SDK ...

Mining and Dogecoin - Some FAQs

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

You downloaded the core wallet

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

You downloaded a GPU/CPU miner

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

Mining Doge

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

Mining solo versus pool

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

Buying an ASIC

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

Making profit

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

Cloud Mining

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

Alternative coins

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

Folding at Home (Doge)

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

Best $100-$300 FPGA development board in 2018?

Hello, I’ve been trying to decide on a FPGA development board, and have only been able to find posts and Reddit threads from 4-5 years ago. So I wanted to start a new thread and ask about the best “mid-range” FGPA development board in 2018. (Price range $100-$300.)
I started with this Quora answer about FPGA boards, from 2013. The Altera DE1 sounded good. Then I looked through the Terasic DE boards.
Then I found this Reddit thread from 2014, asking about the DE1-SoC vs the Cyclone V GX Starter Kit: https://www.reddit.com/FPGA/comments/1xsk6w/cyclone_v_gx_starter_kit_vs_de1soc_board/‬ (I was also leaning towards the DE1-SoC.)
Anyway, I thought I better ask here, because there are probably some new things to be aware of in 2018.
I’m completely new to FPGAs and VHDL, but I have experience with electronics/microcontrollers/programming. My goal is to start with some basic soft-core processors. I want to get some C / Rust programs compiling and running on my own CPU designs. I also want to play around with different instruction sets, and maybe start experimenting with asynchronous circuits (e.g. clock-less CPUs)
Also I don’t know if this is possible, but I’d like to experiment with ternary computing, or work with analog signals instead of purely digital logic. EDIT: I just realized that you would call those FPAAs, i.e. “analog” instead of “gate”. Would be cool if there was a dev board that also had an FPAA, but no problem if not.
EDIT 2: I also realized why "analog signals on an FPGA" doesn't make any sense, because of how LUTs work. They emulate boolean logic with a lookup table, and the table can only store 0s and 1s. So there's no way to emulate a transistor in an intermediate state. I'll just have play around with some transistors on a breadboard.
UPDATE: I've put together a table with some of the best options:
Board Maker Chip LUTs Price SoC? Features
icoBoard Lattice iCE40-HX8K 7,680 $100 Sort of A very simple FPGA development board that plugs into a Raspberry Pi, so you have a "backup" hard-core CPU that can control networking, etc. Supports a huge range of pmod accessories. You can write a program/circuit so that the Raspberry Pi CPU and the FPGA work together, similar to a SoC. Proprietary bitstream is fully reverse engineered and supported by Project IceStorm, and there is an open-source toolchain that can compile your hardware design to bitstream. Has everything you need to start experimenting with FPGAs.
iCE40-HX8K Breakout Board Lattice iCE40-HX8K-CT256 7,680 $49 No 8 LEDs, 8 switches. Very similar to icoBoard, but no Raspberry Pi or pmod accessories.
iCE40 UltraPlus Lattice iCE40 UltraPlus FPGA 5280 $99 No Chip specs. 4 switchable FPGAs, and a rechargeable battery. Bluetooth module, LCD Display (240 x 240 RGB), RGB LED, microphones, audio output, compass, pressure, gyro, accelerometer.
Go Board Lattice ICE40 HX1K FPGA 1280 $65 No 4 LEDs, 4 buttons, Dual 7-Segment LED Display, VGA, 25 MHz on-board clock, 1 Mb Flash.
snickerdoodle Xilinx Zynq 7010 28K $95 Yes Xilinx Zynq 7-Series SoC - ARM Cortex-A9 processor, and Artix-7 FPGA. 125 IO pins. 1GB DDR2 RAM. Texas Instruments WiLink 8 wireless module for 802.11n Wi-Fi and Bluetooth 4.1. No LEDs or buttons, but easy to wire up your own on a breadboard. If you want to use a baseboard, you'll need a snickerdoodle black ($195) with the pins in the "down" orientation. (E.g. The "breakyBreaky breakout board" ($49) or piSmasher SBC ($195)). The snickerdoodle one only comes with pins in the "up" orientation and doesn't support any baseboards. But you can still plug the jumpers into the pins and wire up things on a breadboard.
numato Mimas A7 Xilinx Artix 7 52K $149 No 2Gb DDR3 RAM. Gigabit Ethernet. HDMI IN/OUT. 100MHz LVDS oscillator. 80 IOs. 7-segment display, LEDs, buttons. (Found in this Reddit thread.)
Ultra96 Xilinx Zynq UltraScale+ ZU3EG 154K $249 Yes Has one of the latest Xilinx SoCs. 2 GB (512M x32) LPDDR4 Memory. Wi-Fi / Bluetooth. Mini DisplayPort. 1x USB 3.0 type Micro-B, 2x USB 3.0 Type A. Audio I/O. Four user-controllable LEDs. No buttons and limited LEDs, but easy to wire up your own on a breadboard
Nexys A7-100T Xilinx Artix 7 15,850 $265 No . 128MiB DDR2 RAM. Ethernet port, PWM audio output, accelerometer, PDM microphone, microphone, etc. 16 switches, 16 LEDs. 7 segment displays. USB HID Host for mice, keyboards and memory sticks.
Zybo Z7-10 Xilinx Zynq 7010 17,600 $199 Yes Xilinx Zynq 7000 SoC (ARM Cortex-A9, 7-series FPGA.) 1 GB DDR3 RAM. A few switches, push buttons, and LEDs. USB and Ethernet. Audio in/out ports. HDMI source + sink with CEC. 8 Total Processor I/O, 40 Total FPGA I/O. Also a faster version for $299 (Zybo Z7-20).
Arty A7 Xilinx Artix 7 15K $119 No 256MB DDR3L. 10/100 Mbps Ethernet. A few switches, buttons, LEDs.
DE10-Standard (specs) Altera Cyclone V 110K $350 Yes Dual-core Cortex-A9 processor. Lots of buttons, LEDs, and other peripherals.
DE10-Nano Altera Cyclone V 110K $130 Yes Same as DE10-Standard, but not as many peripherals, buttons, LEDs, etc.

Winner:

icoBoard ($100). (Buy it here.)
The icoBoard plugs into a Raspberry Pi, so it's similar to having a SoC. The iCE40-HX8K chip comes with 7,680 LUTs (logic elements.) This means that after you learn the basics and create some simple circuits, you'll also have enough logic elements to run the VexRiscv soft-core CPU (the lightweight Murax SoC.)
The icoBoard also supports a huge range of pluggable pmod accessories:
You can pick whatever peripherals you're interested in, and buy some more in the future.
Every FPGA vendor keeps their bitstream format secret. (Here's a Hacker News discussion about it.) The iCE40-HX8K bitstream has been fully reverse engineered by Project IceStorm, and there is an open-source set of tools that can compile Verilog to iCE40 bitstream.
This means that you have the freedom to do some crazy experiments, like:
You don't really have the same freedom to explore these things with Xilinx or Altera FPGAs. (Especially asynchronous circuits.)

Links:

Second Place:

iCE40-HX8K Breakout Board ($49)

Third Place:

numato Mimas A7 ($149).
An excellent development board with a Xilinx Artix 7 FPGA, so you can play with a bigger / faster FPGA and run a full RISC-V soft-core with all the options enabled, and a much higher clock speed. (The iCE40 FPGAs are a bit slow and small.)
Note: I've changed my mind several times as I learned new things. Here's some of my previous thoughts.

What did I buy?

I ordered a iCE40-HX8K Breakout Board to try out the IceStorm open source tooling. (I would have ordered an icoBoard if I had found it earlier.) I also bought a numato Mimas A7 so that I could experiment with the Artix 7 FPGA and Xilinx software (Vivado Design Suite.)

Questions

What can I do with an FPGA? / How many LUTs do I need?

submitted by ndbroadbent to FPGA [link] [comments]

/r/Monero - Newcomers Please Read. Everything You Need To Know.

What is Monero (XMR)?
Monero is a secure, private, untraceable (crypto-)currency. It is open-source and freely available to all. Don't believe us? Click here.
Monero is a tool that people can actually use. It makes receiving payments hassle-free, since merchants and individuals no longer need to fear the source of funds they are accepting. With transparent systems like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Verge, or Dash, these people need to hope (or spend substantial resources verifying) the sender did not use the funds illicitly. Furthermore, merchants do not want all their vendors known, and individually do not want everyone to know how much they are spending. If I spend more than I should at Newegg (store), that's my own business.
Monero is different because every transaction is always private. There is no way for pools and exchanges to opt out of sending private transactions. Thus, Monero's anonymity set far exceeds any other coin's anonymity set. Over 86,000 transactions in the past month of August, 2017 hid the sender and receiver, and about 99.95% of them also hid the amount (will increase to 100% of all new transactions in September)! There is no suspicion in using a private transaction, since all transactions are private. A single transaction does not stick out.*
This privacy is afforded with the best technology. I implore you to take a few minutes to learn about the four main technologies that Monero uses to provide privacy:
There are several other things that make Monero great! It has a smooth tail emission, dynamic blocks and fees, and an accessible Proof of Work (mining) algorithm.
*You can optionally choose a very large, unusual ringsize to make the transaction stick out. This is not recommended, and normal users who leave the ringsize at the default setting will not experience any issues. Also, it's possible for a user to manually add identifying information to the tx_extra field, which is something that a user must seriously go out of their way to do.
Now you know Monero (XMR) has the best technology. What else makes Monero (XMR) different than other cryptocurrencies?
P.S. Want a quick-start, simple your-grandma-could-do-it guide? Here's a great one!
Am I a bad person to consider using this?
No, Monero is freedom money. You can do whatever you want with it, whenever you want, where ever you want. We make it clear that you should own your wealth 100%. What you do with it, is none of our concern.
Where does the word Monero come from?
The word Monero comes from the language Esperanto. Monero means coin oand currency. The plural way of saying Monero in Esperanto and in our cryptocurrency is Moneroj.
How do I store Monero?
Monero Core
Monero Core GUI (If you don't know how to use it, click here for instructions and tutorial)
Monero Web-Wallet
Offline Wallet Generator
Is there a lightweight wallet for Monero?
Not yet, but you can use the official GUI with a remote node.
Are there any other ways to store Monero (XMR)?
Yes, there are many mobile wallets out there that allow you to store Monero (XMR). We do not recommend them, because they are not official releases of Monero. If you do decide to use other wallets, please make sure to do your research first before storing any Moneroj in the wallet. Anything used for Monero outside of official releases, will be used at your own risk. Some may be used for scamming purposes. If you still decide to take the risk; do not use them for large amounts. Also keep in mind that there is a high chance that Monero support will not be able to help you if you bump into any problems from applications outside of official releases. Why should you not use non-official wallets? Well would you buy a house and give your only key you have to the buildemanagement and wait for him/her to open the door to the house you supposedly own? No. Same goes with cryptocurrencies. You should always have possession of your private keys, and your Moneroj. Most non-official releases own your private keys, therefore you do not own the Moneroj.
How do I buy Monero (XMR) with fiat?
Kraken
Bitfinex
Monero For Cash
Local Monero
Other Options
Which exchanges support Monero (XMR)?
Poloniex
Bithumb
Kraken
Bitfinex
Bittrex
Bitsquare
ShapeShift
Livecoin
BTER
How do I setup a offline cold paper wallet?
Step-by-step guide for cold storage and offline transaction signing with optimal security
Guide For Securely Generating An Offline Cold Paper Wallet
USB Monero Cold Wallet Guide
Is there a Chinese translation so I can understand Monero? 是否有中文翻译,以便我能理解Monero?
Monero (XMR) Chinese Translation
Can I buy Monero (XMR) with CNY? 我可以用人民币买Monero吗?
BTER
*Can I buy Monero (XMR) with KRW?
Bithumb
Where can I find a good mining pool?
Monero Pools
What miner should I use?
CPU:
XMR-Stak (Windows-Linux)
CpuMiner by tpruvot (Windows, Linux)
CpuMiner By Wolf
xmr-stak (MacOS)
cpuminer(MacOS) By correcthorse
GPU:
XMR-stak (AMD)
Ccminer (nVidia) by KlausT, psychocrypt, and fireice-uk
Claymore's CryptoNote GPU Miner (AMD)
If you are a Windows user, click here.
Can I use a proxy for mining?
You can use XMR Proxy. If you want to monitor your rigs you can use Monero Mining Monitor.
How can I setup a local wallet while running node with little bandwidth?
You can use GUI, as a remote node as it uses very little bandwidth. Go to settings tab and change: "localhost:18089" to "node.moneroworld.com:18089". If you are still having problems, then just use our Monero Web-Wallet.
Can I run Monero through Tor or I2P?
Guide to use Monero with Tor correctly
Monero Safety Through Tor
Monero I2P
My vendor only accepts bitcoin but I only have Monero, and I know bitcoin is not private/anonymous. What should I do?
Use XMR.TO, but you should also educate them about bitcoins lack of privacy. Tell them to visit this post.
How long does it take to sync to the blockchain?
It can take from a few hours (using SSD drive) or even 24 hours, depending on hard drive and connection speed.
How do I generate a QR-code for a Monero address?
How to generate a QR code for a Monero address
Moneroqrcode.com for a personalized code
Guide to check balance
List of scams: (Always do a background check / research for anything outside of official releases.)
Did you know over 50 high profile artists accept Monero on their online stores? Check out Project Coral Reef
Are there any other sub-reddits that specialize in certain parts of Monero or just related to Monero?
Yes, there are a few. However, please keep in mind that this sub-reddit (/Monero) is the official Monero sub-reddit.
/xmrtrader - Trading, and investing related discussions & inquires.
/MoneroMining - Mining related discussions & inquires.
/MoneroCommunity for those who want to help grow the community.
/moonero for shitposts and memes.
/MoneroMarket for buying and selling wares for Monero.
/MoneroSupport for, you guessed it, Monero support.
Want to get involved? Click here for a list of sources.
How can I participate in the Monero community?
We welcome everyone to join us and help out. Check the "Community Info" section on our subreddit for our website, forum, stack exchange, github, twitter, and facebook. Anyway, we hope you stick around beyond the hype. Monero has a lot going for it, and we hope you agree! We really need your help, since this project is entirely driven by the community!
Nun vi spertis liberecon.
submitted by cryptonaire- to Monero [link] [comments]

Bitcoin, huh? WTF is going on? Should we scale you on-chain or off-chain? Will you stay decentralized, distributed, immutable?

