Antivirus Software Found PUA/OSX.CoinMiner.gblom Malware in my DigiByte-Qt Wallet
Recently started using TotalAV Antivirus software and it found PUA/OSX.CoinMiner Malware in my DigiByte-Qt, Bitcoin-Qt and Reddcoin-Qt wallets. Has anyone else experienced this? Any advice for reinstalling and keeping a secure desktop Qt wallet? Especially for DigiByte?
The transaction fee for a simple (250 bytes) Bitcoin Segwit transaction is already higher than the transaction fee to buy and sell one gold coin. The buy/sell spread for the physical (1 oz Krugerrand) gold coin is 8.3 %, and a 35 USD restaurant meal cost 4 USD in transaction fee, which is 11.4 %.
I remember paying a 4 USD transaction fee every time I bought a 35 USD meal at a local restaurant that accepts Bitcoin as payment. The transaction was small (250 bytes) and it still cost 4 USD when I selected the "normal" transaction fee in my Mycelium Android wallet app. That's an 11.4 % transaction fee because 4 / 35 = 0.1142. I checked what it would cost today to buy and then immediately sell a physical 1 oz Krugerrand gold coin again at a local physical gold coin merchant. I live in Sweden so the prices are in the SEK currency. It would currently cost 11 358 SEK to buy the physical gold coin and I would get 10 454 SEK if I sold it immediately again. That's a "transaction fee" (It's called "a spread") of 8.3 % because 904 / ( ( 11358 + 10454 ) / 2 ) = 0.0828. Static source: https://archive.is/dEadC Dynamic source: https://tavex.se/sv/kopa-guld/1-oz-sydafrikansk-krugerrand/ The current Bitcoin Segwit transaction fees are slightly lower but that's just temporarily so because the miners are finding blocks unusually fast this 2016-block period because they found blocks unusually slow in the previous 2016-block period, because many Bitcoin Segwit miners were attracted to mine Bitcoin Cash during BCC's higher profitability periods. The fees can reasonably be expected to rise to 4 USD / 250 bytes transaction soon again on the Bitcoin Segwit network. It can also be argued that it's even worse because in my real life example I paid two gold coin transaction fees but only one Bitcoin Segwit transaction fee. So it can be argued that a Bitcoin Segwit transaction is more than twice as expensive to execute than moving actual physical gold, in a normal restaurant meal situation. That's not what I would call a "Gold 2.0". A true "gold 2.0" would be cheaper to transact with than transacting with "gold 1.0". The best "gold 2.0" candidate currency (if you insist on focusing on this particular property of the currency) so far is Bitcoin Cash in my opinion. Tldr: To buy a 35 USD meal at a Bitcoin-accepting restaurant I pay a 11.4 % transaction fee (4 USD). To buy and then sell back a physical 1 oz Krugerrand gold coin at my local gold coin merchant store I pay an 8.3 % transaction fee (113 USD). So it's already more expensive to transact with Bitcoin Segwit coins than it is to transact with physical gold coins.
The transaction fee for a simple (250 bytes) Bitcoin Segwit transaction is already higher than the transaction fee to buy and sell one gold coin. The buy/sell spread for the physical (1 oz Krugerrand) gold coin is 8.3 %, and a 35 USD restaurant meal cost 4 USD in transaction fee, which is 1 /r/btc
2016 yılında Türkiye’de sektöre giriş yapan ve Türkiye odaklı çalışan ender bitcoin sitelerinden biri olan 1xbit, canlı bahisler, spor bahisleri, casino oyunları oynanan bir site. 30’dan fazla dil seçeneği bulunan sitenin aynı zaman mobil sürümü de var. Site Cascade Alt Yapısı Kullanıyor Curacao lisanı bulunan 1xbit bitcoin bahis sitesi, kullanıcıları tarafından eleştirilmeyen ya da kötü yorumlarla karşı karşıya kalmayan sitelerden. Sitenin güvenirliliği açısından Türk kullanıcılar yani bahisçiler öncelikle sitenin alt yapısını inceliyor, site cascade alt yapısı kullanıyor. Stenin Giriş Sayfasından Üye Olunuyor 1xbit bitcoin bahis sitesine üye olmak için giriş sayfasından üyelik butonuna tıklanması gerekli, buradan e-mail ya da tıklayarak üyelik seçeneği karşınıza çıkıyor, e-mail adresinizi girerek kullanıcı adı ve şifrenizi belirliyorsunuz, hesaba giriş yapılmasının ardından kişisel bilgilerin de güncellenmesi gerekiyor. Farklı Kripto Paralarda Sitede Kullanılıyor İstediğiniz saatte her gün siteye para yatırabilir ya da para çekebilirsiniz. Her ne kadar bitcoin para birimi ile oyun imkânı sunsa da 1xbit bitcoin bahis sitesinde Monero, Litecoin, Dash, ZCash, Dogecoin, GameCredits, NEM, Sibcoin, DijiByte, Bytecoin, Bitcoin Cash, Funcoin ve Ethereum Classic kripto para birimleri kullanılıyor. İlk üyelik bonusunun farklı işletildiği sitede bonusu kullanmak için oyunlar oynamak ve puanlar toplamak zorundasınız, bonus bundan sonra hesaba parça parça şekilde yatıyor, sitenin ilk üyelik bonusu beş yüz liraya kadar %100 oranı olarak belirtilmiş durumda. Bitcoincanlicasino aracılığı ile 1xbit bahis sitesine ve site ile ilgili güncel bilgiye ulaşabilirsiniz.
[Blockchain Classroom] Lesson 17：Blockchain transfers are actually charged by byte?[Blockchain Classroom] Lesson 17：Blockchain transfers are actually charged by byte?
We often make transfers between banks, and interbank transfer fees are generally charged according to a certain percentage of the transfer amount. For example, the inter-bank transfer fee is about 5 ‰, and the inter-region transfer fee is 1 ‰ -1%. In addition to the above-mentioned transaction fee, cross-border transfers also need to pay 50-200 yuan telegram fee per transfer. The transfer fee between blockchain assets has nothing to do with the amount of the transfer, and it is charged by byte. Taking bitcoin transfer as an example, a common transaction occupies about 250 bytes, and the handling fee is about 0.001-0.0015 Bitcoin (about 20-30 yuan). If you need to transfer to multiple Bitcoin addresses at the same time in a transaction, the exchange will occupy a larger number of bytes, so you need to pay a few extra fees before there are miners to package your transactions in time. Even so, from the perspect of transfer costs, there is still a great advantage in using the blockchain for cross-border transfers.
A brief teardown of some of the flaws in the Lightning Network white paper
This post will perforce be quick and sloppy, because I have other things to do. But a recent comment provoked me to re-read the Lightning white paper to remind myself of the myriad flaws in it, so I decided to at least begin a debunking. When I first read the Lightning white paper back in early 2016, the sheer audacity of the author's preposterous claims and their failure to understand basic principles of the Satoshi paper just offended the living shit out of me. I presumed - incorrectly - that the Lightning paper would be soon torn to shreds through peer review. However Core was successful in suppressing peer review of the paper, and instead inserted Lighting as their end-all be-all scaling plan for Bitcoin. I'm sorry I didn't post this in 2016, but better later than never. Let's start with the abstract.
The bitcoin protocol can encompass the global financial transaction volume in all electronic payment systems today, without a single custodial third party holding funds or requiring participants to have anything more than a computer using a broadband connection.
Well now, that's an awfully gigantic claim for someone that hasn't even written a single line of code as a proof of concept don't you think? This is what's called "overpromising," the Nirvana fallacy, or more appropriately, "vaporware" - that is to say, a pie-in-the-sky software promise intended to derail progress on alternatives. In the very first sentence, the authors claim that they can scale Bitcoin to support every transaction that ever happens, from micropayments to multibillion dollar transfers, with no custodial risk, on a simple computer with nothing more than broadband. It will be perfect. Honestly everyone should have put the paper down at the first sentence, but let's go on.
A decentralized system is proposed
The authors claim that the system proposed is decentralized, but without even a single line of code (and indeed no solution to the problem they claim is the issue, more on that later) they have zero defense of this claim. In fact, the only known solution to the problem that Lightning cannot solve is centralized hubs. We'll get back to this.
whereby transactions are sent over a network of micropayment channels (a.k.a. payment channels or transaction channels) whose transfer of value occurs off-blockchain. If Bitcoin transactions can be signed with a new sighash type that addresses malleability, these transfers may occur between untrusted parties along the transfer route by contracts which, in the event of uncooperative or hostile participants, are enforceable via broadcast over the bitcoin blockchain in the event of uncooperative or hostile participants, through a series of decrementing timelocks
So right here in the abstract we have the promise: "support the entire world's transaction needs on a measly computer with just broadband, totally decentralized, and... (drum roll please) all that's missing is Segwit." Yeah right. Let's continue. First sentence of the paper itself reads:
The Bitcoin blockchain holds great promise for distributed ledgers, but the blockchain as a payment platform, by itself, cannot cover the world’s commerce anytime in the near future.
So the authors have constructed a false problem they claim to solve: scaling Bitcoin to cover every transaction on Earth. Now, that would be neato if it worked (it doesn't) but really, this is like Amerigo Vespucci claiming that the problem with boats is that the sails aren't big enough to carry it to the moon. We aren't ready for that part yet. . In infotech we have a saying, "crawl, walk, run." Lightning's authors are going to ignore "walking" and go from crawling to lightspeed. Using the logic of this first sentence, Visa never should have rolled out its original paper-based credit cards, because "obviously they can't scale to solve the whole world's financial needs." Again, your bullshit detector should be lighting up. Next sentence. So why can't Bitcoin cover all the world's financial transactions?
The blockchain is a gossip protocol whereby all state modifications to the ledger are broadcast to all participants. It is through this “gossip protocol” that consensus of the state, everyone’s balances, is agreed upon.
Got it. The problem is the "gossip protocol." That's bad because...
If each node in the bitcoin network must know about every single transaction that occurs globally, that may create a significant drag on the ability of the network to encompass all global financial transactions
OK. The problem with Bitcoin, according to the author, is that since every node must know the current state of the network, it won't scale. We'll get back to this bit later, because this is the crux: Lightning has the same problem, only worse. Now the authors take a break in the discussion to create a false premise surrounding the Visa network:
The payment network Visa achieved 47,000 peak transactions per second (tps) on its network during the 2013 holidays, and currently averages hundreds of millions per day. Currently, Bitcoin supports less than 7 transactions per second with a 1 megabyte block limit. If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly 8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average. Continuously, that would be over 400 terabytes of data per year.
I'll just point out that Visa itself cannot sustain 47K tpscontinuously, as a reminder to everyone that the author is deliberately inflating numbers to make them seem more scary. Again, is your bullshit detector going off yet? Now we get to the hard-sell:
Clearly, achieving Visa-like capacity on the Bitcoin network isn’t feasible today.
So the author deliberately inflates Visa's capabilities then uses that to say clearly it just can't be done. But really, Visa's actual steady-state load can be accomplished in roughly 500MB blocks - which actually is feasible, or nearly so, today. 500MB every ten minutes is actually a small load of data for a decent-sized business. There are thousands of companies that could quite easily support such a load. And that's setting aside the point that we took 7 years to get to 1MB, so it's unlikely that we'll need 500X that capacity "in the near future" or "today" as the authors keep asserting.
No home computer in the world can operate with that kind of bandwidth and storage.
whoopsie!! Did he say, home computer?? Since when did ordinary Bitcoin users have to keep the whole blockchain on their home computers? Have the authors of the Lightning white paper ever read the Satoshi white paper, which explains that this is not the desired model in Section 8? Clearly the Lightning authors are expecting their readers to be ignorant of the intended design of the Bitcoin network. This is a classic example of inserting a statement that the reader is unlikely to challenge, which completely distorts the discussion. Almost nobody needs to run a fullnode on their home computer! Read the Satoshi paper!
If Bitcoin is to replace all electronic payments in the future, and not just Visa, it would result in outright collapse of the Bitcoin network
Really? Is that so? Isn't the real question how fast will Bitcoin reach these levels of adoption? Isn't the author simply making an assumption that adoption will outpace advances in hardware and software, based on using wildly inflated throughput numbers (47K tps) in the first place? But no, the author makes an unfounded, unsupportable, incorrect blanket assertion that -- even in the future -- trying to scale up onchain will be the death of the entire system.
or at best, extreme centralization of Bitcoin nodes and miners to the only ones who could afford it.
Again, that depends on when this goes down. If Bitcoin grows at roughly the rate of advancement in hardware and software, then the cost to . independently validate transactions - something no individual user needs to do in the first place - actually stays perfectly flat. But the best part is that his statement:
centralization of Bitcoin nodes and miners to the only ones who could afford it
Ummm... mining and independent validation has always been limited to those who can afford it. What big-blockers know is that the trick isn't trying to make Bitcoin so tiny that farmers in sub-Saharan Africa can "validate" the blockchain on a $0.01 computer, but rather to expand adoption so greatly that they never have to independently validate it. Running scalable validation nodes at home is dumb. But, there are already millions of people with synchronous gigabit internet at home and more than enough wealth to afford a beefy home computer. The problem is that none of them are using Bitcoin. Adoption is the key!
This centralization would then defeat aspects of network decentralization that make Bitcoin secure, as the ability for entities to validate the chain is what allows Bitcoin to ensure ledger accuracy and security
Here the author throws a red herring across the trail for gullible readers. It is not my ability to validate the chain that produces trustlessness. If that was the case, there would be no need for miners. Users would simply accept or not accept other people's transactions based on their software's interpretation of validity. The Satoshi paper makes it quite clear where trustlessness is born: it is in the incentives that enforce honest mining of an uncorrupted chain. In other words, I don't have to validate the chain, but Poloniex does. And, newsflash, big companies can very easily afford big validation nodes. "$20K nodes" is a bullshit number I hear thrown around a lot. There are literally hundreds of thousands of companies that can easily afford $20K nodes in the event that Bitcoin becomes "bigger than Visa." Again, the trick is getting many companies in every jurisdiction in the world onto the blockchain. Then no individuals ever need to worry about censorship. Adoption! let's continue. I'll skip a few sentences.