0. Shit, this is long, TLWR please! Too long, won't read.
EDIT: TLDR TLWR for clarity.
1. Bitcoin, huh? Brief introduction.
There are 3 sections to this overview. The first section is a brief introduction to bitcoin. The second section looks at recent developments in the bitcoin world, through the analogy of email attachments, and the third section discusses what could be next, through the perspective of resilience and network security.
This is just a continuation of a long, long, possibly never-ending debate that started with the release of the bitcoin whitepaper in 2008 (see https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf). The recent mess during the past few years boils down to the controversy with the block size limit and how to appropriately scale bitcoin, the keyword appropriately. Scaling bitcoin is a controversial debate with valid arguments from all sides (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy).
I have researched, studied, and written this overview as objectively and as impartially as possible. By all means, this is still an opinion and everyone is advised to draw their own conclusions. My efforts are to make at least a few readers aware that ultimately there is only one team, and that team is the team bitcoin. Yes, currently though, there are factions within the team bitcoin. I hope that we can get beyond partisan fights and work together for the best bitcoin. I support all scaling proposals as long as they are the best for the given moment in time. Personally, I hate propaganda and love free speech as long as it is not derogatory and as long as it allows for constructive discussions.
The goal of this overview is to explain to a novice how bitcoin network works, what has been keeping many bitcoin enthusiasts concerned, and if we can keep the bitcoin network with three main properties described as decentralized, distributed, immutable. Immutable means censorship resistant. For the distinction between decentralized and distributed, refer to Figure 1: Centralized, decentralized and distributed network models by Paul Baran (1964), which is a RAND Institute study to create a robust and nonlinear military communication network (see https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM3420.pdf). Note that for the overall network resilience and security, distributed is more desirable than decentralized, and the goal is to get as far away from central models as possible. Of course, nothing is strictly decentralized or strictly distributed and all network elements are at different levels of this spectrum.
For those unaware how bitcoin works, I recommend the Bitcoin Wikipedia (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page). In short, the bitcoin network includes users which make bitcoin transactions and send them to the network memory pool called mempool, nodes which store the public and pseudonymous ledger called blockchain and which help with receiving pending transactions and updating processed transactions, thus securing the overall network, and miners which also secure the bitcoin network by mining. Mining is the process of confirming pending bitcoin transactions, clearing them from the mempool, and adding them to blocks which build up the consecutive chain of blocks on the blockchain. The blockchain is therefore a decentralized and distributed ledger built on top of bitcoin transactions, therefore impossible to exist without bitcoin. If someone claims to be working on their own blockchain without bitcoin, by the definition of the bitcoin network however, they are not talking about the actual blockchain. Instead, they intend to own a different kind of a private database made to look like the public and pseudonymous blockchain ledger.
There are roughly a couple of dozen mining pools, each possibly with hundreds or thousands of miners participating in them, to several thousand nodes (see https://blockchain.info/pools and https://coin.dance/nodes). Therefore, the bitcoin network has at worst decentralized miners and at best distributed nodes. The miner and node design makes the blockchain resilient and immune to reversible changes, making it censorship resistant, thus immutable. The bitcoin blockchain avoids the previous need for a third party to trust. This is a very elegant solution to peer-to-peer financial exchange via a network that is all: decentralized, distributed, immutable. Extra features (escrow, reversibility via time-locks, and other features desirable in specific instances) can be integrated within the network or added on top of this network, however, they have not been implemented yet.
Miners who participate receive mining reward consisting of newly mined bitcoins at a predetermined deflationary rate and also transaction fees from actual bitcoin transactions being processed. It is estimated that in 2022, miners will have mined more than 90% of all 21 million bitcoins ever to be mined (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply). As the mining reward from newly mined blocks diminishes to absolute zero in 2140, the network eventually needs the transaction fees to become the main component of the reward. This can happen either via high-volume-low-cost transaction fees or low-volume-high-cost transaction fees. Obviously, there is the need to address the question of fees when dealing with the dilemma how to scale bitcoin. Which type of fees would you prefer and under which circumstances?
2. WTF is going on? Recent developments.
There are multiple sides to the scaling debate but to simplify it, first consider the 2 main poles. In particular, to scale bitcoin on blockchain or to scale it off it, that is the question!
The first side likes the idea of bitcoin as it has been until now. It prefers on-chain scaling envisioned by the bitcoin creator or a group of creators who chose the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. It is now called Bitcoin Cash and somewhat religiously follows Satoshi’s vision from the 2008 whitepaper and their later public forum discussions (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366). Creators’ vision is good to follow but it should not be followed blindly and dogmatically when better advancements are possible, the keyword when. To alleviate concerning backlog of transactions and rising fees, Bitcoin Cash proponents implemented a simple one-line code update which increased the block size limit for blockhain blocks from 1MB block size limit to a new, larger 8MB limit. This was done through a fork on August 1, 2017, which created Bitcoin Cash, and which kept the bitcoin transaction history until then. Bitcoin Cash has observed significant increase in support, from 3% of all bitcoin miners at first to over 44% of all bitcoin miners after 3 weeks on August 22, 2017 (see http://fork.lol/pow/hashrate and http://fork.lol/pow/hashrateabs).
An appropriate scaling analogy is to recall email attachments early on. They too were limited to a few MB at first, then 10MB, 20MB, up until 25MB on Gmail. But even then, Gmail eventually started using Google Drive internally. Note that Google Drive is a third party to Gmail, although yes, it is managed by the same entity.
The second side argues that bitcoin cannot work with such a scaling approach of pre-meditated MB increases. Arguments against block size increases include miner and node centralization, and bandwidth limitations. These are discussed in more detail in the third section of this overview. As an example of an alternative scaling approach, proponents of off-chain scaling want to jump to the internally integrated third party right away, without any MB increase and, sadly, without any discussion. Some of these proponents called one particular implementation method SegWit, which stands for Segregated Witness, and they argue that SegWit is the only way that we can ever scale up add the extra features to the bitcoin network. This is not necessarily true because other scaling solutions are feasible, such as already functioning Bitcoin Cash, and SegWit’s proposed solution will not use internally integrated third party as shown next. Note that although not as elegant as SegWit is today, there are other possibilities to integrate some extra features without SegWit (see /Bitcoin/comments/5dt8tz/confused_is_segwit_needed_for_lightning_network).
Due to the scaling controversy and the current backlog of transactions and already high fees, a third side hastily proposed a compromise to a 2MB increase in addition to the proposed SegWit implementation. They called it SegWit2x, which stands for Segregated Witness with 2MB block size limit increase. But the on-chain scaling and Bitcoin Cash proponents did not accept it due to SegWit’s design redundancy and hub centralization which are discussed next and revisited in the third section of this overview. After a few years of deadlock, that is why the first side broke free and created the Bitcoin Cash fork.
The second side stuck with bitcoin as it was. In a way, they inherited the bitcoin network without any major change to public eye. This is crucial because major changes are about to happen and the original bitcoin vision, as we have known it, is truly reflected only in what some media refer to as a forked clone, Bitcoin Cash. Note that to avoid confusion, this second side is referred to as Bitcoin Core by some or Legacy Bitcoin by others, although mainstream media still refers to it simply as Bitcoin. The core of Bitcoin Core is quite hardcore though. They too rejected the proposed compromise for SegWit2x and there are clear indications that they will push to keep SegWit only, forcing the third side with SegWit2x proponents to create another fork in November 2017 or to join Bitcoin Cash. Note that to certain degree, already implemented and working Bitcoin Cash is technically superior to SegWit2x which is yet to be deployed (see /Bitcoin/comments/6v0gll/why_segwit2x_b2x_is_technically_inferior_to).
Interestingly enough, those who agreed to SegWit2x have been in overwhelming majority, nearly 87% of all bitcoin miners on July 31, 2017 prior to the fork, and a little over 90% of remaining Bitcoin Core miners to date after the fork (see https://coin.dance/blocks). Despite such staggering support, another Bitcoin Core fork is anticipated later in November (see https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-is-splitting-once-again-are-you-ready) and the "Outcome #2: Segwit2x reneges on 2x or does not prioritize on-chain scaling" seems to be on track from the perspective of Bitcoin Core SegWit, publicly seen as the original Bitcoin (see https://blog.bridge21.io/before-and-after-the-great-bitcoin-fork-17d2aad5d512). The sad part is that although in their overwhelming majority, the miners who support SegWit2x would be the ones creating another Bitcoin Core SegWit2x fork or parting ways from the original Bitcoin.
In a way, this is an ironic example how bitcoin’s built-in resiliency to veto changes causes majority to part away when a small minority has status quo and holds off fully-consented progress. Ultimately, this will give the minority Bitcoin Core SegWit proponents the original Bitcoin branding, perhaps to lure in large institutional investors and monetize on bitcoin’s success as we have it seen it during the past 9 years since its inception. Recall that bitcoin of today is already a decentralized, distributed, immutable network by its definition. The bitcoin network was designed to be an alternative to centralized and mutable institutions, so prevalent in modern capitalist societies.
Bitcoin Core SegWit group wants to change the existing bitcoin network to a network with dominant third parties which, unlike Google Drive to Gmail, are not internal. In particular, they intend to do so via the lightning network, which is a second layer solution (2L). This particular 2L as currently designed relies on an artificial block size limit cap which creates a bottleneck in order to provide high incentives for miners to participate. It monetizes on backlog of transaction and high fees, which are allocated to miners, not any group in particular. Cheaper and more instantaneous transactions are shifted to the lightning network which is operated by hubs also earning revenue. Note that some of these hubs may choose to monitor transactions and can possibly censor who is allowed to participate in this no longer strictly peer-to-peer network.
We lose the immutability and instead we have a peer-to-hub-to-peer network that is mutable and at best decentralized, and certainly not distributed (see https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800). For regular day-to-day and recurring transactions, it is not a considerable risk or inconvenience. And one could choose to use the main chain any time to bypass the lightning network and truly transact peer-to-peer. But since the main chain has an entry barrier in the form of artificially instilled high transaction fees, common people are not able to use bitcoin as we have known it until now. Peer-to-peer bitcoin becomes institution-to-institution bitcoin with peer-to-hub-to-peer 2L.
To reiterate and stress, note the following lightning network design flaw again. Yes, activating SegWit and allowing 2L such as lightning allows for lower transaction fees to coexist side by side with more costly on-chain transactions. For those using this particularly prescribed 2L, the fees remain low. But since these 2L are managed by hubs, we introduce another element to trust, which is contrary to what the bitcoin network was designed to do at the first place. Over time, by the nature of the lightning network in its current design, these third party hubs grow to be centralized, just like Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover, etc. There is nothing wrong with that in general because it works just fine. But recall that bitcoin set out to create a different kind of a network. Instead of decentralized, distributed, immutable network with miners and nodes, with the lightning network we end up with at best decentralized but mutable network with hubs.
Note that Bitcoin Core SegWit has a US-based organization backing it with millions of dollars (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockstream and https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/the-truth-about-who-is-behind-blockstream-and-segwit-as-the-saying-goes-follow-the-money). Their proponents are quite political and some even imply $1000 fees on the main bitcoin blockchain (see https://cointelegraph.com/news/ari-paul-tuur-demeester-look-forward-to-up-to-1k-bitcoin-fees). Contrary to them, Bitcoin Cash proponents intend to keep small fees on a scale of a few cents, which in large volume in larger blockchain blocks provide sufficient incentive for miners to participate.
On the one hand, sticking to the original vision of peer-to-peer network scaled on-chain has merit and holds potential for future value. On the other hand, 2L have potential to carry leaps forward from current financial infrastructure. As mentioned earlier, 2L will allow for extra features to be integrated off-chain (e.g. escrow, reversibility via time-locks), including entirely new features such as smart contracts, decentralized applications, some of which have been pioneered and tested on another cryptocurrency network called Ethereum. But such features could be one day implemented directly on the main bitcoin blockchain without the lightning network as currently designed, or perhaps with a truly integrated 2L proposed in the third section of this overview.
What makes the whole discussion even more confusing is that there are some proposals for specific 2L that would in fact increase privacy and make bitcoin transactions less pseudonymous than those on the current bitcoin blockchain now. Keep in mind that 2L are not necessarily undesirable. If they add features and keep the main network characteristics (decentralized, distributed, immutable), they should be embraced with open arms. But the lightning network as currently designed gives up immutability and hub centralization moves the network characteristic towards a decentralized rather than a distributed network.
In a sense, back to the initial email attachment analogy, even Gmail stopped with attachment limit increases and started hosting large files on Google Drive internally, with an embedded link in a Gmail email to download anything larger than 25MB from Google Drive. Anticipating the same scaling decisions, the question then becomes not if but when and how such 2L should be implemented, keeping the overall network security and network characteristics in mind. If you have not gotten it yet, repeat, repeat, repeat: decentralized, distributed, immutable. Is it the right time now and is SegWit (one way, my way or highway) truly the best solution?
Those siding away from Bitcoin Core SegWit also dislike that corporate entities behind Blockstream, the one publicly known corporate entity directly supporting SegWit, have allegedly applied for SegWit patents which may further restrict who may and who may not participate in the creation of future hubs, or how these hubs are controlled (see the alleged patent revelations, https://falkvinge.net/2017/05/01/blockstream-patents-segwit-makes-pieces-fall-place, the subsequent Twitter rebuttal Blockstream CEO, http://bitcoinist.com/adam-back-no-patents-segwit, and the subsequent legal threats to SegWit2x proponents /btc/comments/6vadfi/blockstream_threatening_legal_action_against). Regardless if the patent claims are precise or not, the fact remains that there is a corporate entity dictating and vetoing bitcoin developments. Objectively speaking, Bitcoin Core SegWit developers paid by Blockstream is a corporate takeover of the bitcoin network as we have known it.
And on the topic of patents and permissionless technological innovations, what makes all of this even more complicated is that a mining improvement technology called ASICboost is allowed on Bitcoin Cash. The main entities who forked from Bitcoin Core to form Bitcoin Cash had taken advantage of patents to the ASICboost technology on the original bitcoin network prior to the fork (see https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/breaking-down-bitcoins-asicboost-scandal). This boost saved estimated 20% electricity for miners on 1MB blocks and created unfair economic advantage for this one particular party. SegWit is one way that this boost is being eliminated, through the code. Larger blocks are another way to reduce the boost advantage, via decreased rate of collisions which made this boost happen at the first place (see https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/breaking-down-bitcoins-asicboost-scandal-solutions and https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/the-relation-between-segwit-and-asicboost-covert-and-overt). Therefore, the initial Bitcoin Cash proponents argue that eliminating ASICboost through the code is no longer needed or necessary.