Extremely large blocks, for example in the above case of 8 gigabytes every 10 minutes on average, would imply that only a few parties would be able to do block validation
If this were written in 1997 it would have read
Extremely large blocks, for example in the above case of 8 megabytes every 10 minutes on average, would imply that only a few parties would be able to do block validation
Obviously, we are processing 8MB blocks today. The real question is how long before we get there. At current rates of adoption, we'll all be fucking dead before anyone mines an 8GB block. And remember, 8GB was the number the authors cooked up. Even Visa can't handle that load, today, continuously.
This creates a great possibility that entities will end up trusting centralized parties. Having privileged, trusted parties creates a social trap whereby the central party will not act in the interest of an individual (principalagent problem), e.g. rentierism by charging higher fees to mitigate the incentive to act dishonestly. In extreme cases, this manifests as individuals sending funds to centralized trusted custodians who have full custody of customers’ funds. Such arrangements, as are common today, create severe counterparty risk. A prerequisite to prevent that kind of centralization from occurring would require the ability for bitcoin to be validated by a single consumer-level computer on a home broadband connection.
Here the author (using his wildly inflated requirement of 8GB blocks) creates a cloud of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that "Bitcoin will fail if it succeeds" - and the solution is, as any UASFer will tell you, that everyone needs to validate the chain on a weak fullnode running on a cheap computer with average internet connectivity. How's the bullshit detector going? Now the authors make a head-fake in the direction of honesty:
While it is possible that Moore’s Law will continue indefinitely, and the computational capacity for nodes to cost-effectively compute multigigabyte blocks may exist in the future, it is not a certainty.
Certainty? No. But, we should point out, the capacity to actually approach Visa is already at hand and in the next ten years is a near certainty in fact. But, surely, the solution that the authors propose is "around the corner" (- Luke-jr) ... /s . No, folks. Bigger blocks are the closest thing to "scaling certainty" that we have. More coming up....
To achieve much higher than 47,000 transactions per second using Bitcoin requires conducting transactions off the Bitcoin blockchain itself.
Now we get to the meat of the propaganda. To reach a number that Visa itself cannot sustain will "never" be possible on a blockchain. NEVER?? That's just false. In fact, I'll go on record as saying that Bitcoin will hit Visa-like levels of throughput onchain before Lightning Network ever meets the specification announced in this white paper.
It would be even better if the bitcoin network supported a near-unlimited number of transactions per second with extremely low fees for micropayments.
Yes, and it would also be even better if we had fusion and jetpacks. The thing is, these things that are promised as having been solved... have not been solved and no solution is in sight.
Many micropayments can be sent sequentially between two parties to enable any size of payments.
No, this is plain false. Once a channel's funds have been pushed to one side of the channel, no more micropayments in that direction can be made. This is called channel exhaustion and is one of the many unsolved problems of Lightning Network. But here the authors declare it as a solved problem. That's just false.
Micropayments would enable unbunding, less trust and commodification of services, such as payments for per-megabyte internet service. To be able to achieve these micropayment use cases, however, would require severely reducing the amount of transactions that end up being broadcast on the global Bitcoin blockchain
Now I'm confused. Is Lightning a solution for all the world's financial transactions or is it a solution for micropayments for things like pay-per-megabyte internet?
While it is possible to scale at a small level, it is absolutely not possible to handle a large amount of micropayments on the network or to encompass all global transactions.
There it is again, the promise that Lightning will "encompass all global transactions." Bullshit detector is now pegged in the red.
For bitcoin to succeed, it requires confidence that if it were to become extremely popular, its current advantages stemming from decentralization will continue to exist. In order for people today to believe that Bitcoin will work tomorrow, Bitcoin needs to resolve the issue of block size centralization effects; large blocks implicitly create trusted custodians and significantly higher fees. . (emphasis mine)
"Large" is a term of art which means "be afraid." In 1997, 8MB would have been an unthinkably large block. Now we run them live in production without breaking a sweat. "Large" is a number that changes over time. . By the time Bitcoin reaches "Visa-like levels of adoption" it's very likely that what we consider "large" today (32MB?) will seem absolutely puny. As someone who first started programming on a computer that had what was at the time industry-leading 64KB of RAM (after expanding the memory with an extra 16K add-on card) and a pair of 144KB floppy disks, all I can tell you is that humans are profoundly bad at estimating compounding effects and the author of the Lightning paper is flat-out banking on this to sell his snake oil. Now things are about to get really, really good.
A Network of Micropayment Channels Can Solve Scalability “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”
Here's where the formal line by line breakdown will come to an end, because this is where the trap the Lightning authors have set will close on them. Let's just read a bit further:
The above quote questions the relevance of unobserved events —if nobody hears the tree fall, whether it made a sound or not is of no consequence. Similarly, in the blockchain, if only two participants care about an everyday recurring transaction, it’s not necessary for all other nodes in the bitcoin network to know about that transaction
Here and elsewhere the author of the paper is implying that two parties can transact between them without having to announce the state of their channel to anyone else. We see this trope repeated time and time again by LN shills. "Not everyone in the world needs to know about my coffee transaction" they say, as if programmed. To see the obvious, glaring defect here requires an understanding of what Lightning Network purports to be able to do, one day, if it's ever finished. Payment channels, which Lightning is based on, have been around since Satoshi and are nothing new at all. It is and has always been possible to create a payment channel with your coffee shop, put $50 in it, and pay it out over a period of time until it's depleted and the coffee shop owner closes the channel. That's not rocket science, that's original Bitcoin. What Lightning purports to be able to do is to allow you to route a payment to someone else by using the funds in your coffee shop channel. IN this model, lets suppose Alice is the customer and Bob is the shop. Let's also suppose that Charlie is a customer of Dave's coffee shop. Ernie is a customer of both Bob and Dave's shop. Now, Alice would like to send money to Charlie. This could be accomplished by:
Alice moves funds to Bob
Bob moves funds to Ernie
Ernie moves funds to Dave
Dave moves funds to Charlie
or more simply, A-B-E-D-C Here's the catch. To pull this off, Alice has to be able to find the route to Charlie. This means that B-C-E and D all have to be online. So first off, all parties to a transaction and in a route must be online and we must know their current online status to even begin the process. Again: to use Lightning as described in its white paper requires everyone to always be online. If we accept centralized routing hubs, then only the hubs need to be online, but Lightning proposed to be decentralized, which means, essentially, everyone needs to always be online. Next, we need to know there are enough funds in all channels to perform the routing. Let's say Alice has $100 in her channel with Bob and wants to send this to Charlie. But Bob has only $5 in his channel with Ernie. sad trombone . The maximum that the route can support is $5. (Edit: not quite right, I cleaned this up here.) Notice something? Alice has to know the state of every channel through which she intends to route funds. When the author claims