Of course, saving any amount electricity between 0% and 20% is good for all on our planet but in reality any energy saved in a mining operation is used by the same mining operation to increase their mining capacity. In reality, there are no savings, there is just capacity redistribution. The question then becomes if it is okay that only one party currently and already holds onto this advantage, which they covertly hid for relatively long time, and which they could be using covertly on Bitcoin Cash if they desired to do so, even though it would an advantage to a smaller degree. To be fair to them, they are mining manufacturers and operators, they researched and developed the advantage from own resources, so perhaps they do indeed have the right to reap ASICboost benefits while they can. But perhaps it should happen in publicly know way, not behind closed doors, and should be temporary, with agreed patent release date.
In conclusion, there is no good and no bad actor, each side is its own shade of grey. All parties have their own truth (and villainy) to certain degree.
Bitcoin Cash's vision is for bitcoin to be an electronic cash platform and daily payment processor whereas Bitcoin Core SegWit seems to be drawn more to the ideas of bitcoin as an investment vehicle and a larger settlement layer with the payment processor function managed via at best decentralized third party hubs. Both can coexist, or either one can eventually prove more useful and digest the other one by taking over all use-cases.
Additionally, the most popular communication channel on /bitcoin with roughly 300k subscribers censors any alternative non-Bitcoin-Core-SegWit opinions and bans people from posting their ideas to discussions (see https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43). This is because their moderators are also supported by Blockstream. Note that the author of this overview has not gotten banned from this particular subreddit (yet), but has experienced shadow-banning first hand. Shadow-banning is a form of censorship. In this particular case, their moderator robot managed by people moderators, collaboratively with the people moderators, do the following:
  • (1) look for "Bitcoin Cash" and other undesirable keywords,
  • (2) warn authors that “Bitcoin Cash” is not true bitcoin (which objectively speaking it is, and which is by no means “BCash” that Bitcoin Core SegWit proponents refer to, in a coordinated effort to further confuse public, especially since some of them have published plans to officially release another cryptocurrency called “BCash” in 2018, see https://medium.com/@freetrade68/announcing-bcash-8b938329eaeb),
  • (3) further warn authors that if they try to post such opinions again, they could banned permanently,
  • (4) tell authors to delete their already posted posts or comments,
  • (5) hide their post from publicly seen boards with all other posts, thus preventing it from being seeing by the other participants in this roughly 300k public forum,
  • (6) and in extreme cases actually “remove” their valid opinions if they slip by uncensored, gain traction, and are often times raise to popularity as comments to other uncensored posts (see /btc/comments/6v3ee8/on_a_reply_i_made_in_rbitcoin_that_had_over_350 and /btc/comments/6vbyv0/in_case_we_needed_more_evidence_500_upvotes).
This effectively silences objective opinions and creates a dangerous echo-chamber. Suppressing free speech and artificially blowing up transaction fees on Bitcoin Core SegWit is against bitcoin’s fundamental values. Therefore, instead of the original Reddit communication channel, many bitcoin enthusiasts migrated to /btc which has roughly 60k subscribers as of now, up from 20k subscribers a year ago in August 2016 (see http://redditmetrics.com/btc). Moderators there do not censor opinions and allow all polite and civil discussions about scaling, including all opinions on Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Core, etc.
Looking beyond their respective leaderships and communication channels, let us review a few network fundamentals and recent developments in Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash networks. Consequently, for now, these present Bitcoin Cash with more favorable long-term prospects.
  • (1) The stress-test and/or attack on the Bitcoin Cash mempool earlier on August 16, 2017 showed that 8MB blocks do work as intended, without catastrophic complications that Bitcoin Core proponents anticipated and from which they attempted to discourage others (see https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/uahf/#2w for the Bitcoin Cash mempool and https://core.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#2w for the Bitcoin Core mempool). Note that when compared to the Bitcoin Core mempool on their respective 2 week views, one can observe how each network handles backlogs. On the most recent 2 week graphs, the Y-scale for Bitcoin Core is 110k vs. 90k on Bitcoin Cash. In other words, at the moment, Bitcoin Cash works better than Bitcoin Core even though there is clearly not as big demand for Bitcoin Cash as there is for Bitcoin Core. The lack of demand for Bitcoin Cash is partly because Bitcoin Cash is only 3 weeks old and not many merchants have started accepting it, and only a limited number of software applications to use Bitcoin Cash has been released so far. By all means, the Bitcoin Cash stress-test and/or attack from August 16, 2017 reveals that the supply will handle the increased demand, more affordably, and at a much quicker rate.
  • (2) Bitcoin Cash “BCH” mining has become temporarily more profitable than mining Bitcoin Core “BTC” (see http://fork.lol). Besides temporary loss of miners, this puts Bitcoin Core in danger of permanently fleeing miners. Subsequently, mempool backlog and transaction fees are anticipated to increase further.
  • (3) When compared to Bitcoin Cash transaction fees at roughly $0.02, transaction fees per kB are over 800 times as expensive on Bitcoin Core, currently at over $16 (see https://cashvscore.com).
  • (4) Tipping service that used to work on Bitcoin Core's /Bitcoin a few years back has been revived by a new tipping service piloted on the more neutral /btc with the integration of Bitcoin Cash (see /cashtipperbot).
3. Should we scale you on-chain or off-chain? Scaling bitcoin.
Let us start with the notion that we are impartial to both Bitcoin Core (small blocks, off-chain scaling only) and Bitcoin Cash (big blocks, on-chain scaling only) schools of thought. We will support any or all ideas, as long as they allow for bitcoin to grow organically and eventually succeed as a peer-to-peer network that remains decentralized, distributed, immutable. Should we have a preference in either of the proposed scaling solutions?
First, let us briefly address Bitcoin Core and small blocks again. From the second section of this overview, we understand that there are proposed off-chain scaling methods via second layer solutions (2L), most notably soon-to-be implemented lightning via SegWit on Bitcoin Core. Unfortunately, the lightning network diminishes distributed and immutable network properties by replacing bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network with a two-layer institution-to-institution network and peer-to-hub-to-peer 2L. Do we need this particular 2L right now? Is its complexity truly needed? Is it not at best somewhat cumbersome (if not very redundant)? In addition to ridiculously high on-chain transaction fees illustrated in the earlier section, the lightning network code is perhaps more robust than it needs to be now, with thousands of lines of code, thus possibly opening up to new vectors for bugs or attacks (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network and https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd). Additionally, this particular 2L as currently designed unnecessarily introduces third parties, hubs, that are expected to centralize. We already have a working code that has been tested and proven to handle 8MB blocks, as seen with Bitcoin Cash on August 16, 2017 (see https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/first-8mb-bitcoin-cash-block-just-mined). At best, these third party hubs would be decentralized but they would not be distributed. And these hubs would be by no means integral to the original bitcoin network with users, nodes, and miners.
To paraphrase Ocam’s razor problem solving principle, the simplest solution with the most desirable features will prevail (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor). The simplest scalability solution today is Bitcoin Cash because it updates only one line of code, which instantly increases the block size limit. This also allows other companies building on Bitcoin Cash to reduce their codes when compared to Bitcoin Core SegWit’s longer code, some even claiming ten-fold reductions (see /btc/comments/6vdm7y/ryan_x_charles_reveals_bcc_plan). The bitcoin ecosystem not only includes the network but it also includes companies building services on top of it. When these companies can reduce their vectors for bugs or attacks, the entire ecosystem is healthier and more resilient to hacking disasters. Obviously, changes to the bitcoin network code are desirable to be as few and as elegant as possible.
But what are the long-term implications of doing the one-line update repeatedly? Eventually, blocks would have to reach over 500MB size if they were to process Visa-level capacity (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability). With decreasing costs of IT infrastructure, bandwidth and storage could accommodate it, but the overhead costs would increase significantly, implying miner and/or full node centralization further discussed next. To decrease this particular centralization risk, which some consider undesirable and others consider irrelevant, built-in and integrated 2L could keep the block size at a reasonably small-yet-still-large limit.
At the first sight, these 2L would remedy the risk of centralization by creating their own centralization incentive. At the closer look and Ocam’s razor principle again, these 2L do not have to become revenue-seeking third party hubs as designed with the current lightning network. They can be integrated into the current bitcoin network with at worst decentralized miners and at best distributed nodes. Recall that miners will eventually need to supplement their diminishing mining reward from new blocks. Additionally, as of today, the nodes have no built-in economic incentive to run other than securing the network and keeping the network’s overall value at its current level. Therefore, if new 2L were to be developed, they should be designed in a similar way like the lightning network, with the difference that the transaction processing revenue would not go to third party hubs but to the already integrated miners and nodes.
In other words, why do we need extra hubs if we have miners and nodes already? Let us consider the good elements from the lightning network, forget the unnecessary hubs, and focus on integrating the hubs’ responsibilities to already existing miner and node protocols. Why would we add extra elements to the system that already functions with the minimum number of elements possible? Hence, 2L are not necessarily undesirable as long as they do not unnecessarily introduce third party hubs.
Lastly, let us discuss partial on-chain scaling with the overall goal of network security. The network security we seek is the immutability and resilience via distributed elements within otherwise decentralized and distributed network. It is not inconceivable to scale bitcoin with bigger blocks as needed, when needed, to a certain degree. The thought process is the following:
  • (1) Block size limit:
We need some upper limit to avoid bloating the network with spam transactions. Okay, that makes sense. Now, what should this limit be? If we agree to disagree with small block size limit stuck at 1MB, and if we are fine with flexible block size limit increases (inspired by mining difficulty readjustments but on a longer time scale) or big block propositions (to be increased incrementally), what is holding us off next?
  • (2) Miner centralization:
Bigger blocks mean that more data will be transferred on the bitcoin network. Consequently, more bandwidth and data storage will be required. This will create decentralized miners instead of distributed ones. Yes, that is true. And it has already happened, due to the economy of scale, in particular the efficiency of grouping multiple miners in centralized facilities, and the creation of mining pools collectively and virtually connecting groups of miners not physically present in the same facility. These facilities tend to have huge overhead costs and the data storage and bandwidth increase costs are negligible in this context. The individual miners participating in mining pools will quite likely notice somewhat higher operational costs but allowing for additional revenue from integrated 2L described earlier will give them economic incentive to remain actively participating. Note that mining was never supposed to be strictly distributed and it was always at worst decentralized, as defined in the first section of this overview. To assure at best a distributed network, we have nodes.
  • (3) Node centralization:
Bigger blocks mean that more data will be transferred on the bitcoin network. Consequently, more bandwidth and data storage will be required. This will create decentralized nodes instead of distributed ones. Again, recall that we have a spectrum of decentralized and distributed networks in mind, not their absolutes. The concern about the node centralization (and the subsequent shift from distributed to decentralized network property) is valid if we only follow on-chain scaling to inconsiderate MB values. If addressed with the proposed integrated 2L that provides previously unseen economic incentives to participate in the network, this concern is less serious.
Furthermore, other methods to reduce bandwidth and storage needs can be used. A popular proposal is block pruning, which keeps only the most recent 550 blocks, and eventually deletes any older blocks (see https://news.bitcoin.com/pros-and-cons-on-bitcoin-block-pruning). Block pruning addresses storage needs and makes sure that not all nodes participating in the bitcoin network have to store all transactions that have ever been recorded on the blockchain. Some nodes storing all transactions are still necessary and they are called full nodes. Block pruning does not eliminate full nodes but it does indeed provide an economic incentive for the reduction and centralization (i.e. saving on storage costs). If addressed with the proposed integrated 2L that provides previously unseen economic incentives to participate in the network, this concern is less serious.
In other words, properly designed 2L should provide economic incentives for all nodes (full and pruned) to remain active and distributed. As of now, only miners earn revenue for participating. The lightning network proposes extra revenue for hubs. Instead, miner revenue could increase by processing 2L transactions as well, and full nodes could have an economic incentive as well. To mine, relatively high startup costs is necessary in order to get the most up to date mining hardware and proper cooling equipment. These have to be maintained and periodically upgraded. To run a full node, one needs only stable bandwidth and a sufficiently large storage, which can be expanded as needed, when needed. To run a full node, one needs only stable bandwidth and relatively small storage, which does not need to be expanded.
Keeping the distributed characteristic in mind, it would be much more secure for the bitcoin network if one could earn bitcoin by simply running a node, full or pruned. This could be integrated with a simple code change requiring each node to own a bitcoin address to which miners would send a fraction of processed transaction fees. Of course, pruned nodes would collectively receive the least transaction fee revenue (e.g. 10%), full nodes would collectively receive relatively larger transaction fee revenue (e.g. 20%), whereas mining facilities or mining pools would individually receive the largest transaction fee revenue (e.g. 70%) in addition to the full mining reward from newly mined blocks (i.e. 100%). This would assure that all nodes would remain relatively distributed. Hence, block pruning is a feasible solution.
However, in order to start pruning, one would have to have the full blockchain to begin with. As currently designed, downloading blockchain for the first time also audits previous blocks for accuracy, this can take days depending on one’s bandwidth. This online method is the only way to distribute the bitcoin blockchain and the bitcoin network so far. When the size of blockchain becomes a concern, a simpler distribution idea should be implemented offline. Consider distributions of Linux-based operating systems on USBs. Similarly, the full bitcoin blockchain up to a certain point can be distributed via easy-to-mail USBs. Note that even if we were to get the blockchain in bulk on such a USB, some form of a block audit would have to happen nevertheless.
A new form of checkpoint hashes could be added to the bitcoin code. For instance, each 2016 blocks (whenever the difficulty readjusts), all IDs from previous 2015 blocks would be hashed and recorded. That way, with our particular offline blockchain distribution, the first time user would have to audit only the key 2016th blocks, designed to occur on average once in roughly 2 weeks. This would significantly reduce bandwidth concerns for the auditing process because only each 2016th block would have to be uploaded online to be audited.
Overall, we are able to scale the bitcoin network via initial on-chain scaling approaches supplemented with off-chain scaling approaches. This upgrades the current network to a pruned peer-to-peer network with integrated 2L managed by miners and nodes who assure that the bitcoin network stays decentralized, distributed, immutable.
  • Discussion at /btc/comments/6vj47c/bitcoin_huh_wtf_is_going_on_should_we_scale_you is greatly encouraged.
  • Note that the author u/bit-architect appreciates any Bitcoin Cash donations on Reddit directly or on bitcoin addresses 178ZTiot2QVVKjru2f9MpzyeYawP81vaXi bitcoincash:qp7uqpv2tsftrdmu6e8qglwr2r38u4twlq3f7a48uq (Bitcoin Cash) and 1GqcFi4Cs1LVAxLxD3XMbJZbmjxD8SYY8S (Bitcoin Core).
  • EDIT: Donation addresses above updated.
submitted by bit-architect to btc [link] [comments]

Mega FAQ (Or: Please come here for your questions first)

Qbundle Guide (Step by step setup & Bootstrap) https://burstwiki.org/wiki/QBundle
1( I want to mine or activate My account. Where do find the multiple coins?
You only need 1, an outgoing transaction or reward reassignment will set the public key. Get them from:
https://www.reddit.com/burstcoinmining/comments/7q8zve/initial_burstcoin_requests/
Or (Faucet list)
https://faucet.burstpay.net/ (if this is empty, come back later)
http://faucet.burst-coin.es
Or
https://forums.getburst.net/c/new-members-introductions/getting-started-initial-burstcoin-requests
2( I bought coins on Bittrex and want to move to my new wallet, but can't. Why?
Bittrex will only send to accounts with a public key (not a Burst requirement) so see number 1 and either set the name on the account (IF you will not mine) or set the reward recipient to the pool. Either action will enable the account and allow for transfers from Bittrex.
3( I sent coins from Poloniex/anywhere to Bittrex and they don’t show up after a considerable time. Why?
You need to set an unencrypted message on the transaction, informing Bittrex which account to send the funds to (this is in the directions on Bittrex). Did you do this? Contact Bittrex support with all the details and eventually you will get your funds.
4( How much can I make on Burst?
https://explore.burst.cryptoguru.org/tool/calculate
Gives you an average over time assuming a few things like: Average luck/100% uptime/no overlapping/fees on pool/good plot scan time (<20 seconds) if you do not have all of these, you may not see that number.
5( If I use SSD’s would I make more money?
No, it’s 95% capacity and 5% scan time that determine success. More plot area = better deadlines = better chance of forging a block, or better rates from a pool.
6( What is ‘solo’ and ‘pool’ (wasn’t his name Chewbacca?)
Solo is where you attempt to ‘forge’ (mine) a block by yourself; you get 100% of the block reward and fees. But you only receive funds if you forge, no burst for coming in second place.
Pools allow a group of miners to ‘pool’ together their resources and when a miner wins, they give the pool the winnings (this is done by the reward assignment you completed earlier), it is then divided according to different percentages and methods and burst is sent out according to pool rules (minimum pay-out, time, etc.)
7( I have been mining for 2 days and my wallet doesn’t show any Burst WHY?
Mining solo: it is win-or-lose, nothing in between, and wining is luck and plot size. Pool mining: because it costs 1 burst to send burst, the pools have either a time requirement (every X days) or a minimum amount (100 burst +) so you need to research your pool. Some pools allow for you to set the limit (cryptoGuru and similar) to be met before sending
8( How do I see what I have pending?
On CryptoGuru, based pools, it’s the ‘Pending (burst)’ column, other pools, look for the numbers next to your burst ID. One is Paid and the other pending.
9( I’m part of a pool and I forged a block, but I didn’t recieve the total value of the block, why?
A pool has 2 basic numbers that denote the pay-out method, in the format ‘XX-XX’ (i.e. 50-50) The first number is the % paid to the block forger (miner) and the second is the retained value, which is paid to historic ‘shares’ (or, past blocks that the pool didn’t win, but had a miner that was ‘close’ to winning with a good submitted deadline)
Examples of pools:
0-100 (good for <40TB)
20-80 (30-80TB)
50-50 (60-200TB)
80-20 (150-250)
100-0 (solo mine, 150+ TB)
Please note that there is an overlap as this is personal preference and just guidance; a higher historical share value means a smoother pay-out regime, which some people prefer. If fees are not factored in, or are the same on different pools, the pay-out value will be the same over a long enough period.
10( Is XXX model of hard drive good? Which one do you recommend?
CHEAP is best. If you have 2 new hard drives, both covered by warranty, get the one with the lowest cost per TB (expressed as $/TB , calculated by dividing the cost by the number of terabytes) because plot size is KING,
11( How many drives can I have on my machine?
For best performance, you can have up to 2 drives per thread (3 on a new fast AVX2 CPU). So that quad-core core-2-quad can have up to 8 drives, but a more modern i7 with 4 cores + hyper threading can squeeze 8 * 3 or 24 drives. (Performance while scanning will suffer)
12( Can I game while I mine?
Some people have done so, but you cannot have the ‘maximum’ number of drives and play games generally.
13( Can I mine Burst and GPU mine other coins?
Yes, if you CPU Mine Burst.
14( I’m GPU plotting Burst and GPU mining another coin, my plots are being corrupted, why?
My advice is dedicating a GPU to either mining or plotting, don’t try to do both.
15( What is a ‘plot’?
A plot is a file that contains Hashes, these hashes are used to mine burst. A plot is tied to an account, but they can be created (with the same account ID) on other machines and connected back to your miner(s).
16( Where can I trade/buy/sell Burst?
A list of exchanges is maintained on https://www.reddit.com/burstcoin/ (on the right, ‘Exchanges’ tab) the biggest at the moment are Bittrex and Poloniex, some offer direct Fiat-to-Burst purchase (https://indacoin.com for example)
17( Do I have to store my Burst off the exchange?
No, but it’s safer from hackers who target exchanges, if you cannot guarantee the safety or security of your home computer from Trojans etc, then it might be best to leave on an exchange (but enable 2FA security on your account PLEASE!)
18( What security measures can I take to keep my coin safe?
When you create an account, sign out and back in to your wallet (to make sure you have copied the pass phrase correctly) and keep multiple copies of the key (at least one physically printed or written down and in a safe place, better in 2 places) do not disclose the passphrase to anyone. Finally use either a local wallet or a trusted web wallet (please research before using any web wallet)
19( How can I help Burst?
Run a wallet, which will act as a node (or if you’re a programmer, contact the Dev team Bring attention to burst (without ‘shilling’ or trying to get people to buy) And help translate into your local language
Be a productive member of the community and contribute experience and knowledge if you can, or help others get into Burst.
20( Will I get coins on the fork(s) and where will they be?
There will be no new coin, and no new coins to be given/air dropped etc, the forks are upgrades to burst and there will not be a ‘classic’ or ‘new’ burst.
21( Will I need to move my Burst off of the exchange for the fork?
No, your transactions are on the block chain, which will be used on the fork, they will be visible after the move; nothing will need to be done on your side.
22( Where can I read about the progress of Burst and news in general on the community?
There is no finer place than https://www.burstcoin.ist/
23( What are the communities for Burst and the central website?
Main website: https://www.burst-coin.org/
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/burstcoin and https://www.reddit.com/burstcoinmining/
Burstforum.net: https://www.burstforum.net/
Getburst forum: https://forums.getburst.net/
Official Facebook channel: https://m.facebook.com/groups/398967360565392
(these are the forums that are known to be supporting the current Dev Team)
Other ways to talk to the community:
Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/RPhpjVv
Telegram (General): https://t.me/burstcoin
Telegram (Mining): https://t.me/BurstCoinMining
24( When will Burst partner up with a company?
Burst is a currency, the USD does not ‘partner up’ with a company, the DEV team will not partner up and give over to special interests.
25( Why is the DEV team anonymous?
They prefer anonymity, as it allows them to work without constant scrutiny and questions unless they wish to engage, plus the aim is for Burst to become a major contender, and this brings issues with security. They will work and produce results, they owe you nothing and if you cannot see the vision they provide then please do not ‘invest’ for short term gain.
26( When moon/Lambo/$100/make me rich?
My crystal ball is still broken, come back to the FAQ later for answer (seriously, this is a coin to hold, if you want to day-trade, good luck to you)
27( How can I better educate myself and learn about Dymaxion?
Read about the Dymaxion here: https://www.reddit.com/burstcoin/wiki/dymaxion
28( My reads are slow, why?
There are many reasons for this, if your computer has a decent spec it’s likely due to USB3 hub issues, or plugging into a USB2 hub, but other reasons can be multiple plots in the same folder, but it’s best to visit the mining subreddit. They can help more than an simple FAQ https://www.reddit.com/burstcoinmining/
29( I have a great idea for Burst (not proof of stake related)?
Awesome! Please discuss with the DEV team on discord https://discordapp.com/invite/RPhpjVv
(Please be aware that this is a public forum, you need to find who to ask/tell)
30( I have a great idea for Burst (Proof of stake related)?
No. if you want a POS, find a POS coin. On the tangle which is being implemented a POS/POW/POC coin can be created, but BURST will always be POC mined. You are welcome to implement a proof of stake coin on this!
31( Will the Dev team burn any coins?
Burst is not an ICO, so any coins will need to be bought to be burnt. You are welcome to donate, but the DEV team have no intention of burning any coins, or increasing the coin cap.
32( When will there be an IOS wallet?
IOS wallet is completed; we are waiting for it to go on the app store. Apple is the delaying factor.
33( Why do overlapping plots matter?
Plots are like collections of lottery tickets (and if only one ticket could win). Having 2 copies is not useful, and it means that you have less coverage of ‘all’ the possible numbers. It’s not good, avoid.
34( My local wallet used to run, I synchronised it before and now it says ‘stopped’. when I start it, it stops after a few seconds, what should I do?
I suggest that you change the database type to portable MariaDB (on Qbundle, at the top, ‘Database’ select, ‘change database’) and then re-import the database from scratch (see 35)
35( Synchronising the block chain is slow and I have the patience of a goldfish. What can I do?
On Qbundle , ‘Database’ select ‘Bootstrap chain’ and make sure the CryptoGuru repository is selected, then ‘start Import’ this will download and quickly stuff the local database (I suggest Portable MariaDB, see 34) (lol, loop)
36( What will the block reward be next month/will the block rewards run out in 6 months?
https://www.ecomine.earth/burstblockreward/ Rewards will carry on into 2026, but transaction fees will be a bigger % by then, and so profitable mining will continue.
37( How can I get started with Burst (wallet/mining/everything) and I need it in a video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJLhw37Lh_8 Watch and be enlightened.
38( Can I mine on multiple machines with the same account?
Yes, if you want to pool mine this can be done (but be prepared for small issues like reported size being incorrect. Just be sure to keep question 33 in mind.)
39( Why do some of my drives take forever to plot?
Most likely they are SMR drives, it’s best to plot onto another SSD and then move the finished plot/part of a plot across to the SMR drive as this is much quicker. SMR drives are fine on the read, just random writes that are terrible.
So plot an SMR drive quickly, plot to a non SMR or better still SSD drive, in as big a chunk as possible (fewer files better) and move. a version of Xplotter, called Splotter, can do this easily.
https://github.com/NoParamedic/SPlotter
40( I have a great idea; why not get listed on more exchanges!!
Exchanges list coins because of 2 reasons:
  1. Clients email and REQUESTING Burst and provide details like:
    i. https://www.burst-coin.org/information-for-exchanges
  2. The coin pays (often A LOT, seriously we’ve been asked for 50 BTC)
I suggest you speak with your exchange and ask ‘when will they offer Burst?’
41( Do you have a roadmap?
https://www.burst-coin.org/roadmap
42( Why is the price of Burst going up/down/sideways/looping through time?
The price of burst is still quite dependent upon Bitcoin, meaning that if Bitcoin gains, the value of Burst gains, if Bitcoin drops then Burst also drops. If there is news for Burst then we will see something independent of Bitcoin moving. Variations can be because of people buying in bulk or selling in bulk. There are also ‘pump and dump’ schemes that we detest, that can cause spikes in price that have nothing to do with news or Bitcoin, just sad people taking advantage of others.
43( Where is the best place to go with my mining questions?
https://www.reddit.com/burstcoinmining/
or https://t.me/BurstCoinMining
44( What hardware do you advise me to buy, is this computer good?
See question 43 for specific questions on hardware, it depends on so many variables. The ‘best’ in my opinion is a 36 bay Supermicro storage server, usually they have dual 6-core CPU’s and space for 36 drives. No USB cables, plotting and mining monster, anything else, DYOR.
45( Where do you buy your hard drives?
I have bought most from EBay in job lots, and some refurbished drives with short warranties. Everything else I have bought, from Amazon.
46( Can I mine on my Google drive/cloud based storage?
In short: no. If you want to try, and get to maybe 1 TB and then find that your local connection isn’t fast enough, or that shortly after, your account is blocked for various reasons. Please be my guest.
47( Can I mine on my NAS?
Some you can mine with the NAS (if it can run the miner, it can scan locally) but generally they’re not very fast. good for maybe 16 TB? Having a plot on a NAS and mining from another computer depends on the network speed between the NAS and scanning computer. I believe you can scan about 8 TB (maybe a bit more) and keep the scan times to within acceptable, but YMMV.
48( How can I set up a node?
No need to set up a node, just set up a wallet (version 2.0.4) or Qbundle (2.2) and it will do the rest
49( Are the passphrases secured?
I’ll leave the effort to a few people to show how secure a 12-word passphrase is: https://burstforum.net/topic/4766/the-canary-burst-early-warning-system Key point: brute forcing it will be around 13,537,856,339,904,134,474,012,675,034 years.
50( I logged into my account (maybe with a different burst ID) and see no balance!!
I have dealt with this very issue multiple times, and there are only 3 options:
  1. You have typed in the password incorrectly
  2. You have copy-pasted the password incorrectly
  3. You are trying to log into a ‘local wallet’ which the block chain has not finished updating
The last one generally leaves the burst ID the same, but old balances will show. No, this is not a security problem, and yes, windows loves to add spaces after the phrase you enter when copied, and that space is important in getting to your account.
51( Are there channels for my language?
Telegram:
Spanish: https://t.me/burstcoin_es
German: https://t.me/Burstcoinde
Italian: https://t.me/BurstCoinItalia
Forum:
Spanish: https://burst-coin.es/index.php/forum/index
Discord:
Spanish: https://discordapp.com/invite/RaaGna9
Bulgarian: https://discord.gg/r4uzTd
(there are others, please contact me to put up)
52( I am mining in a pool, and it says that my effective capacity is lower than I actually have, why?
  1. If you've not been mining for >48 hours, or just added additional capacity, it will take time.
  2. The value fluctuates (normally, +-5% but can be up to 10% at times)
  3. Read on the ‘Quick info’ tab about adjusting your deadline to compensate for changes i. revisit once a month for best results
  4. If you have overlapping plots it will also be lower so be aware of this (see question 33)
53( What pool should I join?
First of all, read question 9, after you have understood that it depends on the size (and how patient you are) select from the following list: https://www.ecomine.earth/burstpools/
54( What miner to use?
I use Blago’s miner, there are many out there but Blago’s works for me on CPU mining, it can be found in Qbundle.
55( What Wallet to use (I use windows)?
Qbundle: https://github.com/PoC-Consortium/Qbundle/releases/ guide: https://burstwiki.org/wiki/QBundle
56( What Wallet to use (Linux)?
https://package.cryptoguru.org/ for Debian and Ubuntu, for Mac. read:
https://www.ecomine.earth/macoswalletinstallguide/
57( Will i need to 'replot' after POC2 (second fork) happens?
No, there will be a tool which will optimise, but it is not CPU intensive (it basically re-shuffles your plot) and is just IO intensive. You do not need to replot.
TurboPlotter and https://github.com/PoC-Consortium/Utilities/tree/mastepoc1to2.pl are tools that will/can be used to actuate optimization, but PLEASE wait with optimization until after the hard fork.
58( Will the transaction fee always be 1 burst?
No, dynamic fees are coming in the next fork.
submitted by dan_dares to burstcoin [link] [comments]

New people please read this. [upvote for visibility please]