if only two participants care about an everyday recurring transaction, it’s not necessary for all other nodes in the bitcoin network to know about that transaction
That's true -- unless you want to use the Lightning Network to route funds - and routing funds is the whole point. Otherwise, Lightning is just another word for "payment channels." The whole magic that they promised was using micropayments to route money anywhere. If you want to route funds, then you absolutely need to know the state of these channels. Which ones? That's the kicker - you essentially have to know all of them, to find the best route - and, sadly - it might be the case that no route is available - which requires an exhaustive search. And in fact, here we are over 18 months since this paper was published, and guess what? The problem of the "gossip protocol" - the very Achille's Heel of Bitcoin according to the author - has been solved with drum roll please --- the gossip protocol. (more info here) Because, when you break it down, in order for Alice to find that route to Charlie, she has to know the complete, current state of Bob-Ernie, Ernie-Dave, and Charlie-Dave. IF the Lightning Network doesn't keep *every participant up to date with the latest network state, it can't find a route. So the solution to the gossip protocol is in fact the gossip protocol. And - folks - this isn't news. Here's a post from ONE YEAR AGO explaining this very problem. But wait. It gets worse.... Let's circle around to the beginning. The whole point of Lightning, in a nutshell, can be described as fixing "Bitcoin can't scale because every node needs to know every transaction." It is true that every node needs to know every transaction. However: because we read the Satoshi white paper we know that not every user needs to run a node to validate his transactions. End-users should use SPV, which do not need to be kept up to date on everyone else's transactions. So, with onchain Bitcoin, you have something on the order of 10K "nodes" (validation nodes and miners) that must receive the "gossip" and the other million or so users just connect and disconnect when they need to transact. This scales. In contrast, with Lightning, every user needs to receive the "gossip." This does not scale. Note something else? Lightning purports to be an excellent solution to "streaming micropayments." But such micropayments would result in literally millions or billions of continuous state-changes to the network. There's no way to "gossip" millions of micropayment streams each creating millions of tiny transactions. Now, there is a way to make Lightning scale. It's called the "routing hub." In this model, end-users don't need to know the state of the network. Instead, they will form channels with trusted hubs who will perform the routing on their behalf. A simple example illustrates. IN our previous example, Alice wants to send money to Charlie, but has to find a route to him. An easy solution is to insert Frank. Frank holds 100K btc and can form bidirectional channels with Alice, Bob, Charlie, Dave, Ernie, and most everyone else too. By doing so, he places himself in the middle of a routing network, and then all payments come through Frank. Note that the only barrier to creating channels is capital. Lightning will scale, if we include highly-capitalized hubs as middlemen for everyone else to connect to. If the flaw here is not obvious then someone else can explain. Well. As Mark Twain once quipped, "if I had more time I would have written a shorter letter." I'll stop here. Hopefully this goes at least part of the way towards helping the community understand just how toxic and deceptive this white paper was to the community. Everyone on the Segwit chain has bet the entire future of Segwit-enabled Bitcoin on this unworkable house-of-cards sham. The rest of us, well, we took evasive action, and are just waiting for the rest of the gullible, brainwashed masses to wake up to their error, if they ever do. H/T: jonald_fyookball for provoking this Edit: fixed wrong names in my A-B-C-D-E example; formatting
Why Verge Needs DigiShield NOW! And Why DigiByte Is SAFE!
Hello everyone, I’m back! Someone asked a question recently on what exactly happened to XVG – Verge and if this could be a problem for DGB – DigiByte - Here: DigiByte vs Verge It was a great question and there have been people stating that this cannot be a problem for us because of DigiShield etc… with not much explanation after that. I was curious and did a bit more investigating to figure out what happened and why exactly it is that we are safe. So take a read.
Some Information on Verge
Verge was founded in 2014 with code based on DogeCoin, it was initially named DogeCoinDark, it later was renamed Verge XVG in 2016. Verge has 5 mining algorithms as does DigiByte. Those being:
However, unlike DigiByte those algorithms do not run side by side. On Verge one block can only be mined by a single algorithm at any time. This means that each algorithm takes turns mining the chain.
Prior to the latest fork there was not a single line of code that forced any algo rotation. They all run in parallel but of course in the end only one block can be accepted at given height which is obvious. After the fork algo rotation is forced so only 6 blocks with the same algo out of any 10 blocks can be accepted. - srgn_
Mining Verge and The Exploit
What happened then was not a 51% attack per say, but the attacker did end up mining 99% of all new blocks so in fact he did have power of over 51% of the chain. The way that Verge is mined allowed for a timestamp exploit. Every block that is mined is dependent on the previous blocks for determining the algorithm to be used (this is part of the exploit). Also, their mining difficulty is adjusted every block (which last 30 seconds also part of the exploit). Algorithms are not picked but in fact as stated previously compete with one another. As for difficulty:
Difficulty is calculated by a version of DGW which is based on timestamps of last 12 blocks mined by the same algo. - srgn_
This kind of bug is very serious and at the foundation of Verge’s codebase. In fact, in order to fix it a fork is needed, either hard fork or soft fork! What happened was that the hacker managed to change the time stamps on his blocks. He introduced a pair of false blocks. One which showed that the scrypt mining algorithm had been previously used, about 26 mins before, and then a second block which was mined with scrypt. The chain is set up so that it goes through the 5 different algorithms. So, the first false block shows the chain that the scrypt algorithm had been used in the recent past. This tricks it into thinking that the next algorithm to be used is scrypt. In this way, he was essentially able to mine 99% of all blocks.
Pairs of blocks are used to lower the difficulty but they need to be mined in certain order so they can pass the check of median timestamp of last 11 blocks which is performed in CBlock::AcceptBlock(). There is no tricking anything into thinking that the next algo should be x because there is no algo picking. They all just run and mine blocks constantly. There is only lowering the difficulty, passing the checks so the chain is valid and accepting this chain over chains mined by other algos. - segn_
Here is a snippet of code for what the time stamps on the blocks would look like:
SetBestChain: new best=00000000049c2d3329a3 height=2009406 trust=2009407 date=04/04/18 13:50:09 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED (scrypt) SetBestChain: new best=000000000a307b54dfcf height=2009407 trust=2009408 date=04/04/18 12:16:51 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED (scrypt) SetBestChain: new best=00000000196f03f5727e height=2009408 trust=2009409 date=04/04/18 13:50:10 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED (scrypt) SetBestChain: new best=0000000010b42973b6ec height=2009409 trust=2009410 date=04/04/18 12:16:52 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED (scrypt) SetBestChain: new best=000000000e0655294c73 height=2009410 trust=2009411 date=04/04/18 12:16:53 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED (scrypt)
Here’s the first falsified block that was introduced into the XVG chain – Verge-Blockchain.info As you can see there is the first fake block with a time stamp of 13:50:09 for example and the next is set to 12:15:51, the following two blocks are also a fraudulent pair and note that the next block is set to 12:16:52. So essentially, he was able to mine whole blocks - 1 second per block!
This exploit was brought to public attention by ocminer on the bitcointalk forums. It seems the person was a mining pool administrator and noticed the problem after miners on the pool started to complain about a potential bug. What happened next was that Verge developers pushed out a “fix” but in fact did not really fix the issue. What they did was simply diminish the time frame in which the blocks can be mined. The attack still was exploitable and the attacker even went on to try it again! “The background is that the "fix" promoted by the devs simply won't fix the problem. It will just make the timeframe smaller in which the blocks can be mined / spoofed and the attack will still work, just be a bit slower.” - ocminer Ocminer then cited DigiShield as a real fix to the issue! Stating that the fix should also stipulate that a single algo can only be used X amount of times and not be dependent on when the algo was last used. He even said that DigiByte and Myriad had the same problems and we fixed them! He cited this github repo for DigiByte:
It seems that the reason that this exploit was so lucrative was because the difficulty adjustment parameters were not enough to reduce the rewards the attacker recieved. Had the rewards per block adjusted at reasonable rate like we do in DGB then at least the rewards would have dropped significantly per block. The attacker was able to make off with around 60 million Verge which equals about 3.6 million dollars per today’s prices. The exploit used by the attacker depended on the fact that time stamps could be falsified firstly and secondly that the difficulty retargeting parameters were inadequate. Let’s cover how DigiShield works more in detail. One of the DigiByte devs gave us this post about 4 years ago now, and the topic deserves revisiting and updates! I had a hard time finding good new resources and information on the details of DigiShield so I hope you’ll appreciate this review! This is everything I found for now that I could understand hopefully I get more information later and I’ll update this post. Let’s go over some stuff on difficulty first then I’ll try giving you a way to visualise the way these systems work. First you have to understand that mining difficulty changes over time; it has to! Look at Bitcoin’s difficulty for example – Bitcoin difficulty over the past five months. As I covered in another post (An Introduction to DigiByte Difficulty in Bitcoin is readjusted every 2016 blocks which each last about 10 mins each. This can play out over a span of 2 weeks, and that’s why you see Bitcoin’s difficulty graph as a step graph. In general, the hash power in the network increases over time as more people want to mine Bitcoin and thus the difficulty must also increase so that rewards are proportional. The problem with non-dynamic difficulty adjustment is that it allows for pools of miners and or single entities to come into smaller coins and mine them continuously, they essentially get “free” or easily mined coins as the difficulty has not had time to adjust. This is not really a problem for Bitcoin or other large coins as they always have a lot of miners running on their chains but for smaller coins and a few years ago in crypto basically any coin other than Bitcoin was vulnerable. Once the miners had gotten their “free coins” they could then dump the chain and go mine something else – because the difficulty had adjusted. Often chains were left frozen or with very high fees and slow processing times as there was not enough hash power to mine the transactions. This was a big problem in the beginning with DigiByte and almost even killed DogeCoin. This is where our brilliant developers came in and created DigiShield (first known as MultiShield). These three articles are where most of my information came from for DigiShield I had to reread a the first one a few times to understand so please correct me if I make any mistakes! They are in order from most recent to oldest and also in order of relevance.
DigiShield is a system whereby the difficulty for mining DigiByte is adjusted dynamically. Every single block each at 15 seconds has difficulty adjusted for the available hashing power. This means that difficulty in DigiByte is as close as we can get to real time! There are other methods for adjusting difficulty, the first being the Bitcoin/Litecoin method (a moving average calculated every X number of blocks) then the Kimoto Gravity Well is another. The reason that DigiShield is so great is because the parameters are just right for the difficulty to be able to rise and fall in proportion to the amount of hash power available. Note that Verge used a difficulty adjustment protocol more similar to that of DigiByte than Bitcoin. Difficulty was adjusted every block at 30 seconds. So why was Verge vulnerable to this attack? As I stated before Verge had a bug that allowed for firstly the manipulation of time stamps, and secondly did not adjust difficulty ideally. You have to try to imagine that difficulty adjustment chases hashing power. This is because the hashing power on a chain can be seen as the “input” and the difficulty adjustment as the corresponding output. The adjustment or output created is thus dependent on the amount of hashing power input. DigiShield was designed so that increases in mining difficulty are slightly harder to result than decreases in mining difficulty. This asymmetrical approach allows for mining to be more stable on DigiByte than other coins who use a symmetrical approach. It is a very delicate balancing act which requires the right approach or else the system breaks! Either the chain may freeze if hash power increases and then dumps or mining rewards are too high because the difficulty is not set high enough! If you’ve ever taken any physics courses maybe one way you can understand DigiShield is if I were to define it as a dynamic asymmetrical oscillation dampener. What does this mean? Let’s cover it in simple terms, it’s difficult to understand and for me it was easier to visualise. Imagine something like this, click on it it’s a video: Caravan Weight Distribution – made easy. This is not a perfect analogy to what DigiShield does but I’ll explain my idea. The input (hashing power) and the output (difficulty adjustment) both result in oscillations of the mining reward. These two variables are what controls mining rewards! So that caravan shaking violently back and forth imagine those are mining rewards, the weights are the parameters used for difficulty adjustment and the man’s hand pushing on the system is the hashing power. Mining rewards move back and forth (up and down) depending on the weight distribution (difficulty adjustment parameters) and the strength of the push (the amount of hashing power input to the system). Here is a quote from the dev’s article. “The secret to DigiShield is an asymmetrical approach to difficulty re-targeting. With DigiShield, the difficulty is allowed to decrease in larger movements than it is allowed to increase from block to block. This keeps a blockchain from getting "stuck" i.e., not finding the next block for several hours following a major drop in the net hash of coin. It is all a balancing act. You need to allow the difficulty to increase enough between blocks to catch up to a sudden spike in net hash, but not enough to accidentally send the difficulty sky high when two miners get lucky and find blocks back to back.” AND to top it all off the solution to Verge’s time stamp manipulation bug is RIGHT HERE in DigiShield again! This was patched and in Digishield v3 problems #7 Here’s a direct quote: “Most DigiShield v3 implementations do not get data from the most recent blocks, but begin the averaging at the MTP, which is typically 6 blocks in the past. This is ostensibly done to prevent timestamp manipulation of the difficulty.” Moreover, DigiShield does not allow for one algorithm to mine more than 5 blocks in a row. If the next block comes in on the same algorithm then it would be blocked and would be handed off to the next algorithm. DigiShield is a beautiful delicate yet robust system designed to prevent abuse and allow stability in mining! Many coins have adopted out technology!
Verge Needs DigiShield NOW!
The attacker has been identified as IDCToken on the bitcointalk forums. He posted recently that there are two more exploits still available in Verge which would allow for similar attacks! He said this: “Can confirm it is still exploitable, will not abuse it futher myself but fix this problem immediately I'll give Verge some hours to solve this otherwise I'll make this public and another unpatchable problem.” - IDCToken DigiShield could have stopped the time stamp manipulation exploit, and stopped the attacker from getting unjust rewards! Maybe a look at Verge’s difficulty chart might give a good idea of what 1 single person was able to do to a coin worth about 1 billion dollars.
Edit - Made a few mistakes in understanding how Verge is mined I've updated the post and left the mistakes visible. Nothing else is changed and my point still stands Verge could stand to gain something from adopting DigiShield! Hi, I hope you’ve enjoyed my article! I tried to learn as much as I could on DigiShield because I thought it was an interesting question and to help put together our DGB paper! hopefully I made no mistakes and if I did please let me know. -Dereck de Mézquita I'm a student typing this stuff on my free time, help me pay for school? Thank you! D64fAFQvJMhrBUNYpqUKQjqKrMLu76j24g https://digiexplorer.info/address/D64fAFQvJMhrBUNYpqUKQjqKrMLu76j24g
Do not touch your EOS on any chain! Beware of forks.