I am seeing too many new people come and and getting confused. Litecoin wiki isn't the greatest when it comes to summing up things so I will try to do things as best as I can. I will attempt to explain from what I have learned and answer some questions. Hopefully people smarter than me will also chime in. I will keep this post updated as much as I can.
Preface
Litecoin is a type to electronic currency. It is just like Bitcoin but it there are differences. Difference explained here.
If you are starting to mine now chances are that you have missed the Bitcoin mining train. If you really want your time and processing power to not go to waste you should mine LTC because the access to BTC from there is much easier.
Mining. What is it?
Let's get this straight. When making any financial commitment to this be prepared to do it with "throw away" money. Mining is all about the hashrate and is measured in KH/s (KiloHash/sec). Unlike the powerful ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) that are used to mine bitcoins using hashrates in the GH/s and even TH/s, litecoin mining has only been able to achieve at the very best MH/s. I think the highest I've seen is 130 MH/s so far. Which leads us to our next section.
Mining Hardware
While CPU mining is still a thing it is not as powerful as GPU mining. Your laptop might be able to get 1 a month. However, I encourage you to consult this list first. List of hardware comparison You will find the highest of processors can maybe pull 100 KH/s and if we put this into a litecoin mining calculator it doesn't give us much.
Another reason why you don't want to mine with your CPU is pretty simple. You are going to destroy it.
So this leaves us with GPUs. Over the past few months (and years) the HD 7950 has been the favourite because it drains less power and has a pretty good hashrate. But recently the introduction of the R9 290 (not the x) has changed the game a bit. People are getting 850 KH/s - 900 KH/s with that card. It's crazy.
Should I mine?
Honestly given the current difficulty you can make a solid rig for about $1100 with a hashrate of 1700 KH/s which would give you your investment back in about a month and a half. I am sure people out there can create something for much cheaper. Here is a good example of a setup as suggested by dystopiats
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks
Type Item Price
CPU AMD Sempron 145 2.8GHz Single-Core Processor $36.01 @ Amazon
Motherboard ASRock 970 EXTREME4 ATX AM3+ Motherboard $99.48 @ OutletPC
Memory Crucial Ballistix Tactical Tracer 4GB (1 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory $59.99 @ Newegg
Video Card Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 3GB Video Card (3-Way CrossFire) $245.38 @ Newegg
Video Card Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 3GB Video Card (3-Way CrossFire) $245.38 @ Newegg
Video Card Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 3GB Video Card (3-Way CrossFire) $245.38 @ Newegg
Power Supply SeaSonic Platinum 860W 80+ Platinum Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply $146.98 @ SuperBiiz
Total
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available. $1078.60
Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-11-29 00:52 EST-0500
Estimated Hashrate (with GPU overclocking) : 1900 KH/s
Hardware Fundamentals
CPU - Do you need a powerful CPU? No but make sure it is a decent one. AMD CPUs are cheap to buy right now with tons of power. Feel free to use a Sempron or Celeron depending on what Motherboard you go with.
RAM - Try to get at least 4 GB so as to not run into any trouble. Memory is cheap these days. I am saying 4 GB only because of Windoze. If you are plan to run this on Linux you can even get away with less memory.
HDD Any good ol 7200 RPM hard drive will do. Make sure it is appropriate. No point in buying a 1TB hard drive. Since, this is a newbie's guide I assumed most won't know how to run linux, but incase you do you can get a USB flash drive and run linux from it thus removing the need for hard drive all toghether. (thanks dystopiats)
GPU - Consult the list of hardware of hardware I posted above. Make sure you consider the KH/s/W ratio. To me the 290 is the best option but you can skimp down to 7950 if you like.
PSU - THIS IS BLOODY IMPORTANT. Most modern GPUs are power hungry so please make sure you are well within the limits of your power consumption.
MOTHERBOARD - Ok, so a pretty popular board right now is Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 and the ASRock 970 Extreme4. Some people are even going for Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5 and even the mighty Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 because it has more PCI-E slots. 6 to be exact. However you may not need that much. With risers you can get more shoved into less.
PCI-E RISERS - These are called risers. They come in x16 to x16 and x1 to x16 connections. Here is the general rule of thumb. This is very important. Always get a POWERED riser otherwise you will burn a hole in your MoBo. A powered rise as a molex connector so that additional power from PSU can be supplied.
When it comes to hardware I've provided the most basic knowledge you need. Also, take a look at cryptobader's website. This is very helpful. Please visit the mining section of Litecoin Forums and the litecoinmining subreddit for more indepth info.
Mining Software
Now that you have assembled your hardware now you need to get into a pool. But before you do that you need a mining software. There are many different ones but the one that is most popular is cgminer. Download it and make sure you read the README. It is a very robust piece of software. Please read this if you want to know more. (thanks BalzOnYer4Head)
Mining Pools
Now that your hardware and software is ready. I know nothing about solo mining other than the fact that you have to be very lucky and respectable amount of hashing power to decrypt a block. So it is better to join pools. I have been pool hopping for a bit and really liked give-me-coin previously known to the community as give-me-ltc. They have a nice mobile app and 0% pool fees. This is really a personal preference. Take a look at this list and try some yourself.
How do I connect to a pool?
Most pools will give you a tutorial on how to but the basics are as follows:
  • Signup for a pool
  • Create a worker for your account. Usually one worker per rig (Yes people have multiple rigs) is generally a good idea.
  • Create a .run file. Open up notepad and type cgminer.exe -o (address_to_the_miningpool:port_number) -u (yourusername.workername) -p (your_worker_password_if_you_made_one). Then File>Save As>runcgminer.run (Make sure the drop down is set to "All Files" and .txt document.) and save in the same folder as cgminer. That's it.
  • Double click on runcgminer.run (or whatever you named it) and have fun mining.
Mining Profitability
This game is not easy. If it was, practically everyone would be doing it. This is strictly a numbers game and there are calculations available that can help you determine your risk on your investments. 4 variables you need to consider when you are starting to mine:
Hardware cost: The cost of your physical hardware to run this whole operation.
Power: Measured in $/KwH is also known as the operating cost.
Difficulty rate: To put it in layman's terms the increase in difficulty is inversely proportional to amount of coin you can mine. The harder the difficulty the harder it is to mine coin. Right now difficulty is rising at about 18% per 3 days. This can and will change since all you miners are soon going to jump on the band wagon.
Your sanity: I am not going to tell you to keep calm and chive on because quiet frankly that is stupid. What I will tell you not to get too carried away. You will pull you hair out. Seriously.
Next thing you will need is a simple tool. A mining profitability calculator. I have two favourite ones.
coinwarz
I like this one cause it is simple. The fields are self explanatory. Try it.
bitcoinwisdom
I like this one because it is a more real life scenario calculator and more complicated one (not really). It also takes increasing difficulty into account.
Please note: This is the absolute basic info you need. If you have more questions feel free to ask and or google it!
More Below.
submitted by craeyon to litecoin [link] [comments]

Secure paper wallet tutorial

This is my handout for paranoid people who want a way to store bitcoin safely. It requires a little work, but this is the method I use because it should be resistant to risks associated with:
  1. Bad random number generators
  2. Malicious or flawed software
  3. Hacked computers
If you want a method that is less secure but easier, skip to the bottom of this post.
The Secure Method
  1. Download bitaddress.org. (Try going to the website and pressing "ctrl+s")
  2. Put the bitaddress.org file on a computer with an operating system that has not interacted with the internet much or at all. The computer should not be hooked up to the internet when you do this. You could put the bitaddress file on a USB stick, and then turn off your computer, unplug the internet, and boot it up using a boot-from-CD copy of linux (Ubuntu or Mint for example). This prevents any mal-ware you may have accumulated from running and capturing your keystrokes. I use an old android smart phone that I have done a factory reset on. It has no sim-card and does not have the password to my home wifi. Also the phone wifi is turned off. If you are using a fresh operating system, and do not have a connection to the internet, then your private key will probably not escape the computer.
  3. Roll a die 62 times and write down the sequence of numbers. This gives you 2160 possible outcomes, which is the maximum that Bitcoin supports.
  4. Run bitaddress.org from your offline computer. Input the sequence of numbers from the die rolls into the "Brain Wallet" tab. By providing your own source of randomness, you do not have to worry that the random number generator used by your computer is too weak. I'm looking at you, NSA ಠ_ಠ
  5. Brain Wallet tab creates a private key and address.
  6. Write down the address and private key by hand or print them on a dumb printer. (Dumb printer means not the one at your office with the hard drive. Maybe not the 4 in 1 printer that scans and faxes and makes waffles.) If you hand copy them you may want to hand copy more than one format. (WIF and HEX). If you are crazy and are storing your life savings in Bitcoin, and you hand copy the private key, do a double-check by typing the private key back into the tool on the "Wallet Details" tab and confirm that it recreates the same public address.
  7. Load your paper wallet by sending your bitcoin to the public address. You can do this as many times as you like.
  8. You can view the current balance of your paper wallet by typing the public address into the search box at blockchain.info
  9. If you are using an old cell phone or tablet do a factory reset when you are finished so that the memory of the private keys is destroyed. If you are using a computer with a boot-from-CD copy of linux, I think you can just power down the computer and the private keys will be gone. (Maybe someone can confirm for me that the private keys would not be able to be cached by bitaddress?)
  10. To spend your paper wallet, you will need to either create an offline transaction, or import the private key into a hot wallet. Creating an offline transaction is dangerous if you don't know what you are doing. Importing to a client side wallet like Bitcoin-Qt, Electrum, MultiBit or Armory is a good idea. You can also import to an online wallet such as Blockchain.info or Coinbase.
Trusting bitaddress.org
The only thing you need bitaddress.org to do is to honestly convert the brainwallet passphrase into the corresponding private key and address. You can verify that it is doing this honestly by running several test passphrases through the copy of bitaddress that you plan on using, and several other brainwallet generators. For example, you could use the online version of bitaddress, and brainwallet and safepaperwallet and bitcoinpaperwallet. If you are fancy with the linux command line, you can also try "echo -n my_die_rolls | sha256sum". The linux operating system should reply with the same private key that bitaddress makes. This protects you from a malicious paper wallet generator.
Trusting your copy of bitaddress.org
Bitaddress publishes the sha1 hash of the bitaddress.org website at this location:
https://www.bitaddress.org/pgpsignedmsg.txt
The message is signed by the creator, pointbiz. I found his PGP fingerprint here:
https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.org/issues/18
"527B 5C82 B1F6 B2DB 72A0 ECBF 8749 7B91 6397 4F5A"
With this fingerprint, you can authenticate the signed message, which gives you the hash of the current bitaddress.org file. Then you can hash your copy of the file and authenticate the file.
I do not have a way to authenticate the fingerprint itself, sorry. According to the website I linked to, git has cryptographic traceability that would enable a person to do some research and authenticate the fingerprint. If you want to go that far, knock yourself out. I think that the techniques described in this document do not really rely on bitaddress being un-corrupt. Anyway, how do we know pointbiz is a good guy? ;-)
There are a lot of skilled eyes watching bitaddress.org and the signed sha1 hash. To gain the most benefit from all of those eyes, it's probably worthwhile to check your copy by hashing it and comparing to the published hash.
"But we aren't supposed to use brainwallets"
You are not supposed to use brainwallets that have predictable passphrases. People think they are pretty clever about how they pick their passphrases, but a lot of bitcoins have been stolen because people tend to come up with similar ideas. If you let dice generate the passphrase, then it is totally random, and you just need to make sure to roll enough times.
How to avoid spending your life rolling dice
When I first started doing this, I rolled a die 62 times for each private key. This is not necessary. You can simply roll the die 62 times and keep the sequence of 62 numbers as a "seed". The first paper address you create would use "my die rolls-1" as the passphrase, the second would be "my die rolls-2" and so on. This is safe because SHA256 prevents any computable relationship between the resulting private key family.
Of course this has a certain bad security scenario -- if anyone obtains the seed they can reconstruct all of your paper wallets. So this is not for everyone! On the other hand, it also means that if you happen to lose one of your paper wallets, you could reconstruct it so long as you still had the seed.
One way to reduce this risk is to add an easy to remember password like this: "my die rolls-password-1".
If you prefer, you can use a technique called diceware to convert your die rolls to words that still contain the same quantity of entropy, but which could be easier to work with. I don't use diceware because it's another piece of software that I have to trust, and I'm just copy/pasting my high entropy seed, so I don't care about how ugly it is.
Why not input the dice as a Base 6 private key on the Wallet Details tab?
Two reasons. First of all, this option requires that you roll the die 99 times, but you do not get meaningful additional protection by rolling more than 62 times. Why roll more times if you don't have to? Second, I use the "high entropy seed" method to generate multiple private keys from the same die rolls. Using the Base 6 option would require rolling 99 times for every private key.
I'm a big nerd with exotic dice. How many times to roll?
Put this formula in Excel to get the number of times to roll: "=160*LOG(2,f)" where f = number of faces on the die. For example, you would roll a d16 40 times. By the way, somewhat unbelievably casino dice are more fair than ordinary dice
The "Change address" problem:
You should understand change addresses because some people have accidentally lost money by not understanding it.
Imagine your paper wallet is a 10 dollar bill. You use it to buy a candy bar. To do this you give the cashier the entire 10 dollar bill. They keep 1 dollar and give you 9 dollars back as change.
With Bitcoin, you have to explicitly say that you want 9 dollars back, and you have to provide an address where it should go to. If you just hand over the 10 dollar bill, and don't say you want 9 dollars back, then the miner who processes the transaction gives 1 dollar to the store and keeps the remainder themselves.
Wallet software like Bitcoin-Qt handles this automatically for you. They automatically make "change addresses" and they automatically construct transactions that make the change go to the change address.
There are three ways I know of that the change problem can bite you:
  1. You generate a raw transaction by hand, and screw up. If you are generating a transaction "by hand" with a raw transaction editor, you need to be extra careful that your outputs add up to the same number as your inputs. Otherwise, the very lucky miner who puts your transaction in a block will keep the difference.
  2. You import a paper wallet into a wallet software and spend part of it, and then think that the change is in the paper wallet. The change is not in the paper wallet. It is in a change address that the wallet software generated. That means that if you lose your wallet.dat file you will lose all the change. The paper wallet is empty.
  3. You import a paper wallet into a wallet software and spend part of it, and then think that the change is in the change address that the wallet software generated. If the transaction did not need to consume all of the "outputs" used to fund the paper wallet, then there could be some unspent outputs still located at the address of the paper wallet. If you destroyed the paper wallet, and destroyed the copy of the private key imported to the wallet software, then you could not access this money. (E.g. if you restored the software wallet from its seed, thinking all of the money was moved to the wallet-generated change addresses.)
For more on this, see here
The hot paper wallet problem
Your bitcoin in your paper wallet are secure, so long as the piece of paper is secure, until you go to spend it. When you spend it, you put the private key onto a computer that is connected to the internet. At this point you must regard your paper wallet address as hot because the computer you used may have been compromised. It now provides much less protection against theft of your coins. If you need the level of protection that a cold paper wallet provides, you need to create a new one and send your coins to it.
Destroying your paper wallet address
Do not destroy the only copy of a private key without verifying that there is no money at that address. Your client may have sent change to your paper wallet address without you realizing it. Your client may have not consumed all of the unspent outputs available at the paper wallet address. You can go to blockchain.info and type the public address into the search window to see the current balance. I don't bother destroying my used/empty paper wallet addresses. I just file them away.
Encrypting your private key
BIP 0038 describes a standardized way to encrypt your paper wallet private key. A normal paper wallet is vulnerable because if anyone sees the private key they can take the coins. The BIP38 protocol is even resistant to brute force attacks because it uses a memory intensive encryption algorithm called scrypt. If you want to encrypt your wallets using BIP38, I recommend that you use bitcoinpaperwallet because they will let you type in your own private key and will encrypt it for you. As with bitaddress, for high security you should only use a local copy of this website on a computer that will never get connected to the internet.
Splitting your private key
Another option for protecting the private key is to convert it into multiple fragments that must be brought together. This method allows you to store pieces of your key with separate people in separate locations. It can be set up so that you can reconstitute the private key when you have any 2 out of the 3 fragments. This technique is called Shamir's Secret Sharing. I have not tried this technique, but you may find it valuable. You could try using this website http://passguardian.com/ which will help you split up a key. As before, you should do this on an offline computer. Keep in mind if you use this service that you are trusting it to work properly. It would be good to find other independently created tools that could be used to validate the operation of passguardian. Personally, I would be nervous destroying the only copy of a private key and relying entirely on the fragments generated by the website.
Looks like Bitaddress has an implementation of Shamir's Secret Sharing now under the "Split Wallet" tab. However it would appear that you cannot provide your own key for this, so you would have to trust bitaddress.
Durable Media
Pay attention to the media you use to record your paper wallet. Some kinds of ink fade, some kinds of paper disintegrate. Moisture and heat are your enemies.
In addition to keeping copies of my paper wallet addresses I did the following:
  1. Order a set of numeric metal stamps. ($10)
  2. Buy a square galvanized steel outlet cover from the hardware store ($1)
  3. Buy a sledgehammer from the hardware store
  4. Write the die rolls on the steel plate using a sharpie
  5. Use the hammer to stamp the metal. Do all the 1's, then all the 2's etc. Please use eye protection, as metal stamp may emit sparks or fly unexpectedly across the garage. :-)
  6. Use nail polish remover to erase the sharpie
Electrum
If you trust electrum you might try running it on an offline computer, and having it generate a series of private keys from a seed. I don't have experience with this software, but it sounds like there are some slick possibilities there that could save you time if you are working with a lot of addresses.
Message to the downvoters
I would appreciate it if you would comment, so that I can learn from your opinion. Thanks!
The Easy Method
This method is probably suitable for small quantities of bitcoin. I would not trust it for life-altering sums of money.
  1. Download the bitaddress.org website to your hard drive.
  2. Close your browser
  3. Disconnect from the internet
  4. Open the bitaddress.org website from your hard drive.
  5. Print a paper wallet on your printer
  6. Close your browser
submitted by moral_agent to BitcoinWallet [link] [comments]