Technically, everyone can bootstrap a mainnet from the genesis. There seems to be a EOS classic net, which is also subject to launch (if it isn't a scam). REMEMBER TO NOT ENTER YOUR KEYS IN ANY WALLET UNTIL AT LEAST 5 BLOCK PRODUCERS SEE IT AS SAFE! But there's another more unknown attack vector at this time - replay attacks. Lets explain this with an example. Over a year ago, Ethereum Classic (ETC) was created by users who rejected the DAO hardfork by the ETH Foundation. Many users didn't support ETC so they sold it as soon as they could. However, transactions they did on the ETC chain were also valid on the ETH network. If you sent an attacker your ETC, he could rebroadcast your transaction on the ETH network and get your ETH too. The same could now happen to EOS too (as EOS Classic is basicly a fork from block 0). So please, once more, keep away of any forks and airdrops until the mainnet has 15% votes and you can either transfer them to a new address or add additional security measures in place. PS: It is actually possible to prevent this by changing something regarding how transactions are made (e.g. the version byte in bitcoin is used often for forks). I'm not aware of any replay protection on EOS classic through.
DigiByte welcomes those fleeing ERC20 Tokens - SEC Ethereum Ruling
The SEC is supposed to meet today regarding whether or not Ethereum should be deemed a security. If ETH is deemed a security, I expect many to flee from the plethora of scam tokens that have invaded the crypto space. If you're looking for a new home, give strong consideration to DigiByte. Like Bitcoin, it's a traditional PoW UTXO blockchain, but DigiByte's blockchain is actually longer, faster, and more scaleable. Check us out, you won't be disappointed. We're truly open source and decentralized. Since we're not a company, all the folks around here are just passionate volunteers who believe in the longterm viability of cryptocurrency. Welcome aboard! EDIT: Sounds like the SEC is just meeting today to discuss ETH's potential legal status, but they're not yet ruling on it.
Solution to 1 Satoshi / Byte Fee Issue in Ledger Nano S (Technical)
I believe I found the issue to BCH transactions being delayed when sending 1 Satoshi / Byte transactions using the Ledger Nano S. I've described the solution in this comment. I'm putting this out here just in case someone is able to create a patch which btchip could integrate.
As per usual the 3 months has been all hand-on-deck, helping to bring further adoption utilities to Groestlcoin. The markets have been red but as always that doesn't stop the show from going on with regards to the development since the last release update on 24th September. Here's a recap of what has happened so far:
Groestlcoin was added to Changelly. One of the leading Crypto-to-Crypto exchanges that offer some of the best rates on the market – You can also buy with a debit/credit card too and you can buy/sell Groestlcoin directly from your Coinomi wallet, from the website https://groestlcoin.org#exchanges, and you can enable Changelly swaps on your GRSPay stores!
Groestlcoin was added to the JAXX Liberty wallet! One of the leading multi-crypto wallets in the stores. Safely store your GRS on Android, iOS, Mac OS X, Windows, Linux or Google Chrome. With Jaxx Liberty you are always in control of your private keys, and you can use your wallet on multiple devices. Note: This directly replaces the deprecated JS Wallet which was of a similar (but older) codebase.
Groestlcoin was integrated into AtomicPay – A decentralised cryptocurrency payment processor that eliminates the involvement of a third-party gateway, allowing merchants to accept payments directly from their customers, with over 2500 merchants already signed up, a public release is set for Mid-January 2019.
Huobi officially opened trading for Groestlcoin to Korean customers! And in addition, a giveaway of up to 10,000 GRS was held!
Unocoin ATMs started supporting Groestlcoin at their ATMs, granting the Indian community the ability to withdraw (For INR) and deposit Groestlcoin into their UnoDax account. Groestlcoin $GRS is available on #Unodax exchange with the following pairs: $INR, $TUSD, $BTC.
Groestlcoin was listed on SWFT BLOCKCHAIN, giving you more opportunities to swap your other altcoins with Groestlcoin or vice versa, quickly and securely.
Groestlcoin was added to One Page Exchange! Where you can buy and sell Groestlcoin quickly and easily without any form of registration!
CryptoWolf started accepting VISA, Mastercard and Maesto to buy cryptocurrencies from the CryptoWolf exchange in EUR or USD! Providing a new FIAT gateway to buy Groestlcoin.
Groestlcoin has been added to CoinZark (Formally VertPig) for fast and efficient Crypto-to-Crypto swaps at very competitive rates using exchange aggregates.
Groestlcoin was added to PungoWallet! Pungo wallet is built to showcase the features that anyone can achieve with blockchain technology. They have built a set of modular solutions that allow any company to build a blockchain layer to interact with traditional software.
Groestlcoin was added to StealthEX, offering anonymous cryptocurrency swaps with tens of other coins without disclosing any personal information. Just choose the pairs, enter your address, send your coins and receive your funds!
Groestlcoin joined InvestFeed, granting a company listing and blue verified badge.
Groestlcoin was officially added to Blockfolio Signals – For those of you that use Blockfolio, you can keep updated with all the latest news straight from the app, via the Signals icon.
Groestlcoin has been added to DeltaDirect – Those using Delta can now stay up-to-date with the latest Groestlcoin news, straight from your Delta portfolio tracker app.
Groestlcoin has been added to CoinGecko Beam – Where you can easily follow us and receive updates without searching through social media.
Groestlcoin is now live on BitUniverse Link! All of the latest Groestlcoin updates and news will be directly available on BItUniverse.
Groestlcoin was added to NovaExchange! Launched in 2016 and operating from Sweden, users can trade over 300 different digital assets.
As of the latest version of the Trezor Model T firmware, Groestlcoin is now officially supported! The Trezor Model T is the next-generation cryptocurrency hardware wallet, designed to be your universal vault for all of your digital assets. Store and encrypt your coins, passwords and other digital keys with confidence. The Trezor Model T now supports over 500 cryptocurrencies.
Blockbook MainNet & TestNet Block Explorer
Blockbook is an open-source Groestlcoin blockchain explorer with complete REST and websocket APIs that can be used for writing web wallets and other apps that need more advanced blockchain queries than provided by groestlcoind RPC. Blockbook REST API provides you with a convenient, powerful and simple way to read data from the groestlcoin network and with it, build your own services.
Support to broadcast transactions online. Broadcast a raw transaction in hex format over the Groestlcoin network.
Supports every web browser
API – Complete REST and Websocket API for querying blocks, transactions and addresses; and receiving live updates
Light – Thin data model using groestlcoind RPC interface to validate blockchain information. Fast groestlcoind blockchain synchronisation (~1hrs for the entire mainnet), using RocksDB for data storage and optionally raw groestlcoind data files processing.
Exhaustive – Reports on double spend attempts, outpoint confirmations, outputs spend status reports. Input and Output hyperlinks in transactions. Extended view in transactions to show advanced details.
Open Source, written in the Go programming language.
Groestlcoin has been added to the Edge wallet for Android and iOS. Edge wallet is secure, private and intuitive. By including support for ShapeShift, Simplex and Changelly, Edge allows you to seamlessly shift between digital currencies, anywhere with an internet connection.
Multi-Asset Support. Supporting Bitcoin, Ethereum, Groestlcoin and many others, you can safely hold your coins.
Exchange Support – Supporting Shapeshift, Simplex and Changelly enables the user to seamlessly shift between digital currencies as if you were storing your funds on an exchange.
In-app buying and selling, exchange your FIAT for cryptocurrency directly within the app.
Encrypted with a username and password. Seamless login into multiple devices.
Easy, secure access with PIN or fingerprint. Additionally, supporting 2FA authentication.
Client-side encryption – All of your data is encrypted on your device before any of your information touches the Edge servers. Being free from server-side hacks and malware means that your assets are as secure as they can be.
We are excited to announce that Groestlcoin has been added to CoinID! With integrated cold and hot wallet support, and a host of other unique wallet features, CoinID can easily become your go-to wallet for storing Groestlcoin. More details can be found here: https://coinid.org/s/groestlcoin-wallet-overview.pdf
Integrated Cold wallet. Store your funds offline and sleep tight at night. All you need is a separate Android or iOS device.
Transaction Batching – A feature normally reserved for exchanges, CoinID supports transaction batching, allowing the user to group transactions into one, saving space on the blockchain and lowering your transaction fees considerably as a result.
Complete control – Your private keys never leaves your device. "If you don’t control your private keys, you don’t own your coins".
SegWit support – Support for Segregated Witness, which means smaller transaction sizes, lower fees, and supporting all 3 address types (grs1, 3, F).
Hierarchical Deterministic – Use a single set of keys for multiple coins and addresses. When an address is used, a new one is generated.
Cross-Platform – Built with React Native for rapid development cycles and cross-platform support.
The Groestlcoin BIP39 tool is an open-source web tool for converting BIP39 mnemonic codes to addresses and private keys. This enables the greatest security against third-party wallets potentially disappearing – You’ll still have access to your funds thanks to this tool. What’s New
Added Coinomi, Ledger Client, Groestlcoinomi, Trezor, Safe T, Core, Groestlpay and Samourai to BIP32 Tab
Added BIP49 support
Add BIP38 support
Add CSV tab for derived addresses
BIP84 tab for derivation path
Display version number in top right corner
Groestlcoin ticker is now also displayed
Refactor method to clear old data from the display
BIP44 ‘purpose’ and ‘coin’ fields have been made read only
Tab Order is now alphabetical
Improve showing feedback for pending calculations
Show error when using XPUB with hardened addresses
Rename variables for clarity between BIP49 and P2WPKH Nested in P2SH
QR Codes use correctLevel 3 instead of 2
Update compile script to work across python 2 and 3
Add BIP49 to More Info section
Reword entropy text to indicate using a single source only
Detect and warn when entropy is filtered / discarded
Use new xpub/xprv prefixes for Segwit BIP49
Allow more rows to be generated starting from a custom index
BIP141 tab added for full Segwit compatibility
Show list of word indexes. Checksum shows in entropy details
Populate entropy field with hex value used from PRNG
QR codes with accents now work correctly by replacing jquery.qrcode with kjua
Allow initial number of rows to be set by the user
Raw entropy shows groupings with space every 11 bits for easier usage
Warn that entropy values should exclude checksum
Warn when generating low entropy mnemonics
Warn when overriding weak entropy with a strong mnemonic length
Allow XPUB to be used as root key for Segwit derivations
Add visual privacy safeguard. List alternative tools
Update bootstrap from 3.2.0 to 3.3.7 and jQuery from 2.1.1 to 3.2.1
GroestlcoinJS library upgraded to v3.3.2
General code refactoring, numerous performance improvements and bug fixes
Electrum-GRS is a lightweight "thin client" Groestlcoin wallet Windows, MacOS and Linux based on a client-server protocol. Its main advantages over the original Groestlcoin client include support for multi-signature wallets and not requiring the download of the entire block chain. What’s New
HARDWARE WALLET SUPPORT: Archos Safe-T Mini is now fully supported
Electrum + Android Version 3.2.3:
If a BIP39 seed extension/passphrase contained multiple consecutive whitespaces or leading/trailing whitespaces, then the derived addresses were not following spec. This has been fixed, and anyone affected should move their codes. The wizard will show a warning in this case.
The PRNG used has been changed
Fix Linux distributable, ‘typing’ was not bundled and was required for Python 3.4
Fix spending from Segwit multi-sig wallets involving a Trezor co-signer when using a custom derivation path.
Several other minor bugfixes and usability improvements.
ivendPay and Groestlcoin cryptocurrency have announced the start of integration. IT company ivendPay, the developer of a universal multicurrency payment module for automatic and retail trade, intends to integrate Groestlcoin cryptocurrency — one of the oldest and the most reputable Bitcoin forks into the payment system. Groestlcoin is characterized by instant transactions with almost zero commission and is optimal for mass retail trade where micropayments are mostly used. According to Sergey Danilov, founder and CEO of ivendPay, Groestlcoin will become the 11th cryptocurrency integrated into the payment module. The first working vending machines for the sale of coffee, snacks and souvenirs, equipped with ivendPay modules, served the visitors of the CryptoEvent RIW exhibition at VDNKh in Moscow and accepted Bitcoin, Go Byte, Dash, Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum, Ethereum Classic, Zcash, Bitcoin Gold, Dogecoin and Emercoin. ivendPay terminals are designed and patented to accept payments in electronic money, cryptocurrencies and cash when connecting the corresponding cash terminal. Payment for the purchase takes a few seconds, the choice of the payment currency occurs at the time of placing the order on the screen, the payment is made by QR-code through the cryptocurrency wallet on the smartphone. The interest in equipping vending machines with ivendPay terminals has already been shown by the companies of Malaysia and Israel, where first test networks would be installed. ivendPay compiles a waiting list for vending networks interested in buying terminals and searches for an investor to launch industrial production. According to Sergey Danilov, the universal payment terminal ivendPay for the vending machine will cost about $500. The founder of ivendPay has welcomed the appearance of Groestlcoin among integrated cryptocurrencies, as it is another step towards the realization of the basic idea of digital money - free and cross-border access to goods and services for everybody.
The payment network Visa achieved 47,000 peak transactions per second (tps) on its network during the 2013 holidays, and currently averages hundreds of millions per day. Currently, Bitcoin supports less than 7 transactions per second with a 1 megabyte block limit. If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly 8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average. Continuously, that would be over 400 terabytes of data per year.
/r/CryptoCurrency - Invest Smart - Guide, Resources, Links, and More!