Skywire - Try and censor this, I dare you.

Synth posted this recently - http://whiteboard.ping.se/SDWSPR. Why? Remember that Skywire is designed with these in mind:

1) Asynchronous.

"Asynchronous data is data that is not synchronized when it is sent or received. In this type of transmission, signals are sent between the computers and external systems or vice versa in an asynchronous manner. This usually refers to data that is transmitted at intermittent intervals rather than in a steady stream, which means that the first parts of the complete file might not always be the first to be sent and arrive at the destination. Different parts of the complete data are sent in different intervals, sometimes simultaneously, but follow different paths toward the destination. The transfer of asynchronous data doesn’t require the coordination or timing of bits between the two endpoints."

Advantages:

It is more flexible and devices can exchange information at their own pace. Individual data characters can complete themselves so that even if one packet is corrupted, its predecessors and successors will not be affected.
It does not require complex processes by the receiving device. This means that an inconsistency in the transmission of data does not result in a big crisis, since the device can keep up with the data stream. This also makes asynchronous transfers suitable for applications where character data is generated in an irregular manner.

Disadvantages:

The success of these transmissions depends on the start bits and their recognition. This can be easily susceptible to line interference, causing these bits to be corrupted or distorted.
A large portion of the transmitted data is used for control and identification bits for headers and thus carries no useful information related to the transmitted data. This invariably means that more data packets need to be sent.

Choco's way of understanding it:

2) Channel bonding

"Channel bonding is an arrangement of communications links in which two or more links are combined for redundancy or increased throughput. Examples include links associated with network interfaces on a host computer, or downstream and upstream channels within a DOCSIS cable modem connection."

Choco's way of understanding it:

3) Economy based on data forwarding and downloading

The new Decentralized Internet, a wireless mesh network that pays you for supporting it.

Choco's way of understanding it:

4) Will even work on low-computationally intensive CPU boards like Raspberry Pi's.

Self-explanatory. See Skyminer.

Choco's way of understanding it:

Spelling it out.

Digital transmission of 0.1 watt (20dBm) from Sweden to Australia, over 15000km using the WSPR protocol. For comparison, your cell phone uses many times this transmission power. :-)
The extreme application possible with this design means it is nearly impossible to censor anything. The best you can do is make it annoyingly slow to transmit data, you will not kill it. Skywire's uncensorable data transmission is akin to Bitcoin's original idea of uncensorable money.
References:
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/26893/asynchronous-data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_bonding
submitted by ChocolateyLab to skycoin [link] [comments]

The Concept of Bitcoin

The Concept of Bitcoin
https://preview.redd.it/5r9soz2ltq421.jpg?width=268&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6a89685f735b53ec1573eefe08c8646970de8124
What is Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is an experimental system of transfer and verification of property based on a network of peer to peer without any central authority.
The initial application and the main innovation of the Bitcoin network is a system of digital currency decentralized unit of account is bitcoin.
Bitcoin works with software and a protocol that allows participants to issue bitcoins and manage transactions in a collective and automatic way. As a free Protocol (open source), it also allows interoperability of software and services that use it. As a currency bitcoin is both a medium of payment and a store of value.
Bitcoin is designed to self-regulate. The limited inflation of the Bitcoin system is distributed homogeneously by computing the network power, and will be limited to 21 million divisible units up to the eighth decimal place. The functioning of the Exchange is secured by a general organization that everyone can examine, because everything is public: the basic protocols, cryptographic algorithms, programs making them operational, the data of accounts and discussions of the developers.
The possession of bitcoins is materialized by a sequence of numbers and letters that make up a virtual key allowing the expenditure of bitcoins associated with him on the registry. A person may hold several key compiled in a 'Bitcoin Wallet ', 'Keychain' web, software or hardware which allows access to the network in order to make transactions. Key to check the balance in bitcoins and public keys to receive payments. It contains also (often encrypted way) the private key associated with the public key. These private keys must remain secret, because their owner can spend bitcoins associated with them on the register. All support (keyrings) agrees to maintain the sequence of symbols constituting your keychain: paper, USB, memory stick, etc. With appropriate software, you can manage your assets on your computer or your phone.
Bitcoin on an account, to either a holder of bitcoins in has given you, for example in Exchange for property, either go through an Exchange platform that converts conventional currencies in bitcoins, is earned by participating in the operations of collective control of the currency.
The sources of Bitcoin codes have been released under an open source license MIT which allows to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the software, subject to insert a copyright notice into all copies.
Bitcoin creator, Satoshi Nakamoto
What is the Mining of bitcoin?
Technical details :
During mining, your computer performs cryptographic hashes (two successive SHA256) on what is called a header block. For each new hash, mining software uses a different random number that called Nuncio. According to the content of the block and the nonce value typically used to express the current target. This number is called the difficulty of mining. The difficulty of mining is calculated by comparing how much it is difficult to generate a block compared to the first created block. This means that a difficulty of 70000 is 70000 times more effort that it took to Satoshi Nakamoto to generate the first block. Where mining was much slower and poorly optimized.
The difficulty changes each 2016 blocks. The network tries to assign the difficulty in such a way that global computing power takes exactly 14 days to generate 2016 blocks. That's why the difficulty increases along with the power of the network.
Material :
In the beginning, mining with a processor (CPU) was the only way to undermine bitcoins. (GPU) graphics cards have possibly replaced the CPU due to their nature, which allowed an increase between 50 x to 100 x in computing power by using less electricity by megahash compared to a CPU.
Although any modern GPU can be used to make the mining, the brand AMD GPU architecture has proved to be far superior to nVidia to undermine bitcoins and the ATI Radeon HD 5870 card was the most economical for a time.
For a more complete list of graphics cards and their performance, see Wiki Bitcoin: comparison of mining equipment
In the same way that transition CPU to GPU, the world of mining has evolved into the use of the Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) as a mining platform. Although FPGAs did not offer an increase of 50 x to 100 x speed of calculation as the transition from CPU to GPU, they offered a better energy efficiency.
A typical HD/s 600 graphics card consumes about 400w of power, while a typical FPGA device can offer a rate of hash of 826 MH/s to 80w of power consumption, a gain of 5 x more calculations for the same energy power. Since energy efficiency is a key factor in the profitability of mining, it was an important step for the GPU to FPGA migration for many people.
The world of the mining of bitcoin is now migrating to the Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC). An ASIC is a chip designed specifically to accomplish a single task. Unlike FPGAs, an ASIC is unable to be reprogrammed for other tasks. An ASIC designed to undermine bitcoins cannot and will not do anything else than to undermine bitcoins.
The stiffness of an ASIC allows us to offer an increase of 100 x computing power while reducing power consumption compared to all other technologies. For example, a classic device to offer 60 GH/s (1 hashes equals 1000 Megahash. 1GH/s = 1000 Mh/s) while consuming 60w of electricity. Compared to the GPU, it is an increase in computing power of 100 x and a reduction of power consumption by a factor of 7.
Unlike the generations of technologies that have preceded the ASIC, ASIC is the "end of the line" when we talk about important technology change. The CPUs have been replaced by the GPUs, themselves replaced by FPGAs that were replaced by ASICs.
There is nothing that can replace the ASICs now or in the immediate future. There will be technological refinements in ASIC products, and improvements in energy efficiency, but nothing that may match increased from 50 x to 100 x the computing power or a 7 x reduction in power consumption compared with the previous technology.
Which means that the energy efficiency of an ASIC device is the only important factor of all product ASIC, since the estimated lifetime of an ASIC device is superior to the entire history of the mining of bitcoin. It is conceivable that a purchased ASIC device today is still in operation in two years if the unit still offers a profitable enough economic to keep power consumption. The profitability of mining is also determined by the value of bitcoin but in all cases, more a device has a good energy efficiency, it is profitable.
Software :
There are two ways to make mining: by yourself or as part of a team (a pool). If you are mining for yourself, you must install the Bitcoin software and configure it to JSON-RPC (see: run Bitcoin). The other option is to join a pool. There are multiple available pools. With a pool, the profit generated by any block generated by a member of the team is split between all members of the team. The advantage of joining a team is to increase the frequency and stability of earnings (this is called reduce the variance) but gains will be lower. In the end, you will earn the same amount with the two approaches. Undermine solo allows you to receive earnings huge but very infrequent, while miner with a pool can offer you small stable and steady gains.
Once you have your software configured or that you have joined a pool, the next step is to configure the mining software. The software the most populare for ASIC/FPGA/GPU currently is CGminer or a derivative designed specifically for FPGAS and ASICs, BFGMiner.
If you want a quick overview of mining without install any software, try Bitcoin Plus, a Bitcoin minor running in your browser with your CPU. It is not profitable to make serious mining, but it is a good demonstration of the principle of the mining team.
submitted by Josephbitcoin to u/Josephbitcoin [link] [comments]

Year after adding a GTX 1070, PC "snaps" under heavy load (I.e. NiceHash Mining)

Troubleshooting Help:

What is your parts list? Consider formatting your parts list.
Single MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X
Intel 4770K @ stock
MSI Z87-G45 GAMING MB
250GB Samsung SSD and 2 2TB SPINNING DISKS.
16GB DDR3 @ Stock
INATECK USB 3.0 Card
Thermaltake 1200W PSU
Describe your problem. List any error messages and symptoms. Be descriptive.
PC Seems to "snap" (AUDIBLE) under heavy load, such as using the NiceHash (nicehash/) bitcoin miner.
List anything you've done in attempt to diagnose or fix the problem.
NOTHING. I do NOT know how to stop it other than shutting the machine down OR the miner, but sometimes that doesn't even help with said noise.
Post relevant photos of build/parts here.
https://imgur.com/a/AwpQ0
Provide any additional details you wish below.
I want to make sure this is proper behavior of a PC before I put it back into service. If it is NOT please instruct me what to do before it becomes a fire hazard.
AND NO, I am not typing this post on that PC.
submitted by urbanracer34 to buildapc [link] [comments]

Low wattage hobby miner hardware?

I'm a fan of bitcoin and like to support the bitcoin by buying and holding BTC and operating a full node - a bitnodes unit that consumes a very minimal 2.5 Watts.
Just for fun I'd like to run a small miner drawing about say 20-50 Watts tops, I know this will not be profitable in any way but would like to do it anyway more as part of a hobby than anything.
I've mined litecoin in the past using a bank of 3 graphics cards drawing about 750W total and it was a bit impractical for me to be honest due to the noise and heat they generated and the uncompetitive price I pay for residential electricity.
I figure something that only requires minimal cooling and therefore has no heat and noise issues would be ideal. Maybe a USB miner plugged into a raspberry Pi? (since I already run a couple of Pis).
It would be nice to have something fairly competitive in terms of hashes/joule efficiency. I see the ant miner S7 currently leads by a wide margin with about 4000 MHashes/Joule. See Mining hardware comparison
submitted by locster to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin, huh? WTF is going on? Should we scale you on-chain or off-chain? Will you stay decentralized, distributed, immutable?

0. Shit, this is long, TLWR please! Too long, won't read.
EDIT: TLDR TLWR for clarity.
1. Bitcoin, huh? Brief introduction.
There are 3 sections to this overview. The first section is a brief introduction to bitcoin. The second section looks at recent developments in the bitcoin world, through the analogy of email attachments, and the third section discusses what could be next, through the perspective of resilience and network security.
This is just a continuation of a long, long, possibly never-ending debate that started with the release of the bitcoin whitepaper in 2008 (see https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf). The recent mess during the past few years boils down to the controversy with the block size limit and how to appropriately scale bitcoin, the keyword appropriately. Scaling bitcoin is a controversial debate with valid arguments from all sides (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy).
I have researched, studied, and written this overview as objectively and as impartially as possible. By all means, this is still an opinion and everyone is advised to draw their own conclusions. My efforts are to make at least a few readers aware that ultimately there is only one team, and that team is the team bitcoin. Yes, currently though, there are factions within the team bitcoin. I hope that we can get beyond partisan fights and work together for the best bitcoin. I support all scaling proposals as long as they are the best for the given moment in time. Personally, I hate propaganda and love free speech as long as it is not derogatory and as long as it allows for constructive discussions.
The goal of this overview is to explain to a novice how bitcoin network works, what has been keeping many bitcoin enthusiasts concerned, and if we can keep the bitcoin network with three main properties described as decentralized, distributed, immutable. Immutable means censorship resistant. For the distinction between decentralized and distributed, refer to Figure 1: Centralized, decentralized and distributed network models by Paul Baran (1964), which is a RAND Institute study to create a robust and nonlinear military communication network (see https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM3420.pdf). Note that for the overall network resilience and security, distributed is more desirable than decentralized, and the goal is to get as far away from central models as possible. Of course, nothing is strictly decentralized or strictly distributed and all network elements are at different levels of this spectrum.
For those unaware how bitcoin works, I recommend the Bitcoin Wikipedia (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page). In short, the bitcoin network includes users which make bitcoin transactions and send them to the network memory pool called mempool, nodes which store the public and pseudonymous ledger called blockchain and which help with receiving pending transactions and updating processed transactions, thus securing the overall network, and miners which also secure the bitcoin network by mining. Mining is the process of confirming pending bitcoin transactions, clearing them from the mempool, and adding them to blocks which build up the consecutive chain of blocks on the blockchain. The blockchain is therefore a decentralized and distributed ledger built on top of bitcoin transactions, therefore impossible to exist without bitcoin. If someone claims to be working on their own blockchain without bitcoin, by the definition of the bitcoin network however, they are not talking about the actual blockchain. Instead, they intend to own a different kind of a private database made to look like the public and pseudonymous blockchain ledger.
There are roughly a couple of dozen mining pools, each possibly with hundreds or thousands of miners participating in them, to several thousand nodes (see https://blockchain.info/pools and https://coin.dance/nodes). Therefore, the bitcoin network has at worst decentralized miners and at best distributed nodes. The miner and node design makes the blockchain resilient and immune to reversible changes, making it censorship resistant, thus immutable. The bitcoin blockchain avoids the previous need for a third party to trust. This is a very elegant solution to peer-to-peer financial exchange via a network that is all: decentralized, distributed, immutable. Extra features (escrow, reversibility via time-locks, and other features desirable in specific instances) can be integrated within the network or added on top of this network, however, they have not been implemented yet.
Miners who participate receive mining reward consisting of newly mined bitcoins at a predetermined deflationary rate and also transaction fees from actual bitcoin transactions being processed. It is estimated that in 2022, miners will have mined more than 90% of all 21 million bitcoins ever to be mined (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply). As the mining reward from newly mined blocks diminishes to absolute zero in 2140, the network eventually needs the transaction fees to become the main component of the reward. This can happen either via high-volume-low-cost transaction fees or low-volume-high-cost transaction fees. Obviously, there is the need to address the question of fees when dealing with the dilemma how to scale bitcoin. Which type of fees would you prefer and under which circumstances?
2. WTF is going on? Recent developments.
There are multiple sides to the scaling debate but to simplify it, first consider the 2 main poles. In particular, to scale bitcoin on blockchain or to scale it off it, that is the question!
The first side likes the idea of bitcoin as it has been until now. It prefers on-chain scaling envisioned by the bitcoin creator or a group of creators who chose the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. It is now called Bitcoin Cash and somewhat religiously follows Satoshi’s vision from the 2008 whitepaper and their later public forum discussions (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366). Creators’ vision is good to follow but it should not be followed blindly and dogmatically when better advancements are possible, the keyword when. To alleviate concerning backlog of transactions and rising fees, Bitcoin Cash proponents implemented a simple one-line code update which increased the block size limit for blockhain blocks from 1MB block size limit to a new, larger 8MB limit. This was done through a fork on August 1, 2017, which created Bitcoin Cash, and which kept the bitcoin transaction history until then. Bitcoin Cash has observed significant increase in support, from 3% of all bitcoin miners at first to over 44% of all bitcoin miners after 3 weeks on August 22, 2017 (see http://fork.lol/pow/hashrate and http://fork.lol/pow/hashrateabs).
An appropriate scaling analogy is to recall email attachments early on. They too were limited to a few MB at first, then 10MB, 20MB, up until 25MB on Gmail. But even then, Gmail eventually started using Google Drive internally. Note that Google Drive is a third party to Gmail, although yes, it is managed by the same entity.
The second side argues that bitcoin cannot work with such a scaling approach of pre-meditated MB increases. Arguments against block size increases include miner and node centralization, and bandwidth limitations. These are discussed in more detail in the third section of this overview. As an example of an alternative scaling approach, proponents of off-chain scaling want to jump to the internally integrated third party right away, without any MB increase and, sadly, without any discussion. Some of these proponents called one particular implementation method SegWit, which stands for Segregated Witness, and they argue that SegWit is the only way that we can ever scale up add the extra features to the bitcoin network. This is not necessarily true because other scaling solutions are feasible, such as already functioning Bitcoin Cash, and SegWit’s proposed solution will not use internally integrated third party as shown next. Note that although not as elegant as SegWit is today, there are other possibilities to integrate some extra features without SegWit (see /Bitcoin/comments/5dt8tz/confused_is_segwit_needed_for_lightning_network).
Due to the scaling controversy and the current backlog of transactions and already high fees, a third side hastily proposed a compromise to a 2MB increase in addition to the proposed SegWit implementation. They called it SegWit2x, which stands for Segregated Witness with 2MB block size limit increase. But the on-chain scaling and Bitcoin Cash proponents did not accept it due to SegWit’s design redundancy and hub centralization which are discussed next and revisited in the third section of this overview. After a few years of deadlock, that is why the first side broke free and created the Bitcoin Cash fork.
The second side stuck with bitcoin as it was. In a way, they inherited the bitcoin network without any major change to public eye. This is crucial because major changes are about to happen and the original bitcoin vision, as we have known it, is truly reflected only in what some media refer to as a forked clone, Bitcoin Cash. Note that to avoid confusion, this second side is referred to as Bitcoin Core by some or Legacy Bitcoin by others, although mainstream media still refers to it simply as Bitcoin. The core of Bitcoin Core is quite hardcore though. They too rejected the proposed compromise for SegWit2x and there are clear indications that they will push to keep SegWit only, forcing the third side with SegWit2x proponents to create another fork in November 2017 or to join Bitcoin Cash. Note that to certain degree, already implemented and working Bitcoin Cash is technically superior to SegWit2x which is yet to be deployed (see /Bitcoin/comments/6v0gll/why_segwit2x_b2x_is_technically_inferior_to).
Interestingly enough, those who agreed to SegWit2x have been in overwhelming majority, nearly 87% of all bitcoin miners on July 31, 2017 prior to the fork, and a little over 90% of remaining Bitcoin Core miners to date after the fork (see https://coin.dance/blocks). Despite such staggering support, another Bitcoin Core fork is anticipated later in November (see https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-is-splitting-once-again-are-you-ready) and the "Outcome #2: Segwit2x reneges on 2x or does not prioritize on-chain scaling" seems to be on track from the perspective of Bitcoin Core SegWit, publicly seen as the original Bitcoin (see https://blog.bridge21.io/before-and-after-the-great-bitcoin-fork-17d2aad5d512). The sad part is that although in their overwhelming majority, the miners who support SegWit2x would be the ones creating another Bitcoin Core SegWit2x fork or parting ways from the original Bitcoin.
In a way, this is an ironic example how bitcoin’s built-in resiliency to veto changes causes majority to part away when a small minority has status quo and holds off fully-consented progress. Ultimately, this will give the minority Bitcoin Core SegWit proponents the original Bitcoin branding, perhaps to lure in large institutional investors and monetize on bitcoin’s success as we have it seen it during the past 9 years since its inception. Recall that bitcoin of today is already a decentralized, distributed, immutable network by its definition. The bitcoin network was designed to be an alternative to centralized and mutable institutions, so prevalent in modern capitalist societies.
Bitcoin Core SegWit group wants to change the existing bitcoin network to a network with dominant third parties which, unlike Google Drive to Gmail, are not internal. In particular, they intend to do so via the lightning network, which is a second layer solution (2L). This particular 2L as currently designed relies on an artificial block size limit cap which creates a bottleneck in order to provide high incentives for miners to participate. It monetizes on backlog of transaction and high fees, which are allocated to miners, not any group in particular. Cheaper and more instantaneous transactions are shifted to the lightning network which is operated by hubs also earning revenue. Note that some of these hubs may choose to monitor transactions and can possibly censor who is allowed to participate in this no longer strictly peer-to-peer network.
We lose the immutability and instead we have a peer-to-hub-to-peer network that is mutable and at best decentralized, and certainly not distributed (see https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800). For regular day-to-day and recurring transactions, it is not a considerable risk or inconvenience. And one could choose to use the main chain any time to bypass the lightning network and truly transact peer-to-peer. But since the main chain has an entry barrier in the form of artificially instilled high transaction fees, common people are not able to use bitcoin as we have known it until now. Peer-to-peer bitcoin becomes institution-to-institution bitcoin with peer-to-hub-to-peer 2L.
To reiterate and stress, note the following lightning network design flaw again. Yes, activating SegWit and allowing 2L such as lightning allows for lower transaction fees to coexist side by side with more costly on-chain transactions. For those using this particularly prescribed 2L, the fees remain low. But since these 2L are managed by hubs, we introduce another element to trust, which is contrary to what the bitcoin network was designed to do at the first place. Over time, by the nature of the lightning network in its current design, these third party hubs grow to be centralized, just like Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover, etc. There is nothing wrong with that in general because it works just fine. But recall that bitcoin set out to create a different kind of a network. Instead of decentralized, distributed, immutable network with miners and nodes, with the lightning network we end up with at best decentralized but mutable network with hubs.
Note that Bitcoin Core SegWit has a US-based organization backing it with millions of dollars (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockstream and https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/the-truth-about-who-is-behind-blockstream-and-segwit-as-the-saying-goes-follow-the-money). Their proponents are quite political and some even imply $1000 fees on the main bitcoin blockchain (see https://cointelegraph.com/news/ari-paul-tuur-demeester-look-forward-to-up-to-1k-bitcoin-fees). Contrary to them, Bitcoin Cash proponents intend to keep small fees on a scale of a few cents, which in large volume in larger blockchain blocks provide sufficient incentive for miners to participate.
On the one hand, sticking to the original vision of peer-to-peer network scaled on-chain has merit and holds potential for future value. On the other hand, 2L have potential to carry leaps forward from current financial infrastructure. As mentioned earlier, 2L will allow for extra features to be integrated off-chain (e.g. escrow, reversibility via time-locks), including entirely new features such as smart contracts, decentralized applications, some of which have been pioneered and tested on another cryptocurrency network called Ethereum. But such features could be one day implemented directly on the main bitcoin blockchain without the lightning network as currently designed, or perhaps with a truly integrated 2L proposed in the third section of this overview.
What makes the whole discussion even more confusing is that there are some proposals for specific 2L that would in fact increase privacy and make bitcoin transactions less pseudonymous than those on the current bitcoin blockchain now. Keep in mind that 2L are not necessarily undesirable. If they add features and keep the main network characteristics (decentralized, distributed, immutable), they should be embraced with open arms. But the lightning network as currently designed gives up immutability and hub centralization moves the network characteristic towards a decentralized rather than a distributed network.
In a sense, back to the initial email attachment analogy, even Gmail stopped with attachment limit increases and started hosting large files on Google Drive internally, with an embedded link in a Gmail email to download anything larger than 25MB from Google Drive. Anticipating the same scaling decisions, the question then becomes not if but when and how such 2L should be implemented, keeping the overall network security and network characteristics in mind. If you have not gotten it yet, repeat, repeat, repeat: decentralized, distributed, immutable. Is it the right time now and is SegWit (one way, my way or highway) truly the best solution?
Those siding away from Bitcoin Core SegWit also dislike that corporate entities behind Blockstream, the one publicly known corporate entity directly supporting SegWit, have allegedly applied for SegWit patents which may further restrict who may and who may not participate in the creation of future hubs, or how these hubs are controlled (see the alleged patent revelations, https://falkvinge.net/2017/05/01/blockstream-patents-segwit-makes-pieces-fall-place, the subsequent Twitter rebuttal Blockstream CEO, http://bitcoinist.com/adam-back-no-patents-segwit, and the subsequent legal threats to SegWit2x proponents /btc/comments/6vadfi/blockstream_threatening_legal_action_against). Regardless if the patent claims are precise or not, the fact remains that there is a corporate entity dictating and vetoing bitcoin developments. Objectively speaking, Bitcoin Core SegWit developers paid by Blockstream is a corporate takeover of the bitcoin network as we have known it.
And on the topic of patents and permissionless technological innovations, what makes all of this even more complicated is that a mining improvement technology called ASICboost is allowed on Bitcoin Cash. The main entities who forked from Bitcoin Core to form Bitcoin Cash had taken advantage of patents to the ASICboost technology on the original bitcoin network prior to the fork (see https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/breaking-down-bitcoins-asicboost-scandal). This boost saved estimated 20% electricity for miners on 1MB blocks and created unfair economic advantage for this one particular party. SegWit is one way that this boost is being eliminated, through the code. Larger blocks are another way to reduce the boost advantage, via decreased rate of collisions which made this boost happen at the first place (see https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/breaking-down-bitcoins-asicboost-scandal-solutions and https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/the-relation-between-segwit-and-asicboost-covert-and-overt). Therefore, the initial Bitcoin Cash proponents argue that eliminating ASICboost through the code is no longer needed or necessary.
Of course, saving any amount electricity between 0% and 20% is good for all on our planet but in reality any energy saved in a mining operation is used by the same mining operation to increase their mining capacity. In reality, there are no savings, there is just capacity redistribution. The question then becomes if it is okay that only one party currently and already holds onto this advantage, which they covertly hid for relatively long time, and which they could be using covertly on Bitcoin Cash if they desired to do so, even though it would an advantage to a smaller degree. To be fair to them, they are mining manufacturers and operators, they researched and developed the advantage from own resources, so perhaps they do indeed have the right to reap ASICboost benefits while they can. But perhaps it should happen in publicly know way, not behind closed doors, and should be temporary, with agreed patent release date.
In conclusion, there is no good and no bad actor, each side is its own shade of grey. All parties have their own truth (and villainy) to certain degree.
Bitcoin Cash's vision is for bitcoin to be an electronic cash platform and daily payment processor whereas Bitcoin Core SegWit seems to be drawn more to the ideas of bitcoin as an investment vehicle and a larger settlement layer with the payment processor function managed via at best decentralized third party hubs. Both can coexist, or either one can eventually prove more useful and digest the other one by taking over all use-cases.
Additionally, the most popular communication channel on /bitcoin with roughly 300k subscribers censors any alternative non-Bitcoin-Core-SegWit opinions and bans people from posting their ideas to discussions (see https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43). This is because their moderators are also supported by Blockstream. Note that the author of this overview has not gotten banned from this particular subreddit (yet), but has experienced shadow-banning first hand. Shadow-banning is a form of censorship. In this particular case, their moderator robot managed by people moderators, collaboratively with the people moderators, do the following:
  • (1) look for "Bitcoin Cash" and other undesirable keywords,
  • (2) warn authors that “Bitcoin Cash” is not true bitcoin (which objectively speaking it is, and which is by no means “BCash” that Bitcoin Core SegWit proponents refer to, in a coordinated effort to further confuse public, especially since some of them have published plans to officially release another cryptocurrency called “BCash” in 2018, see https://medium.com/@freetrade68/announcing-bcash-8b938329eaeb),
  • (3) further warn authors that if they try to post such opinions again, they could banned permanently,
  • (4) tell authors to delete their already posted posts or comments,
  • (5) hide their post from publicly seen boards with all other posts, thus preventing it from being seeing by the other participants in this roughly 300k public forum,
  • (6) and in extreme cases actually “remove” their valid opinions if they slip by uncensored, gain traction, and are often times raise to popularity as comments to other uncensored posts (see /btc/comments/6v3ee8/on_a_reply_i_made_in_rbitcoin_that_had_over_350 and /btc/comments/6vbyv0/in_case_we_needed_more_evidence_500_upvotes).
This effectively silences objective opinions and creates a dangerous echo-chamber. Suppressing free speech and artificially blowing up transaction fees on Bitcoin Core SegWit is against bitcoin’s fundamental values. Therefore, instead of the original Reddit communication channel, many bitcoin enthusiasts migrated to /btc which has roughly 60k subscribers as of now, up from 20k subscribers a year ago in August 2016 (see http://redditmetrics.com/btc). Moderators there do not censor opinions and allow all polite and civil discussions about scaling, including all opinions on Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Core, etc.
Looking beyond their respective leaderships and communication channels, let us review a few network fundamentals and recent developments in Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash networks. Consequently, for now, these present Bitcoin Cash with more favorable long-term prospects.
  • (1) The stress-test and/or attack on the Bitcoin Cash mempool earlier on August 16, 2017 showed that 8MB blocks do work as intended, without catastrophic complications that Bitcoin Core proponents anticipated and from which they attempted to discourage others (see https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/uahf/#2w for the Bitcoin Cash mempool and https://core.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#2w for the Bitcoin Core mempool). Note that when compared to the Bitcoin Core mempool on their respective 2 week views, one can observe how each network handles backlogs. On the most recent 2 week graphs, the Y-scale for Bitcoin Core is 110k vs. 90k on Bitcoin Cash. In other words, at the moment, Bitcoin Cash works better than Bitcoin Core even though there is clearly not as big demand for Bitcoin Cash as there is for Bitcoin Core. The lack of demand for Bitcoin Cash is partly because Bitcoin Cash is only 3 weeks old and not many merchants have started accepting it, and only a limited number of software applications to use Bitcoin Cash has been released so far. By all means, the Bitcoin Cash stress-test and/or attack from August 16, 2017 reveals that the supply will handle the increased demand, more affordably, and at a much quicker rate.
  • (2) Bitcoin Cash “BCH” mining has become temporarily more profitable than mining Bitcoin Core “BTC” (see http://fork.lol). Besides temporary loss of miners, this puts Bitcoin Core in danger of permanently fleeing miners. Subsequently, mempool backlog and transaction fees are anticipated to increase further.
  • (3) When compared to Bitcoin Cash transaction fees at roughly $0.02, transaction fees per kB are over 800 times as expensive on Bitcoin Core, currently at over $16 (see https://cashvscore.com).
  • (4) Tipping service that used to work on Bitcoin Core's /Bitcoin a few years back has been revived by a new tipping service piloted on the more neutral /btc with the integration of Bitcoin Cash (see /cashtipperbot).
3. Should we scale you on-chain or off-chain? Scaling bitcoin.
Let us start with the notion that we are impartial to both Bitcoin Core (small blocks, off-chain scaling only) and Bitcoin Cash (big blocks, on-chain scaling only) schools of thought. We will support any or all ideas, as long as they allow for bitcoin to grow organically and eventually succeed as a peer-to-peer network that remains decentralized, distributed, immutable. Should we have a preference in either of the proposed scaling solutions?
First, let us briefly address Bitcoin Core and small blocks again. From the second section of this overview, we understand that there are proposed off-chain scaling methods via second layer solutions (2L), most notably soon-to-be implemented lightning via SegWit on Bitcoin Core. Unfortunately, the lightning network diminishes distributed and immutable network properties by replacing bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network with a two-layer institution-to-institution network and peer-to-hub-to-peer 2L. Do we need this particular 2L right now? Is its complexity truly needed? Is it not at best somewhat cumbersome (if not very redundant)? In addition to ridiculously high on-chain transaction fees illustrated in the earlier section, the lightning network code is perhaps more robust than it needs to be now, with thousands of lines of code, thus possibly opening up to new vectors for bugs or attacks (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network and https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd). Additionally, this particular 2L as currently designed unnecessarily introduces third parties, hubs, that are expected to centralize. We already have a working code that has been tested and proven to handle 8MB blocks, as seen with Bitcoin Cash on August 16, 2017 (see https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/first-8mb-bitcoin-cash-block-just-mined). At best, these third party hubs would be decentralized but they would not be distributed. And these hubs would be by no means integral to the original bitcoin network with users, nodes, and miners.
To paraphrase Ocam’s razor problem solving principle, the simplest solution with the most desirable features will prevail (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor). The simplest scalability solution today is Bitcoin Cash because it updates only one line of code, which instantly increases the block size limit. This also allows other companies building on Bitcoin Cash to reduce their codes when compared to Bitcoin Core SegWit’s longer code, some even claiming ten-fold reductions (see /btc/comments/6vdm7y/ryan_x_charles_reveals_bcc_plan). The bitcoin ecosystem not only includes the network but it also includes companies building services on top of it. When these companies can reduce their vectors for bugs or attacks, the entire ecosystem is healthier and more resilient to hacking disasters. Obviously, changes to the bitcoin network code are desirable to be as few and as elegant as possible.
But what are the long-term implications of doing the one-line update repeatedly? Eventually, blocks would have to reach over 500MB size if they were to process Visa-level capacity (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability). With decreasing costs of IT infrastructure, bandwidth and storage could accommodate it, but the overhead costs would increase significantly, implying miner and/or full node centralization further discussed next. To decrease this particular centralization risk, which some consider undesirable and others consider irrelevant, built-in and integrated 2L could keep the block size at a reasonably small-yet-still-large limit.
At the first sight, these 2L would remedy the risk of centralization by creating their own centralization incentive. At the closer look and Ocam’s razor principle again, these 2L do not have to become revenue-seeking third party hubs as designed with the current lightning network. They can be integrated into the current bitcoin network with at worst decentralized miners and at best distributed nodes. Recall that miners will eventually need to supplement their diminishing mining reward from new blocks. Additionally, as of today, the nodes have no built-in economic incentive to run other than securing the network and keeping the network’s overall value at its current level. Therefore, if new 2L were to be developed, they should be designed in a similar way like the lightning network, with the difference that the transaction processing revenue would not go to third party hubs but to the already integrated miners and nodes.
In other words, why do we need extra hubs if we have miners and nodes already? Let us consider the good elements from the lightning network, forget the unnecessary hubs, and focus on integrating the hubs’ responsibilities to already existing miner and node protocols. Why would we add extra elements to the system that already functions with the minimum number of elements possible? Hence, 2L are not necessarily undesirable as long as they do not unnecessarily introduce third party hubs.
Lastly, let us discuss partial on-chain scaling with the overall goal of network security. The network security we seek is the immutability and resilience via distributed elements within otherwise decentralized and distributed network. It is not inconceivable to scale bitcoin with bigger blocks as needed, when needed, to a certain degree. The thought process is the following:
  • (1) Block size limit:
We need some upper limit to avoid bloating the network with spam transactions. Okay, that makes sense. Now, what should this limit be? If we agree to disagree with small block size limit stuck at 1MB, and if we are fine with flexible block size limit increases (inspired by mining difficulty readjustments but on a longer time scale) or big block propositions (to be increased incrementally), what is holding us off next?
  • (2) Miner centralization:
Bigger blocks mean that more data will be transferred on the bitcoin network. Consequently, more bandwidth and data storage will be required. This will create decentralized miners instead of distributed ones. Yes, that is true. And it has already happened, due to the economy of scale, in particular the efficiency of grouping multiple miners in centralized facilities, and the creation of mining pools collectively and virtually connecting groups of miners not physically present in the same facility. These facilities tend to have huge overhead costs and the data storage and bandwidth increase costs are negligible in this context. The individual miners participating in mining pools will quite likely notice somewhat higher operational costs but allowing for additional revenue from integrated 2L described earlier will give them economic incentive to remain actively participating. Note that mining was never supposed to be strictly distributed and it was always at worst decentralized, as defined in the first section of this overview. To assure at best a distributed network, we have nodes.
  • (3) Node centralization:
Bigger blocks mean that more data will be transferred on the bitcoin network. Consequently, more bandwidth and data storage will be required. This will create decentralized nodes instead of distributed ones. Again, recall that we have a spectrum of decentralized and distributed networks in mind, not their absolutes. The concern about the node centralization (and the subsequent shift from distributed to decentralized network property) is valid if we only follow on-chain scaling to inconsiderate MB values. If addressed with the proposed integrated 2L that provides previously unseen economic incentives to participate in the network, this concern is less serious.
Furthermore, other methods to reduce bandwidth and storage needs can be used. A popular proposal is block pruning, which keeps only the most recent 550 blocks, and eventually deletes any older blocks (see https://news.bitcoin.com/pros-and-cons-on-bitcoin-block-pruning). Block pruning addresses storage needs and makes sure that not all nodes participating in the bitcoin network have to store all transactions that have ever been recorded on the blockchain. Some nodes storing all transactions are still necessary and they are called full nodes. Block pruning does not eliminate full nodes but it does indeed provide an economic incentive for the reduction and centralization (i.e. saving on storage costs). If addressed with the proposed integrated 2L that provides previously unseen economic incentives to participate in the network, this concern is less serious.
In other words, properly designed 2L should provide economic incentives for all nodes (full and pruned) to remain active and distributed. As of now, only miners earn revenue for participating. The lightning network proposes extra revenue for hubs. Instead, miner revenue could increase by processing 2L transactions as well, and full nodes could have an economic incentive as well. To mine, relatively high startup costs is necessary in order to get the most up to date mining hardware and proper cooling equipment. These have to be maintained and periodically upgraded. To run a full node, one needs only stable bandwidth and a sufficiently large storage, which can be expanded as needed, when needed. To run a full node, one needs only stable bandwidth and relatively small storage, which does not need to be expanded.
Keeping the distributed characteristic in mind, it would be much more secure for the bitcoin network if one could earn bitcoin by simply running a node, full or pruned. This could be integrated with a simple code change requiring each node to own a bitcoin address to which miners would send a fraction of processed transaction fees. Of course, pruned nodes would collectively receive the least transaction fee revenue (e.g. 10%), full nodes would collectively receive relatively larger transaction fee revenue (e.g. 20%), whereas mining facilities or mining pools would individually receive the largest transaction fee revenue (e.g. 70%) in addition to the full mining reward from newly mined blocks (i.e. 100%). This would assure that all nodes would remain relatively distributed. Hence, block pruning is a feasible solution.
However, in order to start pruning, one would have to have the full blockchain to begin with. As currently designed, downloading blockchain for the first time also audits previous blocks for accuracy, this can take days depending on one’s bandwidth. This online method is the only way to distribute the bitcoin blockchain and the bitcoin network so far. When the size of blockchain becomes a concern, a simpler distribution idea should be implemented offline. Consider distributions of Linux-based operating systems on USBs. Similarly, the full bitcoin blockchain up to a certain point can be distributed via easy-to-mail USBs. Note that even if we were to get the blockchain in bulk on such a USB, some form of a block audit would have to happen nevertheless.
A new form of checkpoint hashes could be added to the bitcoin code. For instance, each 2016 blocks (whenever the difficulty readjusts), all IDs from previous 2015 blocks would be hashed and recorded. That way, with our particular offline blockchain distribution, the first time user would have to audit only the key 2016th blocks, designed to occur on average once in roughly 2 weeks. This would significantly reduce bandwidth concerns for the auditing process because only each 2016th block would have to be uploaded online to be audited.
Overall, we are able to scale the bitcoin network via initial on-chain scaling approaches supplemented with off-chain scaling approaches. This upgrades the current network to a pruned peer-to-peer network with integrated 2L managed by miners and nodes who assure that the bitcoin network stays decentralized, distributed, immutable.
submitted by bit-architect to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