Hello everyone! Thought I'd make a post of quick startup content and compilation to get you started into smart investing. I hope you all like it! Here it goes: Google and twitter is your best friend. (To a certain limit) Google: Click "News" tab, and search the cryptocurrency you are researching. Go for something reputable like CNBC, Forbes, and so on for better accuracy but also use your wise judgement. For example there are some very good cryptocurrency and blockchain focused websites. The key is to find the few that get news out fast and non-bias. If you not a certain website constantly bashing a specific cryptocurrency that has held a high marketcap for longer than 6 months, clearly there is favoritism going on. Lets continue. Click "All" tab, and search the keywords in the following format:
XYZ hedge funds
I find many people don't know about this but if you scroll the tabs (webs, news and images) to the left; you will see search tools. Sometimes it helps to sort it by dates and play around between one hour and 24 hours. Twitter: If you want the news first, many organizations that operate in the crypto field use twitter. Using the same keyword formats above in twtter is very beneficial. Alot more useless info but sometimes it pays off to take the time to go through it. Personally, after searching I like to use the "latest" tab. Here are some twitter accounts worth following, and would be beneficial to your investment solutions:
I did not post any twitter accounts that might be reputable but have had major negative controversy or viral issues in the past. You might also notice some twitter accounts are missing such as contributors and founders. I have nothing against those accounts. Some are very reputable accounts (that I think are amazing individuals), however the OP requested specific requirements in the post. I cannot guarantee that all the twitter accounts above are not bias, but I did my best to list the least bias twitter accounts. Outside of this post, I do recommend following some founders, contributors, and exchanges! You can easily find them by participating in there community.
Check the cryptocurrencies official Twitter account and sub-reddits. Also, I can proudly say that this sub-reddit (/CryptoCurrency) is full of information and great people ready to help. Keep in mind when you're using social media's don't just fall for FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt; in other words complete horse crap). Do some background research if the source is unreliable when using social media as a research tool.
Follow all the main exchanges twitter accounts. Following them on twitter will keep you notified of any technical difficulties so you can avoid panic. Also they sometimes announce upcoming or newly integrated cryptocurrencies.
Cryptonaire is by far the most reliable source for cryptocurrency forecasts. Obviously always do your own due diligence and research; the site itself indicates that. Also if you do not feel confident about a new or low volume cryptocurrency target, be sure to check their verified section to avoid scams. In my experience they have not conducted any research on ICO's because they care about lowering their viewers risks more than anything. For the last year or so they have been working on their full web app launch, so its worth subscribing.
BitcoinTalk has a Altcoin Announcements section; it's worth looking for your target on their as well. However if the user is not reputable, than the source is unreliable.
CoinMarketCap should be bookmarked! It is a table of all the crypto default ranked by marketcap. If you care more about day to day, volume, and percent change then check out WorldCoinIndex
Read the whitepaper and determine which organizations and/or people will use it. Find out the population of the potential consumer. After that, do some reading into the consumer. Are they lenient on blockchains? Are they in need of a pivot that cryptocurrency / blockchain could be the wealthy game changer for the organization?
Check out the 'Community Info' section on this sub-reddit. They have a list of links to resources that can help you.
If you are the type that invests in ICO's, be sure to check for information about the foundation outside their site. Also find a real address, email, phone number, asset/secerities filing and so on. The more the better.
I cannot emphasis this enough, but get yourself a hardware wallet or even a secure computer to store all your assets! That is the only way you actually own your cryptocurrencies!
Please remember that quality research and due diligence go beyond just twitter. Be patient and spend quality time researching. Less time planning equals less profit or less chances of profiting. It takes one minute to place a buy or sell order. It also takes one minute to lose 99% of your holdings. It should not take you one minute. Patience.
5187256 bytes NetBSD's pkgsrc-wip shows: Size (bitcoin-0.13.1.tar.gz) = 5952081 bytes And, of course, the checksum for that doesn't match. The same discrepancies are in 0.14.2. Does anyone know what the heck is going on?
The Bookcoin Store accepts over 15 Cryptocurrencies!
Todays featured listing is 'Bookcoin Shop'! 😎 Buy Gift Cards and Ebooks using Bitcoin and lots of other Crypto including Litecoin, Ripple, Zcash, DigiByte, Dash, BitcoinCash, and many more. 👍 Please go check them out!
I have heard from various people on chat, that SegWit transactions are bigger than standard transactions. Anyone knows by how much? Standard transactions take about 400 bytes in Bitcoin and consist of 2 tx inputs and 2 tx outputs. How much an equivalent transaction take for SegWit? (disk use in standard block size and disk use in SegWit block)
I looked at the website and it says: After installing, chat with the Transition Bot to participate in the next distribution round Buy or sell bytes by chatting with a trading bot P2P exchange bytes vs bitcoins, get your merkle proof by chatting with BTC Oracle View public transactions on the DAG explorer Is this what I have to do? Do I need to show proof of owning bitcoin? I have BTC on a trezor. Do I just give the 'receive' address?
Hello guys! I am pretty new to this byteball tech. Is there a guide somewhere? I want to exchange some bytes and black bytes for bitcoin. There is an exchange bot in the app but you cant trade black bytes on normal exchanges as that will ruin their privacy AFAIK. How can I do this then? Thanks! By the way I really like the idea behind the project and wish you all the best!
Each leading zero byte shall be represented by its own character '1' in the final result. Concatenate the 1's from step 5 with the results of step 4. This is the Base58Check result. A more detailed example is provided on the page describing the technical background of the bitcoin address. Encoding a Bitcoin address Wenn jedoch ein Byte Teil des SegWit-Bitcoin-Zeugenbereichs ist, erhält es einen Rabatt und zählt nur als 1 Byte Blockgewicht. Angenommen, Sie haben zuvor eine BTC an die Bitadresse A von SegWit Bitcoin und eine BTC an die Adresse B erhalten. Betrachten Sie nun eine Transaktion, bei der beide Beträge an eine Adresse C gesendet werden. Die Daten, die nichts mit den Transaktionseingaben zu ... Bitcoin hat maximal 8 Nachkommastellen. Die kleinste Einheit ist 0,00000001 BTC. Der im Text dargestellte Kauf geht bis zur 32. Nachkommastelle und ist somit nicht möglich, sondern würde ... Block headers are serialized in the 80-byte format described below and then hashed as part of Bitcoin’s proof-of-work algorithm, making the serialized header format part of the consensus rules. Bytes. Name. Data Type. Description. 4. version. int32_t. The block version number indicates which set of block validation rules to follow. See the list of block versions below. 32. previous block ... Satoshi per Byte in this case will be. 1950 sat 1024 = 1.904 satoshi/Byte. For the other example with 512KB transaction size and 0.015 BTC fee, 0.015 BTC 512 KB x 10 8 1024 = 2.92 satoshi/Byte. For the other example with 256KB transaction size and 0.01 BTC fee, 0.01 BTC 256 KB x 10 8 1024 = 3.9 satoshi/Byte
Bienvenido! Si te gusto el video dale Like y Suscribite! Welcome! If you like please like and subscribe! ganar dinero desafio ganar dinero ganar dinero por i... 8-bit is a term that gets thrown around a lot, by a lot of different games. What does this term actually mean, and how many games deserve to use it? Mark (@b... This video is part of the Udacity course "Networking for Web Developers". Watch the full course at https://www.udacity.com/course/ud256 BITCOIN!!! Today is a day for the history books for Bitcoin!!! Bitcoin will do THIS for the FIRST TIME since we hit $20k for the BTC price! We will do techni... In this video, we'll build the first of three 8-bit registers used in the 8-bit computer! Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/beneater You can get...