ขุดBitcoin EP.1 แค่เปิดคอมทิ้งไว้ ก็ได้เงิน - YouTube Cryptocurrency $BLOC Mining with Raspberry Pi3 SBC Bitcoin Madenciliği Yapıyoruz! İlk Mining Rig Kurulumu ... How To Pencil Mod OverClock Red/Blue Fury BitCoin ASIC What is Bitcoin Mining? (In Plain English) - YouTube

BTCMiner - Bitcoin Miner for ZTEX FPGA Boards. BTCMiner is an Open Source Bitcoin Miner for ZTEX USB-FPGA-Modules 1.15b and 1.15d and USB-FPGA-Modules 1.15x.The latter variant is optimized for cryptographic computations such as Bitcoin Mining and allows to build up FPGA clusters using standard components (USB cables and USB hubs). See also: Non-specialized hardware comparison Below are statistics about the Bitcoin Mining performance of ASIC hardware and only includes specialized equipment that has been shipped.. GPUs, CPUs and other hardware not specifically designed for Bitcoin mining can be found in the Non-specialized_hardware_comparison.. Notes: BTCMiner - Bitcoin Miner for ZTEX FPGA boards. BTCMiner is an Open Source Bitcoin Miner for ZTEX USB-FPGA Modules 1.15.These FPGA Boards contain an USB interface which is used for communication and programming (i.e. no JTAG programmer is required) and allows to build low cost FPGA clusters using standard components like USB hubs. Bitcoin mining software for ZTEX USB-FPGA Modules 1.15 . BTCMiner is an Open Source Bitcoin Miner for ZTEX USB-FPGA-Modules 1.15b and 1.15d and USB-FPGA-Modules 1.15x. The latter variant is optimized for cryptographic computations such as Bitcoin Mining and allows to build up FPGA clusters using standard components (USB cables and USB hubs). CGMiner ist der populärste GPU / FPGA / ASIC Miner. CGminer ist ein in C geschriebener Open-Source-GPU-Miner, der für verschiedene Plattformen wie Windows, Linux und OS X verfügbar ist. Etwas, das es extrem populär macht, ist die Tatsache, dass es auf dem ursprünglichen Code Cpu Miner basiert.

[index] [48575] [29660] [21408] [35340] [49024] [44360] [12940] [12272] [11293] [16322]

ขุดBitcoin EP.1 แค่เปิดคอมทิ้งไว้ ก็ได้เงิน - YouTube

แฟนเพจ https://www.facebook.com/SIAMw6Caster/ คลิปผมมีหลายคลิปนะ ดูเพริสให้ครบก่อน ... In this video i will show you how to start bitcoin mining by joining bitminter pool and download there software witch is the easiest to use. Bitminter Websit... For more info about Bitcoin wallet card, litecoin wallet card, kindly visit internet site here: http://www.cryptocoinwalletcards.com/ Tags: asic bitcoin mine... Check out more videos: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... Learn more about mining: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... EVERYONE loved this video: ... Start trading Bitcoin and cryptocurrency here: http://bit.ly/2Vptr2X Bitcoin is the first decentralized digital currency. All Bitcoin transactions are docume...

#